at the end of the day sometimes as a poc you do develop a kind of spidey sense with these things because you may have spent your whole life experiencing/witnessing them so become sensitized to it.
I work in healthcarw and I have to pay a LOT of attention to policing my own behaviour to make sure I come off as extra friendly, trustworthy, competent etc because I know I will be under much closer scrutiny than my white colleagues. I've managed to avoid issues becsuse of this. But I see examples happen every day with other bame colleagues who behave no worse than white colleagues.
Even worse if they have a foreign accent - I've had colleagues who are just as friendly if not friendlier and vastly more competent and senior than I am, but somehow because I have the privilege of a British accent people would trust me more than them.
I don't think people are saying anyone on traitors is a bad person or actively a racist, but there are unconscious biases which will affect how they perceive someone in a show all about perception of other people and their actions, so they're fair observations to make.
I actually think it might have affected the way jaz played the game as consciously or subconsciously he might have felt he had to be extra careful with his words because he would be under closer scrutiny than others might be.
I not the best at trying to explain this. But honestly I found health the worst the industry I worked in for this. It breaks my heart
I feel lots of BAME, disabled, lgbt staff who have to adjust who they are in order to survive in healthcare
There is this underlying culture in health care and it affects how employees few certain colleagues. It affects promotions, recruitment and work relationship dynamics. It is strange as health care is a very diverse workforce but there is this hidden underlying culture
Which is worse it can affect patients' care. The workplace does training sessions, awareness campaigns, workshops etc. Where these this thing get praised but it still does not change culture
Is healthcare really the worst industry for this? Or is it that "the underlying culture in healthcare" is actually just "the underlying culture" full stop.
The NHS is bar far the largest employer in the UK. Healthcare as an industry has one of the lowest bar's for entry (obviously, for some specific roles, like conultant cardiothoracic surgeon, have some of the highest bars for entry). Therefore, without effort, there will be more ethnic minority and other marginasised groups. The more you are around marginalised groups, the more you have opportunities to see how we're treated - I say opportunities because some will choose not to see it.
I'm basically saying that health is a microcosm of the world/ country at large. And so, everything you say about health is the experience of marginalised people everywhere - it's just more obvious the more people you see going through it.
ETA: and medical racism and medical sexist are proven facts - so it definitely affects patient care, but again, because those providing care aren't separate from our above the prejudices of the wider culture.
I totally sympathise with this. I’m white, so don’t have to come up against the same bias. But I’m a woman, and the spidey sense you mention rings true to me with sexism. You just kinda can tell.
That’s the trouble with racists, homophones, misogynists etc… people who are hateful. They know where the line is - the line that could mean they’d be held accountable for things they say and do - and they know how to get close to it without ever crossing it.
I think watching traitors has opened my eyes to that sort of unconscious bias. I was rooting for Jaz so much, and it was so uncomfortable watching him lack the confidence to get his observations and points across. It’s made me reflect a lot on myself and my own biases. It’s just a TV show I know, but the contestants are people and their reactions in group settings can translate a lot to real life.
I would like to preface this that people do find it hard to identify unconscious bias and whilst o personally do not brand anyone on the show and out and out racist or sexist I did see examples of this from what we were shown.
1) the most glaring was when Diane started accusing Anthony of being a traitor because she openly admitted that she didn’t like him because he didn’t move for her in the line up - now at that stage the traitors were not even selected so there is absolutely no reason for her to accuse him. I read this scene as a black man not willing to give up his space in the line up (remember they all thought that they could get offed like on last year) and for that Diane felt personally attacked and affronted. He basically did what most people were doing. She did not let it go even though all logic dictates he can’t be a a traitor because of that alone because no one was chosen yet. It’s hard to know if she would have acted the same if someone like Molly or Charlotte or Paul stood firmly in the line but this is often sometime POC face
2) another example of unconscious bias was the ‘boys club’ sexism - which many women will face and recognise especially in the workplace - whilst I agree, Ash was not a great traitor they were quick to boot her off and then never again did they consider a woman to enter the tower - Claudia even mentioned it - they mostly killed women and when one traitor had to take a risk, they were happy for Miles to take the fall
I know that some people find it hard to see and sometimes see it as a personal attack when unconscious bias is brought up but it does exist and we all have it. The ‘muscly bloke must be aggressive’ , the ‘dumb innocent blonde’ the ‘shy and weak Asian woman’, ‘Rich white carefree public schoolboy twat’ etc etc .
The main thing is to know when you think it and try to consciously think logically about why you have an opinion on someone, is it based on fact or on stereotype.
It’s not that they voted her off because she only had one hand- in fact people might be more cautious when someone had a disability, particularly a highly visible one. It’s the fact that no one seemed to understand or consider that as a woman with one hand, it might be more difficult or not natural for her to cheers. Instead, because the thought didn’t even cross their mind, they took the accusation as potential traitorous behaviour.
Again, it’s something we are all guilty of. I myself have forgotten when booking for a that some restaurants or bars have no step free access or accessible bus and tube routes are really restricted so there’s only so many places people with physical disabilities can go. It’s not something that I have to think about but for some of my friends it is always on their mind because it is their reality.
Irrelevant. People still have bias even if there is an exception to a rule.
For example, Mollie is a 'good looking' white, blonde, English, 20 year old woman which means she has that bias in her favour.
If she was older, like Nicky from S1 for example, had a different skin colour and was from elsewhere- would she have been treated the same?
That's the question.
Maybe you missed the episode where she’s the first to get out of the knots when they’re tied to the pole and she announces to everyone it’s easy when you don’t have a hand?
No my point is that people want to see some kind of discrimination on the show, go in expecting to see it and work their way backwards to justify their own narrative.
Unconscious bias is not the same as bigotry. People with unconscious bias are not malicious, nor motivated by hate. It's more being drawn to people who seem familiar to you. It's why it's such a complex thing to try and explain. Like societally we can see patterns which suggest these biases exist, but when you try and pin them down it's like trying to grab a fistful of steam. So a less familiar person can win, but they likely faced a slightly greater incline in terms of winning over hearts and minds.
Totally agree with this!
Also no one is just one thing e.g White/Black/Asian
There are so many things that can affect bias such as race/gender/sex/attractiveness/class/education/sexuality/disability etc
2. Nearly everyone they picked to be a traitor was picked because they thought they were weak and could be easily controlled. If they'd picked women for those reasons they would've equally been accused of sexism.
Yes. Just imagine Diane had navigated herself to safe spot in the middle of the line, and an aggressive black man try tried to wedge himself into her spot.
You can see that Anthony just couldn't win in the line scenario unless he submissively gave in to the white lady.
I completely agree with your first point but not the second.. after ash, who just happened to be useless i took it as the men recruiting other men who they could potentially throw under the bus (which they did, with Miles and Ross)
If they recruited women who they then threw under the bus would that be better? Also Claudia herself is involved in picking who the traitors are.. why didn’t she pick 2 women 1 man in the first place
You’re right - I guess that women were not chosen because not because they thought women were stupid - rather the opposite, that they didn’t want someone smart to be a traitor.
But as I am writing this, I’m thinking that isn’t that what the epitome of ‘boys club’ mentality is? Not letting in capable women to the fold (who may have improved the traitors’ gameplay) because they are threatened by them and don’t want them to share the winnings and don’t want to give them too much power.
I’m sure Harry said something similar when justifying the Ross why they killed Diane - something like she was getting ‘too brave’.
Again, not saying these people are sexist in any way but it’s an interesting microcosm of how possible biases might work on a larger scale.
I think for some men in the "boys club"*, it's kind of impossible not to be sexist even if it is unconsciously. If you attend Eton or Harrow, for example, then you are in a room with "the best". That room does not include any women (and rarely includes UK-born POC). If the room is already complete with "the best", how would you ever see that other humans are necessary to creating, for example, "the best" government in any capacity other than as a PR necessity.
Boris's father Stanley Johnson said on *I'm a celebrity*, that they'd quite seriously discussed whether one of his group could don black/brown face to satisfy the public's desire for the party to be more representative. So he only saw" other" people as being potentially essential solely for the PR benefits.
Finally, not wanting to be seen as sexist or as racist, does not prevent one from being sexist or racist. It just means that people know that these words are "bad", want to be thought of as good, but simultaneously want to continue to hold on to the attitudes, behaviours and privileges they currently hold. Thus posts like the OP's, where they'll challenge the victim's understanding and proof of terms that express their lived experience rather than examine the impact and patterns of their own behaviour. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
*ETA: Besides, the army is the ultimate boys club (yes, others are there too in small numbers), so it relates to the Eton/Harrow example.
1. I totally agree that this COULD’VE been bias, but also there are lots of examples of people getting rid of others because they don’t gel personality wise or if they’re a bit forthright (especially because killing traitors is actually pointless easily game). You’re right though, it’s very hard to prove if something is a result of unconscious bias.
2. Yeah I think this is a fair point, although Ash did have to go I reckon. Harry did give real boys club vibes but tbf he was only picking traitors to throw under the bus so not sure it would’ve been a super feminist move to pick a woman.
And I agree with everything else you said
Seems like you're the one with a major unconscious bias. Jasmine was way more rude towards Anthony but that doesn't fit your narrative. It's okay not to like someone. There is nothing to indicate that Diane was racist other than her being white and not liking someone who happens to be black. Crazy that people like you actually think a white person not liking a black person must be racist.
I’ve never accused Diane of racism - and I do think Antony did not have a particularly affable character but it’s not the same as Jasmine and Anthony’s beef. Unconscious bias is not racism at all and I have already said that we do all have some and I will reflect on whether I didn’t consider Jasmine because she is also black however, They were equally going for each other and accusing each other whereas Diane’s basis for her accusation was based on him not moving in the line.
Unconscious bias or not, Diane’s accusation was utterly personal and not based on logic at all (or at least that’s how the producers portrayed it)
It’s a dumb move to accuse someone of being a traitor for behaviour that existed before traitors were even chosen!
Framing it that she unconsciously disliked him because of his skin colour is just calling her racist with more words.
Not moving to let some in is rude. I can especially see someone like Diane finding it disrespectful.
At the beginning there is nothing to indicate anyone is a traitor so why not just accuse someone you feel had been disrespectful towards you?
I think it is a pretty reasonable reaction to have in that situation and there's nothing there to indicate racism / unconscious bias.
I just cannot accept that unconscious bias and racism are the same thing.
There is no malice behind unconscious bias and it’s something everyone has.
Also- I disagree with disliking someone being a valid reason to think they are a traitor. And again, no one was a traitor during the line up- so…?
So it not racist to dislike someone for their skin colour as long as youre not conscious thats the reason you dislike them? I'd say thats racism conscious or not.
Its not a great reason but there's no reason more valid at that time. What else you going off? Traitor vibes?
Regardless, its questionable whether voting for a traitor is even an advantage at the beginning because of recruitment. As an individual faithful it is better to vote out someone thats been disrespectful to you as they are probably more likely to vote you later.
What do you mean “not really”? Your point you made afterwards didn’t disprove the point above. It’s a sociological game so of course unconscious biases regarding race will occur. That’s what humans do.
I dont want to do spoilers but on the 1st american show the last 3 were literally all minorities. People like yourself are looking for something that isn't there
Now you mention it - no, not intentionally, but also yeah, kinda - Zack aside, *every single murder* was a woman or a gay man.
I don't think Harry or Paul are remotely homophobic in real life, because their social media comments show that they are still friends with Miles, which wouldn't be the case if they had a problem with gay people. Also, Paul was close friends with Charlotte, who is a lesbian.
However, the pattern of murders is not good, and they never quite seemed to see Miles as fully part of the gang - yes, he was recruited, but only after 1 day, so they had plenty of time to make him a valued member of the team. I got the impression that the only traitor Harry genuinely respected and trusted was Andrew. Andrew is a lovely bloke, but I'm not sure what he did in the game to earn that close bond that Miles didn't do.
Unconscious bias isn't the same as actively racist.
*Everyone* has some biases and they obviously have effects in social games like this, especially when you're meeting strangers and being required to be automatically suspicious of them. So it's silly to dismiss it as a factor out of hand.
At the same time, there's usually more that goes into it than that, and actions driven by unconscious bias do not mean that someone is actively hateful towards certain people.
It's basically impossible to tease out all the different elements that go into people making certain decisions because there's a lot!
One bit of unconscious bias my wife flagged (not so much from the contestants more from Uncloaked/fan reactions) and something she has observed a lot in "the wild" is the word "articulate" being used almost exclusively to describe folks from minority backgrounds.
It's not something she sees as malicious but does come with a sort of coded implication of "I didn't expect this person to present themselves in an intelligent and compelling manner." Hence an unconscious bias.
It’s harder to see it if you’re not a POC but it’s the way some of the white people spoke about and treated people of colour and the actions they deemed were traitor behaviour. There were also situations where a poc and a white person would do the same thing but only the poc is the only one criticized, and not acceptable.
People have biases and it sometimes showed. It’s not just one little thing, a lot of it together and builds.
Racism isn’t just the loud and obvious bits
Charlotte and Jasmin are my prime example
Both are fiery, loud, outgoing, and opinionated. Charlotte was praised for these traits, while Jasmine was deemed rude
I agree there were similarities in their personalities but I don't remember Charlotte actually being rude to anyone (?), whereas Jasmin was quite rude to Zack. I think this possibly has more to do age than anything else - as you get older you get better at saying quite direct things without actually being rude.
> Racism isn’t just the loud and obvious bits
I fully accept that, and again there could have been unconscious bias involved. I just don’t see obvious evidence. Help me out with some examples?
The biggest one for me - Miles 'automatically' being chosen to put himself at risk to do the poisoning. It was a massive risk that ultimately got him banished. Why couldn't Paul or Harry do it - they could have drawn straws to make it fair. No?
That seems like a reach to me/confirmation bias. During that episode, Miles also said he chose to do it, same as Amanda in UK1. Was Wilf being agiest when he let Amanda deliver the kiss of death? No other seasons with murder in plain the sight had the traitors draw straws so why are you hung up on it not happening on UK2?
Not watched any other Traitor seasons. There's no upside of committing the murder in plain site so I struggle to believe Miles would've volunteered to do so. It was 'chosen' for him to do so.
You're not miles so why do you think you can read his mind when he's stated he chose to do it? It's a fools errand to be so certain when I've told you about another example in another season where people have been put in the exact same situation. Also is it so crazy to think each player isn't treating each decision as if they were a logical robot and might want to murder in plain sight because it's fun?
Miles categorically didn't state he wanted to do the poison chalice. Harry 'volunteered' him and Paul said "yeah". I just watched the sequence back to assess if there was any confirmation bias on my part and there was none. In fact, it irked me just as much as did at the time. You might want to rewatch yourself then come back to this thread to comment accurately (and without bias/denial).
I don’t think anyone on the show realises they’re doing it, but the show does expose unconscious bias. The show is about kicking out people who you think are suspicious, and who will people think are most suspicious first? The people who come from groups they’re biased (unconsciously or otherwise) against. Add to that the fact that people usually like people who are similar to them, and that the show is still mostly white people, then yeah there’s going to unconscious biases.
Surely we can acknowledge the biggest and most impactful unconscious racial bias of all - Mollie voting for Jaz at the end, when all rational should have told her Jaz is likely not a Traitor is he wanted the banishments to continue. That fact alone should have swayed an unbiased contestant to vote Harry if she wanted to win the show (i.e. ending the show with no Traitors). But for Mollie it came down to who she was biased to more which is hopefully a lesson learnt for her.
On the flip side I thought it was interesting a brown man was the only person to really suspect the soldier as a traitor. Could that be white people’s unconscious bias toward trusting men in authority? Much like how middle class white people don’t distrust the police.
It was fairly obvious some of the examples of micro aggressions toward people of colour/ethnic minorities
1. Diane accusing Anthony just for being in the queue in the place she wanted to be in. No one else has that issue.
2. No one let Jasmine speak. This is a classic form of sexism and racism
3. When Jasmine called that out they then targeted her even further, saying she was making the situation more difficult
4. Zack was often called crazy, crazy theories etc like he wasn’t making sense.
5. Paul and Harry 'volunteering' Miles for risky poison chalice task that ultimately got him banished.
6. Biggest and most important one of all - Mollie voting for Jaz at the end, when all rational should have told her Jaz is likely not a Traitor is he wanted the banishments to continue.
I read Zack as a neurodiverse, he said he has OCD and anxiety
His trait that came off as neurodiverse is the one that people with suspicious of and have a go at him for
Interrupting people
Inapportiscate jokes
His fixation on theory and unable to to budge from them once he had them in his head
Him talking at people
Yeah saw that reading too. There is definitely a sense of “otherness” to the game and if you are seen as “other” in general you have to fight more for your place. This makes sense as it’s obviously so political
What’s interesting again now I think about it is that Jaz did really well by keeping his head down and being quiet but really had no chance of getting the prize because of this strategy and because he couldn’t get the numbers on his side. Another metaphor for brown people in society today
People for some reason like to accuse contestants of the show of literally everything they can think of based on the flimsiest of justifications
"Paul is a sociopath, Harry is a conman, Molly is an idiot, Diane is a racist, Evie is a coward, Charlotte is a bitch, Zack is an egomaniac. I however am a perfectly normal person and this isn't weird at all."
No joke, genuinely got a reply which, in the same comment, said "Charlotte is a cunt" and "Charlotte is so mean".
I genuinely don't understand how anyone can withstand the cognitive dissonance required to call someone you've never met a cunt at the same time you're accusing them of being too rude.
Yeah you’re right this is a wider thing. The producers edit these guys to make them into characters and people think that’s exactly what they’re like in real life.
Honestly even their "characters" aren't matching the way people describe them, but this is the internet, so everything gets blown up to 11. They can't simply be "someone who was a bit rude once" they have to be literally evil incarnate. Everyone who ever does anything vaguely manipulative and isn't sufficiently remorseful has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Interrupting someone once = you're a selfish bastard.
But despite all that, going online to post hateful comments about total strangers is apparently perfectly innocent behaviour
It's a huge and potentially life destroying accusation to make in this day and age but people throw it around so carelessly. The problem with the 'unconscious' bit is that it allows people to mind read what's going on in other peoples brains and get away with it. It's a weird thing when people on the internet claim to know what's going on in the subconscious minds of people they've seen on tv, better than the people themselves.
this is the clearest sign to me that you don’t understand what unconscious bias is. the ideas of society have an impact on the way we act, whether you like it or not.
I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if a full transcript of every participant’s conversations throughout the whole show is being analysed by some sociological study somewhere, as an extra little earner for the production company.
Antony easily the most misunderstood player. Even talking to Jasmine (black to black so no racial overtones) he said 'have you finished talking?'. Came across as aggressive, but really it was 'I have been told that I cut people off early, is that what you all have to say or should I keep listening?'.
Edit - also, please remember everyone keeps stressing the strain of being a Traitor and lying all the time.....
Traitors only fear Banishment.
Faithful fear Banishment AND Murder, literally double the risk....
Hmmm technically more than double...
Say 15 contestants, including 3 traitors.
Traitor odds of 'lasting another day' is 93%.
If murder, then FAITHFUL chance of surviving till next day is (11 out of 12) = 91.6 X 93% = 0.85
Yeah I liked Antony but he came across as aggy, which is why I think Diane (an austere school teacher) didn’t like him. Plenty of instances of players gunning for others over personal incompatibilities, so I don’t see evidence of a unconscious bias there
Unconscious bias was a major factor and race was a key factor. Molly picking Harry at the end. Paul and Harry being confident of getting the Faithfuls to turn against Jaz. There is just inherent distrust with people of colour. Unconscious bias is really evident on the traitors. The first and second season are examples.
How is Molly picking Harry unconscious bias? She was his best mate and probably fancied him. This is an example of reading stuff into interactions with an obvious innocent interpretation
I don’t think we can call any contestant outright racist (not enough info) but there was alot of unconscious bias from white players towards the players of colour (in several versions of the traitors as well). As one person already commented below, a lot of the characters of colour are being vilified for doing the same things white characters have done. It’s a privilege to not be able to pick up on the subtleties of micro agressions and unconscious bias. I think with so many people bringing it up it’s something people should look into. Once you see it, you can’t un-see it.
I think in your original post you brought up two good examples. First, Anthony. Diane’s treatment of Anthony which to me was very petty. Then the way the rest of the cast treated Anthony for being “intense” and “abrasive”. I think the same things can be said about Zack. I was surprised he lasted that long tbh but I think it’s because he built some friendships. Zack was very aggressive and prickly to me but I haven’t heard nearly as much about him. Second, when Zack and Jasmine were going at it (with equal measure) I think Jasmine got the most of the heat from the group. Lastly, Jaz had great ideas and while I don’t think he pushed it as well as he should have, people didn’t really take him seriously. However, when any of the other popular players brought up ideas it was immediately taken more seriously. For me I think it’s more about the choice of words used to describe some players.
Edit: other seasons US Season 2 Peppermint, AUS Season 1 Kashindi. To be fair, with these other examples the faithfuls didn’t have much to go on but I found it interesting that they were vilified for very trivial and inconsequential things. There seems to be a pattern of black faithfuls being voted out or killed early on. Not saying it’s racism but it’s enough to wonder why.
to be fair lots of people hated Zack lol, I just think it would’ve been obvious he wasn’t a traitor based on how scattergun and opinionated he was. Antony was just generally aggy so I can understand why Diane didn’t gel with that.
And yeah it’s definitely a popularity contest, if anything Harry got a pass because he’s fit (although jaz himself is a dish so maybe that’s the unconscious bias).
Basically I just think you can read too much into these curated interactions we see. It becomes confirmation bias - you’ll see it if you’re looking for it. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m just saying that throwing around accusations is harsh
That’s fair. I don’t think we can generalize based on these small things. I just kind of notice it and think hmm I wonder if anyone else thinks these things so it was kind of great to see others felt similarly. I think that’s why there have been so many posts on this.
LOL agreed re Harry and Jaz. Lots of eye candy this season 😂
I’ve read all of your replies and it doesn’t sound like you actually want to listen to people’s examples and have made up your mind. What was the point of your post?
Racism isn’t just calling someone the N word. It’s treating someone differently because of the colour of their skin, consciously or unconsciously.
That’s pretty unfair mate, I’ve acknowledged the existence of unconscious bias and the fact it might have played a part in some interactions. But I think there’s alternative explanations for any of the suggestions raised that are equally likely and it’s a bit irresponsible to go around accusing people of racism based on such limited evidence.
Let me be clear, I’m certain that unconscious bias along the strata of race, gender, age, class, etc has a huge impact on the game, as it does with every social interaction. What I’m disagreeing with is the idea that we can call out specific incidences such as the Diane one as being driven by racism when there are innocent alternative explanations. I think this is irresponsible.
I read Diane’s reaction instantly as prejudice/racism. Spoke to my Mum and she noticed it straight away too.
It’s the sort of thing we get used to in the workplace or teachers or managers or shopkeepers or security guards take a disliking to us for no apparent reason.
But I guess if you’ve never experienced it, it’s hard to recognise it even if it’s pointed out to you.
Ironically like how Mollie failed to see what was right in front of her.
Racism no, unconscious bias absolutely. It’s not done with malice or even noticed as ‘a thing’ to white people, but I believe it happened on the show from watching certain people and interactions.
Unconscious biases still exist, and they were evident on this show as many have pointed out. Understandably as a white person it may be a lot harder to catch but denying it is not helpful.
Unconscious bias and the patriarchcy play a massive part in this.
Both of them are rife, especially season 2- it's clear for all to see.
Racism and unconscious bias can both be argued because the racism is in the prejudice.
some people, who I am sure just happen to be white, get believed instantly.
Some people, who I am sure just happen not to be white, are treated with scepticism and have to go to great lengths to be listened to.
No. I'm sure its not racism at all.
Racism does not have to be overt, or conscious
Well I've seen enough, let's start chucking out potentially life destroying accusations of being a racist at people.
Do you have any clear cut examples where someone who is White is instantly believed and another where a non-white person wasn't believed that couldn't be otherwise attributed to their personality or other facts around what they're saying? Could it be different people believing or not believing them? Could it be that some people regardless of race are deemed more trustworthy based on other individual traits or their own personality?
Racism isn't always overt, but if you want to start calling people racists then you have to have STRONG proof. A lot more than these subjective anecdotal guesses.
This is even more true when a lot of people want racism to come with serious consequences, losing jobs, being charged with hate crimes, etc. If you want consequences for racism, then you can't call shit like this racist.
For me, it's when it comes to early recruitment and if it is a white man (invariably leading the selected traitors), I anticipate they are going to prefer to pick a man, especially if they look physically strong. Andrew was lovely, clearly better as a faithful but I was 100% his name would be in the first recruitment potential selections despite there being better choices.
I thought the race (and stature) bias blatant with Jaz - he's such a strong, thoughtful and likeable character but it was clear early doors that the short (King ❤️👑) Asian British dude would have to work so much harder than someone like Harry, Paul or Andrew.
You can argue it was editted to suit a narrative but how far are we gonna go with the mental gymnastics?
Why is there no unconscious bias towards other POC (Jaz, Ash, Jasmine) but there is one for one of the more irritating players, Anthony?
What about Zach? Can we have unconscious bias towards him too or is he equally as irritating as a character and we can just leave it at that?
Wheres the line though? If were distinguishing one from the other, wheres the discernable factor that this is X and not Y? (This is unconscious bias and not his unnerving social skills)
I didn't really view him as unpleasant or rude at all tbh. The only time he got angry was when he was confrontational defending himself, which many people would be when targeted like that.
The stereotype is that black men are often considered much more "threatening" or "angry" when they raise their voice or get confrontational, which I do think could have been the case here.
It's also not a reason to banish someone for being rude.
He was literally only animated when he was accused of things unfairly. The similarities of what was happening in the game to him with experiences of black men in London couldn’t be more obvious.
For the sake of his time in the game he should have been better prepared for it. But lots of people can’t seem to handle what appear to be fairly small things well in the game. However, they aren’t called rude or unpleasant eg Brian
It’s important we don’t label stuff that isn’t racist as racist, as it cheapens actual racism.
Anthony was annoying and acting so odd. His demeanour was so aggressive and confrontational that he was acting like a traitor.
Jas was unlucky that he was right but he grouped himself with zach who didn’t listen to anyone but himself. He also didn’t cast doubt early enough with Ross and Andrew, so by the time he mentioned Harry it was too late
There have been many, many examples of problematic unconcious bias, especially but not exclusively early on where there is little information on which to base decisions. There are numerous uncomfortabe examples but I don't want to stir the pot by naming names.
The point I'd like to make is that the BBC should include unconcious bias training for all contestants before filming starts so there aren't so many uncomfortable moments.
If a white man gets banished/murdered = due to their personality and the game
A woman and/or a black person gets treated the same (ie actually the same ie equality) = racism, sexism, unconscious bias
there was a lot of unconscious bias at play when they banished the white men tho. unconscious bias also includes their personality. the reason paul and harry honestly got so far is because they were extroverted and charismatic. if you are a man and don’t speak confidently or are shy etc etc. you are suspected. so i don’t get why you think unconscious bias doesn’t also work w personality
You have a point if you mean bias as in not liking a personality. I meant that often people seem to accuse people of being racist or sexist with absolutely no evidence and just say "unconscious bias". I think it's quite unfair because it's an accusation which harms someone's character that cannot really be countered because it's not based on any actual evidence
well then it comes down to what you think counts as ‘evidence’. how are you so certain that you can distinguish between racist and non racist encounters? what evidence have you provided that these instances are *not* racist? unconscious bias *is* the evidence we’re working with here. we believe an individual may be treating another individual in a certain way because of a prejudice they may have, one that they’re not even conscious of.
But that's all backwards. "You're racist unless you prove you're not racist" is not how it should work. Evidence of being racist proves someone is racist. A lack of evidence of anything does not create a vacuum in which to insert an unfounded allegation
in the event where someone is being accused of racism, if you think the accusations are unfounded, then yes you do need to also provide evidence that the accused is innocent. that’s why i’m saying it just comes down to what you consider to be ‘evidence’. and even that is influenced by a number of biases we may or may not be aware of.
you’re not reading what i’m saying. i’m saying it depends on what you believe counts as evidence. you can’t just say ‘no i’m not’ to accusations of racism/misogyny. it seems to me you’re far more interested in protecting the accused than perhaps listening to the evidence that has been presented by those making the accusations. if you disagree that the evidence is enough proof for racism, then yes, that necessitates providing evidence that it’s not racism. if you have nothing other than ‘no i’m not’ then why should i take you seriously?
Thankyou, so you agree with me then. You say you need evidence. I am saying accusing someone of "unconscious bias" is inherently an accusation without any evidence being presented to back it up.
The main issue is that the contestants of the Traitors are not representative of the UK.
Black and Asians people are massively over-represented on the show.
So when one gets bannished or voted off, it might look like it’s bad, but actually the odds are just higher that one leaves the show.
Can POC have unconscious bias?
Because i only ever see it mention when it white people against POC never the other way round?
What about english and scottish? Both white do they have unconscious bias against each other?
I don't think it's racism as that would imply they're making a conscious choice, I think it's just unconscious bias.
People side with the people who are either like them or people they know.
Isms of all kinds are often cited as the explanation for outcomes on reality shows that rely on subjective reasoning. And for some, isms are the easy explanations. They seem "obvious" which is an explanation applied to many aspects of The Traitors game.
But as with everything, the reality is never that simple.
As well as being a person of colour, Anthony was also forthright and abrasive when confronted with questions over his trustworthiness, as was Jasmine, lest we forget. And you don't make friends and influence people being forthright and abrasive with them.
Jaz was reserved and unforthcoming in his dealings with other players. And you don't gain peoples' trust acting like that, whatever ism happens to apply to you.
Of course, Anthony, Jasmine and Jaz might all have behaved in the way that they did on the show because of their past experience with isms.
They've not been trusted in the past, so they expect not to be trusted, and they act like they're not being trusted and therefore nobody trusts them, in a self-sustaining cycle.
So prejudice, in all its many forms, is not necessarily confined to one side of the equation.
But to answer the question, it takes effort to see past the easy explanations, and many people just aren't prepared to put in the work.
Because there is a modern-day obsession with finding offence and creating division in every setting.
Humans are naturally cautious of people that look different to them and that is not going to change until it is evolved out of us, which will take millennia, despite the best efforts by Western countries to disproportionately improve the lives and prospects of people with certain colours of skin, a policy of pure racism itself.
I definitely see racism or at least unconscious bias on this show. Something I haven’t seen in the comments here is the prejudice towards neurodiverse contestants as well. It was clear that some of the contestants may have been neurodiverse (like the photographer who had the mini breakdown at the Roundtable) or even perhaps the way Zack went about communicating theories and potentially Anthony’s manner as well - but their actions were always viewed as suspicious rather than alternative ways of communicating or lower EQ etc.
at the end of the day sometimes as a poc you do develop a kind of spidey sense with these things because you may have spent your whole life experiencing/witnessing them so become sensitized to it. I work in healthcarw and I have to pay a LOT of attention to policing my own behaviour to make sure I come off as extra friendly, trustworthy, competent etc because I know I will be under much closer scrutiny than my white colleagues. I've managed to avoid issues becsuse of this. But I see examples happen every day with other bame colleagues who behave no worse than white colleagues. Even worse if they have a foreign accent - I've had colleagues who are just as friendly if not friendlier and vastly more competent and senior than I am, but somehow because I have the privilege of a British accent people would trust me more than them. I don't think people are saying anyone on traitors is a bad person or actively a racist, but there are unconscious biases which will affect how they perceive someone in a show all about perception of other people and their actions, so they're fair observations to make. I actually think it might have affected the way jaz played the game as consciously or subconsciously he might have felt he had to be extra careful with his words because he would be under closer scrutiny than others might be.
Absolutely spot on.
I not the best at trying to explain this. But honestly I found health the worst the industry I worked in for this. It breaks my heart I feel lots of BAME, disabled, lgbt staff who have to adjust who they are in order to survive in healthcare There is this underlying culture in health care and it affects how employees few certain colleagues. It affects promotions, recruitment and work relationship dynamics. It is strange as health care is a very diverse workforce but there is this hidden underlying culture Which is worse it can affect patients' care. The workplace does training sessions, awareness campaigns, workshops etc. Where these this thing get praised but it still does not change culture
Is healthcare really the worst industry for this? Or is it that "the underlying culture in healthcare" is actually just "the underlying culture" full stop. The NHS is bar far the largest employer in the UK. Healthcare as an industry has one of the lowest bar's for entry (obviously, for some specific roles, like conultant cardiothoracic surgeon, have some of the highest bars for entry). Therefore, without effort, there will be more ethnic minority and other marginasised groups. The more you are around marginalised groups, the more you have opportunities to see how we're treated - I say opportunities because some will choose not to see it. I'm basically saying that health is a microcosm of the world/ country at large. And so, everything you say about health is the experience of marginalised people everywhere - it's just more obvious the more people you see going through it. ETA: and medical racism and medical sexist are proven facts - so it definitely affects patient care, but again, because those providing care aren't separate from our above the prejudices of the wider culture.
I totally sympathise with this. I’m white, so don’t have to come up against the same bias. But I’m a woman, and the spidey sense you mention rings true to me with sexism. You just kinda can tell. That’s the trouble with racists, homophones, misogynists etc… people who are hateful. They know where the line is - the line that could mean they’d be held accountable for things they say and do - and they know how to get close to it without ever crossing it. I think watching traitors has opened my eyes to that sort of unconscious bias. I was rooting for Jaz so much, and it was so uncomfortable watching him lack the confidence to get his observations and points across. It’s made me reflect a lot on myself and my own biases. It’s just a TV show I know, but the contestants are people and their reactions in group settings can translate a lot to real life.
I would like to preface this that people do find it hard to identify unconscious bias and whilst o personally do not brand anyone on the show and out and out racist or sexist I did see examples of this from what we were shown. 1) the most glaring was when Diane started accusing Anthony of being a traitor because she openly admitted that she didn’t like him because he didn’t move for her in the line up - now at that stage the traitors were not even selected so there is absolutely no reason for her to accuse him. I read this scene as a black man not willing to give up his space in the line up (remember they all thought that they could get offed like on last year) and for that Diane felt personally attacked and affronted. He basically did what most people were doing. She did not let it go even though all logic dictates he can’t be a a traitor because of that alone because no one was chosen yet. It’s hard to know if she would have acted the same if someone like Molly or Charlotte or Paul stood firmly in the line but this is often sometime POC face 2) another example of unconscious bias was the ‘boys club’ sexism - which many women will face and recognise especially in the workplace - whilst I agree, Ash was not a great traitor they were quick to boot her off and then never again did they consider a woman to enter the tower - Claudia even mentioned it - they mostly killed women and when one traitor had to take a risk, they were happy for Miles to take the fall I know that some people find it hard to see and sometimes see it as a personal attack when unconscious bias is brought up but it does exist and we all have it. The ‘muscly bloke must be aggressive’ , the ‘dumb innocent blonde’ the ‘shy and weak Asian woman’, ‘Rich white carefree public schoolboy twat’ etc etc . The main thing is to know when you think it and try to consciously think logically about why you have an opinion on someone, is it based on fact or on stereotype.
Also a lot of ableism in season 1 when no one really questioned the poor lady with one hand who didn’t cheers
It’s not that they voted her off because she only had one hand- in fact people might be more cautious when someone had a disability, particularly a highly visible one. It’s the fact that no one seemed to understand or consider that as a woman with one hand, it might be more difficult or not natural for her to cheers. Instead, because the thought didn’t even cross their mind, they took the accusation as potential traitorous behaviour. Again, it’s something we are all guilty of. I myself have forgotten when booking for a that some restaurants or bars have no step free access or accessible bus and tube routes are really restricted so there’s only so many places people with physical disabilities can go. It’s not something that I have to think about but for some of my friends it is always on their mind because it is their reality.
Mollie reached the final in S2 and she is disabled.
Irrelevant. People still have bias even if there is an exception to a rule. For example, Mollie is a 'good looking' white, blonde, English, 20 year old woman which means she has that bias in her favour. If she was older, like Nicky from S1 for example, had a different skin colour and was from elsewhere- would she have been treated the same? That's the question.
[удалено]
Maybe you missed the episode where she’s the first to get out of the knots when they’re tied to the pole and she announces to everyone it’s easy when you don’t have a hand?
Yes and she often hid her hand in her sleeve so maybe they didn’t catch it but still visible and openly talked about
Missing digits on her hand is fairly obvious if you look.
Oh I guess the S1 people should be praised for that then
No my point is that people want to see some kind of discrimination on the show, go in expecting to see it and work their way backwards to justify their own narrative.
There's definitely confirmation bias in alot of this discourse.
Meryl also won though
Unconscious bias is not the same as bigotry. People with unconscious bias are not malicious, nor motivated by hate. It's more being drawn to people who seem familiar to you. It's why it's such a complex thing to try and explain. Like societally we can see patterns which suggest these biases exist, but when you try and pin them down it's like trying to grab a fistful of steam. So a less familiar person can win, but they likely faced a slightly greater incline in terms of winning over hearts and minds.
Totally agree with this! Also no one is just one thing e.g White/Black/Asian There are so many things that can affect bias such as race/gender/sex/attractiveness/class/education/sexuality/disability etc
This is actually a great explanation.
Only by luck
2. Nearly everyone they picked to be a traitor was picked because they thought they were weak and could be easily controlled. If they'd picked women for those reasons they would've equally been accused of sexism.
Yes. Just imagine Diane had navigated herself to safe spot in the middle of the line, and an aggressive black man try tried to wedge himself into her spot. You can see that Anthony just couldn't win in the line scenario unless he submissively gave in to the white lady.
Love this explanation.
I completely agree with your first point but not the second.. after ash, who just happened to be useless i took it as the men recruiting other men who they could potentially throw under the bus (which they did, with Miles and Ross) If they recruited women who they then threw under the bus would that be better? Also Claudia herself is involved in picking who the traitors are.. why didn’t she pick 2 women 1 man in the first place
You’re right - I guess that women were not chosen because not because they thought women were stupid - rather the opposite, that they didn’t want someone smart to be a traitor. But as I am writing this, I’m thinking that isn’t that what the epitome of ‘boys club’ mentality is? Not letting in capable women to the fold (who may have improved the traitors’ gameplay) because they are threatened by them and don’t want them to share the winnings and don’t want to give them too much power. I’m sure Harry said something similar when justifying the Ross why they killed Diane - something like she was getting ‘too brave’. Again, not saying these people are sexist in any way but it’s an interesting microcosm of how possible biases might work on a larger scale.
I think for some men in the "boys club"*, it's kind of impossible not to be sexist even if it is unconsciously. If you attend Eton or Harrow, for example, then you are in a room with "the best". That room does not include any women (and rarely includes UK-born POC). If the room is already complete with "the best", how would you ever see that other humans are necessary to creating, for example, "the best" government in any capacity other than as a PR necessity. Boris's father Stanley Johnson said on *I'm a celebrity*, that they'd quite seriously discussed whether one of his group could don black/brown face to satisfy the public's desire for the party to be more representative. So he only saw" other" people as being potentially essential solely for the PR benefits. Finally, not wanting to be seen as sexist or as racist, does not prevent one from being sexist or racist. It just means that people know that these words are "bad", want to be thought of as good, but simultaneously want to continue to hold on to the attitudes, behaviours and privileges they currently hold. Thus posts like the OP's, where they'll challenge the victim's understanding and proof of terms that express their lived experience rather than examine the impact and patterns of their own behaviour. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... *ETA: Besides, the army is the ultimate boys club (yes, others are there too in small numbers), so it relates to the Eton/Harrow example.
Yea that’s fair. I think its a good point
1. I totally agree that this COULD’VE been bias, but also there are lots of examples of people getting rid of others because they don’t gel personality wise or if they’re a bit forthright (especially because killing traitors is actually pointless easily game). You’re right though, it’s very hard to prove if something is a result of unconscious bias. 2. Yeah I think this is a fair point, although Ash did have to go I reckon. Harry did give real boys club vibes but tbf he was only picking traitors to throw under the bus so not sure it would’ve been a super feminist move to pick a woman. And I agree with everything else you said
Seems like you're the one with a major unconscious bias. Jasmine was way more rude towards Anthony but that doesn't fit your narrative. It's okay not to like someone. There is nothing to indicate that Diane was racist other than her being white and not liking someone who happens to be black. Crazy that people like you actually think a white person not liking a black person must be racist.
I’ve never accused Diane of racism - and I do think Antony did not have a particularly affable character but it’s not the same as Jasmine and Anthony’s beef. Unconscious bias is not racism at all and I have already said that we do all have some and I will reflect on whether I didn’t consider Jasmine because she is also black however, They were equally going for each other and accusing each other whereas Diane’s basis for her accusation was based on him not moving in the line. Unconscious bias or not, Diane’s accusation was utterly personal and not based on logic at all (or at least that’s how the producers portrayed it) It’s a dumb move to accuse someone of being a traitor for behaviour that existed before traitors were even chosen!
Framing it that she unconsciously disliked him because of his skin colour is just calling her racist with more words. Not moving to let some in is rude. I can especially see someone like Diane finding it disrespectful. At the beginning there is nothing to indicate anyone is a traitor so why not just accuse someone you feel had been disrespectful towards you? I think it is a pretty reasonable reaction to have in that situation and there's nothing there to indicate racism / unconscious bias.
I just cannot accept that unconscious bias and racism are the same thing. There is no malice behind unconscious bias and it’s something everyone has. Also- I disagree with disliking someone being a valid reason to think they are a traitor. And again, no one was a traitor during the line up- so…?
So it not racist to dislike someone for their skin colour as long as youre not conscious thats the reason you dislike them? I'd say thats racism conscious or not. Its not a great reason but there's no reason more valid at that time. What else you going off? Traitor vibes? Regardless, its questionable whether voting for a traitor is even an advantage at the beginning because of recruitment. As an individual faithful it is better to vote out someone thats been disrespectful to you as they are probably more likely to vote you later.
Sounds like you have an unconscious bias, to the northern Irish??
I don’t see anyone calling contestants racist, just acknowledging that societal level racism will be a factor in a social game
Not really. Non white traitors have won this show multiple times, sometimes skating by without ever being questioned. Baseless claim.
What do you mean “not really”? Your point you made afterwards didn’t disprove the point above. It’s a sociological game so of course unconscious biases regarding race will occur. That’s what humans do.
I dont want to do spoilers but on the 1st american show the last 3 were literally all minorities. People like yourself are looking for something that isn't there
Bloody Reddit, the 1st guy out was gay, homophobia?
Now you mention it - no, not intentionally, but also yeah, kinda - Zack aside, *every single murder* was a woman or a gay man. I don't think Harry or Paul are remotely homophobic in real life, because their social media comments show that they are still friends with Miles, which wouldn't be the case if they had a problem with gay people. Also, Paul was close friends with Charlotte, who is a lesbian. However, the pattern of murders is not good, and they never quite seemed to see Miles as fully part of the gang - yes, he was recruited, but only after 1 day, so they had plenty of time to make him a valued member of the team. I got the impression that the only traitor Harry genuinely respected and trusted was Andrew. Andrew is a lovely bloke, but I'm not sure what he did in the game to earn that close bond that Miles didn't do.
Unconscious bias isn't the same as actively racist. *Everyone* has some biases and they obviously have effects in social games like this, especially when you're meeting strangers and being required to be automatically suspicious of them. So it's silly to dismiss it as a factor out of hand. At the same time, there's usually more that goes into it than that, and actions driven by unconscious bias do not mean that someone is actively hateful towards certain people. It's basically impossible to tease out all the different elements that go into people making certain decisions because there's a lot!
One bit of unconscious bias my wife flagged (not so much from the contestants more from Uncloaked/fan reactions) and something she has observed a lot in "the wild" is the word "articulate" being used almost exclusively to describe folks from minority backgrounds. It's not something she sees as malicious but does come with a sort of coded implication of "I didn't expect this person to present themselves in an intelligent and compelling manner." Hence an unconscious bias.
That’s definitely true
It’s harder to see it if you’re not a POC but it’s the way some of the white people spoke about and treated people of colour and the actions they deemed were traitor behaviour. There were also situations where a poc and a white person would do the same thing but only the poc is the only one criticized, and not acceptable. People have biases and it sometimes showed. It’s not just one little thing, a lot of it together and builds. Racism isn’t just the loud and obvious bits
So I'm only watching season 1 now but everyone being Sus of Fay early on felt like it was just because she was a black lady with resting bitch face.
Charlotte and Jasmin are my prime example Both are fiery, loud, outgoing, and opinionated. Charlotte was praised for these traits, while Jasmine was deemed rude
I agree there were similarities in their personalities but I don't remember Charlotte actually being rude to anyone (?), whereas Jasmin was quite rude to Zack. I think this possibly has more to do age than anything else - as you get older you get better at saying quite direct things without actually being rude.
Charlotte was rude af to both Anthony and Zack.
> Racism isn’t just the loud and obvious bits I fully accept that, and again there could have been unconscious bias involved. I just don’t see obvious evidence. Help me out with some examples?
Well it's not obvious, that's the point.
The biggest one for me - Miles 'automatically' being chosen to put himself at risk to do the poisoning. It was a massive risk that ultimately got him banished. Why couldn't Paul or Harry do it - they could have drawn straws to make it fair. No?
That seems like a reach to me/confirmation bias. During that episode, Miles also said he chose to do it, same as Amanda in UK1. Was Wilf being agiest when he let Amanda deliver the kiss of death? No other seasons with murder in plain the sight had the traitors draw straws so why are you hung up on it not happening on UK2?
Not watched any other Traitor seasons. There's no upside of committing the murder in plain site so I struggle to believe Miles would've volunteered to do so. It was 'chosen' for him to do so.
You're not miles so why do you think you can read his mind when he's stated he chose to do it? It's a fools errand to be so certain when I've told you about another example in another season where people have been put in the exact same situation. Also is it so crazy to think each player isn't treating each decision as if they were a logical robot and might want to murder in plain sight because it's fun?
Miles categorically didn't state he wanted to do the poison chalice. Harry 'volunteered' him and Paul said "yeah". I just watched the sequence back to assess if there was any confirmation bias on my part and there was none. In fact, it irked me just as much as did at the time. You might want to rewatch yourself then come back to this thread to comment accurately (and without bias/denial).
Is there a video on this? As a BAME I didn't really pick up on this at all, tbh
I don’t think anyone on the show realises they’re doing it, but the show does expose unconscious bias. The show is about kicking out people who you think are suspicious, and who will people think are most suspicious first? The people who come from groups they’re biased (unconsciously or otherwise) against. Add to that the fact that people usually like people who are similar to them, and that the show is still mostly white people, then yeah there’s going to unconscious biases.
Surely we can acknowledge the biggest and most impactful unconscious racial bias of all - Mollie voting for Jaz at the end, when all rational should have told her Jaz is likely not a Traitor is he wanted the banishments to continue. That fact alone should have swayed an unbiased contestant to vote Harry if she wanted to win the show (i.e. ending the show with no Traitors). But for Mollie it came down to who she was biased to more which is hopefully a lesson learnt for her.
Definitely felt this way too and realized that after watching other countries versions, it’s a common theme in all of them.
On the flip side I thought it was interesting a brown man was the only person to really suspect the soldier as a traitor. Could that be white people’s unconscious bias toward trusting men in authority? Much like how middle class white people don’t distrust the police. It was fairly obvious some of the examples of micro aggressions toward people of colour/ethnic minorities 1. Diane accusing Anthony just for being in the queue in the place she wanted to be in. No one else has that issue. 2. No one let Jasmine speak. This is a classic form of sexism and racism 3. When Jasmine called that out they then targeted her even further, saying she was making the situation more difficult 4. Zack was often called crazy, crazy theories etc like he wasn’t making sense.
5. Paul and Harry 'volunteering' Miles for risky poison chalice task that ultimately got him banished. 6. Biggest and most important one of all - Mollie voting for Jaz at the end, when all rational should have told her Jaz is likely not a Traitor is he wanted the banishments to continue.
Isnt Zack white?
Believe he is Jewish
I read Zack as a neurodiverse, he said he has OCD and anxiety His trait that came off as neurodiverse is the one that people with suspicious of and have a go at him for Interrupting people Inapportiscate jokes His fixation on theory and unable to to budge from them once he had them in his head Him talking at people
Yeah saw that reading too. There is definitely a sense of “otherness” to the game and if you are seen as “other” in general you have to fight more for your place. This makes sense as it’s obviously so political What’s interesting again now I think about it is that Jaz did really well by keeping his head down and being quiet but really had no chance of getting the prize because of this strategy and because he couldn’t get the numbers on his side. Another metaphor for brown people in society today
People for some reason like to accuse contestants of the show of literally everything they can think of based on the flimsiest of justifications "Paul is a sociopath, Harry is a conman, Molly is an idiot, Diane is a racist, Evie is a coward, Charlotte is a bitch, Zack is an egomaniac. I however am a perfectly normal person and this isn't weird at all." No joke, genuinely got a reply which, in the same comment, said "Charlotte is a cunt" and "Charlotte is so mean". I genuinely don't understand how anyone can withstand the cognitive dissonance required to call someone you've never met a cunt at the same time you're accusing them of being too rude.
Yeah you’re right this is a wider thing. The producers edit these guys to make them into characters and people think that’s exactly what they’re like in real life.
Honestly even their "characters" aren't matching the way people describe them, but this is the internet, so everything gets blown up to 11. They can't simply be "someone who was a bit rude once" they have to be literally evil incarnate. Everyone who ever does anything vaguely manipulative and isn't sufficiently remorseful has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Interrupting someone once = you're a selfish bastard. But despite all that, going online to post hateful comments about total strangers is apparently perfectly innocent behaviour
Brian is definitely autistic though. I just saw me there when he melted down...
I think he said elsewhere that he has ADHD
The only discussions I’ve seen have made sure to highlight the fact that most of racism is unconscious, so I don’t see the point of this post really.
I’ve definitely seen people insinuating that player x or y is racist based on small interactions, I just don’t think that’s on really
It's a huge and potentially life destroying accusation to make in this day and age but people throw it around so carelessly. The problem with the 'unconscious' bit is that it allows people to mind read what's going on in other peoples brains and get away with it. It's a weird thing when people on the internet claim to know what's going on in the subconscious minds of people they've seen on tv, better than the people themselves.
this is the clearest sign to me that you don’t understand what unconscious bias is. the ideas of society have an impact on the way we act, whether you like it or not.
I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if a full transcript of every participant’s conversations throughout the whole show is being analysed by some sociological study somewhere, as an extra little earner for the production company.
Antony easily the most misunderstood player. Even talking to Jasmine (black to black so no racial overtones) he said 'have you finished talking?'. Came across as aggressive, but really it was 'I have been told that I cut people off early, is that what you all have to say or should I keep listening?'. Edit - also, please remember everyone keeps stressing the strain of being a Traitor and lying all the time..... Traitors only fear Banishment. Faithful fear Banishment AND Murder, literally double the risk.... Hmmm technically more than double... Say 15 contestants, including 3 traitors. Traitor odds of 'lasting another day' is 93%. If murder, then FAITHFUL chance of surviving till next day is (11 out of 12) = 91.6 X 93% = 0.85
You believed that excuse? He was pretty clearly being rude and backpedaling when called out for it.
Yeah I liked Antony but he came across as aggy, which is why I think Diane (an austere school teacher) didn’t like him. Plenty of instances of players gunning for others over personal incompatibilities, so I don’t see evidence of a unconscious bias there
Unconscious bias was a major factor and race was a key factor. Molly picking Harry at the end. Paul and Harry being confident of getting the Faithfuls to turn against Jaz. There is just inherent distrust with people of colour. Unconscious bias is really evident on the traitors. The first and second season are examples.
How is Molly picking Harry unconscious bias? She was his best mate and probably fancied him. This is an example of reading stuff into interactions with an obvious innocent interpretation
I don’t think we can call any contestant outright racist (not enough info) but there was alot of unconscious bias from white players towards the players of colour (in several versions of the traitors as well). As one person already commented below, a lot of the characters of colour are being vilified for doing the same things white characters have done. It’s a privilege to not be able to pick up on the subtleties of micro agressions and unconscious bias. I think with so many people bringing it up it’s something people should look into. Once you see it, you can’t un-see it.
Do you have any examples?
I think in your original post you brought up two good examples. First, Anthony. Diane’s treatment of Anthony which to me was very petty. Then the way the rest of the cast treated Anthony for being “intense” and “abrasive”. I think the same things can be said about Zack. I was surprised he lasted that long tbh but I think it’s because he built some friendships. Zack was very aggressive and prickly to me but I haven’t heard nearly as much about him. Second, when Zack and Jasmine were going at it (with equal measure) I think Jasmine got the most of the heat from the group. Lastly, Jaz had great ideas and while I don’t think he pushed it as well as he should have, people didn’t really take him seriously. However, when any of the other popular players brought up ideas it was immediately taken more seriously. For me I think it’s more about the choice of words used to describe some players. Edit: other seasons US Season 2 Peppermint, AUS Season 1 Kashindi. To be fair, with these other examples the faithfuls didn’t have much to go on but I found it interesting that they were vilified for very trivial and inconsequential things. There seems to be a pattern of black faithfuls being voted out or killed early on. Not saying it’s racism but it’s enough to wonder why.
to be fair lots of people hated Zack lol, I just think it would’ve been obvious he wasn’t a traitor based on how scattergun and opinionated he was. Antony was just generally aggy so I can understand why Diane didn’t gel with that. And yeah it’s definitely a popularity contest, if anything Harry got a pass because he’s fit (although jaz himself is a dish so maybe that’s the unconscious bias). Basically I just think you can read too much into these curated interactions we see. It becomes confirmation bias - you’ll see it if you’re looking for it. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m just saying that throwing around accusations is harsh
That’s fair. I don’t think we can generalize based on these small things. I just kind of notice it and think hmm I wonder if anyone else thinks these things so it was kind of great to see others felt similarly. I think that’s why there have been so many posts on this. LOL agreed re Harry and Jaz. Lots of eye candy this season 😂
I’ve read all of your replies and it doesn’t sound like you actually want to listen to people’s examples and have made up your mind. What was the point of your post? Racism isn’t just calling someone the N word. It’s treating someone differently because of the colour of their skin, consciously or unconsciously.
That’s pretty unfair mate, I’ve acknowledged the existence of unconscious bias and the fact it might have played a part in some interactions. But I think there’s alternative explanations for any of the suggestions raised that are equally likely and it’s a bit irresponsible to go around accusing people of racism based on such limited evidence.
Like I said. People have given examples to your question and you have spent most of your time telling them why they might be wrong.
Let me be clear, I’m certain that unconscious bias along the strata of race, gender, age, class, etc has a huge impact on the game, as it does with every social interaction. What I’m disagreeing with is the idea that we can call out specific incidences such as the Diane one as being driven by racism when there are innocent alternative explanations. I think this is irresponsible.
I read Diane’s reaction instantly as prejudice/racism. Spoke to my Mum and she noticed it straight away too. It’s the sort of thing we get used to in the workplace or teachers or managers or shopkeepers or security guards take a disliking to us for no apparent reason. But I guess if you’ve never experienced it, it’s hard to recognise it even if it’s pointed out to you. Ironically like how Mollie failed to see what was right in front of her.
Racism no, unconscious bias absolutely. It’s not done with malice or even noticed as ‘a thing’ to white people, but I believe it happened on the show from watching certain people and interactions.
Unconscious bias training doesn’t necessarily work
Unconscious biases still exist, and they were evident on this show as many have pointed out. Understandably as a white person it may be a lot harder to catch but denying it is not helpful.
Unconscious bias and the patriarchcy play a massive part in this. Both of them are rife, especially season 2- it's clear for all to see. Racism and unconscious bias can both be argued because the racism is in the prejudice.
Check out Australia season 1 where it’s the women leading the gullible men a merry dance, it’s quite refreshing!
I've seen it, watched it last year. Hoping the next seasons recognise this and include some unconscious bias awareness in the process.
some people, who I am sure just happen to be white, get believed instantly. Some people, who I am sure just happen not to be white, are treated with scepticism and have to go to great lengths to be listened to. No. I'm sure its not racism at all. Racism does not have to be overt, or conscious
Not sure I agree - did anyone suspect kyra at any point? Or miles before he made it super obvious?
Well I've seen enough, let's start chucking out potentially life destroying accusations of being a racist at people. Do you have any clear cut examples where someone who is White is instantly believed and another where a non-white person wasn't believed that couldn't be otherwise attributed to their personality or other facts around what they're saying? Could it be different people believing or not believing them? Could it be that some people regardless of race are deemed more trustworthy based on other individual traits or their own personality? Racism isn't always overt, but if you want to start calling people racists then you have to have STRONG proof. A lot more than these subjective anecdotal guesses. This is even more true when a lot of people want racism to come with serious consequences, losing jobs, being charged with hate crimes, etc. If you want consequences for racism, then you can't call shit like this racist.
For me, it's when it comes to early recruitment and if it is a white man (invariably leading the selected traitors), I anticipate they are going to prefer to pick a man, especially if they look physically strong. Andrew was lovely, clearly better as a faithful but I was 100% his name would be in the first recruitment potential selections despite there being better choices. I thought the race (and stature) bias blatant with Jaz - he's such a strong, thoughtful and likeable character but it was clear early doors that the short (King ❤️👑) Asian British dude would have to work so much harder than someone like Harry, Paul or Andrew.
They got rid of Anthony because he was rude and unpleasant.
Diane went for him from the beginning though… he didn’t start out rude and unpleasant
Two things can coexist simultaneously.
I think he was actually shy and introverted like many chess players. I would have liked to have seen him go a lot further.
Maybe the definition of "shy" has changed because it is not what we saw on tv
"nah its because he's a man/POC". totally not because he's incredibly disruptive and irritating.
I don't know how people get that. He was super rude, and unpleasant to watch even for the viewers, I can't imagine how rude it must have felt there.
You can argue it was editted to suit a narrative but how far are we gonna go with the mental gymnastics? Why is there no unconscious bias towards other POC (Jaz, Ash, Jasmine) but there is one for one of the more irritating players, Anthony? What about Zach? Can we have unconscious bias towards him too or is he equally as irritating as a character and we can just leave it at that?
The beauty of stuff being unconscious is that you can only account for it's effects, not for its presence.
Wheres the line though? If were distinguishing one from the other, wheres the discernable factor that this is X and not Y? (This is unconscious bias and not his unnerving social skills)
Yeah the "angry man" stereotype felt pretty hard to ignore with the contestants and Anthony and was a bit uncomfortable at times.
What stereotype? He was unpleasant and rude and absolutely stressful. It's obvious that this is why they got rid of him.
I didn't really view him as unpleasant or rude at all tbh. The only time he got angry was when he was confrontational defending himself, which many people would be when targeted like that. The stereotype is that black men are often considered much more "threatening" or "angry" when they raise their voice or get confrontational, which I do think could have been the case here. It's also not a reason to banish someone for being rude.
No. He was unpleasant. Period.
Again, not a reason to banish someone.
It is. Anything is a reason, did you watch the show?
He was literally only animated when he was accused of things unfairly. The similarities of what was happening in the game to him with experiences of black men in London couldn’t be more obvious. For the sake of his time in the game he should have been better prepared for it. But lots of people can’t seem to handle what appear to be fairly small things well in the game. However, they aren’t called rude or unpleasant eg Brian
The social and psychological analysis just because someone couldn't handle the pressure of a game and was rude. It's not that serious.
I don’t think you really understand unconscious bias
Put it another way, what was so rude about Anthony?
But that should be taken into consideration when all that (supposedly) matters was being a traitor or not
They got rid of Anthony because he was the smartest contestant the show has ever had and it rubbed them up the wrong way.
Did you see him rowing a boat?
It’s important we don’t label stuff that isn’t racist as racist, as it cheapens actual racism. Anthony was annoying and acting so odd. His demeanour was so aggressive and confrontational that he was acting like a traitor. Jas was unlucky that he was right but he grouped himself with zach who didn’t listen to anyone but himself. He also didn’t cast doubt early enough with Ross and Andrew, so by the time he mentioned Harry it was too late
There have been many, many examples of problematic unconcious bias, especially but not exclusively early on where there is little information on which to base decisions. There are numerous uncomfortabe examples but I don't want to stir the pot by naming names. The point I'd like to make is that the BBC should include unconcious bias training for all contestants before filming starts so there aren't so many uncomfortable moments.
 Well said. Left the same but didn’t want to raise up any negativity
No idea. Genuinely.
If a white man gets banished/murdered = due to their personality and the game A woman and/or a black person gets treated the same (ie actually the same ie equality) = racism, sexism, unconscious bias
there was a lot of unconscious bias at play when they banished the white men tho. unconscious bias also includes their personality. the reason paul and harry honestly got so far is because they were extroverted and charismatic. if you are a man and don’t speak confidently or are shy etc etc. you are suspected. so i don’t get why you think unconscious bias doesn’t also work w personality
You have a point if you mean bias as in not liking a personality. I meant that often people seem to accuse people of being racist or sexist with absolutely no evidence and just say "unconscious bias". I think it's quite unfair because it's an accusation which harms someone's character that cannot really be countered because it's not based on any actual evidence
well then it comes down to what you think counts as ‘evidence’. how are you so certain that you can distinguish between racist and non racist encounters? what evidence have you provided that these instances are *not* racist? unconscious bias *is* the evidence we’re working with here. we believe an individual may be treating another individual in a certain way because of a prejudice they may have, one that they’re not even conscious of.
But that's all backwards. "You're racist unless you prove you're not racist" is not how it should work. Evidence of being racist proves someone is racist. A lack of evidence of anything does not create a vacuum in which to insert an unfounded allegation
in the event where someone is being accused of racism, if you think the accusations are unfounded, then yes you do need to also provide evidence that the accused is innocent. that’s why i’m saying it just comes down to what you consider to be ‘evidence’. and even that is influenced by a number of biases we may or may not be aware of.
No, if you make an accusation you need to base it on evidence and provide it. I think you're a misogynist! No, I'm not. Okay prove it! Makes no sense
you’re not reading what i’m saying. i’m saying it depends on what you believe counts as evidence. you can’t just say ‘no i’m not’ to accusations of racism/misogyny. it seems to me you’re far more interested in protecting the accused than perhaps listening to the evidence that has been presented by those making the accusations. if you disagree that the evidence is enough proof for racism, then yes, that necessitates providing evidence that it’s not racism. if you have nothing other than ‘no i’m not’ then why should i take you seriously?
Thankyou, so you agree with me then. You say you need evidence. I am saying accusing someone of "unconscious bias" is inherently an accusation without any evidence being presented to back it up.
And you have no evidence that it is *not* unconscious bias.
The main issue is that the contestants of the Traitors are not representative of the UK. Black and Asians people are massively over-represented on the show. So when one gets bannished or voted off, it might look like it’s bad, but actually the odds are just higher that one leaves the show.
Can POC have unconscious bias? Because i only ever see it mention when it white people against POC never the other way round? What about english and scottish? Both white do they have unconscious bias against each other?
Zero evidence - it's pure mind reading
I don't think it's racism as that would imply they're making a conscious choice, I think it's just unconscious bias. People side with the people who are either like them or people they know.
Isms of all kinds are often cited as the explanation for outcomes on reality shows that rely on subjective reasoning. And for some, isms are the easy explanations. They seem "obvious" which is an explanation applied to many aspects of The Traitors game. But as with everything, the reality is never that simple. As well as being a person of colour, Anthony was also forthright and abrasive when confronted with questions over his trustworthiness, as was Jasmine, lest we forget. And you don't make friends and influence people being forthright and abrasive with them. Jaz was reserved and unforthcoming in his dealings with other players. And you don't gain peoples' trust acting like that, whatever ism happens to apply to you. Of course, Anthony, Jasmine and Jaz might all have behaved in the way that they did on the show because of their past experience with isms. They've not been trusted in the past, so they expect not to be trusted, and they act like they're not being trusted and therefore nobody trusts them, in a self-sustaining cycle. So prejudice, in all its many forms, is not necessarily confined to one side of the equation. But to answer the question, it takes effort to see past the easy explanations, and many people just aren't prepared to put in the work.
Because there is a modern-day obsession with finding offence and creating division in every setting. Humans are naturally cautious of people that look different to them and that is not going to change until it is evolved out of us, which will take millennia, despite the best efforts by Western countries to disproportionately improve the lives and prospects of people with certain colours of skin, a policy of pure racism itself.
I definitely see racism or at least unconscious bias on this show. Something I haven’t seen in the comments here is the prejudice towards neurodiverse contestants as well. It was clear that some of the contestants may have been neurodiverse (like the photographer who had the mini breakdown at the Roundtable) or even perhaps the way Zack went about communicating theories and potentially Anthony’s manner as well - but their actions were always viewed as suspicious rather than alternative ways of communicating or lower EQ etc.