Is Big Brother 16's Derrick Playing a Dirty Game or Does "Anything Go?"

If you're a Reality TV fan, you remember when Johnny Fairplay's grandma died on Survivor: Pearl Islands. Or, more accurately, you recall when he used her fake death to try and engender sympathy from the tribe and buy him more days on the island. While the move failed to get Johnny to the end, it did get him hugs, a reward challenge gift, and a place atop the Pantheon of reality TV baddies.

That wasn't the first lie in a reality TV show and it certainly hasn't been the last. Some lie to create a sympathetic character.  On Big Brother 12, contestant Matt Hoffman told his fellow houseguests that his young wife had a rare bone disease that only "affects one in a million.”  Russell Hantz told Survivor: Samoa castaways that he had lived through the Katrina disaster in his native New Orleans.  Others lie about their former brushes with fame, fearing it might seem they don't need the prize money.  Child actress Lisa Whelchel joined former major leaguer Jeff Kent in hiding their past professions from their Survivor: Philippines castmates.

This past season of Survivor: Cagayan, police officer Tony Vlachos decided not to share his job with his fellow island inhabitants, including fellow officer Sarah Lacina.  He claimed he was a construction worked, even when Sarah confronted him on obviously being a cop.  This turned into a million dollar strategy when he was overwhelmingly voted the winner.  Central Falls Rhode Island police sergeant Derrick Levasseur watched Tony's successful strategy before embarking on his three month Big Brother adventure this summer.  He decided to follow a similar strategy and hide his police background - which included a three year stint as an undercover officer - from the rest of the cast. 

This year's Big Brother cast has its share of liars.  Caleb Reynolds has been so proficient in spinning stories about  himself while in the house that a compendium of his questionable assertions has been put together in this blog.  Frankie Grande lied about his age (he's 31, not 28) and omitted that he was a "social media mogul" with a famous little sister (Ariana Grande) until his game was in jeopardy.  Zach Rance lied about hating everyone and being a villain.  Victoria Rafaeli lied about playing Big Brother (couldn't resist).  But the biggest lie this year has been the true identify of that mild mannered Parks and Recs coordinator and new daddy Derrick - a police sergeant and former undercover officer.  In fact, this - that Derrick has three years experience working undercover - may be the biggest lie that anyone has told in the Big Brother house.  It certainly is the one with the most consequences.

Why does this lie stand out among the others?  Because, by the very nature of his training and experience as an undercover cop, he is uniquely suited for lying to and manipulating other people.  I wrote this more detailed discussion in how an undercover cop's skills are uniquely suited for Big Brother success HERE.  He has power over the minds and hearts of the other houseguests unlike anything I've ever seen before and, while many are blaming the gullibility on the houseguest, it's hard not to point the finger at Sgt. Levasseur.  While he was working undercover, it is conceivable that his very life depended on his ability to gain trust and confidence.  No thespian taking the stage ever has at much at stake.

Derrick is a 30-years-old father with ten years on the police force including three working undercover. The houseguests on whom he has most effectively used his skills are 22 year old girls, Nicole Franzel and Victoria.  When Nicole became suspicious of Derrick, telling him she was convinced that anything she says to him gets back to Cody (which is true), Derrick responded, "If that’s truly what you feel, you’re going to look really dumb on camera if you think that."  He then uses a typical mind control technique.  "Look at me," he tells her. Firmly.  "Look at me."  He tells her over and over that she's not only wrong, but is going to look stupid if she continues thinking he's allied with Cody.  "You'll see," he tells her, adding, that she will owe him a text apology when she sees the feeds and realizes how wrong she was.

Now, great lie. Strong, convincing, unequivocal.  Nicole believes him and crumbles into tears that she ever doubted her one true friend.  The most trustworthy person in the house.  Will I have to hand in my reality TV fan card if I tell you that this exchange made me sick to my stomach?  Watch it here and tell him if it doesn't make you question the ethics of Derrick's gameplay.

There is something about the way that Derrick plays with his fellow houseguests' weaknesses and vulnerabilities, how he convinces them he is their best friend and the only person they can trust, something about how morally outraged he becomes at any suggestion that he's not the nicest guy on the planet that rubs me raw.  It's not just how he lies so easily, but how easily he makes the other person convinced that they are the bad guys for even questioning him.

Two weeks earlier, Derrick did his mind-control misting shtick on Victoria.  When Zach told her that Derrick was in a large alliance, she was shocked and hurt to the core.  Eventually, Derrick confronted her about what she heard.  He told her it was a complete lie, that he had no alliance with anyone.  If he had an alliance with anyone it would be with her, he said.  Derrick had lied to Victoria from day one about his allegiances and yet managed to mist her into believing that he was completely honest with her.

As recently as last night, as he was convincing Victoria to pretend to hate him so the remaining houseguests would think he doesn't have her vote, Derrick reaffirmed that he has always had her back. Innocent lies/half truths, you might say.  Yes, technically, Derrick has had Victoria's back up to a point - he wanted to keep her as long as possible because he knew she would never, ever, ever vote him out.  But their alliance is all for his benefit, not hers.  He doesn't even have to give her his vote this week!  Instead, he has convinced her that voting her out is best for him and that she should support this.  And she does, to the point that she has said repeatedly that she wants Derrick to win more than she wants to win.

Again, you might argue that is good gameplay.  But then Derrick said of Victoria:  "I am one of the few people that defends that girl she was crying.. I have a daughter I’m not going to make that girl look like a fool."  And that's where he crosses the line for me.  His mind control is making Victoria look like a stupid, lovesick lemming.  A fool. And it doesn't seem to bother him at all.

Derrick has this young girl, who is clearly smitten with him (and she has mentioned repeatedly that she's attracted to older men), wrapped around his finger.  She would do anything for him.  She is his plaything, a Playdoh creation he can mold and pose in any position he chooses.  He has her wanting him to win more than she wants herself to win.  Her remaining goal is not to stay in the house, but to guarantee his win.

Play dirty, play hard, that's how you win.  I get it.  But this year, watching Derrick Gaslight these young, vulnerable girls into believing that they are wrong, crazy, uncaring, heartless, I'm not so sure I can justify winning at any cost.  I no longer feel comfortable watching someone - a father to a young girl - win by playing with these girls' emotions.  By manipulating them and then telling them you're doing it for their own good, because you're honest and trustworthy and look at them like someone's daughter,  you've crossed some imaginary line in my mind.

Derrick's infamous accusation to fellow alliance member Zach that he was "literally taking food out of [his] daughter's mouth" is the kind of amped-up manipulation that people point to as him playing a dirty game.  I disagree.  That was a low blow, but it was a smart one and fully within the bounds of good manipulative strategy.  But the way he isolates these young girls, befriends them, develops their trust, causes them to distance themselves from anyone else, manipulates their feelings, causes them to question their sanity and challenges them when they don't follow his game play makes me question whether anything goes in a reality TV game show.  That is going a little too far in my book.

Are there any boundaries; should there be any limits?  Or is all's fair in love and Big Brother?

Big Brother 16's Frankie Grande is not the Anti-Christ

It pains me to have to write a blog post that is in any way supportive of Frankie J. "Look at me, notice me" Grande.  His "I'm Ariana Grande's brother so worship me" schtick was old about thirty seconds into it and the preening 31-year-old has worn out his welcome on my and many millions of TV screens.  He's self-absorbed, narcissistic, delusional, and catty.  But he's not Satan, he's not a contender for Keith Olberman's "Worst Person Ever," and he's not deserving of the explosively negative reaction now taking over the Big Brother 16 Twitter timelines.

Here's the story.  As any fan of this season knows, Frankie is not just a dancer/former Broadway performer, YouTuber, and Famous Adjacent Dude*, he's also a philanthropist.  He is part of two different charities doing work in Africa - Broadway in South Africa and Build On.  Despite what his detractors want to think, both are legitimate charities and both have raised money to help people in disadvantaged countries.  Whether you think the money is spent wisely, or whether there are more "deserving" charities, there is no dispute that they are real, raise money, and try and do some good. 

Before one of Frankie's trips to South Africa, he apparently posted the following about his experience at the airport as he tried to catch his flight.  As anyone who has ever flown knows, getting through the airport can be frustrating to say the least.  You have to maneuver through a maze of check points, avoiding squalling children and pieces of luggage larger than a water buffalo, strip down to your undies hoping to retrieve all of the belongings you jettisoned to make it through security only to find your plane has changed gates, has mechanical problems, or was rerouted to Guam.  With that backdrop, Frankie wrote the following:

I read that as funny and relatable.  Frankie has a way of describing things that is actually pretty funny.  And the juxtaposition of going off to do charity work while simultaneously bitching about all the little people who stand between him and the plane is hysterical. In my family, we have one rule - anything for humor.  The question is not, should you say that, but was it funny.  Life is too short not to laugh, not to find the humor in every situation, whenever you can.  There is so much serious crap going on all the time (not to mention, spoiler alert, we're all going to die some day) why not take the chances to smile, chuckle or laugh out loud every chance you get.

As a formerly fat, currently Jewish person, I was not at all offended by anything he said in that post.  It was exaggeration of an experience for humorous effect - basically the very definition of humor.  What was important to me was - it was well-written and funny.  It was not mean-spirited or hateful (unlike much of the vitriol currently being hurled at Frankie).

Frankie was taking his time to go and do something to benefit someone else.  Did he do it solely for "selfless reasons?"  Of course not. No one does.  Mother Teresa and Gandhi were supremely selfish people - they served others because they wanted to, they felt compelled to and BECAUSE IT MADE THEM FEEL GOOD.  This notion that charity has to be done "unselfishly" is ridiculous.  Giving makes people feel good, helping others gives one purpose.  Anyone who gives of themselves for another is helping - and it is not for anyone else to judge whether one charity is more deserving of another or one do-gooder is superior to another.

I know that Big Brother creates heroes and villains and Frankie is this year's villain (personally, I am much more disturbed by the Gaslighting that Derrick has done to the young people in the house than anything Frankie has done). As an avowed Zach Rance fan, I hated Frankie for backstabbing Zach as much as the rest of  you.  But right now I'm much angrier at all the hatred he is getting for this funny if somewhat tasteless post and the fact that it forced me to do something I never thought I'd do.  I had to write something in support of Frankie J. Grande.  Oh, Rose!


*coined by https://twitter.com/LunaCee73 

CBS Big Brother and the Groupthink Phenomenon

Zach Rance, the phenomenally popular 23-year-old recent college grad from Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, is the latest cast member ousted from the Big Brother house, a victim not of his own doing, as he told Julie Chen in his charmingly honest post-eviction interview, but a victim, like many of those who went before him, of groupthink.

Merriam-Webster defines groupthink as "a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics."  The term was coined by William H. Whyte, Jr. in a 1952 Forbes article on the social phenomenon which occurs where mere conformity becomes something else - a kind of mutual brainwashing of a small group to all agree on what is right and wrong.  The "you're either with us or against us" mentality.  Social psychologist Irving Janis expanded on the research into groupthink in a 1971 Psychology Today article.  There he wrote:

I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures

It is not at all surprising that Janis considered groupthink in the same breath as the novel from which the very concept of "Big Brother" arose.  It is by the very nature of the show that isolating a group of individuals and pitting them against one another results in just this type of phenomenon.  There is in any society a hierarchy, those at the top and those at the bottom.  There is the in group and the outcasts.  That is why CBS's summer reality show is not merely entertainment (and less so now that the dominant group is all that's left with no challengers) but a social experiment.  We see in real time how cliques are formed, how good and evil are defined, how fear and paranoia warp your perception and how even the kindest of us fall victim to the bullying mentality we all disdain.

What Janis discovered doing his research into groupthink in the realm of foreign policy decisions, is what we have seen every year on Big Brother the TV show.  According to Janis, there are eight symptoms* of groupthink:

1. Illusion of invulnerability – Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions. 

(*These come from: http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm)

If you look at that list, you may get the answers to the questions you've had about the house guests the past two months.  Why does no one listen to Donny Thompson's warnings about Derrick Levasseur?  Check item #2.  Why does everyone gang up on the most recently evicted house guest?  Look at 4.  Why in week 2 was Devin Sheperd so upset with Zach for suggesting they keep Brittany Martinez?  See #5.  Item by item, you can click off why the house guests have done some of the head-scratching things they have done.

Tweeted by @BB16ZachRance

Caleb Reynolds knows he heard a fan shouting something negative about him and Frankie Grande when they were in the backyard with Zach.  Cody knows he heard a different fan shouting negative things about Frankie and Derrick yesterday.  Why don't they ever question their allegiance; why are they never suspicious?  Item #6 - ignore facts that don't conform to the group consensus.  Of the eight items, perhaps the most powerful is the last, the one used to great effect by Derrick.  A former undercover cop (who knows how to infiltrate groups) and current police sergeant, Derrick has repeatedly made sure that his minions stay away from outside influences.  Whether it is telling someone that Nicole Franzel should never talk to anyone alone, or making sure that Zach was accompanied wherever he went last week, Derrick has made sure to keep outside influences from his group's ears.

Because of groupthink, six different people (Caleb, Christine Brecht, Cody Calafiore, Derrick, Frankie, and Victoria Rafaeli) believe they each are in a great position in the game with final two deals that will guarantee them a spot in the finale.  Unfortunately for all but Derrick, he is the only common denominator in each secret final two pact.  Because they each believe they are in a great position in their alliance, none will do anything to upset the apple cart.  The simple mechanics of their situation eludes them.  Despite realizing that where there is a group of six players remaining, there is by its nature a hierarchy, a totem pole, each believes they are at the top and each believes someone else to be at the bottom.  While it's easy to chalk this up to poor gameplay, stupidity, or naïveté, the more obvious explanation is that this is how the game is structured.  It takes a very strong, or very crazy, person to veer away from the safety of groupthink and think for themselves.

They have had virtually no outside contact for two months.  They have little in the way of stimulation or distraction.  They are in a stressful situation without their usual outlets for coping.  Don't think you wouldn't act the same in their shoes.

Look what happened to the few players who deviated from the script, who argued against groupthink.  What happened to Joey Van Pelt?  She had the temerity to suggest forming a girl's alliance.  What nerve!  Outta here.  Hayden Voss tried to form a new alliance, plotting against Derrick/Cody. Adios.  Zach merely questioned what the powers-that-be suggested (early in the game not wanting to vote out Brittany, later in the game voicing that maybe he didn't want to throw the competition to oust Donny or maybe he can't trust people in his alliance who tried to evict him a week ago) and he was given his walking papers.  Opposing groupthink in the Big Brother house gets you a few minutes with Julie Chen and not a lot more.  And so we will continue to see scared little mice cowering in the corner hoping they're the last one the cat eats.

Big Brother promotes bullying, cliquish behavior and fear of straying from the group, and until enough players fight back, it'll be one boring season after another.  C'mon Big Brother, give us more unpredictable troublemakers like Zach Rance and fewer sheep like Cody and Victoria.  Watching Derrick the conformity cop serve up and the rest of the house drink his KoolAid for three months isn't riveting television.  It's actually, pretty sad.