‘Survivor’ doesn’t represent reality at all

I’m a fan of the CBS show Survivor, but I do have an issue, with this new season just kicking off.

People make bold proclamations about what it takes to win on Survivor (including the show’s host, Jeff Probst). Alliances are hastily formed on Day One based on physical prowess. Or age. Or hoped-for niceness. Or other factors.

These experts never bother to ponder the lineup of past winners. There’s no thread that ties those winners together. Know why that is?

Thirty-nine days. That’s why.

Real-world, lasting success requires quite a bit more in the integrity department than some have shown to simply win a 39-day challenge. Not to mention a penchant for hard work that some have lacked, self-discipline, and surely assertiveness, combined with genuine people skills and regular diplomacy.

On Survivor, you get by. For 39 days. It’s very hard. And alliances matter, of course. As they do in real life. But the game doesn’t really translate or serve as a metaphor. To actually win the whole game, you can lack an awful lot of what it takes to succeed in real life.

In real life, unless you’ve got an inheritance on the way, you better have those penchants.

Leave a Comment