I was thinking kind of the opposite. I was thinking that me with no money may well lie to get out of having to pay for that accident, but Lavigne with her (I assume) millions has no such reason to lie.
-FrL-
Sorry, but i think the very nature of the belief system means that anyone involved with it is seriously delusional, at best, or actively involved in deception and psychological abuse. And i cut the celebrities less slack than regular cult members, because of the way they are feted and used to promote the organization.
If you want specifics for Danny Masterson, consider that he was present at and helped promote the opening of Scientology’s “Psychiatry: An Industry of Death” museum, which accuses psychiatrists of pursuing a plan of world domination, of which Adolf Hitler was a chief architect.
What is, perhaps, even richer is that the Scientologists criticize psychiatry for being “an industry driven entirely by profit.” Physicians, heal thyselves.
Maybe; maybe not. I still maintain that the highly aberrant situations push people beyond the expected and normal limits of everyday stress and strain.
Should some of them act better? Perhaps. But i prefer not to make sweeping character judgments of the victims in these cases when the people doing the “testing” have so much control over the situation, are in it only for personal profit, and have no moral authority to be essaying character examinations in the first place.
I’m not a violent person, but every time i’ve seen anything from this show, i wanted to break Ashton Kutcher’s kneecaps. Maybe that tells you something about my character, but i’m prepared to live with that.
You need have no such concerns - since Cheaters was using paid (amateur) actors, I doubt much was cut out.
I’ve never seen the show, but I’m wondering how they get the celebrity to go to the location they want? Surely to do this they need someone the celebrity trusts to ‘be in on it.’ If I was friends with a celebrity and got approached to help set up a prank I’d probably agree, then mention it to my friend. This gives them the foreknowledge to come off looking good when they get “Punk’d”. I wouldn’t have any problems with ruining the effect of Kutcher’s trick. This pretty much applys to all Candid Camera style shows, except Dom Joly style ‘random person in the street’ tricks. I assume the people who react badly are being themselves, but those that act well may be using inside information.
Even worse for Rodriguez, IMO, was that when everything went to shit, she immediately tried to bolt for the door. Only the accomplice repeatedly saying “no, no” and holding her back kept her from taking off at the first sign of trouble. She did not come off well at all.
As for the “everyday ethical quandry” type problems, they’ve done several.
Katie Holmes was put in a situation where she was over at some “producer”'s house to be pitched a project, and the situation called for her to cover for his obvious cheating when his angry wife came in later and confronted Katie directly. Poor girl didn’t know what to do, and IIRC she opted for the “deer in the headlights” defense, adopting her trademark blank stare.
Perhaps. I suspect, though, that there is a strong impulse to laugh at the court jester’s japes, even if they’re not funny. A celebrity who protests their treatment at Kutcher’s hands (or his editor’s hands) will come across as petulant and dishonest, and are likely to make the weekly tabloids with their protests, to their detriment. They may be better off just taking their lumps and moving on, confident that Kutcher will leave them alone from now on.
But you may be right; it may be that they don’t substantially worsen folks’ reactions through editing.
Daniel
I think one is still capable of being a stand up guy and not being really too bright at the same time. I’ll admit I didn’t know he was a Thetan, I was basing my reaction just off of his reactions on the show in question. I can’t seem to find the clip online, but I think if you were to see it you could see where I’m coming from.
I don’t think Punk’d is a fair judge of character. Even when the event itself isn’t overly outrageous, they artificially tailor the situation to provoke maximum fear and defensiveness in the target-- coaching all the “bystanders” and/or perceived authority figures to act exaggeratedly hostile toward the target, for instance. Even if the basic circumstance could be real, it’s designed to escalate and spiral out of control in ways that would never happen in real life. How could it not provoke extreme reactions?
I don’t deny that the situations are artificially tailored; that’s the whole point of the show. I am contending that how you react under such circumstances is a fair indication of your character under stress. It’s easier to do the right thing when you’re calm and unstressed; what’s admirable is to do the right thing when there are people screaming at you and trying to make you crack.
Based on the comments here, I watched Danny Masterson’s clip, and I agree he acted very well. He (obviously) refused the temptation to help himself to stereos that literally “fell off a truck,” and he refused to look the other way when another guy begins stealing the boxes; he intervenes and demands that the boxes be returned AND he assists in stacking them up off the street. When the truck driver returns and accuses Masterson of trying to steal the boxes, he remains (relatively) calm and simply points out the evidence in his favor, and explains that he was preventing their theft.
There is another option. I agree that a celebrity suffers from “deep pocket liability” and may find themselves sued for outrageous sums simply because they have - or are perceived to have - large sums available. But the solution to an honest person there is simple, and it’s one that everyone is told by their car insurance company: do not admit fault. Note that the car insurance company does not say: “Lie!” There’s no need to admit anything, I grant, but that doesn’t mean you must lie in your denials. A simple “I’m sorry, but I think we should wait to discuss these details,” or “I’m not sure I can explain exactly what happened right now…” are perfectly fine.
I think the OP has a point, but I also think that one or two punkings are too small a sample size from which to infer a whole lot about a person’s character. I can imagine myself reacting to such a set-up with grace and equanimity at one time, or with impatience and hostility at another, depending on how tired I was, how much I had on my mind, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe Michael Richards just got punk’d at the wrong time, and if the same provocation had occured a week earlier or a month later, he would have shrugged it off.
Disclaimer: I’ve never seen an episode of Punk’d and don’t particularly want to. Maybe I’m just a Stiffley Stifferson, but I don’t find watching people being set up, embarrassed, or made to feel bad to be particularly enjoyable entertainment.
While I think it’s reasonable to say being Punk’d is a fair measure, there are some cases which are too stress-inducing to really be of much use.
For example, in Pink’s punking, she arrived to find her S.O. under arrest in a cop car and him exhorting her to “explain what had happened”. She did seem pretty distraught and angry, but can no-one say they’d act otherwise if they found their S.O. in an uncomprimising position that suggested they’d be lying to you, who then proceeded to try and drag you into the situation? From that you could probably say “Yes, that’s how Pink/whoever would act in that situation”, but is such an unlikely and possibly hurtful scenario really the best way to judge someone’s base character?
Yes, but I don’t find her being distraught and angry to be character flaws. If she had, for example, denied knowledge of any of the motorcycles, even though two were apparently hers, she’d have been doing what I’m condeming. But she did fine – she told the cop that two bikes were hers, and the rest, so far as she knew, were legitimately owned by her boyfriend. The cop suggests to her that her boyfriend is claiming they are all hers, and he knows nothing about them. She confronts the cuffed (accomplice) boyfriend and he begs her to explain what’s really going on. She sticks to her truthful story. I don’t see any reason to mark Pink down for that one.
It’s the lying to get out of trouble that I’m suggesting is a mark of poor character. Avoiding anger is admirable; sucumbing to it is not a flaw under these circumstances.
I’ve heard a few people say that Cheaters was a set-up, using actors.
I’m willing to believe this, but i’ve never seen any evidence for it apart from assertions on the internet, made by people who (as far as i know) never had anything to do with the show.
Is there anything you can point to that would confirm your allegation?
Well of course. They wouldn’t let just anyone be on Pete & Pete.
FWIW, I had an opportunity to talk to someone who was actually on the show. He said that they had one of his friends set him up, that there was a lot of extra goading that occurred, that the segment was heavily edited. He also said that the actors and producers acted peeved that he did not react more strongly and make a fool of himself, that he no longer trusts the person that set him up, and that he signed the release because he wanted to look like a good sport. He was generally sour on the whole experience. And, although I have not seen the segment in question, the consensus in the room at the time of the conversation was that he had come off looking pretty good.
My opinion? I don’t think it can really be called a good measure of someone’s character–more like an exploration of someone’s defense mechanisms. It’s also part of the whole “theater of humiliation” strain of reality shows that disgust me.
Well, nothing in the above contradicts anything I’m saying. If a “friend” set me up, I’d no longer trust him. And I’d be sour about the experience, and I might well sign the release because I wanted to look like a good sport…but if the final segment twisted what really happened, I’d make that known.
It doesn’t sound like that happened here. Or did it?
It sounds as if there’s a greater philosophical question here: does extreme stress reveal or occlude one’s character? **Bricker **thinks it reveals it. Other people argue that one can be excused from their behavior under extreme stress, and that character is…I’m not sure what. How you act under normal conditions? Personally, I think that’s just manners.
If a situation isn’t stressful enough to get people to drop the social facade of politeness, then, IMHO, it’s not stressful enough to reveal the true character that lies beneath.
Or, perhaps, having true character is having a social facade that doesn’t drop at the median level of stress, but one manages to endure that stress with manners and ethics intact. Yeah, I think that’s what I think. If someone has “good character”, we mean they can take more stress than the average person while remaining polite and ethical.
Whether or not Punk’d is a good representation of that, I don’t know, because of the editing issue and selection bias - I’m sure there’s lots of footage of people without interesting reactions.
I have not seen the segment in question, so I can’t say for sure. But the person I talked to was pretty clear that he did not think his segment accurately reflected what happened and was edited to make him look bad. To be an accurate reflection of character, as you say it is, you must assume the show is edited even-handedly. My contact maintained that this was not the case.
I came in to post something similar. Yeah, how they react to being Punk’d is a small glimpse at their character. But it’s such an artificial and heavily edited situation that I wouldn’t solely juge them based on this one incident. I’d need to know a lot more about them to know what their true character is like.