Also found this discussion of what appears to be the same show already referred to previous comments.
Its published in New Statesman America, and to my surprise it seems that there were three different series, with what may be called different outcomes.
I should point at that the author was a woman ( Anna Leszkiewic) so some comments could have bias, it could be argued.
In the three series referenced there appears to have been different outcomes, with the women coming off best in the last. (Read her thoughts and see what you think!!)
Quote:"The men had been struggling from the start: as soon as their boat hit the shore, Bradford’s 26-year-old Riz broke down sobbing, explaining he was “getting emotional”. The rest of the men waited awkwardly for him to stop crying (offering such useful support as, “he’s properly crying!”, “fuck, man” and “we shouldn’t be moving with that”) before beginning their hunt for a habitable spot. They had to stop several times on their trek for him, spending their first night in the middle of a dense forest."
Compare that viewpoint, with the women:
Quote: "The women, meanwhile, led by army veteran and amputee Hannah, and 57-year-old retired farmer Erika, had found a habitable campsite and food sources, immediately built a fire, and settled in rather comfortably by the end of day one. Hannah, in particular, refused to slow the group down, despite having several issues with her prosthetic leg."
Which brings me back to the point I made earlier about cultural influences. All these people were from the same general cultural group, but with different experiences in life (if you like, with different sub-cultural influences.
The young male who cries on the first day has a different sub-cultural experience to the ex-army, one legged woman and the woman ex-farmer who seem to have become leaders for the female group.
So now I'm wondering, did Bear Grylls select people who may illustrate his arguments, or were they selected randomly? What do you think? If it had been a genuine scientific experiment the participants would have had to be selected randomly to prevent the selectors possible bias influencing the outcom