It's possible he had alterior motives and you are free to question assumptions all you want. I simply think it's dangerous to select evidence based on a desired conclusion. That's basically called "begging the question" in debates. Do you have any evidence that Ian had alterior motives?
I simply think it's dangerous to select evidence based on a desired conclusion.
I understand more clearly what your point is now. You are saying that I wanted to see the decision as inevitably selfish and then found evidence to support this hypothesis. I am just frustrated that so many people seem to want to lionize the choices made on reality TV shows as if the shows were great epic dramas. For example, if you have watched the Amazing Race or read any posts on FR about it, people want to think that the winners Uchenna and Joyce were somehow morally superior to Survivor veterans Rob and Amber. It is my contention that some people just hide their ulterior motives more carefully, while others (like Boston Rob) are up front about it.
If anything Tom was more devious than Ian, because he took advantage of Ian's guilt to do what he wanted to do anyway, which was not have to continue to compete against the strong player that was Ian. Tom was also working for himself on Survivor Palau; he just hid his methods better, so he got a reputation for being "moral". I personally have no problem with what any of them did, just like I don't hold a grudge against my father-in-law when he inevitably makes me go bankrupt in Monopoly
I agree that honor and winning the respect of others has value, and that it is possible that Ian purchased this. The other monetary and exhaustion motives are possible secondary motives as well. I don't claim to read his mind.