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.
I think that there are some people who have ulterior motives and others who value certain things more than winning. Usually, those with the ulterior motives rise to the top but in this case, I think the more honest people with the most integrity rose to the top on Survivor, not necessarily because it's a better strategy to win but because the people who did try to backstab got caught, including Ian. And I think that may have been a function of the fact that their tribe was static for so long and everyone got to know each other so well that lying and backstabbing became very difficult to do successfully. There weren't really any strangers or unknown quantities at the end, like there are in other seasons with stronger cliques and merges and such. The one stranger, Stephanie, didn't make much of a difference
I also get the impression that Tom really would have liked to keep Stephanie around as a challenge and because he really did think she deserved a shot at winning. Perhaps that's Tom's selfish ulterior motive -- he needed to be challenged in the end so he could feel like he deserved to win.
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.
I disagree. I believe Tom when he said that he wanted he and Ian to make the final three and then compete to win like men and I also believe that Tom would have taken Ian, rather than Katie, to the final two, which was the deal he offered Ian, the one person who might have beaten him (especially with Katie on the jury) in the final two. In fact, he offered Ian that deal again on the dock after the challenge. I'm just not seeing cold calculating reasoning there.
Tom was also working for himself on Survivor Palau; he just hid his methods better, so he got a reputation for being "moral".
I think open the discussion he had about sticking with Ian and his alliance before Ian stuck his foot in his mouth suggests otherwise. I think Tom really wanted the best to rise to the top and then fight it out like men. Perhaps he wanted someone who deserved to win to win, if it wasn't him, or perhaps he just needed to feel like he earned it. But everything he did suggested someone who was thinking about more than just winning to me. I think Tom was really hurt by Ian being willing to turn on him, to the point where he didn't change his vote against Ian after the tie. I think they basically developed a sort of father-son relationship and Tom felt like a betrayed father and Ian felt like a disowned son. I don't think it was grandstanding (at least not with Ian and Tom).
The recent Survivor article in Entertainment Weekly suggests that Colby did the same thing with Tina in the Australian Outback season (I've only watched a few seasons). They stuck with the person they liked and had a deal with even though it was dangerous to their game and winning. It can and does happen and in Colby's case, the argument is that it cost him the win where it didn't for Tom. We don't know how Tom would have behaved if things were reversed and we'll never know for sure.
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
The difference is that Survivor does play with the currency of interpersonal relationships and trust rather than paper money. The investment in time and the stakes are also a lot higher. It's a very different sort of game with very different dynamic, not that people don't get mad over how their opponents play board games (there are plenty of dishonorable ways to play board games even without cheating that can annoy other players out of the game even with the lower stakes).
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.
From the way he jumped off the buoy, I and both he and Tom swam over, I didn't get the feeling that either man was done. I'm sure the money went through both of their minds as did exhaustion, but I don't think that was the basis for Ian's decision and doesn't explain why Tom, when he stood with Ian on the dock, gave Ian the opportunity to reconsider before he voted Ian off and went to the final two with Katie. I think Ian really didn't like seeing himself as the villain and backstabber and Tom really felt hurt and then honored by Ian's behavior. Of course Katie didn't deserve any of the consideration that she got from either one but that's a whole other story and the final vote reflected that.
By the way, you might find this article (and the research behind it) interesting. It deals with moral reasoning and why people make certain moral decisions based on MRI scans of the brains of people while they make moral decisions. Basically, people make moral decisions for coldly rational reasons (what I think you are looking for) and visceral reasons related to an innate sense of fairness that is heavily tied to how emotionally attached a person is to the subject of their decision. It's one of the reasons why real world human behavior often doesn't work the way game theorists, looking only for coldly rational reasons, predict they should. Read the article and consider Tom's and Ian's decisions again.
I can provide you with more academic treatments of this research from peer reviewed journals if you want.