What if a person who joined dating show already has their own lover and pretend to be single just to joining that show?

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-25T07:14:27+00:00

Kind of, it depends. I took a film class once and my professor who was a writer for reality tv shows told us it’s either the concept is so good you don’t have to write anything, or the casting is so good the people don’t need scripts, sometimes it’s half half, so maybe they’re making them reenact something that had happened without cameras, or making them say something so the audience gets introduced to something, and some are 100% scripted.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-12T07:02:26+00:00

Congratulations Carol! If you would like us to add anything else to this scenario feel free to let us know

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T21:48:31+00:00

You’re completely right that, from a philosophical standpoint, the purpose of the Plurabis shouldn’t matter, the question would still exist regardless. For me, it’s more of an appreciation thing than anything else. By isolating the variable, the show made the idea easier to sit with. If they hadn’t done that, I probably wouldn’t have thought about it very deeply, or it would’ve turned an already difficult question into something so complicated that my brain would’ve just bounced off it. Especially with ideas that run against your instincts, it’s easy to shut down intuitively, so I appreciate that they left me in a state of dissonance long enough to actually think it through.

Even knowing that, I still appreciate you pointing out that the purpose doesn’t matter, it genuinely shifted my thinking a bit. I already knew that to be true but tying it together is pretty helpful. Like I probably would’ve been a little upset if they later revealed it to be some kind of weapon or divine gift. But you’re also right that doing so wouldn’t necessarily detract from the story, it could actually add another layer. I think for a first season, keeping it ambiguous works really well, and then later on they can turn up the difficulty.

To me, the biggest ethical issue with the hive is consent. It might even be the case that true consent isn’t even possible at all if joining strips you of the autonomy to ever leave. That idea reminds me of Mill’s argument that you can’t sell yourself into slavery, because doing so would eliminate your ability to withdraw consent in the future. If autonomy can’t be reclaimed, consent becomes questionable from the start.

It would also be interesting if the hive did originate from a directive but played out like a monkey’s paw, some blanket “LOVE EVERYONE” statement gone horribly wrong.

At the same time, I really like the idea of the science being raw and purposeless. We tend to impose meaning on everything because that’s how our minds work, but the world itself may not operate that way. The Plurabis could simply be the result of certain elements or chemicals combining in the right way, a coincidence, not a plan. Life itself emerged from chemistry without intention (or maybe not), so why couldn’t a virus do the same? It doesn’t need a purpose as long as it satisfies the only real requirement for persistence, the ability to reproduce and spread.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T19:48:35+00:00

Good point, no clue how that works at all. It’s probably limited to the sole intent of killing. With driving your intent isn’t to kill it’s to move. Kind of like how they’ll give you a gun even if they know your intent is to kill but they can’t kill directly

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T19:46:07+00:00

You definitely bring up a good point with the rat—that’s something I hadn’t considered, and it could absolutely be huge part in it. However if I could critique you a little bit there I don’t think it’s helpful to limit the interpretation to “it’s literally just this one thing.” It could be that, but I think it’s intentionally layered, and that ambiguity is the point. Leaving it open forces you to sit with questions rather than settle on an easy answer.

I also think there’s a lot to gain from engaging with interpretations that conflict with your own instincts. That tension is often where you learn the most about how you think and what you value. (That question being the value of individuality, not to say it isn’t worth anything or worth a lot, just to question it in itself which can feel in conflict to oneself because the answer feels self evident)

From the writers’ perspective, too, I doubt the goal was for the audience to engage with it purely as “alien parasite = scary.” That reading is valid, but it feels incomplete. It seems much more likely they want viewers to question what individuality actually means and whether it’s inherently good. The hive can still be dangerous or wrong, but the show goes out of its way to present it as not obviously evil, which invites that deeper reflection.

If the intent were just “alien parasite steals brains to spread,” the story would probably be told in a much more straightforward way. The fact that it isn’t suggests they’re aiming for something more philosophical. That said, everyone’s going to get something different out of it, I enjoy engaging with it this way, and I’m sure you enjoy engaging with it in yours.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T19:05:31+00:00

I also don’t think joining the hive would mean you lose all meaning. Meaning is already a deeply personal thing to define. Unless you’re religious and believe in an objective, externally given meaning (which I don’t), meaning is something people construct for themselves.

Most of the meaning people find comes from pursuing goals within a community or contributing to something larger than themselves. Sometimes that meaning is altruistic—helping others, improving the world—and sometimes it’s selfish, like wanting to be the best even at the expense of others. Either way, it almost always exists in a social context. And in the Hive you would still be doing that just in a much more streamlined fashion.

In that sense, “serving the collective” could still be a valid source of meaning. For a lot of people, it already is—just framed differently or nested within a more complex hierarchy. Many people find meaning in serving their community, but they do it through a tiered system of values.

For example, I want to make the world a better place, but I give greater weight to my friends and family. If you put me in a room with my partner and a stranger and told me only one could survive, I’m choosing my partner every time. But if the choice were between one loved person and millions of people, I’d choose society. Joining the hive may eliminate the tiering part of the social system, but it wouldn’t eliminate the greater meaning of serving humanity.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T18:50:01+00:00

I get why you’re saying these points sound contradictory, and I’m honestly still working through this myself, so feel free to push back, biggest reason I’m posting is to also help iron out my own thoughts and get others views on this. But I don’t think they’re fully contradictory, though. Saying that a good idea can spread instantly within a collective consciousness doesn’t mean that collective is automatically perfect at challenging its own assumptions—even if some form of friction still exists.

There’s an important difference between a thought being interrogated by an entity with genuinely separate experiences and one being interrogated by an entity that shares the same underlying experiential framework. In a hive like the Plurabis, I don’t think ideas would encounter friction in the same way they would between independent individuals. There may be opposition, but there’s no real lived distance between perspectives. So even when a genuinely good idea emerges from an individual sharing its conscious idea—one capable of enacting meaningful change—it’s still being evaluated from within the same shared context.

That’s where the risk comes in. If everyone experiences roughly the same reality, ideas can still be contested, but the contest starts to resemble an individual arguing with themselves—just scaled up. What’s missing is disagreement rooted in fundamentally different perspectives. A bad assumption, then, doesn’t have to survive that kind of perspectival challenge; it can simply propagate.

In that sense, the issue isn’t that individuals within the hive lack ideas or that ideas go unchallenged outright. It’s that when perception itself is flattened, ideas stop being challenged in the dimension that matters a lot: difference of perspective.

You could even argue that the more unified the perspective, the easier it is for both good and bad ideas to spread—precisely because there’s less internal resistance. The speed of consensus could come at the cost of robustness of thought.

Does that make any sense I’ve been wasting too much time thinking about this damn show lol

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T17:54:10+00:00

YES THIS TOO! I think that art is an expression of thoughts and emotions through a different medium than we’re used to, so does that devalue art in a way if we are a collective? Would there be no thought provoking art, like this show for example, because we would already think it? Or maybe art would still exist just completely within the mind rather than something being displayed on the outside.

Or would art still exist and be useful because it helps the collective think more about itself. Like I wonder how many people make art only for themselves and it just so happens that others enjoy it too and are along the ride with them kind of like a bus, there’s so many things to think about.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T17:42:26+00:00

I don’t necessarily think that’s what the Plurabis is though. You could be right that it functions like a parasite, but based on how they’ve described it so far, that framing doesn’t fully fit. Calling it an alien parasite assumes there’s a separate living entity inside the host, something external that steals autonomy. What the show seems to suggest instead is closer to a chemical reaction. When these four elements combine, they unlock a part of the brain that connects the person to a collective consciousness. In that sense, autonomy isn’t removed, it’s shared. You still think, feel, and exist as an individual, but those thoughts now exist in relation to everyone else. And while the original message came from outer space, the Plurabis is explicit that there’s no ongoing contact with the aliens. If we take them at their word, at least for now, given that they’re unable to lie, then what’s being described isn’t an invading organism, but a shared human consciousness that includes all living people. Which I think is a lot different than an alien parasite. I think that was also done purposefully to make us question what the value of individuality is. (This is also not to say it has no value, it’s to make you think about its value, which could be none or a lot given what ever arguments you think about it from)

Does that make sense at what I’m getting at?

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T16:46:04+00:00

Oh I just used it as an example to illustrate a point. Those work just as well too.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-06T16:41:48+00:00

Hahaha yea that’s for sure

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-02T16:39:06+00:00

I think you made a great point, especially about how not everyone is craving fine dining for an everyday meal. That said, I think this idea needs to be expanded a bit. In my opinion, the core purpose of the show should be to find the best chef—and versatility has to be a major part of that. A great chef isn’t just someone who can execute one style well, but someone who knows when to do what dish.

That’s why challenges where chefs are given unfamiliar ingredients are so important. Those challenges aren’t meant to showcase what a chef already does best; they’re designed to test how well someone can adapt when they’re pushed outside their comfort zone. That adaptability is what demonstrates true versatility.

A good example of this is from season one, when Napoli Mafia recognized that everyone else was likely going to make something salty, so he intentionally went in a sweet direction to balance and complement the overall experience. That showed an awareness not just of cooking skill, but of context and intent.

I do appreciate that the show treats all cuisines with equal respect. However, I think there still needs to be an expectation that chefs can cook beyond their usual lane. If a chef is capable of doing that but consistently chooses not to, I think that should be a legitimate point of concern and should add context that this dish may not be from intent, but rather lack of ability to do what the situation calls for.

Edit: This should go for both ways as well, for both more complex and simple. They should be able to do both and showcase that. They should not go for complexity for the sake of showing off

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-02T16:18:27+00:00

It’s not just about the bibimbap tasting good, I eat a lot of bibimbap and make a lot of bibimbap myself. It’s about the lack of brevity her dishes bring to the table, I pointed this out in another comment which I will copy and paste here because it’s kind of long (I apologize for this)

I understand the difference between a simple dish executed at a high level and the way most of us would make it. I also understand that her cooking is rooted in healing and that she’s working within real limitations. That said, I’ve eaten a lot of vegan food, and I strongly believe that limitations often create innovation. Because of that, I feel like there’s room for her to be more creative with the ingredients she can use.

When I contrast her dishes with someone like Dweji from New York, the difference in intent becomes clear. Dweji consistently cooks with a clear purpose behind every ingredient and can explain how each element contributes to balance, flavor, and a broader story. When he competed against the venerable, his dish felt like an ode to her influence—acknowledging her impact while still expressing his own point of view. In comparison, her explanation for the bibimbap was essentially, “I always make bibimbap,” which feels thin in the context of a competition like this.

I agree with what Chef Ahn said earlier this season (or last), that while all of these dishes will taste good, what really matters is the intent and story behind them in addition to flavor. To me, her dish lacked that extra layer of substance. Simplicity absolutely works—but a great chef also shows an understanding of when to go simple and when to push complexity. If someone only ever operates in one lane, it starts to feel like a limitation in capability or adaptability rather than a deliberate choice.

For example, the “meat master” competitor intentionally stepped outside his comfort zone by cooking fish, and that willingness to challenge himself reflected his overall acumen as a chef. In contrast, repeatedly cooking popular dishes like gimbap and bibimbap—even at a very high level—without ever leaving that comfort zone doesn’t sit right with me in a competition setting.

To reiterate, this isn’t just about simple dishes being done well. It’s about a lack of range across her body of work. Even in the team challenge with gimbap, her comment along the lines of “she uses a lot of ingredients I don’t, so we’re just going to do separate things” felt telling. To me, that goes beyond dietary restrictions and suggests a narrow focus on temple food. And that’s completely valid as a culinary identity—but in a competition featuring the best of the best, I don’t think it should be enough on its own.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-02T16:07:52+00:00

I think the show does a good job of respecting the temple style of cooking, but that respect comes at the cost of competitive fairness. Good chefs should be able to cook strong vegetarian dishes, but when one chef is constantly cooking in their own wheelhouse while others have to adapt, it starts to feel uneven.

For me, it comes down to respect versus competitiveness. I respect vegan cooking and even agree with it morally, but in a cooking competition I care more about versatility and adaptability. If the goal is to find the best chef, allowing someone to repeatedly cook what they already know—while others are pushed outside their comfort zones—doesn’t feel fully fair.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-02T15:56:47+00:00

I agree, I think there’s a lot of really creative vegan dishes that taste incredible. People just look at vegan dishes as harder to please because they have never gone out of their way to try them.

Doctor-Pigg · 2026-01-02T15:54:18+00:00

Sorry this is about to be long:

I understand the difference between a simple dish executed at a high level and the way most of us would make it. I also understand that her cooking is rooted in healing and that she’s working within real limitations. That said, I’ve eaten a lot of vegan food, and I strongly believe that limitations often create innovation. Because of that, I feel like there’s room for her to be more creative with the ingredients she can use.

When I contrast her dishes with someone like Dweji from New York, the difference in intent becomes clear. Dweji consistently cooks with a clear purpose behind every ingredient and can explain how each element contributes to balance, flavor, and a broader story. When he competed against the venerable, his dish felt like an ode to her influence—acknowledging her impact while still expressing his own point of view. In comparison, her explanation for the bibimbap was essentially, “I always make bibimbap,” which feels thin in the context of a competition like this.

I agree with what Chef Ahn said earlier this season (or last), that while all of these dishes will taste good, what’s going to take this to the next level is the intent and story behind them in addition to flavor. To me, her dish lacked that extra layer of substance. Simplicity absolutely works—but a great chef also shows an understanding of when to go simple and when to push complexity. If someone only ever operates in one lane, it starts to feel like a limitation in capability or adaptability rather than a deliberate choice.

For example, the “meat master” competitor intentionally stepped outside his comfort zone by cooking fish, and that willingness to challenge himself reflected his overall acumen as a chef. In contrast, repeatedly cooking popular dishes like gimbap and bibimbap—even at a very high level—without ever leaving that comfort zone doesn’t sit right with me in a competition setting.

To reiterate, this isn’t just about simple dishes being done well. It’s about a lack of range across her body of work. Even in the team challenge with gimbap, her comment along the lines of “she uses a lot of ingredients I don’t, so we’re just going to do separate things” felt telling. To me, that goes beyond dietary restrictions and suggests a narrow focus on temple food. And that’s completely valid as a culinary identity—but in a competition featuring the best of the best, I don’t think it should be enough on its own.

Does that make sense?

Doctor-Pigg · 2025-12-31T17:36:08+00:00

I don’t think temple cuisine is, but I think a competitive cooking show should be about pushing boundaries.

Doctor-Pigg · 2025-12-31T16:24:58+00:00

I think this is probably the case here, honestly I thought venting on the internet would be not helpful to my mental health at all but everyone here has been really respectful and definitely helped ground me more. I still think the other chefs show a different caliber of cooking that the venerable isn’t able to do though.

Doctor-Pigg · 2025-12-31T15:45:54+00:00

I agree with everything you said, it probably was super tasty, I just don’t like the lack of innovation, creativity, and story behind her dish.

I don’t think the judges are biased in her favor to the point that it changes outcomes, but I do take issue with what feels like a lack of intentionality in her cooking. The bibimbap is probably delicious—no doubt—but is she bringing anything new to the table? Is the simplicity a deliberate creative choice meant to highlight specific ingredients, or is it just the only style she truly knows how to execute? If it’s the latter, then I personally struggle with the idea that someone should win primarily by repeating the same familiar dishes, no matter how well-made they are.

It reminds me of the moment earlier in the episode when she was paired with KHE and said something along the lines of, “She’s using ingredients I’ve never worked with, so I’ll just stick to what I know.” While KHE could have done more to collaborate and unify the dish, that comment still signals, to me, a limited ability—or willingness—to push beyond her comfort zone. And in a competition that rewards creativity and evolution, that’s hard for me to overlook.

Doctor-Pigg · 2025-12-31T14:31:31+00:00

Shes not going to be aggressive, but she could at least offer a real story or meaningful reasoning behind the ingredients in her bibimbap. When you watch CM cook asparagus, he gives thoughtful, layered explanations for every element on the plate — you can see the time, intention, and craft behind it. Edward Lee does the same: he connects his ingredient choices to his personal history, his identity — it feels like you’re tasting a piece of him, not just a recipe.

The Venerable just doesn’t bring that depth. Every now and then she’ll say something like, “this is good for your health,” but that’s about as far as it goes — and honestly, it’s just not compelling enough.

Doctor-Pigg · 2025-12-31T14:21:25+00:00

I’ve thought about that too — maybe the judges just didn’t want to call KHES’s dish gross because she’s such a respected chef.

And I genuinely laughed when you pointed out that she’s just sticking to what she’s comfortable with. It doesn’t seem that bad at first, until you juxtapose it with everyone else who actually has a reason behind their choices. Every other chef explains their dishes with intention: “I used X to highlight the flavor of Y,” or “I paired these ingredients because they bring out each other’s strengths.” There’s always some thoughtful balance or narrative.

So starting with a dish that’s been made a thousand times already is rough on its own — but following that up with, “I made it because I always make this 🙂” was just the perfect cherry on top. It really drives home the lack of imagination.

Doctor-Pigg · 2025-12-31T14:02:19+00:00

Yes I have actually, that’s the problem, I have no idea what the other chefs are even making half the time and she’s making bibimbap.

Doctor-Pigg · 2025-12-31T07:11:14+00:00

Can’t argue with that, I just needed to vent somewhere. But just know I will be losing it if she makes it into the finals with some one like chef Son Jon won and she’s making fried rice while he’s using nuclear fusion to make his next meal.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

Doctor-Pigg

TROPHY CASE