So, I was lying in bed a few nights ago, watching Holiday Baking Championship reruns, which I friggen love, most of the time.... But this episode had what my judgmental mind would call a "catty male". I know, I know, that is over the line judgement so now, I'm judging my judgment of others being judgmental and catty. For Christmas sakes! So, the gentleman in the show that I'm referencing was being shown as quite a stinker. And yes, these shows will choose how they will depict the contestants and unfortunately, they chose to depict my catty friend, as well...catty and vindictive. Which are my two least favorite traits. Let's unpack this and then we'll move into the actual purpose of my post.
The Editing Lens
Reality shows are crafted stories. Producers lean into certain archetypes—“the villain,” “the sweetheart,” “the underdog”—because drama keeps viewers hooked. So, when you see someone depicted as catty or vindictive, it’s often less about their whole character and more about the narrative slot they’ve been placed in. Which also annoys me.
The Mirror Lens
My dislike of “catty” and “vindictive” traits is actually a mirror of my own values. I prize dignity, healing, and empowerment. So when you seeing those opposite traits highlighted, it naturally grates against my spirit. The fact that I'm aware of your own judgment might just mean I'm already practicing discernment rather than falling into pure criticism. YAY ME!
The Archetypal Lens
Think of this contestant as embodying the “Trickster in Shadow.” Trickster energy can be playful, witty, and creative—but when distorted, it becomes manipulative or petty. T.V. shows love to spotlight that shadow side because it creates tension. But the Trickster in Shadow reminds us of the importance of integrity, and the Trickster in Light reminds us of humor, innovation, and resilience.
-----------------------------------------------
Now, on to the original thought.
Do you still win if you put another in a deficit?
I'm sitting here watching the holiday baking championships because I thoroughly enjoy them. I love baking shows.
The concept of the show that I'm watching is that bakers go up against each other and then they win rewards. One of the rewards was that the winner of the challenge was able to choose an ingredient that another cook had to bake with. The winner was being interviewed, and he announced that it's still a competition so he had a plan to create deficits for his competition, having them cook with things they don't like.
My question is: if you're putting somebody else at a deficit do you really win?
There are really two ways to look at this:
The Competitive Lens
In the rules of the game, yes—you “win” if you outperform others, even if part of your strategy is to make another's path more difficult.
Many competitions are designed with these mechanics: Survivor, Chopped, even sports drafts. The system itself rewards not just skill but tactical advantage.
From this perspective, the win is valid because it’s within the agreed framework. Right?
The Integrity Lens
Winning by creating deficits raises the question of whether the victory is about your own excellence or about exploiting someone else’s weakness.
If the joy of competition is showcasing your best, then a win feels more authentic when it comes from your own mastery rather than another’s struggle.
Spiritually speaking, when we “win” by diminishing others- or stealing from others, we may gain the trophy but lose the deeper sense of dignity or growth.
The Deeper Reflection
True victory often comes from elevating yourself, not suppressing others.
Yet, life constantly presents us with “ingredients we don’t like”—unexpected challenges, limitations, or deficits. Sometimes those very obstacles reveal creativity and resilience.
So perhaps the real win isn’t just the baker who imposed the deficit, but the one who transforms that deficit into brilliance.