OK, I'll be the non-conformist here and admit that I did watch a few minutes of "Survivor" now and then. It was too corny to watch for a full hour, but I did catch about ten minutes per episode. I accept full responsibility for America's decline into moral, cultural and intellectual decay.
Seriously, though, the show was interesting from the angle of being an experiment in game theory and psychology. The challenge for the contestants wasn't so much "survival" against the forces of nature as figuring out how to simultaneously compete against the other contestants while staying popular enough to avoid being voted out of the game. As a viewer, I was interested in seeing how successful each contestant's strategy was.
Some of the games within the larger game were also interesting. For instance, in the last episode, the last three contestants were given an "immunity challenge", the winner of which would get to kick one of the other contestants off the island. The game was simple: each player had to stand in the sun with one hand on a wooden pole. The last person to maintain contact with the pole would be the winner.
At one level, this was a straightforward test of will power. At another level, though, it was an opportunity for some psychological gamesmanship. A player who didn't expect to outlast the others could drop out early, thereby making the eventual winner think that the second place player was the more dangerous opponent and therefore the best choice for elimination. (And in fact, this is what the show's overall winner did.) Or a player could have used verbal means to persuade the others to give up (although as far as I saw, no one did). The obvious strategy would have been to give each of the other players a swift kick but I think the rules of the game prohibited that.
Hmmm... Looking back, the thing about "Survivor" that annoyed me the most was seeing the contestants make so many dumb strategic choices. In light of who won the last two presidential elections, I suppose that shouldn't have been any surprise.