100 Humans – Netflix Season 1 Review

 

Season 1

 

 

Episode Guide

What Makes Us Attractive?
The Best Age To Be Alive
Let’s Talk About Sex
Are You Biased?
Pain VS Pleasure
How To Be Happy
Can You Trust Your Senses?
Ask A Human

 

 

As someone who obsessively pores over data, stats and trends, 100 Humans is a geek’s worst nightmare. Part comedy-part scientific research study, 100 Humans attempts to blend both these styles together as effectively as mixing yoghurt with chili powder, wrapped in butter and thrown in the oven for 20 minutes. For some, this bizarre combination of ideas will be a perfect medley of light-hearted fun but for many, 100 Humans fails to really satisfy the palate.

On paper, 100 Humans is actually quite an interesting idea. 100 diverse human beings from different backgrounds (within the United States of course) are brought together for 40 different experiments to work out once and for all what makes humans so unique. Boasting this as a fool-proof method with the tag-line “Life’s Questions. Answered.” you’d be forgiven for thinking this experiment is a be-all and end-all for solving these different questions. Unfortunately this is far from the truth.

“This show is all about deceit”, we’re told during episode 3 as 100 Humans openly admits that this is not to be taken seriously. If you go in expecting something more thought provoking and scientifically accurate, be prepared to be disappointed. This is not an accurate show by any stretch of the imagination and although it tries to emulate the same sort of wacky feel shows like Braniac nail so well, the show stumbles when it comes to its science – or lack thereof. However, it’s easy to think otherwise given the way the show presents its material with various diagrams, expository text and “experts” in these chosen fields to back up the ideas being presented.

At the heart of this big experiment are the show’s three presenters – Alie, Zainab and Sammie. Together they try to inject some discriminatory or toilet humour into the fold but mostly their banter fails to hit the right notes across the show. Essentially each episode has an overarching agenda – from working out who the best sex is to learning what really makes people happy. Within these questions are several different experiments designed to pit 100 random humans against one another to solve the bigger ideas. Only, the show only serves to cause more debate within the way it conducts each of these.

One experiment sees the group deduce that women are better at multi-tasking than men (which ironically has been proven scientifically not to be the case as it’s too difficult to judge) while another time the group try to deduce if dancing and high sperm count have a correlation. The experiments are wacky, out the box and at times enjoyable but the manner in which the entire show is presented gives the illusion that this is pedaling the truth which does become irritating the longer the show goes on – especially given the lackadaisical way some of these experiments are presented.

Given the lack of a disclaimer at the start to inform people this is entertainment and not to be taken as definitive science, the tag-line and presentation of this does feel a bit misleading. Ironically the final experiment in the last episode hits the nail on the edge – proving all three presenters wrong during an applause experiment as they seem convinced that the applause will die down after an extended period of time. Which it doesn’t.

As an actual idea, 100 Humans is not a bad one. There are some stand out segments and a few of the experiments are actually quite good fun but as a scientific study and more of a serious debate, 100 Humans fails spectacularly. It’s akin to expecting a Love Island contestant to step forward and deliver a rousing speech on behalf of the Prime Minister – it’s not going to end well. If you can go into this with an open mind you may find something in this to enjoy but 100 Humans is probably the most accurate title – 1 in 100 Humans may actually enjoy this, the rest most definitely will not.


Click Here To Go Back To Our TV Show Reviews

  • 1.5/10
    Verdict - 1.5/10
1.5/10

12 thoughts on “100 Humans – Netflix Season 1 Review”

  1. I found 100 Humans to be very bigoted and racist in a reverse sort of way.

    In the last episode I watched, they cited an experiment from the 1940s, where 100 children were given a choices of dolls that were identical except for skin color. The offensive part of the show was that the host stated that the white children were called “the bigoted children” and they cited that the “bigoted children”chose the white skinned dolls to play with and they used the term “white bias” to explain it. Problem is, they didnt even mention the results from the black children. The entire show was aimed at the white children and how they were bigoted.

    It all seemed like a racially slanted approach and was clearly meant to be overly PC. This show has no rooting in science or unbiased scientific approaches and it is apparently simply entertainment and only serves the purpose of enforcing the host’s and the network’s opinions of themselves.

    That was my third, but also my last episode of this farce of a show.

  2. This is a boring, politically correct show that bashes men and white people. The history Alie is the biggest idiot on the show. Like another commenter stated, I watched this as a diversion to the miserable state of things currently and am absolutely disgusted by the racial stereotypes. This is a decisive show and certainly nothing I’d want my children being exposed to.

  3. The more I watch this show, the more I get annoyed. As some people have said, if there were a disclaimer that says it is “entertainment” and not scientific, then perhaps it would have been better.

    Like a few people commented above, I found that Alie, one of the hosts, often makes derogatory comments towards men. Also, in the racial bias with the guns, it was completely not fair. If it had been fair, then both of the men would have been wearing the same colour t-shirt, they would have had the same colour of cell phone AND BOTH MEN would have been wearing a hat (or no hat). With the hat, you can’t see the person’s face.
    These “experiments” don’t take into account each individual person’s ability (ie. some people are more outgoing than others, so when they had to perform the jokes, then some people are more comfortable being in front of a room of people).
    I find that this show is interesting, but not accurate and it comes across as claiming to be factual, when really the “experiments” are set up to be completely biased for entertainment purposes.
    I’m only halfway through…I chose this show to distract myself from the hours that are happening in the real world right now, but instead I’m finding that it’s quite annoying. D’oh!

  4. Absolutely hated this show, expected an informative, interesting show or something, got an awful, “funny”, sexual and just downright unbearable show. In particular one episode was bad: “Let’s Talk About Sex”. this was talking about gender, not, y’know, the thing a thirteen-year-old isn’t supposed to talk about. In this episode, it explored the differences and advantages to decide the “better” sex. With silly studies, biased results, and variables which skew the already biased results, this episode decided that women were the better sex. It was obvious that the tests were biased toward women, or at least what the camera decided to show. In one example, a multitasking experiment, the women won due to being able to answer questions, stir cake batter, and play whack-a-mole all while caring for a fake infant. It seemed to me, although my own opinion itself may be biased toward my own sex, that while the questions women seemed to ace were simple questions about past life and highschool, and the questions men bombed on were difficult math problems and such (with the exception of 12+4). Many tests seemed acted and the commentator Alie ward was extremely toxic toward the opposite sex. She blatantly stated multiple times that women are better than men. Even when men won a point, they brought in some gender studies woman to explain why women were actually victims rather than being worse at something. At the end, the show states that women are scientifically proven to be better than men and that, my friends is an awful thing to tell young men. I don’t know if it’s true, but if someone can tell you, it’s not these people. This show is an awful tragedy and not on purpose. If you read all the way through, thanks for listening to my tangent on that one episode because it bugged me pretty bad. Any young men who watch that particular episode would definitely not feel better about themselves in a society that’s already starting to attack masculinity.

  5. I thought that the shows #1 issue was data dredging. Some experiments obviously had been set up to foster a specific result, and the analysis of the data was open to complete bias. One of the most egregious examples was when they did the clapping experiment. The last usually gets a lot of applause, and the awards they gave out had obvious peaks and pits. Sexiest is going to get more of a reaction than best smile. Another bias that shows up is later into the show certain humans started showing up more frequently in the “randomized” trials.

  6. I agree with the reviewer here, and most of the other comments. This show is presented as a fun and playful series of experiments, not intending to convey any actual scientific research. And yet, they seem to underlie most of their little experiments with very bad and unscientific premises in the first place, which are amplified and then reinforced by stating the conclusions of the experiments with a very “matter of fact” series of presentations. They try to further enhance the faux legitimacy by doing short interviews with a few “college professors” from social justice activist organizations and fake scientific fields like Gender Studies, who present sweeping statements of “fact” that have now allegedly been proven and reinforced by the silly experiments. But they have no control groups, no confounding variables, no mention of sample size, and no apparent understanding of the fundamentals of how to properly design a peer-reviewed empirical study with reproduceable and falsifiable data.

    Sadly, what this show looks like more than anything else, is a fairly accurate representation of the state of research on most college campuses in the United States in 2020. The STEM fields and other scientifically legitimate fields of research, where the stated goal is to find TRUTH and REALITY, regardless of one’s personal, political, or religious ideology are being replaced by this sort of faux intellectualism, which has the form and appearance of being academic because people proffer their cockamamie social theories, write papers allegedly supporting them, and are awarded prestigious-sounding degrees, without even understanding the difference between this kind of garbage and actual scientific research.

  7. In Season 1, Episode 4, “Are you biased?” It would have been interested to see them run the gun experiment in which the white guy was wearing a red shirt, and the black man wore green. I think they didn’t account for the variable that red is perceived as a threat much more quickly than other colors in nature.

    “The color red increases the heartbeat and causes faster breathing. It is an intense and powerful color and as such, is associated with demand and aggression. Red is also known to stimulate our appetite. In business, red is known as a “call to action” color. The website for First Aid Dorset, an organization offering CPR classes in the UK, is a great example of using the color red to drive visitors to take action.”

    “The color green is known as the easiest color on the eye. It has a relaxing effect. This is why, interestingly enough, people who are about to appear on a TV show, wait in a green room so they can relax before their appearance. The website for the TV show Portlandia is a great example of the use of the color green to create a calming sensation for the visitor.”

    https://www.intechnic.com/blog/color-psychology-101-how-color-affects-perception-of-your-website/

  8. To respond to the comment on the bias of the gun experiment, I could not help to be extremely annoyed over this experiment. They claim there is absolutely no differences between the black and white man who jumped out, but there differences even larger than the colour of the phone or stance of position. They boast over there being no difference other than race, but continue to try to make the results more substantial by using someone the participants knew to play the black man. The majority of individuals who can critically evaluate psychological research will consider the fact of familiarity effect. It absolutely can not be inferred that the participants had bias toward black men to be dangerous when they are using a black man these people are drawn to through familiarity, and it especially can not be considered as even stronger displays of racial bias because they have a connection with this man.

    Absolutely atrocious science. And as the reviewer said, it is fun for the average public but a nightmare for “geeks” or professionals in research. Although I agree it can be fun if you don’t understand research, but it’s bothersome that the public will receive this as truth when it is not.

  9. Personally, I took offense to Season 1: Episode 4. Not that I don’t agree there is way too much bias in the world, but their gun experiment was such an obvious set up. They had a white male and a black male jump out at the same time, both holding cell phones, to see if most participants would shoot the black male. They boasted there were no differences except the color of their skin. There were major differences! First, the black male’s cell phone was black (like the guns the supposed criminals were holding) while the white male’s phone was gray. Next, the black male jumped out simulating a shooting stance, while the white male looked as if he was taking a picture with his cell phone each time. Finally, the room was very dim. The untrained shooter would choose to shoot the black male almost every time, which is what happened. Not because of the color of his skin, but because the shooter panicked and he looked like an aggressor. After each session, the shooters were introduced to the black male and none of them knew that he was someone they knew well from the set. They were in such a panic, they didn’t even see his face before they shot him. If they wanted to state their opinion that racial bias is still alive and active, then prove it by using unknowing participants in an elaborate movie set, they nailed it.

  10. Bias much? Doesn’t agree with what you want to believe doesn’t make it wrong. Personally I like it because it has me checking myself & my bias & laughing. IMO any thing that encourages self reflection is a good thing. Self reflection leads to change, when dont right the change is good. It a fun show for open minded ppl. You dont have to agree with any of the outcomes but you might learn something about yourself.

  11. I lost interest in watching it when they tried to prove that women are actually more punctual and respect time more than men, and everybody knows that it’s not true.

  12. This s how is so awful. It is bad science and bad data. For example, they asked a bunch of people who made more money, a man or a woman. More people guessed the man made more. Therefore — they concluded — it’s proof that women are paid less than men. When obviously that’s not true (and it isn’t – that is a myth). The only thing people saying t hey guessed a woman made less proves is that people believe in that myth. There were no facts involved. The rest of the shows are just like that. It’s basically a bunch of SJW garbage over and over again. And when they don’t get the result they want, they find a way to navigate the result into supporting their pre-formed bias.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *