Method acting is commonly misunderstood as a thinly veiled excuse for white male actors to terrorize their coworkers while claiming it as an essential part of their process, but the reality is far less sensational. The bulk of the work of method acting largely revolves around two things-- a character's objectives, and their tactics. Their super-objective is their over arching want throughout the story, while regular objectives are more short term, and their tactics are their strategic approaches to getting what they want over the course of the story. The thought behind method acting is that teaching actors to get into character by understanding the thoughts and motivations of their character will help them to give a more authentic performance, but training one's brain to understand people through this lens has benefits beyond far beyond the stage, even on a remote island in Fiji. No matter how many twists and turns are added to Survivor, it still remains a game of social politics, and if there's ever an environment in which it is useful to be able to quickly identify when someone's actions are not in line with their purported objective, it is when stranded on a beach with a group of strangers who are all fighting for the same million (or more) dollar prize.
On Survivor, as with every other competition reality television show, every player's super-objective is typically the same-- to win the game, and take home the cash prize. The Cookout alliance on Big Brother 23 was a notable exception to this rule, which was a key element to their success-- a factor that new houseguests always seem to forget when vocalizing their aspirations to imitate their strategy. The most often cited element of their successful gameplay is their parachute alliance strategy, as had been seen before with the Brigade alliance on season 12 as well-- having each member of the core alliance create a very public duo with another houseguest, so if they do end up on the block, they are put up next to their public duo, ensuring that the core alliance is not forced to turn on each other. But the reason why they were able to successfully implement that strategy all the way until the end is because they shared an atypical, collective super-objective-- to ensure that their season had the first ever Black winner. The success of the alliance hinged on the willingness of some members (particularly, the women) to make personal sacrifices for the good of the collective. In typical circumstances, even players who are closely aligned, and have every intention of going to the end together, often have clashing objectives, because no two people have identical paths to getting to the end with win equity.
As much as people often like to think of themselves as being good at telling when someone is lying to them, there is no perfect formula, and the best we can do is guess. As the saying goes, "trust words, not actions" but when the action that indicates where one stands is casting a vote at tribal council, and by the time when their dishonesty is revealed, you, or one of your closest allies is going home, how do you determine who to trust and not? While there is no perfect solution (especially if you have a player in the game who is an unpredictable wild card), the most reliable indicator is whether their actions are in line with what they have claimed their objective to be.
For example, in episode 2 of Survivor 51, we saw a real plan to flip and take out Ana, and the fake plan to unanimously take out Eric, which Rob, Ana, and Carter were left out of (Ori was made aware of the plan, but vocally disapproved. Whether he knew for sure where all the votes were going remains to be seen). At Tribal Council, we saw Rob pull aside Eric, the person all other eight players claimed to be voting out unanimously, and whisper in his ear. While it could certainly be plausible that those closest to Rob would give him the benefit of the doubt and not panic, what are the odds that the other half of the tribe stays calm and unbothered when someone they do not have established trust with starts whispering to the person who is supposed to go home? We as viewers know that the reason they are not panicking is because they have an entirely different plan that Rob is fully out of the loop on, so their actions make perfect sense to us, but it should be cause for concern if their intentions were what they claimed them to be.
It is of course understandable that Rob did not pick up on this in the moment-- he clearly had a lot on his mind, and had been struggling with the rain, and lack of sleep, but that is exactly why having training in method acting is such a useful skill to come into the game with. Many of the best laid plans slip away when a person is in conditions that have them struggling to think straight. But when it is a habit to see a person's actions through a specific framework, because that is what your brain is trained to do, it is much more likely to stick, even in stressful, difficult circumstances, which will improve your odds of noticing when something is off, giving you information to act on and potentially turn things around before it is too late.
On the flip side, method acting training can help a player create an airtight story more seamlessly, decreasing the odds that anyone will catch on. Many former contestants have mentioned that the two biggest clues that something is awry is when a player can't answer the question of who the target thinks everyone is voting for (because their name is just the decoy, and the person they'll be voting for is you), and when a player blindy agrees to any plan suggested, without any pushback or talking through the strategy to confirm it is the right decision. As long as they have the votes to send you home regardless, it doesn't really matter what you think is going to happen, so what is the point in pushing back on any plan you propose?
While playing a character for the duration of one's time on the island while dealing with starvation, sleep deprivation, and extreme stress is unrealistic for even the most talented and experienced actors, playing a slight variation of oneself for a night is much more practical. You don't have to craft an entirely different persona. You just have to ask yourself, "If I wanted to keep my target, and vote out someone else, what would I do?" and go into conversations with anyone being kept out of the loop for that tribal prepared. Anyone is theoretically capable of doing these things, but as we often see, people miss steps and forget when they're tired. The more this process is ingrained in a person's brain, the more natural it becomes to follow it.
Finally, method acting training can help a person come into final tribal council prepared. As Aubry Bracco discussed after Survivor 50, an important element in winning the game is knowing how to explain the story of one's game in a way that validates the experiences of the jury, which requires an understanding of what they want to see in a winner. While training in method acting is certainly not the only way of improving one's ability to read people and frame a story in a way that is persuasive to them (Aubry's background in marketing was likely very helpful in that regard), winning a jury vote is all about identifying what the jury wants, and giving it to them, and method acting is all about figuring out what characters (who, if well written, feel very human) want.
As Jon Dalton said after using a manufactured lie about his grandmother dying to win a reward challenge on Survivor: Pearl Islands, "This is a game for a million dollars. I have one chance in my life at this. You should take every single advantage possible. If you don't, you're a fool." Many Survivor hopefuls spend years training in the gym, creating challenges in their backyard, making fire, and 3D printing puzzles, without knowing for certain if any of the things they practiced will come into use for them in the game. The social element of the game is ever present, so with a minimum of a million dollars on the line, why not take up a hobby that will help to make a habit out of seeing life from the perspective of people different than oneself, and making the connection between what different kinds of people want, and how they would go about getting it? It's worth a shot.