Survivor Season 30, episodes 1-5

I'm feeling fairly solid at this point.  I haven't yet seen some obviously incompetent  defeat some more obviously capable person.

Episode 1, So Kim and Joaquin proved to be untrustable (hopefully permanently) and So got sent home.
Episode 2, Vince showed too much attachment, plus or minus, and repelled a number of others.
Episode 3, Nina tried too hard to play the victim.  She may not realize that she's playing that role.  She got voted out, and may finally realize that it was because she played a role that was unwanted.
Episode 4, Meh.  Lindsey got removed.  I didn't hate her, but I didn't love her.
Episode 5, Max was a bit of a weirdo.  Things were in a considerable bit of flux.  The instability he represented was something that others had a responsibility to redact.

I can hope that the rest of the season makes sense.  But after last season, I'm trying to restrain my hopes.  Last season really poisoned me on the series.

The Curse of Knowledge

Have you recently started to recoil in horror at having to know [pick something]?  I didn't previously recoil from knowledge.  I assimilated it.  Then when queried about anything related to the topic, I regurgitated some simulacrum of what I had consumed.  I never once thought about attribution, but my domains were generally websites, chat channels, and spoken word.  The purpose was to spread knowledge.
Sadly, I'm starting to develop a habit of recoiling in horror at having to learn things because to learn it means that sooner or later, I'll have to cite the source of the damned thing.  My memory is vast, but I CAN NOT remember every stupid source for every stupid fact or opinion which I absorb.  I could take some machine I have and make it a database of "where I got [x] from" thinger, but that's totally unrealistic.  Maybe I could push that database into the cloud (and then pay for that ... monthly) but again, that's wasteful.  What is the purpose?

Is wisdom intended to be only held for a short term and then destroyed?

I tend to buy books, not necessarily because I intend to read them again, but because it is a story that I really love.  If I later pass those to my nieces and nephews am I doing a service or a disservice by expanding their knowledge?  If that child, which I love, then says (or types) something that they got from some book that I passed them, will they then be accused of plagiarism?  Will I be culpable in causing grief and possibly permanent damage to the reputation of a child which I love?  Is my responsibility then to keep the child ignorant of things I know?  Further, is it my responsibility to keep myself ignorant of as much as possible because to learn things can cause irreparable harm later? Should I shield instead of exposing my extended family to Piers Anthony, Robert Heinlein, R.A. Salvatore, and Stephen King because some idea or phrasing may "look like" something that they may formulate on their own later?

The species seems to be in flux and day-by-day, ignorance seems to be heralded as a virtue while wisdom seems to be shunned.  Is wisdom no longer wanted?  Is it the goal to be an ignorant sheep that does what it is told, and no thought is applied?

(side note: I somewhat equate wisdom and knowledge, though they're not exactly the same.  Intelligence is something else which isn't strictly necessary.  Some unintelligent people make some very good decisions regularly because they know who/what to listen to and who/what to not listen to.  Some "intelligent" people make some really dumb decisions, REPEATEDLY because they're using "facts" that are entirely false.  You get some real facts to penetrate those craniums, and those people will either recoil in horror at what they've done, or they'll embrace the dark side and keep going.)