Talk:The Moment of Truth (American game show)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Moment of Truth (American game show) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: Game shows Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television game shows task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

okay why is there a section on copyright? i'm going to take it out because just because it doesn't have a copyright notice, does not mean it is not copyrighted. see http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.125.243 (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sensing we'll have to move the episode summaries to their own page at some point, but that's me. Ratna0 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sense in deleting this. If we can just re-write it, it can be salvaged. I will remove what appears to be copyrighted. --Jnelson09 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, exactly, is it pertinent information that the show uses video stabilization?--154.20.48.27 (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticisms" section

Repeatedly, someone (mostly as an IP) keeps adding a section titled "Criticism" (or more recently, "Polygraph accuracy") to the article. The most recent version read as follows:

"The implicit assumption is that the polygraph infallibly indicates the real truth. Since the questions become increasingly embarrassing, contestants may not wish to answer them, but since the polygraph answer will in any case be revealed there is no reason to not answer truthfully. Estimates place the accuracy of polygraphs at between 61% and 95%, with an estimated 10-15% of people being falsely labelled as untruthful. ^[1] Since the polygraph is not infallibly correct there is a high element of chance in the game. If every answer was correct 95% of the time, there would only be a 34% chance of getting all 21 answers to show as true."

With regards to the above text, there is a reference for the statistics about polygraphs (a 2002 USA Today article). The text following that is not validated by any references, and appear to be calculations based on the statistics. This, by itself, is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no indication that anyone has raised the question of polygraph accuracy with respect to this show. Now, there is nothing wrong with presenting negative views on a subject, be it a television series or whatever. However, the criticisms *must* come from a verifiable, reliable source before we can add it to an article. Wikipedians cannot post their own analysis of a subject, or make inferences based on original research or analysis of a subject. I would strongly encourage the individual who is adding this text to read through Wikipedia's core policies, including:

No original research ("Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.")

and:

Verifiability ("Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."

before proceeding further. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're splitting hairs, here... the citation shows the data, and common-sense math can calculate the assertions given by the editor... that's not original research, that's called math. That said, it could be reworded to be a little more fair considering the reference. -- ChadScott (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's not "splitting hairs"... (and before I continue, I'll make it absolutely clear that I have no interest in "protecting" this show - I don't watch it, nor do I care about it.) The math may be perfect (I'm not saying it is, I haven't checked) but we (meaning, Wikipedia's editors) are not permitted to draw conclusions or present original analysis on a subject. The editor's text is doing just that - making a case as to the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the show's premise, based on his or her own research. If USA Today had published an article which stated "Professor Smith of ABC University has questioned the accuracy of the show based on the reliability of polygraphs," then it would be fine for inclusion. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if an article says "the weight of one gram of lead is X" and an editor calculates a kilogram weighs Y, is that original research? Mathematical odds are not original research... they're results of calculated data. Like I said, though, the paragraph could be edited to make it a little more fair considering the source rather than wholly deleted. Remember that everyone's contribution is important here within the tenets of Wikipedia. -- ChadScott (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, contributions are important - but they do have to meet the standards set by Wikipedia's core policies. If we look at the text in question, the only text that meets those standards is:

"Estimates place the accuracy of polygraphs at between 61% and 95%, with an estimated 10-15% of people being falsely labelled as untruthful.^[1]"

The calculation itsself is also problematic, because there is no clear explanation of how it was derived from the source material. (If we look at the USA Today article, their numbers are rather vague, saying that polygraphs have accuracy results of "between 61% and 95%" with "an estimated 10-15% of people being falsely labelled". That information is being used in a Wikipedia article to make an assertion that this series has only "a 34% chance" of being accurate.

Straightforward calculations for basic concepts aren't the issue... many astronomy articles, for example, include calculations based on referenced facts. The problem lies in how the statistics about the accuracy of polygraphs are being used to make a challenge to the supposed accuracy of the series, instead of to support referenced text about third-party challenges to that accuracy. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those situations where you're saying almost what I am, but you don't realize it. This *is* a straight-forward calculation: if polygraphs are 61 to 95% accurate, as cited, then therefore the accuracy of any particular answer by a contestant, as vetted by the polygraph examiner, must also be between 61 and 95% accurate, no? I think you're stretching "original research" a bit... if I were to say that I had determined, on the basis of 100 different polygraphs I had looked at, that they were 95% accurate, that's original research. If I cite a study that says polygraphs are 95% accurate and state that *studies have shown that* 95% of the polygraphic answers accurate, and therefore the odds of success are X, that's a conclusion supported by the cited data. If "original research" means "finding data supporting a mathematical conclusion I write," then that eliminates a lot of edits. This editor even went so far as to quote the best case statistics given the cited data, which is the most conservative approach, and you're shooting them down on the basis that they're not quoting a specific citation stating their statistics that are easily calculable. For example, if I state "Ferraris accelerate much faster than Corvettes" and cite a table showing relative torque between the two brands, that's not original research, that's simply stating a conclusion supported by the data. I *agree* that it should be reworded, for many of the reasons you state, but you make (well, made; you make a slight concession above) it sound as if the entire statement is unacceptable and that's what I have a problem with. -- ChadScott (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to address the 34% versus 95% versus 15%... just because the numbers don't make sense to you doesn't make them wrong. :) If every question has a 95% chance of being accurate with a 15% false negative rate, when compared to the response from the contestant, then over the entire *series* of questions the contestant has to answer to reach the highest prize, their compound odds of successfully reaching that level are only 34%. I'm certainly not a math major and am doing much of this math in my head, but it sounds right to me. And, to be clear, no, I didn't write the section in question. -- ChadScott (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset)

And if every question was right 61% of the time there is a 0.003% chance of getting 21 of them to show true. But 34% is a low enough percent to demonstrate the point that there is a large element of chance - no need to make it absurd, and clearly the polygraph they are using is better than 61% accurate. Just for the record I wrote some of the section, the rest was copied from previous versions. To me the two essential points in the section are that there is no reason to not attempt to answer truthfully, because in any case the polygraph answer (which is assumed to be true) will be given ["unless your goal is to humiliate yourself AND not win the prize money"](emphasis added) and two that there is a large element of chance in the game because of the unreliability of the polygraph. The section started out as a criticism section, but that is really not the essence of the section. And no it isn't OR when you multiply two numbers, even repeatedly (21 times). 199.125.109.2 (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the copy to try to make it acceptable. However, the "there is no reason to not attempt to answer truthfully" text has to come out unless you can supply a reference that meets the "reliable sources" guideline. The blog link you supplied doesn't meet that test, as it is a user-supplied entry on a blog. (Again, I'll emphasize that I have no interest in glorifying the series, only in making sure that we present accurate, properly sourced material. If you can find reliable sources to support the disputed text, I'll be just as vigorous in defending it if someone tries to remove it.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you watched the show? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the polygraph version of the answer is given and that is assumed to be the true answer, and that you are still going to humiliate yourself whether you give the "true" answer or you let the polygraph give the "true" answer. 199.125.109.2 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Vergano, Dan (2002). "Telling the truth about lie detectors". USA Today. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Cite error: The named reference "usa" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Lauren

Do we care? MySpace Some modeling agency Jjaazz (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABOUT POLYGRAPH ACCURACY (Where is the mistake?)

If ACCURACY=95% Then ( the Truth is detected as Truth ) Or (a Lie is detected as a Lie) in 95% of cases. However, in 5% of cases (the Truth is detected as a Lie) Or ( a Lie is detected as Truth). So, if somebody always tells the Truth then his chances of being eliminated due to a polygraph mistake are, at the first question, just 5%. In other words, the probability of passing is 95%. The probability of passing the second question is 95%*95%, the third (95%)^3 the twenty first (95%)^21=34%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.35.186 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008

Sorry but in both cases you lose because your answer whether true or false does not agree with the polygraph. 95% accuracy means you agree with the lie detector 95% of the time. There is no difference between you lying and the lie detector falsely saying you are telling the truth and you telling the truth and the polygraph saying you are not - in both cases you lose. 199.125.109.2 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation "95% accuracy means you agree with the lie detector 95% of the time" So, if you always tell the Truth, 95% accuracy means that in 5% of cases you are detected as a layer. If you always lie, 95% accuracy means that in 5% of cases you are detected as a Truth teller. So the probability to pass all the 21 questions is (95%)^21=34%. Thank You for the correction. So it was not (97.5%)^21 but (95%)^21=34%.

Oh no, you wrote "95% accuracy means that in 5% of cases you are detected as a layer." What happens if they find out Im a layer? What are the charges? Should I flee the country? I mean, no one has ever accused someone of being a "layer" before. I am really worried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.228.8 (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So once again: WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR?

!! Somebody here stated that even if you always tell the truth, due to the imperfection of the polygraph, you have the chance to be cataloged as a liar and in consequence loose the money. After 21 questions which are your chances to loose if you always tell the truth? This is the problem we have to solve !!

1) If the polygraph is perfect then each time you tell the truth (and you always tell it) you are detected as a truth teller with 100% probability so you pass from question to question till you reach the 21st without any problem and finally you win the money.

2) If the polygraph is not perfect, first of all we have to define what 95% accuracy means. In the particular case when I always tell the truth (because this is our case of interest, we do not take in discussion what would happen if I lied) it means that on average from each 100 questions I am asked I am incorrectly detected as a liar for 5 of them which also means that if I am asked a single question (and I tell the truth) I have 95% chances to be acknowledged by the polygraph as a truth teller. If I am asked a second question my chances to pass it will be 0.95*0.95. For 21 questions my chances to pass, one by one, all of them will be 0.95*0.95*..21 times..*0.95=0.34=34% which also means that from 100 contesters (all 100% truth tellers), who have the ambition to answer all 21 questions, on average 100-34=66 will incorrectly loose!! due to the imperfection of the polygraph!!

CONCLUSION: AT A POLYGRAPH ACCURACY = 95% YOUR CHANCES (AS A TOTAL TRUTH TELLER) TO INCORRECTLY LOOSE AFTER ANSWERING 21 QUESTIONS ARE 66% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.35.186 (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can make that "at least 66%", and closer to 99%. See for example what happens if the lie detector is accurate 80% of the time - it goes to 100 - 100 x (0.80^21) = 99.08% 199.125.109.25 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a table you can include if you wish:

Probability of agreement
	Lie detector accuracy
Questions	80	83	86	89	92	95
1	80%	83%	86%	89%	92%	95%
2	64%	69%	74%	79%	85%	90%
3	51%	57%	64%	70%	78%	86%
4	41%	47%	55%	63%	72%	81%
5	33%	39%	47%	56%	66%	77%
6	26%	33%	40%	50%	61%	74%
7	21%	27%	35%	44%	56%	70%
8	17%	23%	30%	39%	51%	66%
9	13%	19%	26%	35%	47%	63%
10	11%	16%	22%	31%	43%	60%
11	9%	13%	19%	28%	40%	57%
12	7%	11%	16%	25%	37%	54%
13	5%	9%	14%	22%	34%	51%
14	4%	7%	12%	20%	31%	49%
15	4%	6%	10%	17%	29%	46%
16	3%	5%	9%	15%	26%	44%
17	2%	4%	8%	14%	24%	42%
18	2%	3%	7%	12%	22%	40%
19	1%	3%	6%	11%	21%	38%
20	1%	2%	5%	10%	19%	36%
21	1%	2%	4%	9%	17%	34%

It was computed just by multiplying out the accuracy to the number of questions. By the way, it would be pointless to add a column for 98% - it would show that 65% of contestants could get all 21 right just by being truthful, and that clearly isn't happening. 199.125.109.68 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Peterson

Reps for Drew Peterson Ask 'Moment of Truth' Producers to Give Him Lie-Detector Test on Air Has anything happened with this? Worthy of mention in article? Jjaazz (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Lie detectors are controvertial in a court of law. While "we would all like to know", you won't find out from a lie detector test. 199.125.109.25 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add original research

Unless you have reliable sources that directly relates to the methodology used by the show, any comments about polygraphs are almost certainly original research, off-topic, or make the article biased. Furthermore, if the contestants understand that they're attempting to tell the truth as a machine says it to be and not as an omniscient mind knows it to be, there is no controversy. It's actually similar to a referee making the wrong call in a sporting event. We don't need to put "controversy" sections on every single sport saying that sometimes the referee makes the wrong call. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple math is not original research. Quit stripping all content from the article. The polygraph section hasn't been used to show controversy for a long time now. It is simply used to explain the mechanics of the show. 199.125.109.68 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text you're adding does not have consensus for inclusion, and it still includes OR and uncited material. It would be far more beneficial to reach a consensus here, rather than just continuously reverting. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there certainly is no consensus for removing it, I can tell you that. The article has been repeatedly stripped of all content, and for no reason. Obviously readers would like to see this content included. You would have a very hard time proving OR, and as far as I could see all of it was well sourced, other than perhaps the last sentence, "the series requires contestants to sign an agreement that they will accept the conclusions drawn by the polygraph examiner", and I think I have seen a source for that. The idea is to write articles, not to delete sections from them, at least not until they get a whole lot bigger than this one. 199.125.109.68 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your numbers constitute original research. Unless you know the methodology used in the show, your numbers are just speculation. What if the show uses multiple polygraph experts to determine the results of each question? What if they ask redundant or similar questions? What if they discard questions with disputed or contradictory results? If we don't know these answers, the chart is little more than speculation. Even the section about the accuracy of polygraphs should be removed. Those sources pertain to the accuracy of polygraphs in general and are not a discussion of the merits of the TV show. Furthermore, a criticism of the polygraph is akin to going to every sports article and adding a section saying, "Sometimes the referees make the wrong call. Scientific studies show that referees are not omniscient." It's just part of the game, and there is no evidence right now in published print that there is a public dialogue about the accuracy of the TV show. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the proposed inclusion, has problems as written, it smacks of using the article to advance your opinion - see WP:OR Elsendero (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table is clearly original research as understood by Wikipedia and should not be in the article.Doug Weller (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table does not draw any conclusions, it simply displays the mathematics involved and should be included in the article. 199.125.109.68 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methodology

I came here hoping for anything about the methodology that wasn't listed in the opening credits of the show... (mostly after my wife said, "Wait, if you've been asked every question before the show, why do people appear so shocked?!" and I had no idea.) Does anyone know anything about the methodology of the show? What makes it a game in the first place? I'm not looking for original research or trolls, please. --Mrcolj (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contestants don't know which questions will be asked on t.v., so I think that's why.--Sanji_1990 (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the producers do. And they know which ones showed false too, and get to pick and choose the order of questions so as to knock anyone out any time they want. The contestant can change their answer, but they don't know if it showed true or false. There is a lot about polygraphs that needs to be added to the article. For example, polygraphs don't tell true or false, they detect level of nervousness, and most of the questions would make anyone nervous. 199.125.109.68 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must be an extensive interview before they even waste time hooking you up to a Polygraph. This is evident based on the questions they ask. I mean, if you had someone who honestly loved their parents and had a great childhood, they'd breeze through questions like "Do you blame your father for ruining your childhood" with a smile on their face. I mean, if someone asks you "Do you sleep with people to get ahead at work?", and you really honestly don't and you haven't even had multiple sex partners, then where is the drama? MrChupon (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Issues above

Ok I may be completely wrong here, but I do have some basic background in statistics and have learned alot about lie detectors. I believe the 95% accuracy estimation is not based upon individual questions. A polygraph test is typically designed to ask a large number of related questions to insure that the person is not working their way around the test. I believe that the 95% stated comes from a complete line of questioning, which could include all 21 questions asked in the show. Admittedly this is just speculation as I do not know how the test is done or exactly how the 95 was estimated but thats just my input, which because of my ego I feel is fairly accurate. Not that it could be put in the article just food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitchin13 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though maybe someone should add that the polygraph is being used unorthodoxly? I.E. a usual polygraph is for a specific event like a theft while this is a random assortment of questioning that has not been scientifically backed in any research like the above method. Chitchin13 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a polygraph is used to determine the answer to one and only one question, i.e. did you take the diamond, or did you have an affair, or did you kill your wife, not admissible in court normally, because of the large possibility of error (even if it is 5% you don't want to send someone to prison 5% of the time when they are not guilty). Normally baseline questions are asked, and we have no reason to believe that the polygraph is not used in the same manner in the show. The only difference is that normally there is only one "zinger" question that is the sole reason for the test, although that question can of course be asked many times in many ways. For the show, there are 50 to 70 or so "zinger" questions, all of which can be chosen from to use in the show. I would assume that in addition to those there are also baseline questions asked. I would also add the problem that the lie detector doesn't detect lying, it detects nervousness, and all the questions used are designed to make the subject nervous. 199.125.109.68 (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board Game

I'm not sure if it's important, but maybe a bit of info about the board game could be Ok. APAD (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long out of date

Very strangely, none of the episodes I'm currently watching on television have been included in the show's list of episodes, including one where a contestant went all the way to win $500,000. I've added a template concerning the same, and I hope this issue is looked into promptly. 120.56.166.134 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the template removed without any updates on the article? Kindly update the information before removing the template as this article is clearly way out of date! Ilov90210 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Moment of Truth (U.S. game show). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Is the show scripted or not?

[usa-1] Vergano, Dan (2002). "Telling the truth about lie detectors". USA Today. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Cite error: The named reference "usa" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[1]