Talk:The Moment of Truth (American game show)

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Do we care?
MySpace
Some modeling agency
Jjaazz (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lauren

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: ABOUT POLYGRAPH ACCURACY (Where is the mistake?)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Drew Peterson

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 06:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Do not add original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Methodology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Logic Issues above 

message: 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)
thread_title: Board Game

message: 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)
thread_title:  Long out of date 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Moment of Truth (U.S. game show). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120906044136/http://gskingdom.blogspot.com:80/2009/07/moment-of-truth-delayed-again.html to http://gskingdom.blogspot.com/2009/07/moment-of-truth-delayed-again.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120908032232/http://buzzerblog.com:80/2011/06/the-moment-of-truth-produces-the-most-awkward-jackpot-win-ever/ to http://buzzerblog.com/2011/06/the-moment-of-truth-produces-the-most-awkward-jackpot-win-ever/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified