The Moment of Truth

[Abe Sargent]

Anybody else watch it tonight? I loved it! It's like an evil psychological experiment! They should call it "Ruin your Marriage and Friendships for Dollars"

[DaddyTorgo]

aww damn I missed it. Was it abc? nbc? cbs? i'll catch the webisode

[stevew]

Crazy ass show, obviously FOX.

Well, with a writers strike, the lines are getting blurry.

[oliegirl]

I thought it was interesting, but as with all shows like this, the "suspense" time is too long...takes too long to get an answer from whatever idiot has strapped himself to the lie detector, and then it takes too long to get the verdict from the mystery voice on whether they are lying or not.

Also, some of the questions are vague...using the word "most" and such, leaves it open to A LOT of interpretation and could impact the answers. But definitely an addicting show...

[Alan T]

I watched this while trying to fix my laptop tonight. I think it has alot of potential, but I agree with oliegirl that the suspense at times was crazy.. It felt to me like it was 50-55minutes of so-so programming and then a good 5 minutes of really great questions and reactions that you tune in for.

I'll tune in to watch again though.

[Abe Sargent]

Yeah, but that psychology has become a part of our shows since what, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

[Raiders Army]

It's a great show, IMHO. If you don't like commercials, that's what DVRs are for.

Anyhow, we were talking last night, and the only way to build real suspense is to have the contestant take the lie detector test and then keep them separate from their family. Otherwise, they'd spill the beans to their loved ones and prep them. For example, "Have you ever padded your underwear to look larger?" The dude could explain why and at least save himself from the embarassment from his family and friends.

The other thing was that there is no way these people could be arrested for answering questions. The one that jumped out at me (and wasn't asked last night, BTW) was "Have you ever smuggled goods into the U.S.?" If the guy answers yes, there's no way he could be arrested. First, he was never read his Miranda Rights. Second, he would have to be arrested for a specific crime. What did he smuggle? I would guess this would be true for other more serious questions like "Have you ever murdered someone?" They would have to arrest him for a specific murder.

However, I would say that some answers you give could get you fired at work. All in all, a pretty good show.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I watched the first guy and part of the second guy and didn't get anything out of the show. As many times as his wife looked pissed or shocked at his answers, it seemed that she was still most interested in just getting the money. The way his last question was phrased ("As a personal trainer, have you ever touched a female client more than was necessary?"), he could've failed no matter what. I mean, I don't know how lie detectors really work, but that question could be so vague that he'd be really nervous whether he said yes or no. While he might think he hadn't touched someone more than necessary, he might feel nervous about answering that way because other people might think that it was more than necessary. Whose standard is he answering to? His own? His wife's? The general public? All these things could go through his mind and affect the way the polygraph reads him.

While I don't have any kind of moral objection to this show, it's clearly set up to get people to embarrass themselves and then ask questions in a way that prevents them from winning the big bucks. I mean, yeah, we get to watch these people squirm when they get asked questions, but if those first two contestants are any indication of who we'll see on the show, screw 'em. They seemed like such smarmy assholes that I thought it would be funny for them to lose.

[Critch]

First show was ok, but it's got the look of a show that will get old fast.

I'll be tuning in to see how the guy answers his kid's "did you gamble away my college fund?" question. He's just enough of a tool to hope that he wrecks his life and family for a few dollars.

[Ksyrup]

We watched it. Here's what I don't get - what's the incentive for being on this show? The embarrassment/damage-to-winnings ratio is way too high for this to be worth it. The second guy, in order to win $10K, admitted to going through co-workers personal belongings and to having a gambling problem - and he works at a race track!

Meanwhile, turn over to Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, and someone just won $10K for knowing the square root of 4.

Even if the money is compelling, which I don't think it is in comparison to the questions you have to answer, one wrong answer - based on a lie detector, which really has very little to do with the actual truth - and you walk away with NOTHING. At least on other shows, you hit plateaus where you can't go home with any less than X amount.

I just don't get it.

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with Ksyrup. You'd need to offer a HELL of a lot more money to entice me to be on the show (and even then I probably would not want to).

[wade moore]

I had the same feeling as KSyrup and it's much of why I didn't even consider watching the show.

I just don't see anything redeeming about the concept of this show.

[rkmsuf]

It's a funny show with a short shelf life. How many questions are they going to be able to come up with that remain interesting. For now I love George though.


"Have you ever imaginged rolling around in jello with Al Roker."

[Pumpy Tudors]

"Have you ever had sexual fantasies about one of your own relatives?"
"Have you ever had sexual fantasies about one of your parents?"
"Have you ever had sexual fantasies about one of your pets?"
"Have you ever fulfilled a sexual fantasy you had about one of your pets with another one of your pets?"
"Have you ever defecated on a floor, on purpose?"
"Have you ever intentionally drawn blood from somebody against their will?"
"Have you ever knocked somebody else's tooth out?"
"Do you think Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper?"
"Would you have sex with Tom Brady? Don't you dare say no. Don't you dare say no, motherfucker."

[Critch]

I'm sure if the first guy had gone a bit longer he'd have been asked if he'd ever banged the chick that was there as his "friend".

That's what I would have asked, anyway.

[RendeR]

"Have you ever had sexual fantasies about one of your own relatives?"
"Have you ever had sexual fantasies about one of your parents?"
"Have you ever had sexual fantasies about one of your pets?"
"Have you ever fulfilled a sexual fantasy you had about one of your pets with another one of your pets?"
"Have you ever defecated on a floor, on purpose?"
"Have you ever intentionally drawn blood from somebody against their will?"
"Have you ever knocked somebody else's tooth out?"
"Do you think Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper?"
"Would you have sex with Tom Brady? Don't you dare say no. Don't you dare say no, motherfucker."



*FLAG ON THE PLAY*

Unnecessary stupidity, Offense, number TUDORS, will be penalized 50 post counts and half the distance to the nearest Chip and Dales club. The penalty includes lss of down.

[RendeR]

In all seriousness though, its just pathetic what some people will do for a piddling amount of money. Shows like this demonstrate just how worthless many Americans feel.

[Mustang]

I'm sure if the first guy had gone a bit longer he'd have been asked if he'd ever banged the chick that was there as his "friend".

That's what I would have asked, anyway.

That was the first question me and my wife said we would have asked.

If "Have you held off having kids because you aren't sure your wife is your lifelong partner" is a middle of round question for $25,000... can only imagine what the $500K question is.

[albionmoonlight]

"Would you have sex with Tom Brady? Don't you dare say no. Don't you dare say no, motherfucker."

:)

[molson]

The other thing was that there is no way these people could be arrested for answering questions. The one that jumped out at me (and wasn't asked last night, BTW) was "Have you ever smuggled goods into the U.S.?" If the guy answers yes, there's no way he could be arrested. First, he was never read his Miranda Rights. Second, he would have to be arrested for a specific crime. What did he smuggle? I would guess this would be true for other more serious questions like "Have you ever murdered someone?" They would have to arrest him for a specific murder.



He couldn't be charged and arrested for saying something vague, but statements made on a TV show like this could absolutely be used against him as part of a whole case. Miranda only applies to governmental in-custody interrogations.

[Ksyrup]

Funny, the one question that immediately jumped out at me was the question about whether the football player ever got a passing grade just for being a football player. Would have been hilarious for the NCAA to start an investigation of Cincinnati based on the answer of a game show contestant.

[Chubby]

This show rules

[RomaGoth]

Funny, the one question that immediately jumped out at me was the question about whether the football player ever got a passing grade just for being a football player. Would have been hilarious for the NCAA to start an investigation of Cincinnati based on the answer of a game show contestant.

Brian Kelly would then have to move on yet again.......:D

[rkmsuf]

"Is your wife a mail order bride?"

[RomaGoth]

Anybody else watch it tonight? I loved it! It's like an evil psychological experiment! They should call it "Ruin your Marriage and Friendships for Dollars"

I didn't catch the show but I have seen the commercials. With that being said, they should have casted Maury Povich as the host. Every question would then be aimed at paternity testing....:eek:

[Eaglesfan27]

Funny, the one question that immediately jumped out at me was the question about whether the football player ever got a passing grade just for being a football player. Would have been hilarious for the NCAA to start an investigation of Cincinnati based on the answer of a game show contestant.

That was the first question that jumped out at me as well for the same reason. Also, I agree that the 2nd round question about his doubts about his wife being his life partner was brutal for such an early question. Crazy to go on a show with such embarassment, particularly when you figure he'd be fairly well off as a former ball player.

[CamEdwards]

I saw the commercials for this, but I don't think I have any desire to watch this. And I don't think it's so much people going on TV and embarrassing themselves for the money as much as it is the 15 seconds of fame.

[RomaGoth]

I saw the commercials for this, but I don't think I have any desire to watch this. And I don't think it's so much people going on TV and embarrassing themselves for the money as much as it is the 15 seconds of fame.

I agree.

[Ajaxab]

I admittedly only watched a few minutes of this last night, but it wasn't too difficult to predict that the contestant I saw was going to be asked about his piece/weave/toupe/whatever was on his head.

[Pumpy Tudors]

What I don't understand is what takes these people so long to answer the questions. They'd already been asked once when they were connected to the lie detector. Whether their answer is "true" (according to the polygraph) or not, just give the same answer they gave when asked the first time. I'm sure that nerves play a part when you have your family, friends, and an audience watching, but there shouldn't really be anything to think about. You've already answered the question for the producers once!

[Raiders Army]

That was the first question that jumped out at me as well for the same reason. Also, I agree that the 2nd round question about his doubts about his wife being his life partner was brutal for such an early question. Crazy to go on a show with such embarassment, particularly when you figure he'd be fairly well off as a former ball player.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess the statute of limitations would have run out?

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but the NCAA and its penalties aren't criminal, so a Statute of Limitations wouldn't necessarily apply. Only the limit they apply themselves.

[ISiddiqui]

What I don't understand is what takes these people so long to answer the questions. They'd already been asked once when they were connected to the lie detector. Whether their answer is "true" (according to the polygraph) or not, just give the same answer they gave when asked the first time. I'm sure that nerves play a part when you have your family, friends, and an audience watching, but there shouldn't really be anything to think about. You've already answered the question for the producers once!

I think it's because they have everyone there and are embarrased to admit it out loud.

[rkmsuf]

What I don't understand is what takes these people so long to answer the questions. They'd already been asked once when they were connected to the lie detector. Whether their answer is "true" (according to the polygraph) or not, just give the same answer they gave when asked the first time. I'm sure that nerves play a part when you have your family, friends, and an audience watching, but there shouldn't really be anything to think about. You've already answered the question for the producers once!

I think they tell the people to be theatrical. After all it's a show. I'm sure they are selected on their ability to be dramatic. There is surely coaching.

Second, you could choose to anwer in a way that you can blame the machine to save face if you choose to eject. Like if you told the truth to the machine but then were like uh I better lie here.

The question about "too much touching" was so abstract that there's no way to draw anything from a "no" answer that comes up false.

[gottimd]

Editing pisses me off because you know it doesn't take them that long to answer the questions, but I guess Fox needs the Dramatic pauses.

Also, how embarrassing would it be to lie about something that is false. The first guy, when they asked if he looked at others in the shower, and he said yes, and it was actually false.

So they ask the people 50 questions beforehand on the lie detector, then they choose out of those questions which to air and they have to ask it again? Guaranteed no one wins the $500K on this show.

[Abe Sargent]

What I would like to see is to speed up the response when someones admits to something. I can understand the tension for a No answer for when someone agrees that they whack off in the shower, then its probably true and there's no real tension.

[rkmsuf]

too many questions if they are really going to drag out the tension. 11 before you even get to any "real" money so to speak. I mean who is stopping at 10K. so there you get 6 questions of whatever...speed those up.

[Karlifornia]

I enjoyed the first episode well enough. I agree with anyone who said that it will get old really fast. I read on deadspin that the Colombian version of the show led to a woman admitting she wanted her husband killed.

[rkmsuf]

I enjoyed the first episode well enough. I agree with anyone who said that it will get old really fast. I read on deadspin that the Colombian version of the show led to a woman admitting she wanted her husband killed.

maybe that's why they will go really slow with the questions. really drag out a handful of games.


when's the celebrity edition?

[gottimd]

"Have you ever had sex with a sandwich?"

[Abe Sargent]

Do you have a mancrush on Jon Secada?

Yes, yes I do...

[gottimd]

They need to somehow incorporate those court room sitcoms on here. Instead of having a small claims court, have the defendant come in and take the polygraph live. Every now and again, maybe around sweeps, bring in the token criminal (grand theft, rape, homicide, etc) case.

[stevew]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FzZWqYWhdQw&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FzZWqYWhdQw&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

This one was pretty good.

[Warhammer]

So dude's marriage is wrecked and he gets no big settlement.

[oliegirl]

I love how they try to draw out the drama when it's SO obvious what the answer is by the contestants initial reaction...as soon as she put her head in her hands you knew they answer would be yes. That is why I can't watch the show...going on and on about the button and the second question and all that, it's a waste of time.

And...how did they even know about this ex-boyfriend/her affair unless someone told them??? The contestants have to be giving them some information, which makes me think it's staged somehow.

Also, who knew Wahlberg was a marriage counselor!

[GrantDawg]

I love how they try to draw out the drama when it's SO obvious what the answer is by the contestants initial reaction...as soon as she put her head in her hands you knew they answer would be yes. That is why I can't watch the show...going on and on about the button and the second question and all that, it's a waste of time.

And...how did they even know about this ex-boyfriend/her affair unless someone told them??? The contestants have to be giving them some information, which makes me think it's staged somehow.

Also, who knew Wahlberg was a marriage counselor!

There is no doubt by the questions that the show does a background check on the people. They interview people that are friends or relatives of the person, and ask questions based on the information given. Many of the questions are based on rumours which is why sometimes the answer is no.

In this case, I don't think she cared if this ruined her marriage. I think she was using this as a way out with hopefully a nice paycheck to boot. The fact that she missed the question that she did is sort of ironic justice.

Which leads me to my real problem with this show...lie detectors aren't accurate. They can be beaten, and they show false postives. From every lie detector experts I've ever read about, they'll admit that most of the analysis comes from them, not the machines. People might come on the show with intention of telling the truth about everything they are asked, and still lose because of a false reading. Which is another reason why you'd have to be a complete idiot to go on this show.

[Drake]

So dude's marriage is wrecked and he gets no big settlement.

Exactly. I'd have rather seen her win rather than get nailed with Insta-Karma. As it is, he gets half of nothing.

[oliegirl]

There is no doubt by the questions that the show does a background check on the people. They interview people that are friends or relatives of the person, and ask questions based on the information given. Many of the questions are based on rumours which is why sometimes the answer is no.

In this case, I don't think she cared if this ruined her marriage. I think she was using this as a way out with hopefully a nice paycheck to boot. The fact that she missed the question that she did is sort of ironic justice.

Which leads me to my real problem with this show...lie detectors aren't accurate. They can be beaten, and they show false postives. From every lie detector experts I've ever read about, they'll admit that most of the analysis comes from them, not the machines. People might come on the show with intention of telling the truth about everything they are asked, and still lose because of a false reading. Which is another reason why you'd have to be a complete idiot to go on this show.

Aren't they inadmissable in court because of their inaccuracies. I always thought the show looked ridiculous, but in a "I have to watch the train wreck" way, so I gave it a shot but just couldn't stand the fake drama they pumped into every question. That clip was definitely entertaining though, and hey - karma's a bitch, that clip proved it!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This was worse than an episode of Jerry Springer. At least on Springer, you're in on the fake situations. Here you're not.

[miami_fan]

I caught a little bit of this on Monday. I am just waiting for the story about the husband/wife who kills their spouse three days after the show.

[JetsIn06]

Good episode, but you know what really drives me up a wall about this show?

The same preview over and over and over and over and over and over. One, it's annoying, and two, it basically destroys any of the suspense that could possibly be there. If they say that a certain question will be asked, I'm going to know they're telling the truth every time until that question is asked. :mad:

[Ksyrup]

Good episode, but you know what really drives me up a wall about this show?

The same preview over and over and over and over and over and over. One, it's annoying, and two, it basically destroys any of the suspense that could possibly be there. If they say that a certain question will be asked, I'm going to know they're telling the truth every time until that question is asked. :mad:

Are you talking about the commercials? Because if I'm not mistaken, the question and answer I saw in the commercial for this one were obviously spliced. The way she answered "yes" in the commercial was not the same as in that clip, so it was an answer to a different question. I think, anyway.

Silly me, I never buy that the answer they show to the question in the commercials is the correct one, because I just assume they are trying to mislead me!

[SportsDino]

That question they asked 'do you think your a good person' is very unfair.

Her normal opinion of herself may be that she is a good person, but they just spent the last two questions completely trashing her character. Either way she answers she would probably have enough nerves and doubt that she would fail a lie detector (if she says 'no' then she would be answering opposite to her normal psyche, and probably have the same level of doubt).

Questions like that should not be a part of the show since it doesn't really demonstrate anything salacious to the viewers anyway.

[Ksyrup]

'The Moment of Truth' turns into a time of pain (www.latimes.com)
02:32 PM PT, Feb 27 2008
On Monday night's episode of the Fox game show "The Moment of Truth," Lauren Cleri admitted that she had been fired from a job for stealing money, would rather give food to a dog than a homeless person, knows things about her father that she keeps from her mother and has avoided sex with her husband by pretending to be asleep.

Then, things got worse. And, according to an article in the New York Post, Cleri and her husband are now separated because of it.

Yes, said Cleri -- whose husband, parents and siblings were sitting before her, along with a studio audience and 8.9 million television viewers -- she has taken off her wedding ring when out with friends, and, yes, she was still in love with a former boyfriend on her wedding day. After she answered that question truthfully, her ex-boyfriend, Frank, not to be confused with her husband, Frank, took the stage to ask, "If I wanted to get back together with you, would you leave your husband?"

"The Moment of Truth" premiered on Fox in January and has performed very well in the ratings. Contestants must answer 21 questions truthfully in order to win $500,000. The questions are selected from a pre-interview they did while strapped to a polygraph. The contestant's loved ones also get one, and only one, preemptory challenge in which they can hit a buzzer to skip a question they may not want to hear the answer to. Along the way, contestants can win $10,000, $25,000 and so on, and once they reach those milestones, they can quit and keep the money. If they answer a question falsely -- as determined by their pre-interview replies -- they are bounced from the game with nothing.

Howard Schultz, the show's executive producer, said on the telephone Wednesday that they investigate every contestant thoroughly, "to create a composite photograph, a mosaic, if you will."

And they know what they're in for, Schultz said. "We let every contestant know that we're going to reach as deep and as far into their lives as we can. Anything is potentially fair game."

He continued: "If we're doing a show called 'The Moment of Truth,' we have to be scrupulously honest with people."

According to Schultz, the producers asked ex-boyfriend Frank to keep his appearance a surprise. A segment producer told Schultz that Cleri had been texting Frank all week to find out whether he might be on the show as one of her interrogators.

As well she should have. Although Cleri's sister hit the buzzer, to much booing from the audience, when ex-boyfriend Frank asked whether she would leave husband Frank for him, his replacement question was no better: "Do you believe I'm the man you should be married to?"

Cleri answered yes, which was apparently the truth, and got to the $100,000 marker.

The host, Mark Walberg (not that Mark Wahlberg), resumed asking the questions. Has she cheated on her husband? Yes, she has. Frank Cleri put his head in his hands. She had two more questions to go before winning $200,000.

Then "The Moment of Truth" turned into a modern "Scarlet Letter." Does Cleri think she's a good person?

Yes, she does, she answered.

No, she doesn't, read the polygraph. Suddenly, Cleri was shocked and penniless. Her family, including her husband, surrounded her.

Walberg asked why that might have happened. Cleri said she didn't know, that she does think she's a good person. "Yet it came up as a lie, which means that somewhere in you, you haven't forgiven yourself," Walberg said. "And somewhere your truth is that you don't think you're a good person at all." (An attempt to contact Cleri through her MySpace page went unanswered as of press time.)

Schultz said that from what he's read, the polygraph is 94% to 97% accurate. When a contestant answers falsely on a seemingly simple question, Schultz said sometimes "they don't even hear what they're saying." However, various studies say the accuracy of polygraphs can't be pinpointed, with some tests estimating they're less than 70% accurate.

When "The Moment of Truth" has perhaps busted up a marriage, is the show responsible?

"I don't know," Schultz said. "She's the one answering the questions."

They have a psychologist on the set to talk with contestants and families afterward. In Cleri's case, Schultz said that the infidelity had come up off-camera before the taping, and he said to her, "Do you realize what this could mean?"

For what it ultimately could mean, the Web provided some answers Wednesday. An excerpt of Cleri's episode was highly viewed on YouTube. It had been viewed 146,206 times and counting, with 1,678 comments (and counting).

And on Cleri's MySpace page, the settings had been changed to "private." It read: "Lauren is going through a VERY difficult time right now. Please leave me alone. Please."

--Kate Aurthur

[Mustang]

And on Cleri's MySpace page, the settings had been changed to "private." It read: "Lauren is going through a VERY difficult time right now. Please leave me alone. Please."

--Kate Aurthur

Fuck her. What did she think was going to happen?

Fuckin idiot. Probably thought she was going to come on, come clean, get a little cash and then ride off into the sunset with the guy she wanted.

Didn't happen. You received $0 and alot of bad publicity.

Karma is a bitch. Enjoy

[rkmsuf]

I still don't get the shock factor by the contestants. They ask them what 50 questions and pick 20 of them? Surely they would expect these questions. Should be a no brainer to answer if you've gone that far. Just the act of signing up for the show in the first place, nevermind hearing all the possible questions they might get during taping of the show.

[Pumpy Tudors]

That question they asked 'do you think your a good person' is very unfair.

Her normal opinion of herself may be that she is a good person, but they just spent the last two questions completely trashing her character. Either way she answers she would probably have enough nerves and doubt that she would fail a lie detector (if she says 'no' then she would be answering opposite to her normal psyche, and probably have the same level of doubt).

Questions like that should not be a part of the show since it doesn't really demonstrate anything salacious to the viewers anyway.
I think one reason to put questions like that into the show is so they don't have to pay up. Get the good stuff out there for people to see, and then strike 'em out with a curveball into the dirt.

Frankly, I don't see what the media uproar is about here. These people agreed to do the show, she knew what kinds of questions would be asked, and she went through with it anyway. Maybe if I knew these people, I'd feel something for them, but I don't get why America should care what happens to these people once the show goes off the air. What are we supposed to do? Call for the show's cancellation because some woman told America that she cheated on her husband? The dude already knew she cheated.

Eh, big deal.

[Drake]

When "The Moment of Truth" has perhaps busted up a marriage, is the show responsible?

Hmm. The show hasn't actually busted up a marriage. A cheating slut may have broken up a marriage. All the show did was inform the husband about the reality of the relationship he was living in. The damage to the relationship had already been done.

[Eaglesfan27]

Hmm. The show hasn't actually busted up a marriage. A cheating slut may have broken up a marriage. All the show did was inform the husband about the reality of the relationship he was living in. The damage to the relationship had already been done.


Yeah, I didn't watch it, but it seems like the wife just used the show as her way to let her husband know it was over while hoping to get a payday. Seems like a very cruel way to let him know, but he is the only one I feel bad for and the show certainly didn't break up that marriage.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yeah, I didn't watch it, but it seems like the wife just used the show as her way to let her husband know it was over while hoping to get a payday. Seems like a very cruel way to let him know, but he is the only one I feel bad for and the show certainly didn't break up that marriage.

Yeah, I was thinking that as well. The final incident in these situations is just the catalyst for change. The multitude of situations that occurred before the show were the reason that the marriage broke up.

[rkmsuf]

or it's completely staged

[Pumpy Tudors]

According to an article in the New York Post, the guy already knew that his wife had cheated on him before. His reaction was more related to the fact that she had admitted it in front of a national television audience. Dude didn't really get new information from this TV show.

[ThunderingHERD]

Even if we assume 75% accuracy for the polygraph (which is quite a stretch) then you're still going to "detect" a "lie" once every four questions--even if the contestant is being entirely truthful. By asking multiple questions at testing time (pre-show) that get at the exact same topic ("Would you leave your husband for me?"/"Do you think I'm the man you should be married to?"), then cherry-picking the questions to ask on the show, you can essentially script everything out.

That clip illustrates this really well. What possible reason would the woman have for lying on that question? I'm sure there were several other questions that they had lined up for her (at least during the test) which would produce the same story arc.

[Ksyrup]

What possible reason would the woman have for lying on that question?

Isn't the point here that more than likely, she was fooling herself? This is like a horoscope-type question - you're going to read into it what you want to believe is true, even if the "real truth" is the opposite. She thought (or tried to convince herself) that she was a good person, but what happened was her body (the physical stuff - heartrate, perspiration, blood pressure, etc.) betrayed her.

What I'd be really interested in knowing is whether these are the types of questions a trained polygraph examiner would ask. This question - "what she thinks about herself" - and the other question that sticks out to me, from the very first episode, about whether the personal trainer touched his female clients "more than is required," seem awfully sketchy. Which is probably one of the reasons, aside from the fact that some people can manipulate the results, that these things can't be used in court.

[ThunderingHERD]

Isn't the point here that more than likely, she was fooling herself? This is like a horoscope-type question - you're going to read into it what you want to believe is true, even if the "real truth" is the opposite.

I agree that this is what the producers were going for, but it simply isn't coherent. If we agree that she believes the answer she gave to be correct then in what meaningful sense does she not "think" she's a good person? It seems definitionally true unless you fool around with semantics and produce a meaning for "think" that has little in common with its common usage. Even in that case it wouldn't be relevant if the contestant didn't share that definition.

[Ksyrup]

I agree that this is what the producers were going for, but it simply isn't coherent. If we agree that she believes the answer she gave to be correct then in what meaningful sense does she not "think" she's a good person? It seems definitionally true unless you fool around with semantics and produce a meaning for "think" that has little in common with its common usage. Even in that case it wouldn't be relevant if the contestant didn't share that definition.

I guess the problem there is that no one could miss the question if we were to assume that their answer equaled their true thoughts. My guess is that she really doesn't "think" she's a good person, but she wants to think she is. And that's all that she is willing to consciously allow herself to think.

Or some such bullshit like that. :D

That's why I'm interested in whether "do you think" questions are legit among real polygraph examiners.

[Glengoyne]

I'm actually hoping that this show dies a quiet death.

It looks like it is just Jerry Springer in prime time. Oh and anyone who watches this show shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[mattlanta]

Ehh... it was alright.

[MJ4H]

I'm actually hoping that this show dies a quiet death.

It looks like it is just Jerry Springer in prime time. Oh and anyone who watches this show shouldn't be allowed to vote.

more like only people that watch this should be allowed to vote

[Pumpy Tudors]

more like only people that watch this should be allowed to vote
I thought the only people who voted were the people who watch this.

[Ksyrup]

No, it's more like we should allow people to watch this only when voting.

[EagleFan]

That question they asked 'do you think your a good person' is very unfair.

Her normal opinion of herself may be that she is a good person, but they just spent the last two questions completely trashing her character. Either way she answers she would probably have enough nerves and doubt that she would fail a lie detector (if she says 'no' then she would be answering opposite to her normal psyche, and probably have the same level of doubt).

Questions like that should not be a part of the show since it doesn't really demonstrate anything salacious to the viewers anyway.

I think that the "correct answers" to the questions comes from basing the lie detector on those questions when they were asked them prior to the show, if I understand it correctly. Prior to the actual live show sh would have been asked that question and the base answer would depend on if she lied or told the truth then.

[EagleFan]

No, it's more like we should allow people to watch this only when voting.

Actually voting should occur after the politicians are put on this show.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Unless you answer all 50 pre-show questions with a "truth" reading on the polygraph, isn't it impossible to win it all or even get close. Before the show tapes, they can just go through all 50 answers, pick the one (or several) that came up a lie and then toss them in anywhere during the game (but of course only after they get the really gory details on the true ones). It seems the only good strategy is to take about $10,000 and get out of there.

I'm guessing the producers can concoct several ambiguous questions to engineer a couple of "false" readings.

This show is a croc and a complete waste of time.

[Ksyrup]

IIRC, he tells contestants that they are allowed to change their answers at any time before they answer a particular question.

We watched the first 2 episodes and haven't watched again. It is basically Jerry Springer in the form of a game show.