MythBusters results, question about bias

[ponderingturtle]

That implies that the MythBusters are taking on myths they know to be already busted. I don't much like what that implies.

The Exploding Toilet : predictable? Opening the Water-Filled Safe : predictable? Car Welds truvks Together in Head-On Crash Horror - fancy doing the math? But they're all sure as heck going on the show.

The man falling through the high rise window? They knew that was true

The man killed by the rogue washing machine and explosion of dog urine and baking soda? Come on they knew that was crap.

Knowing the result beforehand does not mean there will not be surprises, but they often do know the result because they are simply not possible.

 

[Michael Redman]

For the predetermined scripted ratio theory to be plausible, you would have to assume that the audience, on the whole, watches every episode, and sees all episodes the exact same number of times in reruns, and probably in the same order they appeared originally. Any other viewing pattern destroys the effect of the carefully scripted ratio. So why bother?

Also, I think it would quite obviously be far more complicated, difficult, and expensive to decide beforehand exactly how each experiment would turn out, and then try to force the results into the desired outcome, than to simply line up experiments in a rough distribution, and let the chips fall where they may, and selecting the best results to air.

It is possible that simply testing the myths that will make the best TV results in a satisfactory distribution of outcomes. It is also possible that they put in extra effort to select myths to test, and tested outcomes to air, in a distribution they think will be appealing. However, to suggest that they predetermine an exact ratio beforehand, and, more particularly, that they script the outcomes of specific experiments to get that ratio, seems like quite an implausible proposition to me. I would like to see some evidence.

 

[voidx]

Even if you don't know anything about swordsmanship, or history, or physics, you should at least have used a knife to cut things in your life, at some point. And if so, even if you have the intellect of a cave man, you would figure out that slicing works much better than hacking.

Therefore I am kind of at a loss trying to understand your statement, technoextreme.

To be honest most swords use a snap through chopping motion to achieve the cut. So does the Katana. Its how the edge geometry works best. Katana's use a slicing motion also, because that was what they were designed for based on armour etc.

European swords do not use a slicing action to cut, they just a snap through chopping action. Its all about velocity and the edge geometry. A chop exerts much more force than a slice.

Now given, they could have put a spring in the mechanism that would have simulated some follow through on the Katana. This would have increased the velocity it was travelling at. However, what cuts is the geometry of the blade, how straight it hits the target, and how fast (not "hard") its going.

I think their mechanism may have got the blade moving faster that a human would be able to, but not by much. A direct right angle blow has the most force behind it, if it couldn't shear the gun barrel, then slicing it wouldn't do any better.

Seeing as Eurpean swords had trouble cutting through 14-18 guage steel plate armour, (hence the reason for axes, war hammers, poleaxes and estocs) I am not at all surprised that they couldn't cut through a several inch thick solid piece of metal.

 

[wahrheit]

For the predetermined scripted ratio theory to be plausible, you would have to assume that the audience, on the whole, watches every episode, and sees all episodes the exact same number of times in reruns, and probably in the same order they appeared originally. Any other viewing pattern destroys the effect of the carefully scripted ratio. So why bother?

Not sure if the above is addressed at me, but I never suggested that they predetermine an exact (!) ratio beforehand. (Though it would not surprise me in the least if that was the case.)

The viewing pattern doesn't matter, btw. Of course you do not have to assume that the audience, on the whole, watches each episode in the given order etc. The season as such needs some balancing, it doesn't matter if viewer X has seen all episodes in the "correct" order.

 

[voidx]

I actually do not care for antique swords. Modern swords are infinitely better.

Are you serious? Are you referring to Katana's here? Modern reproductions of european swords are clearly inferior to period pieces. This is overwhelmingly due to the fact that we are rediscovering the techniques (sword and sword-making techniques). How one swings a sword and against what are what help test and determine the quality of a blade. Balance and weight are key. Durability versus how sharp they are is also important. A razor sharp blade is actually quite uncommon, because with an edge so thin, it is easily gouged and damaged, and with so little metal is very difficult to repair. I've handled period european swords at the local museum on several occasions and their balance and weight are far better than modern reproductions.

ETA: I do agree that modern alloys and metals are superior, however, there is a lot more to the construction of a well balanced and useable swords that merely the metal. Hilt, tang, balance, edge geometry, flexibility are all important attributes, and very hard to reproduce exactly. Even more so to test accurately. Can't really go out chopping up humans in fights to test anymore these days now can we

 

[Michael Redman]

Not sure if the above is addressed at me, but I never suggested that they predetermine an exact (!) ratio beforehand. (Though it would not surprise me in the least if that was the case.)

The viewing pattern doesn't matter, btw. Of course you do not have to assume that the audience, on the whole, watches each episode in the given order etc. The season as such needs some balancing, it doesn't matter if viewer X has seen all episodes in the "correct" order.

It is claimed, above, that the entire season is scripted beforehand, including the outcome of every experiment. I didn't say it was you that made the claim.

Actually, it does matter if a viewer sees all the episodes or not, and the number of reruns of each. The "exact ratio" theory is only plausible if the audience, on the whole, has exactly the same viewing experience.

If the audience does not share the same viewing experience, then the audience does not experience the same ratio of failure to success, and the effect of the ratio is lost.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the producers are not so stupid as to believe that it is worth painfully crafting a perfect ratio that they know only a small minority of viewers will actually experience (even if it were plausible that fine tuning of the ratio would have a noticeable effect on ratings).

 

[voidx]

Yikes. I must have missed that little gaffe. 5 or 6 pounds would be more like it. 10 lbs is about as heavy as full-sized two-handed swords got, and those were usually ceremonial.

In the Western Martial Arts class I help run, people are often suprised to find a longsword weighed only between 2.5-4lbs depending on the period, style length etc. And that longer two-handers and claymores as you say maybe hit 5-6lbs.

I always suggest they go to the local hardware store and swing around a 10lb sledge hammer, and then consider doing it for an hour straight or so . That usually drives the point home.

 

[CFLarsen]

Knowing the result beforehand does not mean there will not be surprises, but they often do know the result because they are simply not possible.

On the other hand, they tested the motion detector using a bedsheet. It worked.

Probably their best episode.

 

[wahrheit]

It is claimed, above, that the entire season is scripted beforehand, including the outcome of every experiment. I didn't say it was you that made the claim.

My understanding was that a certain ratio would be planned. And "scripted", to me, is a term used in context of the actual shooting, editing of a show.

Actually, it does matter if a viewer sees all the episodes or not, and the number of reruns of each. The "exact ratio" theory is only plausible if the audience, on the whole, has exactly the same viewing experience.

If the audience does not share the same viewing experience, then the audience does not experience the same ratio of failure to success, and the effect of the ratio is lost.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the producers are not so stupid as to believe that it is worth painfully crafting a perfect ratio that they know only a small minority of viewers will actually experience (even if it were plausible that fine tuning of the ratio would have a noticeable effect on ratings).

If you really believe that the overall ratio of busted/confirmed gets lost only because this or that member of the audience does not see each and every episode, you are wrong in my opinion.

Let's say I missed the last episode of The Simpsons. So what? Let's say I missed several episodes, or watched them on DVD in a different order. So what? This will not make me hate Homer, this will not stop me from liking the program.

Don't forget all the teasers, the press, people talking amongst each other about the show, the last episode, "Oh, I missed that one", "Gotta see the next one" etc. It absolutely does not matter if you miss a show. Were all myths busted, you would lose interest pretty soon. Were all of them confirmed, you would lose interest in the show as well.

 

[Big Les]

I agree pretty much voidx. Quality of metal counts for a lot, especially when comparing modern replica European weapons and the originals. It was just harder to obtain homogenous steel with straight edges and an even heat treatment. If you had the money though, no doubt they were available.

European swords do not use a slicing action to cut, they just a snap through chopping action. Its all about velocity and the edge geometry. A chop exerts much more force than a slice.

Well, European sabres use both (even if they were inspired by scimitars, shamshirs and tulwars). The British 1796 Light Cavalry sabre is a perfect design for a pure cutting sword.

Seeing as Eurpean swords had trouble cutting through 14-18 guage steel plate armour, (hence the reason for axes, war hammers, poleaxes and estocs) I am not at all surprised that they couldn't cut through a several inch thick solid piece of metal.

Me either. In fact, for all intents and purposes, swords simply could not cut through plate armour. They became weapons either for killing the unarmoured (plenty of those on any battlefield) or long, stiff, pointy weapons for poking through chinks in armour. They were pretty ineffectual against mail armour too, especially given the quilted fabric worn underneath. A mail shirt would have been very expensive and a prized possession - like body armour today, but even more exclusive.

Veering back on topic, what the MBs did was more than adequate to illustrate that there was no way in hell a sword was going to cut through those media. Simple physics precludes it, but MB is about graphic and entertaining demonstrations.

 

[Big Les]

I don't think it was a gaffe, it might well have been the weight of the sword they had. I just think it might say something about the accuracy of their swords.

The point was they where testing a sword three times heavier than a katana against one. That is not a real situation.

By "gaffe", I mean the choice of a ludicrously overweight sword, not an erroneous description. Knowing some of the crud that's out there I have no problem believing that the sword they chose really was that heavy.

But didn't they also test katana against katana? And get breakages, but no cuts (unsurprisingly)?

By and large their sword choice was pretty good - mid-range mono-steel katanoids. Not terribly historically accurate (not good enough for an experimental archaeology study), but in the right geometry and strength ballparks for TV use.

 

[Michael Redman]

It is claimed, above, that the entire season is scripted beforehand, including the outcome of every experiment. I didn't say it was you that made the claim.

My understanding was that a certain ratio would be planned. And "scripted", to me, is a term used in context of the actual shooting, editing of a show.

It doesn't matter what it means to you. The claim I'm referring to is that nothing happens on the show that wasn't predetermined. Nothing.

Actually, it does matter if a viewer sees all the episodes or not, and the number of reruns of each. The "exact ratio" theory is only plausible if the audience, on the whole, has exactly the same viewing experience.

If the audience does not share the same viewing experience, then the audience does not experience the same ratio of failure to success, and the effect of the ratio is lost.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the producers are not so stupid as to believe that it is worth painfully crafting a perfect ratio that they know only a small minority of viewers will actually experience (even if it were plausible that fine tuning of the ratio would have a noticeable effect on ratings).

If you really believe that the overall ratio of busted/confirmed gets lost only because this or that member of the audience does not see each and every episode, you are wrong in my opinion.

Opinion doesn't enter into it. If people watch different episodes, they're going to experience a different ratio.

Let's say I missed the last episode of The Simpsons. So what? Let's say I missed several episodes, or watched them on DVD in a different order. So what? This will not make me hate Homer, this will not stop me from liking the program.

Don't forget all the teasers, the press, people talking amongst each other about the show, the last episode, "Oh, I missed that one", "Gotta see the next one" etc. It absolutely does not matter if you miss a show.

I obviously don't think it matters, since I'm arguing that the carefully crafted ratio theory is bunk. And your argument supports that position.

Were all myths busted, you would lose interest pretty soon. Were all of them confirmed, you would lose interest in the show as well.

I've never said anything contrary. However, this is irrelevant to the claim I'm discussing.

 

[wahrheit]

It doesn't matter what it means to you.

For me it does matter, because scripting television programs is what I made my money with for quite a few years. Maybe I was asleep all the time and had no idea what I was doing and why these people would pay me for it, who knows.

The claim I'm referring to is that nothing happens on the show that wasn't predetermined. Nothing.

I've said it before, I am not involved in the production of MythBusters. To really know what's going on there would require a whistle-blower or insider. I was merely describing how TV shows are produced. Regarding the claim that nothing on MythBusters happens which has not been preterdemined, I never made such a claim, as you have noted before.

However, I might add that even on the live aired programs I worked on, not a taped show like MythBusters, that in a period of ten years I observed exactly one (1) event on camera that was not scripted, not predetermined, something happening which I didn't know before. Of course this is nothing but anecdotal evidence, I agree.

Opinion doesn't enter into it. If people watch different episodes, they're going to experience a different ratio.

Then let's agree to disagree.

I obviously don't think it matters, since I'm arguing that the carefully crafted ratio theory is bunk.

I do not know how to convince you here, but if you think that carefully crafted ratio theories are bunk, if you think nobody at the network and the production company cares how each episode ends, then many years of my life were nothing but a bad dream.

 

[Michael Redman]

For me it does matter, because scripting television programs is what I made my money with for quite a few years. Maybe I was asleep all the time and had no idea what I was doing and why these people would pay me for it, who knows.

I've said it before, I am not involved in the production of MythBusters. To really know what's going on there would require a whistle-blower or insider. I was merely describing how TV shows are produced. Regarding the claim that nothing on MythBusters happens which has not been preterdemined, I never made such a claim, as you have noted before.

Yes, that is true, which is why it is puzzling that you are arguing with my response that that claim. I'm obviously not arguing that the show is unscripted. I'm arguing that the precise outcome of every experiment isn't predetermined, and that the precise ratio (not the general mix) of fail to succeed is not particularly important, and not something the studio is worrying about. Avoiding all successes or all failures is not remotely the same thing as scripting the precise outcome of every single experiment.

Look, different episodes have different numbers of results, and different numbers of each outcome. Therefore, the only way a viewer will see the outcomes in the same ratio presented by the overall season is if that viewer sees the entire season. Skip any episodes, or see any reruns, and the ratio you experience changes. This isn't an opinion, it's a simple matter of math.

You explained yourself that the industry knows that the success of a show doesn't depend on whether a viewer sees every episode. It makes absolutely no sense, then, to carefully craft a precise ratio of outcomes, the intent of which is to have a psychological impact on viewers, if you don't believe that your viewers will actually experience that precise ratio. It would be an obvious waste of time, and I don't think the studios are that stupid.

The bottom line is this: They don't need to script every experiment outcome, because it doesn't matter if a few experiments come out differently than expected. So there really isn't any reason to think they do so.

Besides, consider the absurdly complex and expensive proposition of actually making some of these experiments come out as intended.

Also, does anyone really think writers would (could) come up with all these results? And does anyone really think the cast is that good a company of actors to present such seemingly genuine reactions?

Possible. But unless someone can provide some actually evidence, I'll stick with the far more simple explanation.

 

[voidx]

I agree pretty much voidx. Quality of metal counts for a lot, especially when comparing modern replica European weapons and the originals. It was just harder to obtain homogenous steel with straight edges and an even heat treatment. If you had the money though, no doubt they were available.

I know a lot of people will within historical european martial arts sort of pooh pooh any blades that are machined, even though the vast majority of affordable replicas are. I certainly have no doubts that modern quality of metal is superior.

However, having handled and put through hard paces, a wide range of replica swords and seen study and footage of other groups that have done the same. Replica's still have a ways to go. Although I'll admit they've improved a lot over the last 2 or 3 years. The issues before wasn't actually the blade or the metal. They were either to heavy or too light, had slightly incorrect blade geometry. However, the part they've struggled with most is the hilt/cross guard assembly, as well as weak tangs. Most, after a good hard trial start to loosen or crack or plain just fall apart.

Well, European sabres use both (even if they were inspired by scimitars, shamshirs and tulwars). The British 1796 Light Cavalry sabre is a perfect design for a pure cutting sword.

Certainly. Although in many respects the sabre's curved blade gained its real utility when used on horseback rather than on foot. You didn't want it getting stuck in your opponent when whizzing by on a horse, pluse the added momentum of the horse gave it a lot more cleaving/slicing power than one would have standing on foot.

I refer more to the middle ages and early renaissance when bladed weapon tactics were at their height. Longsword, sword and shield or buckler. While draw cuts were utilized with those weapons, their utility was limited. Draw cuts down work at all on sturdy clothing, only with a biting chopping cut to begin with or on naked skin such as the face were they useful.

Me either. In fact, for all intents and purposes, swords simply could not cut through plate armour. They became weapons either for killing the unarmoured (plenty of those on any battlefield) or long, stiff, pointy weapons for poking through chinks in armour. They were pretty ineffectual against mail armour too, especially given the quilted fabric worn underneath. A mail shirt would have been very expensive and a prized possession - like body armour today, but even more exclusive.

Aside from just the strength of that steel alone, there was also the shapes of the armor, ridged and coned on purpose to deflect blows, making it very hard to lay a solid edge blow period, it also made thrusts along those major targets pretty much impossible. However, there's still something to be said for the sheer blunt force trauma of those blows to the head, even if they did not cut through the armour. The same goes for gambesons and mail. They prevent cuts, but on tests with sides of beef and pork hinds, it was shown that there would still have been massive muscle trauma to the underlying arm and musculature. It might save your arm, but I doubt you'd be moving it much for a long while after. The only thing I'd risk getting hit with at full speed and feel mostly protected is plate.

Veering back on topic, what the MBs did was more than adequate to illustrate that there was no way in hell a sword was going to cut through those media. Simple physics precludes it, but MB is about graphic and entertaining demonstrations.

I agree. I don't think any minor adjustments to the actual movement of the blade would have made any difference. I was more than convinced that they adequately showed it was not probable, despite in minor ignorance of actual sword techniques. The only thing I think would have been different is that in human hands, although they would not have been able to cut any further into the barrel, in fact I'd imagine less so. I think it fairly obvious that the blades wouldn't have broken. No human could have a strong enough grip to hold the blade solid enough to break the blade in that scenario. Not after a single blow anyway.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

It's almost criminal that this thread has gone this far without a picture of Kari.

http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/05/mythbuster-kari.jpg

That's great. Is it real or photoshopped?

Not necessarily (and I will admit that I have never watched the show here). If you shoot too many for a "themed" programme, how hard would it be to include it in an unthemed programme later in the series?

I don't see a problem with it from a technical or a planning perspective but I would question whether it would make sense from a programming perspective. If they already had a "Katana themed" show, it may be too much to expect another segment on Katanas in another show during the same season.

My two cents.

 

[Big Les]

Replica's still have a ways to go. Although I'll admit they've improved a lot over the last 2 or 3 years. The issues before wasn't actually the blade or the metal. They were either to heavy or too light, had slightly incorrect blade geometry. However, the part they've struggled with most is the hilt/cross guard assembly, as well as weak tangs. Most, after a good hard trial start to loosen or crack or plain just fall apart.

They've improved muchly, but in keeping them below a few hundred pounds, they do tend have some significant flaw as you say. There are decent higher end pieces - Albion Armourers in the US are the best I've seen in person, although they're mostly CNCd/stock-removed - taking advantage of modern processes. Great for performance and general aesthetics, but not historically accurate enough for meaningful tests I would say. I have one of their Gladii, plus a low-end custom medieval single-handed sword from Paul Binns. Out-and-out performance swords like Angus Trims' are supposed to be excellent too, as well as some Czech makers.

Certainly. Although in many respects the sabre's curved blade gained its real utility when used on horseback rather than on foot. You didn't want it getting stuck in your opponent when whizzing by on a horse, pluse the added momentum of the horse gave it a lot more cleaving/slicing power than one would have standing on foot.

The Royal Armouries have some footage of the boost afforded by the horse in action against innocent melons on posts (!). Although as an infantry weapon it was still pretty nifty on foot - I have an original at home and access to many more at work, and they have strange balance but a very "handy" feel - you could fight with the wrist, or go for a more Eastern style close to the body, shoulder-driven. Naval officers appreciated the style for close-in fighting on decks etc, a sort of high-end cutlass, whilst infantry officers bought them mostly for the fashion prestige (the flashy blue and gilt ones at any rate).

I refer more to the middle ages and early renaissance when bladed weapon tactics were at their height. Longsword, sword and shield or buckler. While draw cuts were utilized with those weapons, their utility was limited. Draw cuts down work at all on sturdy clothing, only with a biting chopping cut to begin with or on naked skin such as the face were they useful.

True, although variations like the falchion and early backsword are overlooked - fewer have survived. Plenty in the artwork of the day though. I recently saw a C14th excavated piece with single edge and a slight reverse curve like a kukri, - very odd.

However, there's still something to be said for the sheer blunt force trauma of those blows to the head, even if they did not cut through the armour. The same goes for gambesons and mail. They prevent cuts, but on tests with sides of beef and pork hinds, it was shown that there would still have been massive muscle trauma to the underlying arm and musculature. It might save your arm, but I doubt you'd be moving it much for a long while after. The only thing I'd risk getting hit with at full speed and feel mostly protected is plate.

I think mail is under-rated, and I'm not sure dead meat is representative of the true severity of the wound. Ideally you'd want historical-spec mail and padding, and that's never been done AFAIK. The gambeson/mail combo seems to be superb against arrows as well - only long bodkins can penetrate, and they don't go very far in - hence the source describing crusaders marching along looking like hedgehogs (or similar). There's a school of thought that plate only really takes off because it becomes as cheap to make and then cheaper than, mail.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Does anyone know if the rather unrelated myths are done independently and then cut together into the episodes? or do they do each episode independently start to finish?

I can see how they could balance the myth buster/confirmed if they some of them alone and then just stuck them into the episodes. Some episodes are somewhat dominated by a certain myth but they often have other secondary myths that aren't even related.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's almost criminal that this thread has gone this far without a picture of Kari.

[qimg]http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/05/mythbuster-kari.jpg[/qimg]

I shall follow suit:

Edited by prewitt81: 

Inappropriate content removed

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]