MythBusters results, question about bias

[JoeEllison]

The only "bias" I expect is towards making a profitable product. That means entertaining, not too expensive, and not so dangerous that they can't get the insurance guys to sign off on it.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Be it a sitcom or MythBusters, the punters just want favourite shows. What could possibly be different?

So anyway, off the top of your head, what "distribution of plausible/confirmed/busted myths" do you imagine its audience demands?

Okay, to be fair, the guys on mythbusters are indeed... not unlike they are on television when they're in real life. I had a drink with Tori and I spoke to adam enough and know enough who did at TAM to know that the show is not complete acting. These guys were actually not really tv-types when they started off. They had been in the industry but not in that capacity. And there has been mention that they are a bit peeved from time to time by the fact that the producers and network execs limit things. But all in all, it's not as synthetic as you might think it could be.

It's a "reality show" yeah, but less sucky than most out there. They managed to find a couple good real characters and work with that. I think that is part of the appeal to fans and such. The show seems to have gotten bigger than they expected.


But as far as bias with Myths, I'm not sure there's one in favor of bust/confirm. The show is "Mythbusters" not "factbusters" so if it turns out a proported myth is true, then it isn't a myth. The point is basically to figure out which need to be busted.

Their science is actually pretty good, most of the time. It's not always worthy of peer review publication and there have been some incidents where it wasn't so good. But I definately have found some experiments to be very telling of stuff I didn't know.

If they have a bias in favor of anything they do take some of the Myths further than they need to. On occasion it becomes pretty obvious from the getgo that it isn't gona happen, but they go through all the way, using how ever much explosives and whatnot they need.

I think if you compare it to most popular shows on the tube it does pretty damn well.

 

[my_wan]

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?

I would say; "Evidence?"

me too.

Actually it can be done but it is more trick than skill or technique. The arrow you split must have a directional grain that runs all the way down the shaft. In this way if you ever do hit the back of it the split will actually direct the shot arrow down the center of it. The grain in most woods is neither consistent or straight enough to do it. Unsuitable grain defects will insure it's impossible even in the absurd conditions of a perfectly shot perfectly stiff arrow.

Anyone here ever chopped would to keep warm?

 

[JoeEllison]

Anyone here ever chopped would to keep warm?

No, but I've chopped WOOD a time or two.

 

[Pyrts]

A slicing or draw-cut action would actually be less efficient in a metal-on-metal scenario. You're maintaining edge contact for longer, but applying the same energy over a longer period of time. Works well against flesh, living bone, and to a lesser extent fabric, but not metal.

But I'm no physicist. I'd be interested to know how a replicated slice could have improved their results and brought them anywhere near a "confirmed" or even "plausible" for those two tests. .

It wouldn't. They were using the slice cut (the sword hits and the arm motion goes down and to the side in a very fast and smooth manner.) You can wave-and-whack with those, but you're not going to do much damage with them.

I took fencing and I studied swordwork for awhile -- the technique was correct. Watch any old Toshira Mufune movie to see the beautiful classic form... same thing that their demonstrators were doing.

 

[Wowbagger]

It's television.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works. There are no surprises in television any more. There's too much money involved to gamble it on unknown quantities. No-one wants to hear this about their favourite shows. UK viewers are slowly starting to find out just how true it is, though. If there's a certain ratio of busted to confirmed, it's planned that way, carefully, in advance.

I, for one, will buy the idea that they try to plan a ratio of busted and confirmed myths to air, in advance.

However, I would not go so far as to accuse them of sticking to those biaes when actually doing the tests, unless somone brings forth evidence that they do.
I am sure the filmed ratio gets a little askew, when unexpected test results occur. But, perhaps not often enough to be detrimental to their "plans".

Although, I have to wonder: If they do plan the ratio, do they also plan how many are going to be "plausible"? That would seem a bit odd.

They are clever, but they aren't engineering gods. Just because their Ming Dynasty Astronaut simulator couldn't get off the launchpad (after a day or two of fiddling) doesn't mean that generations of smart Chinese working on the problem couldn't figure it out.

I think the myth spread because its perpetrators' understanding of the physics involved was much too basic.

The Mythbusters were able to demonstrate that it takes a lot more effort to fling an emperor into space, than most laymen would assume. The myth is Busted, because reality is not as simple as the simple innocence the myth takes on.

I'm not involved in the production of MythBusters, but this is how it would typically work:

- Make a list of myths that most probably are true
- Make a list of myths that most probably are false
- Make a list of myths with an unknown result

- Make a list of myths which are expensive to reproduce and film
- Make a list of myths which are easy to reproduce, cheap

- Make a list of myths which need to be filmed during good weather outdoors
- Make a list of myths which can be filmed anytime during the year indoors

- Discuss all of the above with the network, hosts, their schedule, the bean counters etc.

Take the above lists, and plan for the next season. Tape one or two back-ups if there's enough money. Then you are pretty sure what will be aired next year.

Could be true. But, that does not imply bias in their testing practices.

A sitcom is presented as fiction. A science show is often fiction as well but the audience is not meant to know that.

Reality Television is an oxymoron.

* They use measurement equipment they way they were designed to be used. Compare that to, say, The Ghost Hunters, for example, who seem to abhor instruction manuals and specification sheets.

I am self-reiterating this point, because I realized it could be one of the strongest arguments against the Mythbusters being biased.

There is a lot of room for judgement, when one uses measuring equipment in ways it was not meant to be used. Hence, the Ghost Hunters could "judge" that there might be a spirit in the room.

But, with the Mythbusters, there is no judgement. Assuming the measurement equipment is not faulty, the results are factual, not merely opinion.

Nice responses Wowbagger...

Aw shucks, twerp nuttin'.

 

[Bikewer]

Hehe....Jerome da Gnome posted the infamous "fat Korean" video which has been posted on the Mythbusters board approxomately 500 times. As the other poster noted, the fellow is shooting into a tube.

Here's a few things to consider with splitting the arrow, that folks with no archery background (and perhaps more specifically, no period archery background) might not be aware of:

First, the only sort of point which would have even a ghost of a chance of splitting the arrow would be a broadhead. Commonly used in warfare at the time, true. But Robin was shooting at a competition, in much the same manner modern target archers do. No broadheads, please; the rangemaster would have a conniption. Not only tears up the rollled-straw target, but the very devil to get out.
Robin would have been shooting a "bodkin" or "pile" point for competition, roughly analogous to a modern target point. The Mythbusters found out very early that target points were utterly useless for splitting.

Arrows with "self" nocks were used in the test. A simple slot cut into the wood across the grain, often reinforced with a binding of sinew or cordage. These were common, but for both war and target a horn nock would have been used. For the warbows, drawing 90-100 pounds, a self nock is not safe. It can split. The horn insert provides needed strength.
For target work, the horn nock provides a smooth release.
(Again, I'm referring to period weapons)
A horn nock would almost guarantee that the arrow would not split; horn is very tough indeed.
One more thing: If Robin did use a broadhead, we must consider that it was spinning. Arrows spin, you know, that's what the fletching does. With the arrow spinning, the chance of the two-edged broadhead aligning itself exactly with the grain of the arrow's shaft is.....Small.

As to the comment about the boys being willing to sacrifice a "vintage" rifle, I believe it was a reproduction. The sorts of swords we are talking about here are indeed priceless heirlooms,
held by Japanese families as a remembrance of Samurai glory. They are often valued in the range of millions of dollars....
Not needed, however.
As our metallurgist friends point out, modern steels are superior to any of the legendary steels produced by the Japanese swordsmiths, the Toledo "Damascus" swordsmiths, or anyone else.
The blades produced by these disparate groups were made the way they were to make the best of a bad situation, as it were. The constant folding and forging removed many of the impurities that plagued these early steels.
Modern steel alloys are superior in toughness, hardness, and flexibility to any of the much-vaunted blades of our ancestors.

 

[rocketdodger]

As I say, I can't remember beyond the MG barrel and the other sword blade, exactly what they tested, but with those two test media, they showed that a straight chop caused damage, but nothing like enough to actually cut through the target. A slicing or draw-cut action would actually be less efficient in a metal-on-metal scenario. You're maintaining edge contact for longer, but applying the same energy over a longer period of time. Works well against flesh, living bone, and to a lesser extent fabric, but not metal.

But I'm no physicist. I'd be interested to know how a replicated slice could have improved their results and brought them anywhere near a "confirmed" or even "plausible" for those two tests. If you're thinking of other tests that I've forgotten about, remind me what they were.

I agree a slicing action would be less efficient in metal-on-metal, but only if the hardness of the metals was comparable. In this case a katana has an edge that is harder than a rifle barrel, so slicing would still accomplish something. After all, thats how a hack-saw works, right? I can easily see a katana slice making a decent sized gouge in a rifle barrel -- nothing near cutting all the way through, probably not even more than 25% through, but it would still be much more impressive results than they got with their setup.

As a sword fanatic, I was just unimpressed by the treatment they gave the topic. I don't care if stupid myths like this are busted -- I don't believe them myself. What I do care about is someone misrepresenting the damaging ability of a well constructed blade. Even if the myths are busted, seeing a katana do serious damage is good for the cause. If I didn't already know better, after seeing that episode I would have come away with an idea that katanas are pretty lousy weapons.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm assuming you wanted them to test the myth with a sword that some monk in walla walla woo folded a thousand times to make the ultimate sword of ultimate destiny. It's not necessary because technology supplanted the monk a long time ago. Stop attributing mythical properties to these dam swords. There is no difference in quality.

No.

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

As I said in my reply to les, the point of contention I have with mythbusters is that, while debunking a myth that is obviously just a myth and not reality, they misrepresented the katana's ability to cut sh--.

I am sure you know what I am talking about -- having someone, who is not an expert, try to do something in the context of a topic you care much about, proclaim defeat before exhausting the resources available to them.

Its like watching a guy play a video game using your favorite character, who ends up getting his butt kicked -- its just frustrating to see someone misrepresent the ability of something that is important to you.

 

[wahrheit]

Seems some people interpret quite a few things into posts which never were there in the first place.

1) I never made any comment regarding a specific episode of MB or it's outcome

2) I never said they would plan the outcome of a test, I said they will do everything to NOT being surprised by the outcome, so that they can plan a good, dramatic, entertaining season of episodes.

 

[alfaniner]

I'm not involved in the production of MythBusters, but this is how it would typically work:

- Make a list of myths that most probably are true
- Make a list of myths that most probably are false
- Make a list of myths with an unknown result

- Make a list of myths which are expensive to reproduce and film
- Make a list of myths which are easy to reproduce, cheap

- Make a list of myths which need to be filmed during good weather outdoors
- Make a list of myths which can be filmed anytime during the year indoors

- Discuss all of the above with the network, hosts, their schedule, the bean counters etc.

Take the above lists, and plan for the next season...

I imagine that all that is done, but not prioritized in that order.

 

[wahrheit]

I imagine that all that is done,

And lot's more.

but not prioritized in that order.

I didn't imply any order.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They should be called "MythTesters", but it just doesn't sound as good as "Mythbusters". But, they are really after testing myths, for their validity. They are not just out to bust them.

The Mythbusters' conclusions are based on what is self-evident in each test. They really don't make any judgement calls - it either works or it does not.
And, when their answer is not quite clear enough, they admit it is "plausible". They don't shoehorn it into "busted" or "confirmed". More testing might be necessary, in that case.

Other things to add:
* They don't just put in a little token effort, either. These folks try their darndest to get the myths to work. They only give up after exhaustive effort.

* They are sometimes suprised at their results, more times than most would like to admit. If a result does not agree with their personal prediction, they "publish" anyway. They don't sweep it under a rug.

* Anyone with the proper resources and training (if necessary) can try to duplicate their results. They are out there for the community to scrutinize. They do not conduct their efforts in secret labs.

* Sometimes they get things wrong. (Hey, no one is perfect). But, they own-up to it! They retest and revisit whenever necessary, and sometimes the outcomes could be different. They publish the new results in its place, and talk about what they did wrong before, and what they learned since.

* Etc.

They have also tackeled documented events that get passed around as myths, but are real events. Not sure if they do it so much now but that was part of their orrigional format.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was about to write something very similar, but Teek beat me to it. The ratio between busted and confirmed myths is not a scientific or mathematical issue, it's the decision of the producers. It would be boring to have them bust every myth, it would be boring the other way round.

So you agree with her(it seemed to be) that they will gimic their equipement and experiment to get the desired results? Or is it an issue of editing the experiments together?

 

[wahrheit]

So you agree with her(it seemed to be) that they will gimic their equipement and experiment to get the desired results? Or is it an issue of editing the experiments together?

No, not at all, please read my posts above. I am talking about how a TV show is planned. You simply would not randomly pick 12 myths, shoot them, spend a lot of time and money, and then be surprised when the network guy says: "Uh, kinda boring this time, isn't it. All 12 myths turned out to be true. I don't think we want to air that."

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm assuming you wanted them to test the myth with a sword that some monk in walla walla woo folded a thousand times to make the ultimate sword of ultimate destiny. It's not necessary because technology supplanted the monk a long time ago. Stop attributing mythical properties to these dam swords. There is no difference in quality.

Well I must admit I question the quality of their replicas when they showed up with a 15 lbs Claymore.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then you need to read more.

You know absolutely nothing about television whatsoever. The entire series is planned in advance, with a careful distribution of outcomes. I assure you. Television is never made with unknown quantities and it is planned to very careful patterns to ensure maximum retention of viewers. You think the show is live or something?

So when they have had unexpected results, they are lieing about that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Before you repeatedly accuse someone of being an idiot, you might check on the facts, a.k.a. real life.

I don't know if Teek (tkingdoll) has any proof for what she's saying, but for one, there would be me.

I've been producing television shows, and if you really think nobody at that big telly company has been done some thinking and planning regarding the ratio between busted and confirmed myths, you must be very naive.

You might reconsider your language before using words like "idiotic". Especially, since you don't seem to know what you are talking about, except for watching television, as opposed to making it.

So you agree that they will force the results to fit the script and lie about it to preserve their ratio?

 

[wahrheit]

So you agree that they will force the results to fit the script and lie about it to preserve their ratio?

Again, could you please read my posts before coming to wrong conclusions? See #48, for example: "I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode."

 

[ponderingturtle]

As our metallurgist friends point out, modern steels are superior to any of the legendary steels produced by the Japanese swordsmiths, the Toledo "Damascus" swordsmiths, or anyone else.
The blades produced by these disparate groups were made the way they were to make the best of a bad situation, as it were. The constant folding and forging removed many of the impurities that plagued these early steels.
Modern steel alloys are superior in toughness, hardness, and flexibility to any of the much-vaunted blades of our ancestors.

This is very true, hell steel today is much better in those regards than steel from 20 years ago. Not sure entirely about Wootz steel though, with its hard granules in a softer background I thought it was unusualy well suited to cutting soft materials.