MythBusters results, question about bias

[ponderingturtle]

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."

Then why are you not questioning Teek when she makes that assertion?

 

[Elizabeth I]

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?

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

Have you ever seen the show? The whole gang has an admitted predilection for dramatic results, so if a myth is busted, THEY SAY SO, CLEARLY, then go on to set up conditions that can make that myth's dramatic result possible. They do it just for fun and for the entertainment value of the whole thing. But I don't believe they fudge their results or lie about them.

It would be boring if every myth was "busted" or "confirmed." Why would you bother to watch? You would know how every test was going to turn out. As far as ratios of busted/plausible/confirmed outcomes are concerned, the shows are taped, so a number of tests can be combined in a show to achieve whatever mix of results is desired. It's a matter of entertaining the audience.

That is all Teek and Wahrhreit (sp?) are trying to tell you.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

Nobody has said that. However do you think the show would have got commissioned if its first series had confirmed every myth they tested? Would it have got recommissioned?

Do you think they took that chance, or do you think they took a range of myths, some of them likely to be confirmed, some likely to be busted?

Do you think they plan the split between likely true/likely false to give a ratio that makes for entertaining (or more accurately profitable) TV?

If you start with broadly the right ratio, then a few surprise results is no big deal. Firstly, the "best" percentage is really a range (nobody is really going to see a huge difference between 65% busted and 70%) so you can afford to be wrong in your predictions without real harm. If you are wrong too often (so that you are busting 90% of the myths after half the filming), then change the mix of those myths you are still to film to include more likely to be confirmed. Mix over the series comes out reasonable and you simply show them in a different order to that they were filmed in.

 

[wahrheit]

Then why are you not questioning Teek when she makes that assertion?

I didn't understand her that way, for me it was all about the best possible planning of a ratio between busted/confirmed episodes, the topic of the original post. Though I get what you mean, her first sentence of her first post.

This is what I wrote:

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.

And that's what I meant. And it doesn't necessarily have to be 100% the "predicted", wished for outcome. But at least the general direction, like "2/3 busted, 1/3 confirmed would be good. What do you guys think?"

 

[ponderingturtle]

Have you ever seen the show? The whole gang has an admitted predilection for dramatic results, so if a myth is busted, THEY SAY SO, CLEARLY, then go on to set up conditions that can make that myth's dramatic result possible. They do it just for fun and for the entertainment value of the whole thing. But I don't believe they fudge their results or lie about them.

It would be boring if every myth was "busted" or "confirmed." Why would you bother to watch? You would know how every test was going to turn out. As far as ratios of busted/plausible/confirmed outcomes are concerned, the shows are taped, so a number of tests can be combined in a show to achieve whatever mix of results is desired. It's a matter of entertaining the audience.

That is all Teek and Wahrhreit (sp?) are trying to tell you.

Teek went beyond that claim. She talked about forcing myths to fit the script.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nobody has said that.

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.

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?

An uncertain and unscripted outcome is exactly what they would never want in Teeks definition. That they have had outcomes that where not what they appeared to predict means either they do not script it totaly and there is unpredictable results in the series, something Teek claims is impossible, or that those in the series are lying about their ideas as to its possibility.

However do you think the show would have got commissioned if its first series had confirmed every myth they tested? Would it have got recommissioned?

Do you think they took that chance, or do you think they took a range of myths, some of them likely to be confirmed, some likely to be busted?

Do you think they plan the split between likely true/likely false to give a ratio that makes for entertaining (or more accurately profitable) TV?

If you start with broadly the right ratio, then a few surprise results is no big deal. Firstly, the "best" percentage is really a range (nobody is really going to see a huge difference between 65% busted and 70%) so you can afford to be wrong in your predictions without real harm. If you are wrong too often (so that you are busting 90% of the myths after half the filming), then change the mix of those myths you are still to film to include more likely to be confirmed. Mix over the series comes out reasonable and you simply show them in a different order to that they were filmed in.

That is not what Teek was claiming.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't understand her that way, for me it was all about the best possible planning of a ratio between busted/confirmed episodes, the topic of the original post. Though I get what you mean, her first sentence of her first post.

See my quotes in the above post. She certainly was makeing all kinds of statements against any kind of honnestly that could be involved.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

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

I would highly doubt that. Most of the stuff they do is documented and straight forward enough that it leaves little room for trickery. There are some where they have numbers that they could potentially fake, but it would be hard to make it seem like a catipult could fling a dummy a certain distance when it cannot or vice-versa, unless you resort to just blatent special effects tricks.

There are some examples where the experiment "fails" or just doesn't work as they had hoped or anticipated the first time.

Not to mention that their fans have been known to give them hell when they think that something was left out or done improperly and occasionally force a redo.

In any case, I don't understand why they would need to. The show seems to be pretty compelling and entertaining even when just based on the facts.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Gotta' love those Japenesse!!!

Split arrow

I suggest moving to about the 6 min. mark.

and nothing in that video (which has been posted many, many times on the mythbusters forum) has anything to do with splitting an arrow. He shot an arrow into a narrow, empty tube. Kinda different than putting it through 18 inches of wood without turning.
Also, the subtitles look more Korean than Japanese, no?

Not that it matters, but it is Korean. KBS stands for the "Korean Broadcasting System". And I was going to point out that it was edited and as such, I question whether it actually happened, but Spare Time seems to be familiar with the video and its authenticity or should I say accuracy.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I can see where Mythbusters would try to plan what myths they would tackle based on predicted results. They would want to try to get a mix of "busted" and "confirmed" results in a single show, but I really don't think they fake the results to get such a mix. They seem to be surprised at times regarding the results they do get and I don't think they are that good of actors.

I can see that they may shoot a number of "myths" over the course of the season and then put them together in a certain order to provide a good mix of results. The only time that I can see that this might be problematic is when they do their "theme" shows, where all the "myths" share a common theme and it would be difficult to mix and match them over the season. In that case they may shoot a few more segments than is needed for that particular show/theme, but given how they like to blow things up a lot, the expense to do that too often would be prohibitive. In fact, I think they use their love to push the "myths" to a positive result as a useful balance in a particular show that may have had a lot of results that weren't anticipated. The audience loves a good explosion and would forget about the initial, boring results. I know that I do.

 

[IMST]

To clarify, I'm not certain of the authenticity of that video. I know it has been posted many times on the Mythbusters forum and that, if authentic, it still has nothing to do with the myth being discussed.

 

[zooterkin]

Teek went beyond that claim. She talked about forcing myths to fit the script.

No, she didn't. She's talking about how the myths are chosen, not how the myths were tested.

 

[Big Les]

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

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.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

How often is this? And how do you know it?

MythBusters is not a science show anyway, it's a form of reality TV. A superior form, obviously.

What keeps your favourite show favourite? What makes it your favourite show in the first place?

I don't have a favourite show. I did for a while when Firefly was showing, and later there was Deadwood, but normally not.

I like MythBusters. I like the people, the action, the conversation, the displays of ingenuity and practical skills. It's not about the conclusion, it's about the testing.

The most sensible answer to that question is 'the one the next season has'.

From a careerist's point of view, I suppose, but otherwise?

If every single myth was busted I assure you they would lose viewers because the show would be predictable. If every single myth was confirmed, ditto.

The show would not be predictable because the show is not about the conclusions.

However, I'd say that a 'busted' conclusion is likely to be in the majority because those are more fun and lead to more water-cooler conversations than the others.

Telegenic and practicable myths will be the ones selected.

I also assure you that the ratio, just like the running order of the episodes, is not left to chance. There are many outcomes which can be predicted on paper way before building the exploding kajigga.

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.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Very interesting.

 

[EventHorizon]

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

 

[CFLarsen]

Very interesting.

That's all you have to say?

No comment of your own, no reflection whatsoever - except a non-committing "Very interesting"?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In that case they may shoot a few more segments than is needed for that particular show/theme, but given how they like to blow things up a lot, the expense to do that too often would be prohibitive.

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?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, she didn't. She's talking about how the myths are chosen, not how the myths were tested.

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.

You are saying that she did not mean what she said.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

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.