Like 23 million other Americans, I watched part of Fox’s tasteless new game show “The Moment of Truth” the other night. The format, which has apparently been a hit in Colombia and the UK, is this: Contestants are asked a series of increasingly embarrassing personal questions in a polygraph examination a few days before the show. On the show, they are asked an escalating series of these questions and awarded money for truthful responses. They can walk away at any point with the money they have already won, but if they answer dishonestly (as determined by the polygraph) they win nothing.
This makes no sense to me. I couldn’t work out exactly why the game seemed so flawed while I was watching it, but I’ve thought about it a bit and here’s the problem: there is absolutely no judgment involved on the part of the player.
Assume for a moment that polygraph tests are reliable indicators of truth (they aren’t). Assume also that you are aware of their reliability. Now put yourself in a the shoes of a contestant on “The Moment of Truth.” By the time you appear on the show, you already know the questions you are going to be asked (because you’ve had the polygraph exam already), and presumably you know what the correct answers are.
Given all this: Why would you ever lie? You have no incentive to do so. If you do lie, you’ll lose the money you’ve won and the truth will be still be revealed. Why would anyone bother to lie in a situation where they could be 100% certain they would not get away with it?
Which brings me to the heart of what bothers me about the show. The contestants that lost didn’t look embarrassed or sheepish, like they’d been caught in a lie — they looked confused. Since we’ve already established that no contestant on the show should have any incentive to lie, there are only two ways to lose:
- A contestant has lied so subliminally that he fails a polygraph test while still believing he is telling the truth.
- The polygraph results for a given question were inaccurate.
I’m inclined to go with #2, which means that the whole premise of the show is bogus. In other words, it’s nothing but a game of chance, and not even an interesting one at that.
And, depressingly, the fact that I’ve spent 10 minutes complaining about the show means that Fox has already won.
One Comment
If they limited questions to strictly yes or no questions, they would get better answers. Asking someone if they ever touched a client “more than necessary” is too grey. You have to ask questions like, “have you ever pinched a client’s butt?” or “have you ever gone to dinner with a woman other than your wife?” to get answers that are reliable.
Personally, I would freak out with every question they asked and then go crazy trying to remember what I said originally. That’s just me though.
Post a Comment