When cable television began to take off about twenty years ago, many pundits predicted that the quality of television programming would decline overall. The rationale for this prediction is that the number of channels would increase dramatically, from a small number (three networks plus public television and a few independent stations) to a much greater number (most cable systems offer at least fifty channels and one hundred channels or more is not unheard of); the programming demands created by this increase in the number of channels would be too much for the creative forces involved in television, who would inevitably churn out inferior shows.

The Test, which currently airs on the FX Network at 11:00 PM Eastern time on weeknights, supports the abovementioned prediction. It's not that the show is bad in an unqualified sense - the production values are decent and the host and guests generally seem to be engaging. It's just that it's difficult to see this show having ever seen the light of day if it weren't for the fact that there are many cable channels with many hours to fill with programming. The Test is a show built around a simple premise: four guests are asked questions revolving around a specific theme (for this show, the topic was spontaneity). Based on their answers to these questions, a personality profile is formed (apparently by a panel of experts), and the personality profiles for each of the four guests are read by the host at the end of the show. A typical question is "[y]our significant other calls you at 1 AM and asks you to come over for a quickie; do you oblige?" [Ms. Sullivan's response: "I don't come to quickies; quickies come to me."] The show is hosted by Jillian Barberie, a name which sounded familiar to me - it turns out she is the host of Good Day, Los Angeles and was once on the short list of potential replacements for Kathie Lee Gifford as co-host of Live with Regis and [fill in the blank] before the show's producers finally settled on Kelly Ripa. Barberie is certainly charismatic enough to carry out her role as host of this show, and the collagen lips don't hurt her chances, either. The guests for this particular show (which originally aired on May 2nd) were Phil Vasser (a country singer), Alexis Thorpe (The Young and the Restless) and Kerr Smith (Dawson's Creek). The guests dutifully answered the questions posed to them by Barberie, and the dialogue proceeded along the typical, desultory course that most television talk shows take. Ms. Sullivan's responses were generally the funniest, but the other panelists did a good job of projecting the false aura of confidence that one expects from Hollywood types on these shows.

The central problem of the show is that the ultimate purpose of asking the ten questions posed during the half-hour is to arrive at some judgment regarding the guests' personalities. But such a judgment, whether it be by another person or by a group of people, is worthless unless one has some knowledge of the underlying values which form the basis of the judgment. For example, if someone's values are completely opposite to one's own, then one would probably not give much consideration to that person's judgments on one's personality. Alas, we have no knowledge of the values underlying the panel's judgment, although we can make some kind of guess. It seems that the experts have defined "virtue" as a mean between too extremes. A person who completely lacks impulsivity is unbalanced, but a person who almost always acts spontaneously is irresponsible. This does not provide us with much to go with - is the highest virtue in being spontaneous fifty percent of the time, while acting in a careful, deliberate way the other fifty percent of the time? Is virtue always found at the midpoint, or are there some cases where an unbalanced approach sometimes warranted? [One hint: if given a choice between food and poison, always choose the food, not a mixture of food and poison.] If this show was designed as some sort of self-help show - we are invited to take "the test" online - then it is a vapid, insipid show. If it was devised as entertainment, it is somewhat better, although seeing four Hollywood types take a personality test isn't exactly the pinnacle of entertainment; it is more like self-indulgent twaddle and I'd venture that there's few people in this country who couldn't come up with a more constructive way of spending a half-hour of their time, even if it just consists of watching another television show. [Hint: Law and Order reruns also air at 11 PM Eastern time on A&E.]