Spookykou
20d ago
I am still not really seeing this, as far as I can tell you are simultaneously holding that most people are too stupid to interact with a hypothetical (but I did have breakfast) while also contending that the same people, if they could interact with a hypothetical, would understand how the host opening a second door changes the probability such that they would consistently get the Monty Hall Problem right.
You seem to leave little to no room for the, in my opinion far simpler explanation that people have a hard time intuitively understanding how the host opening the wrong door changes the probability of switching doors.
Elsewhere Skeletor describes his own experience, and it is more or less a perfect match for every person I have ever seen try and tackle this problem. Do you think that the secret real root of Skeletor's confusion was that he thought the host was trying to trick him?
I also did not intuitively understand the probability when first hearing the problem. My solution was to pull out paper and pencil and just simulated the problem 9 times, which quickly revealed that I would win by switching 6 out of the 9 times. My internal experience did not really feel like what you are describing, and my attempted solution is basically incoherent if I was concerned in the way that you describe.
Spookykou
20d ago
I should have remembered where I was and refrained from commenting on anything approaching a 'logic puzzle' here. I am the stupid sort who just assumes things when interacting with this kind of puzzle, like that the rules are 'fair' or at least that the trick would not be, this. So I would never even consider the possibility of the puzzle formatted in such a way that the host only opens the second door conditionally on you having selected the correct door, as I would not even see the point in asking such a question.
In my defense, I have never once heard someone raise this objection(before now) when trying to solve the problem or discussing the answer, so it seemed totally out of left field for me. I take it your contention is that this is the primary area of confusion though, based on your comment. I guess it goes to filter bubbles, I associate with people who are stupid enough to be confused by the basic problem where as your circle could only ever be confused by the under-specificity in the description of the scenario.
Spookykou
21d ago
Your description of the Monty Hall problem is new to me,
(is it guaranteed that he would pick and open a door regardless of what you do? If yes: switch;
I've never heard of a version of the problem where it is not guaranteed that the host picks a door and opens after you have selected your door.
People were still confused by it.
From the wiki
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them calling Savant wrong.[4] Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still did not accept that switching is the best strategy.[5] Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating Savant's predicted result.
It certainly matches my experience from as recently as the 1990s early 2000s. Small town restaurants were generally pretty bad, and the general quality of random suburban restaurants has increased pretty dramatically in the last fifteen-twenty years or so.
I don't totally understand why this would be the case. I think cooking is 90% knowing a recipe, so in theory all you should need is print technology to quickly spread quality cooking instruction, but in practice that didn't work. Even cooking TV shows couldn't do it. I've no idea why wide spread internet usage would be the game changer when those others failed, but it really matches the timeline based on my own experience. Maybe it was just Yelp.
More options
Context Copy link