Women, math, and the Monty Hall problem

[Mock Turtle]

There are no “odds” involved with the three door option. No matter what door you choose it is 100% certain that Monty will open one of the three doors and there will be a goat Behind it, thus eliminating it as an option. So including this ‘one of three door choice‘ as part of the mathematical odds calculation for the final choice is the flaw in that calculation. The one-in-three odds never existed, and therefor cannot possibly effect the odds of the final ACTUAL choice and result.

if you set up a flawed mathematical model it will give you a flawed result … every time. And the fact that it does so every time, repeatedly and predictably, does not make it not flawed. And when it‘s flawed results confirm your flawed presumptions, it is still a flawed model giving you flawed results that you are using to “prove” your flawed presumptions to be correct, to yourself.

And this is what is happening here. Monty’s theatrics are being wrongly interpreted as being an actual option, when there is no option at all. So it is wrongly being assigned odds when the only odds are 100% that Monty will eliminate one door with one goat behind it. Leaving you with the real, actual options of two doors behind which are two different possible results. These are the only real options we are ever given. There were no previous odds to be calculated.

You are still evading the issue. You get a further choice after choosing one door. Do you change or stick. If you do the latter then most of the time you will lose - as demonstrated in tests. You can't understand this?

 

[PureX]

You are still evading the issue. You get a further choice after choosing one door.

There is no “further choice” because you had no choice in the first place. No matter what you said the result was 100% the same. And that result was two doors with two different results. You could have literally chosen the elevator door, or no door, or the moon, and that would still have been the result. There was no 1-door- 3 option. That is fiction.

Do you change or stick. If you do the latter then most of the time you will lose - as demonstrated in tests. You can't understand this?

There is no “change or stick”. That is fiction. There is only “choose this door or that door”. That was always the only option being given.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are no “odds” involved with the three door option. No matter what door you choose it is 100% certain that Monty will open one of the three doors and there will be a goat Behind it, thus eliminating it as an option. So including this ‘one of three door choice‘ as part of the mathematical odds calculation for the final choice is the flaw in that calculation. The one-in-three odds never existed, and therefor cannot possibly effect the odds of the final ACTUAL choice and result.

if you set up a flawed mathematical model it will give you a flawed result … every time. And the fact that it does so every time, repeatedly and predictably, does not make it not flawed. And when it‘s flawed results confirm your flawed presumptions, it is still a flawed model giving you flawed results that you are using to “prove” your flawed presumptions to be correct, to yourself.

And this is what is happening here. Monty’s theatrics are being wrongly interpreted as being an actual three door option, when there is no option at all. So it is wrongly being assigned odds when the only odds are 100% that Monty will eliminate one door with one goat behind it. Leaving you with the real, actual option of two doors behind which are two different possible results. These are the only real options the contestant is ever given. And these define the only odds that are apropos. There were no previous odds to be calculated.

So then -- in light of that, explain why every simulation, and every real-world test -- ends up with "Change your first choice" wins 2 out of every 3 times. If you are correct, that is impossible, unless God or a demon are fiddling with every simulation and every real-world test.

So, your explanation please. You have yet to give one.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is no “further choice” because you had no choice in the first place. No matter what you said the result was 100% the same. And that result was two doors with two different results. You could have literally chosen the elevator door, or no door, or the moon, and that would still have been the result. There was no 1-door- 3 option. That is fiction.

There is no “change or stick”. That is fiction. There is only “choose this door or that door”. That was always the only option being given.

You are one stubborn ********.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are one stubborn ********.

Certain posters in threads about atheists:
"Atheists are so arrogant and obnoxious, they think they're so smart and more insightful than theists, but they're just arrogant and incapable of any introspection, they just want to feel so much better than theists because they're all egomaniacs."

Certain posters in a thread about a very widely understood and demonstrable quirk of probability in mathematics:
"Everyone is wrong and I am right, all the experts aren't as smart as I am, you're all just really gullible, I will never accept that I could be wrong about this, I am just way smarter than all of you and all mathematicians and I will never acknowledge any demonstration that I am wrong."

Insecurity is a deeply bipolar position.

 

[Whateverist]

The problem here is that you are calculating probabilities based on something that never happened. You never chose one of three doors. Monty did.

No Monte Hall doesn't make the initial choice. The contestant does that and then, Monte Hall temptis people with what feels like a meaningless choice. But when you made the initial choice there actually were three doors one might have chosen. It doesn't go down to 2 until after he shows you one that is worthless. Nothing about what you choose to do at that point effects the calculation of your chance of having made a good choice at the beginning.

After he eliminates one losing door indeed there are now two to choose from but the chance that your initial choice was correct doesn't change (1/3) and that greatly effects your choice after his theatrics. Since the losing door is out of play, the 2/3 chance your first choice was wrong, transfers to the remaining door you did not choose.

Good luck it took me a good while driving home from a math conference with other math teachers to become convinced of the correct answer. You have to struggle with it yourself before you'll agree and that is as it should be.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're welcome to question the math of the Monty Hall problem.
But if you get the math wrong, be prepared for criticism.
Don't feign victimhood of being silenced just because you're
corrected.

Please don't confuse my choice to end an argument that has become an exercise in futility to mean that I have conceded anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, well that is life, and humans are mostly imperfect. So I wouldn't expect science to be perfect either, but I would expect other scientists to point out any errors or deceptions - and such does happen.

In this case you, like @PureX, are simply stuck in some belief as to what the issue is, and where this can be proven to be wrong. The problem has nothing to do with psychology - just options open to the contestant. If you believe it is simply a 50/50 choice (and not changing) then you will lose most of the time.

And with that you and I also can just let it be and agree to disagree. I strongly suggest that solution here.

 

[PureX]

So then -- in light of that, explain why every simulation, and every real-world test -- ends up with "Change your first choice" wins 2 out of every 3 times.

The simulations were set up to predict a fictitious scenario involving choices that never existed. And the real world results being claimed are bogus ‘urban legends‘.

If you are correct, that is impossible, unless God or a demon are fiddling with every simulation and every real-world test.

So, your explanation please. You have yet to give one.

I have explained many times that the 1/3 door option is make-believe. It never existed. Yet you are using it to calculate the odds of a scenario that is clearly, logically, and obviously 50/50.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The simulations were set up to predict a fictitious scenario involving choices that never existed. And the real world results being claimed are bogus ‘urban legends‘.

I have explained many times that the 1/3 door option is make-believe. It never existed. Yet you are using it to calculate the odds of a scenario that is clearly, logically, and obviously 50/50.

That last statement is 100% nonsense. You are confronted with 3 doors, behind which are 2 goats and 1 car, in any order -- and you are instructed to pick a door.

NOW STOP RIGHT THERE!.

Your chance of selecting the door with the car is 1 in 3, and of picking a door with a goat is 2 in 3.

And that is as plain as it can possibly be.

 

[Whateverist]

Guys, @PureX is on his "scientism bad" kick again. From experience I can assure you that no argument, no illustration, no expertise will shake him in his total dedication to his own point of view.

Might as well give up.

While I disagree with him regarding this little puzzle. I agree with him entirely that scientism is a problem .. even though science itself is useful.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

While I disagree with him regarding this little puzzle. I agree with him entirely that scientism is a problem .. even though science itself is useful.

I'm not using "scientism," nor even science, really. Just a bit of simple logic. Logic that even @PureX could see, if he would stop at each step where I tell him to, and examine the lie of the land carefully.

 

[Whateverist]

I'm not using "scientism," nor even science, really. Just a bit of simple logic. Logic that even @PureX could see, if he would stop at each step where I tell him to, and examine the lie of the land carefully.

I agree but I couldn't resist going off against scientism. It really is a problem ... though entirely unrelated to the Monte Hall problem.

 

[Shaul]

Imagine you are on Let's Make a Deal. Carol Merrill shows you three doors. Good ol' Monty Hall explains that behind two of the doors is a goat, but behind one door is the sexiest sports car you've ever imagined.

In some countries a goat might be the sexiest sports car imaginable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

odds are 100% that Monty will eliminate one door with one goat behind it.

That's why doing that doesn't change the odds that there are 2 chances in 3 that you picked the wrong door. As I've already pointed out, that's different from when somebody who doesn't know where the car sits makes that choice, because that person, unlike the host, has 1 chance in 3 of exposing the car, so picking a goat door DOES change the odds.

But nothing changes when the host reveals a goat. For whatever reason, you are conflating these two scenarios, mistakenly considering them equivalent.

You never chose one of three doors. Monty did.

It's unbelievable that you write things like this. We actually see being offered three choices and picking one. Somehow, you can't understand that that has happened. How can that be?

There is no “change or stick”. That is fiction. There is only “choose this door or that door”

Unbelievable again. What is being said is essentially, 'either stick with the door that you already chose once (stick) or change your choice now to a different door that you didn't choose before (change),' and that is how you describe it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

explain why every simulation, and every real-world test -- ends up with "Change your first choice" wins 2 out of every 3 times. If you are correct, that is impossible, unless God or a demon are fiddling with every simulation and every real-world test. So, your explanation please. You have yet to give one.

I'm sure that you know that that's not going to happen. He only refers to the simulations like this: "The simulations were set up to predict a fictitious scenario involving choices that never existed. And the real world results being claimed are bogus ‘urban legends‘" and "The simulations were set up to predict a fictitious scenario involving choices that never existed."

That's his whole "argument" - unsupported claims. To him, the simulations are frauds and deceptions designed to fool lesser minds than his. He has no intention of trying to support that - just dismiss the evidence against his cherished belief with the wave of a hand.

Such is faith (insufficiently supported belief).

While I disagree with him regarding this little puzzle. I agree with him entirely that scientism is a problem .. even though science itself is useful.

He uses the term scientism when he is offended by his special way of knowing, which is intuition, being rejected. It happens frequently with him. He makes some claim supported only by his gut feeling, expects it to be respected, and when it's rebutted, goes on the attack as we see here.

One definition of scientism is the excessive reliance on empiricism for knowledge. I suppose that's possible if people are relying on science to scrub the atmosphere of greenhouse gases beyond what is really technologically feasible, but how often in life do we rely on science for answers and it creates a problem?

But that's not what he's criticizing. It not an excessive reliance on empiricism he objects to, but not enough respect for his special way of knowing. Scientism is a red herring as he uses the term.

So, what do we call what we are witnessing here - the excessive reliance on gut feeling as source of truth and knowledge, which in this case actually is creating problems for him? How about intuitionism meant in the same critical and derogatory sense as he uses the word scientism?

 

[Whateverist]

I'm sure that you know that that's not going to happen. He only refers to the simulations like this: "The simulations were set up to predict a fictitious scenario involving choices that never existed. And the real world results being claimed are bogus ‘urban legends‘" and "The simulations were set up to predict a fictitious scenario involving choices that never existed."

That's his whole "argument" - unsupported claims. To him, the simulations are frauds and deceptions designed to fool lesser minds than his. He has no intention of trying to support that - just dismiss the evidence against his cherished belief with the wave of a hand.

Such is faith (insufficiently supported belief).

He uses the term scientism when he is offended by his special way of knowing, which is intuition, being rejected. It happens frequently with him. He makes some claim supported only by his gut feeling, expects it to be respected, and when it's rebutted, goes on the attack as we see here.

One definition of scientism is the excessive reliance on empiricism for knowledge. I suppose that's possible if people are relying on science to scrub the atmosphere of greenhouse gases beyond what is really technologically feasible, but how often in life do we rely on science for answers and it creates a problem?

But that's not what he's criticizing. It not an excessive reliance on empiricism he objects to, but not enough respect for his special way of knowing. Scientism is a red herring as he uses the term.

So, what do we call what we are witnessing here - the excessive reliance on gut feeling as source of truth and knowledge, which in this case actually is creating problems for him? How about intuitionism meant in the same critical and derogatory sense as he uses the word scientism?

Yeah over reliance on empiricism but also flat out misapplying it and over valuing it. It is the gold standard in empirical matters but doesn’t do much for you in the humanities. When it comes to one’s basic stance toward the world intuition is preferable. But everything is better if science is allowed to inform where it pertains.

 

[Stevicus]

Interestingly, Monty Hall says in this interview he never operated that way on the actual show. He just offered money to the contestant after showing them the wrong door.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please don't confuse my choice to end an argument that has become an exercise in futility to mean that I have conceded anything.

I never thought you conceded the
superiority of switching the choice.

 

[Stevicus]

After watching this other clip, I remembered how it went.

There were generally two contestants, each selecting door 1, 2, or 3. Monty opens the door that wasn't selected first. There were never any zonks on the Big Deal, so no goats at all. In this clip, the Big Deal wasn't a car, but a trip to Europe. The runner up actually did win a car.