Disagree. Humans naturally over-connect. We see causation where only correlation is present. Gamblers believe that something random that has happened frequentl

Disagree. Humans naturally over-connect. We see causation where only correlation is present. Gamblers believe that something random that has happened frequently (like roulette landing on a specific number) is more likely to happen again. Educated people learn about dependent and independent probability, which corrects this impulse. But sometimes it over-corrects. The Monty Hall problem is hard because people see can't explain the dependent probability link clearly and conclude that the probabilities are independent and their brain is acting up - first guess 1 in 3, second guess 1 in 2. After all, the game host is always capable of opening a door with a goat, and the player doesn't know anything. Put differently, what did the player learn between the first and the second guess that should make the player now believe one door is more likely than the other of the remaining two? It also takes advantage of our natural thinking. The problem is artificial, because, outside of a game show, the host could also just not offer to switch. Emotional then, brains consider the information that the host made the second offer even if it's not logically part of the problem.