3 ms·
I think the caveat might be "until the logic is explained to them". Kind of like the Monty Hall problem. Some people intuitively get it. They understand that o
by bena 4y ago
I think the caveat might be "until the logic is explained to them".
Kind of like the Monty Hall problem. Some people intuitively get it. They understand that opening one door does not change the odds that they picked the wrong door at first. Some people need to see it played out or have it explained. But once they understand, it's fine.
- jmfldn 4y agoMonty Hall isn't like this imho, that's a legit 'veridical paradox' that famously wrong-foots mathematicians. This is pretty obvious to anyone who knows basic logic, or programmers who work with Booleans all day. That subset of people is quite small though probably.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago> They understand that opening one door does not change the odds that they picked the wrong door at first. Yes, they had 1-in-3 chance of getting it right originally, and that won't change if they do nothing... But of course that means there was a 2-in-3 chance it was one of the other two doors, and one of those has just been eliminated by being opened, meaning the 2-in-3 chance of being right is represented by the remaining door.... So, do you stick with your original door which has 1-in-3 chance of being right, or switch to the other door which you now know has a 2-in-3 chance of being right ? The key is that they are now being offered the choice to make a better informed choice than they had originally.