Belief in god just a gut feeling

Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Belief in god just a gut feeling

 Thought this was interesting. Explains that answer you hear from theists alot "I don't know how I know I just know".

 

(mod edit: Link to original; formatting)


Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling

For many people, believing in God comes down to a gut feeling that a benevolent deity is out there. A study now finds that gut feelings may be very important in determining who goes to church every Sunday and who avoids the pews.

People who are generally more intuitive in the way they think and make decisions are more likely to believe in God than those who ruminate over their choices, the researchers found. The findings suggest that basic differences in thinking style can influence religious belief.

"Some say we believe in God because our intuitions about how and why things happen lead us to see a divine purpose behind ordinary events that don't have obvious human causes," study researcher Amitai Shenhav of Harvard University said in a statement. "This led us to ask whether the strength of an individual's beliefs is influenced by how much they trust their natural intuitions versus stopping to reflect on those first instincts."

Shenhav and his colleagues investigated that question in a series of studies. In the first, 882 American adults answered online surveys about their belief in God. Next, the participants took a three-question math test with questions such as, "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"

The intuitive answer to that question is 10 cents, since most people's first impulse is to knock $1 off the total. But people who use "reflective" reasoning to question their first impulse are more likely to get the correct answer: 5 cents.

Sure enough, people who went with their intuition on the math test were found to be one-and-a-half times more likely to believe in God than those who got all the answers right. The results held even when taking factors such as education and income into account.

In a second study, 373 participants were told to write a paragraph about either successfully using their intuition or successfully reasoning their way to an answer. Those who wrote about the intuitive experience were more likely to say they were convinced of God's existence after the experiment, suggesting that triggering intuitive thinking boosts belief.

The researchers plan to investigate how genes and education influence thinking styles, but they're quick to note that neither intuition nor reflection is inherently superior.

"It's not that one way is better than the other," study researcher David Rand of Harvard said in a statement. "Intuitions are important and reflection is important, and you want some balance of the two. Where you are on that spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God."

The research was published Sept. 19 online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
 Nik, I could be wrong

 Nik, I could be wrong because I am pretty new here myself but from what I have seen of redneF's posts, and the clues early in his post here, I'm thinking my reaction of amusement was right the first time.

Internet gets me sometimes too, even with people with whom I am more familiar.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:For

harleysportster wrote:

For people like me that are statistically illiterate, this goes a bit over my head. What is the answer and how do you arrive at the conclusion ? I feel like an idiot for asking, but my curiousity went before my pride on this. Someone want to explain this to me ?

 

The answer is a counter intuitive 23 people

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox

 

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Nik K wrote: Wow. You

Nik K wrote:
Wow. You explain the rationale behind the conclusion

Yes.

Nik K wrote:
then reject it

The 'rationale' is a non sequitur.

Nik K wrote:
...and go off on an irrelevant rant about faith?

It is relevant, Einstein.

These arguments from 'probability' are the same ones used by apologists like William Lane Craig, John Lennox, et al, to convince people that it's L O G I C A L (the MORE intelligent decision) to choose the belief that a (personal, loving, and just) 'god' existing is much more probable than the 'other' probabilities.

By getting behind this Monty Hall 'problem', you are in effect giving credence to apologists.

Way to go!

Nik K wrote:
The point is just what you said, by switching doors you change your probability from 1/3 to 2/3.

That's a meaningless assertion.

I've done coin tosses numerous times in my life.

1- What are the odds that if I flip a coin right now it will come up heads?

2- What are the odds that if I flip a coin right now it will come up tails?

Which should I call?

Nik K wrote:
There's no guarantee switching will be the right move 

No shit, Sherlock!

Thanks! You can't get too big a dose of the 'obvious'.

Nik K wrote:
but if you don't switch you will win once every three times and if you do you will win twice every three times.

So, is that why the Titanic sunk?

Because the captain didn't change his mind?

Nik K wrote:
That's statistics

Statistics is 'charting' the past.

Nik K wrote:
not fortune telling.

Bullshit.

It is playing the part of a prophet, and using the 'power of positive suggestion' to persuade people to 'view' probablities in a certain way that has NO relevance on what is 'true'.

It's drivel.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Nik K
Posts: 5
Joined: 2011-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, you're right, ad

Yeah, you're right, ad hominem attacks are much more logically sound than statistics and mathematic drivel. I concede to your superior rationality.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
' I keep asking myself "

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..." '

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:natural,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

natural, so in a topic about how intuition can be misguided, you use your intuition to attempt to invalidate a scientific principle? For example an idea with MCI is more likely to grab attention than no CI elements or TOO much counter intuitive elements. 

Key words: "can be"

I am fully aware that my intuition can be wrong wrong wrong. And yet. I still use it. HYPOCRISY!?!?! No. Simple pragmatism. Intuition is not perfect, not by a long-shot, but it is not useless either. And when trained through education and refined through practice, intuition can often perform exceptionally well.

Consider: Grandmaster chess is played almost entirely by human intuition. Not sloppy, willy-nilly intuition, but highly trained and thoroughly practiced intuition. And except for a very few computers, most grandmasters can beat most computers (pure reasoning machines) any day, and using less power consumption in the process. Pretty fucking amazing if you ask me.

Reason and rationality, what we promote here, are built, in my view, on top of a basis of natural inborn intuitive brain power. Reason and rationality are like the tools we use to augment our intuition, to correct for its weaknesses, and to train ourselves to double-check our first intuitions and see if they might be wrong.

Many people pit reason against intuition, but that makes no sense to me. We're all born with intuition, and we learn reason... intuitively. We can also learn reason to such a well-practiced extent that it becomes second nature, i.e. we become intuitive rationalists, intuitively doubting our own intuitions.

The key to keeping this from getting out of control, is to constantly keep in mind that "I could be wrong, so I'll be a little tentative on this."

Consider: I was initially fooled by the Birthday problem. I had reasoned intuitively. My intuition led me astray. When I discovered my error, I didn't deny it, I didn't accuse the teacher of cheating, or make up some other rationalization. I intuitively knew, from past experience and noticing the patterns of how people fool themselves, that it was more likely that my first intuition was wrong.

So, I accepted that conclusion based on intuition (I had no scientific evidence of this; maybe the teacher had pulled a fast one).

Most people would say that I was using reason instead of intuition. I agree I was using reason. But it was fundamentally based on my pre-existing intuition, and it utilized my intuition at every step.

Intuition and reason are not mutually exclusive. Reason helps us train and improve our intuition.

The real problem is when people eschew reason altogether and go for a non-self-correcting thought process that, rather than correcting our intuitive flaws, actively endorses the intuitive flaws and uses them as 'trumps' over the more reasonable approach. It's the "I don't know how I know, I just know!" (a hallmark of a non-self-conscious intuitive thinking process) vs. the "I'm pretty sure I think I know very confidently, but I could be wrong (even dramatically wrong), and I'm open to that possibility and will modify my views based on any new evidence."

That's why my standard of truth is pragmatism. I leave it up to the universe to decide if I'm right or wrong. I have my opinions, but if they're wrong, I want to know I'm wrong, so I can correct them. Compare that to someone who operates by faith (another hallmark of how to lock oneself into a flawed intuitive mindset). They don't want to know that they're wrong. They want to believe that they're right!


So, yes, I use my intuition all the time. Every day, pretty much every moment I'm conscious. And I try to be very conscious of that fact, and try to scrutinize and double-check my beliefs on a regular basis. I am very skeptical of myself. I think it's one of the things that I do to such a degree that I'm able to spot most bullshit a mile away. And for that bullshit I don't spot right away, I remain cautious and skeptical about it until it has proven itself consistently. I'll try new things, but I'll do it in a controlled way. A little bit at a time. Backing off if I feel I'm starting to think uncritically.

For example, one of my most embarrassing failures of bullshit detection was when I was in between jobs around 2001, and I got a phone call from 'Primerica', saying to come down to their office for a group job interview. Apparently they were expanding and needed to hire lots of people, so they had an orientation session to basically see if some likely candidates would want to join the company.

I thought nothing of it, thinking instead, "Well, can't hurt. I'm looking for work anyway, it would be foolish not to go, even if it's just for a temporary job or something."

So I went, and the 'interview' was more like a sales pitch to join the company. It's growing, it's exciting, yadda yadda yadda. I thought, why not? Can't hurt. whatever. Signed up for the second interview.

Second interview went swimmingly. They wanted to hire me. So what if it's a job selling insurance or whatever. I could use the money. Can't hurt. It's just temporary, yadda yadda.

Anyway, long story short, my bullshit detector should have been going haywire, but because of my job situation, and because I had never heard of Primerica before, I went along with it for about a week, until I talked to a friend about it and he said, "You mean Primerica the multi-level marketing scam?" And I was like, "What?"

Now, I could have got all defensive. After all, the people I had met there were genuinely very nice folks and seemed very sincere, and not the kind of people you would expect to be scammers. I could have turned my shock around and started to make all sorts of rationalizations and whatnot.

Instead, I thought, "Whoa! Danger, Will Robinson! Better check this thing out before I do anything else. Put on my research hat and check the 'net." So that's how I found out I was being strung along by an MLM. Pretty embarrassing for a self-proclaimed skeptic, but hey, making mistakes and recognizing them is the first step toward learning something new. Now I consider it a lesson learned, and hey, it turned out to be a good example of how intuition is not only imperfect, but that it can also be self-corrected if you have some basic critical thinking skills.


And on the flip side of things, I've used my intuition to great effect many a time. I've even started putting it to a bit of a test, by posting some of my intuitive predictions about this or that topic, before I go on to read about the details. In fact, I just did it earlier in this thread, when I predicted (surreptitiously) that someone would end up popping in to argue for the wrong answer to the Monty Hall problem.

How was I to know for sure that would happen? I didn't. I just had an intuitive hunch that it would, based solely on my limited personal experience with the problem. Besides, this is RRS, and most of the readers would have been extra skeptical of the MHP, especially because I made a big deal about the intuitive illusion angle. But I was still confident enough that I thought it was worth the risk to make a prediction, even given all those confounding factors. I could easily have been wrong. And if I had been, I would have kept that in mind the next time around, and would make less strong predictions in the future.

Admittedly, this is just one minor example. But I'm sure (intuitively) that you can think of situations in your own recent experience that you have effectively and effortlessly used what you might now recognize as your highly trained intuitions (aka 'educated guesses') to make decisions that were later vindicated as good decisions.

There's no shame in this. There's nothing wrong with using intuition. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to do much of anything without using intuition at some basic level.

Intuition per se is not a bad thing. It's our brain's natural ability to make 'pretty good' guesses. Just not 'perfect' guesses. And often 'systematically flawed' guesses, such as we've been exploring with the Monty Hall problem and the Birthday problem.

Pretty much every fallacy in the book is an example of a systematic flaw in human intuition.

The key is to be aware of these flaws and to implement safe-guards in your own intuitive thought processes to check and correct for these errors. That's what reason is all about.

Science goes a step beyond that, and uses inter-subjective safe-guards to catch even more errors. But until we have machines that can do science algorithmically (which has already been demonstrated in at least one limited instance), even science itself ultimate rests on a foundation of basic, intuitive, flawed human brain power.


Quote:
you use your intuition to attempt to invalidate a scientific principle?

Is it a scientific principle? Or is it actually an hypothesis? Methinks it is an hypothesis.

And anyway, I am not attempting to 'invalidate' it, I'm proposing a more detailed alternative hypothesis for why it works the way it works. When I saw a prior video about MCI, I noticed that they did not present much in regards to the why of it, or the mechanisms of how it works. They definitely did not offer any counter-argument to my interpretation, and the evidence they presented did not contradict my interpretation at all. They simply proposed their own hypothesis, MCI. They did not show any appearance of even having considered an alternative hypothesis such as the one I posted earlier. That's fine. It's a preliminary finding. Intriguing, but not earth-shattering. And in any case, my hypothesis fits the same data, so you would need a more carefully designed study to differentiate where the universe points to the correct interpretation.

BTW: The process within science of developing and refining hypotheses is, itself, a highly intuition-dependent process. That's more-or-less the process I'm engaging in when I proposed my own hypothesis.

So, actually, I was engaging in amateur science when I used my intuition to propose an alternative hypothesis to theirs. So,

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The answer is a counter intuitive 23 people

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox

 

 

 

Wow Captain, that was a fascinating read. Thanks for sharing that with me.

For instance, another member, Sandycane and I, both came from the east coast (Sandy from New York, I'm from New Jersey) both of us live in Tennessee, both of us joined the RRS at roughly the same time and both have birthdays roughly around the same time of year.

For someone that did not grasp the calculations and understanding of statistical probability, they might see some sort of "spiritual forces and divine signs" in all of that.

It is no wonder that some of the theists of this world, will attribute "divine workings" to something that mathematical formulas and equations can easily calculate and explain.  Leaving a few minor coincidences in the mix of course.

Often times, I have heard people exclaim "What are the chances of (insert event) happening?,". as though this proves something.

The only thing that it proves, would be that most people are alot like me, not having taken courses or thoroughly examining statistical probability, they don't KNOW what the chances are and may perceive events to be a whole lot more mysterious than they really are.

I have never really studied or read on this type of subject matter before, but will definitely start using the Internet and my local library to find out more information about this.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I do believe that a certain user, who shall remain nameless, tends to point out using intuition is invalid.

 

But here's another one?

 

How many people have to be in a room, for there to be a 50% chance that two of them share the same birthday

 

For people like me that are statistically illiterate, this goes a bit over my head. What is the answer and how do you arrive at the conclusion ? I feel like an idiot for asking, but my curiousity went before my pride on this. Someone want to explain this to me ?

Well, let me try to pose it in the form of a wager, picking a random number of people so as not to give anything away.

Imagine you're at a party with a total of, say, 30 people. And the host challenges you to a wager. "I'll bet you that at least two people at the party tonight share the same birthday (just the day of the year, like Feb. 29, not exact birth date including the year number). If I'm right, you have to give me $100. If I'm wrong, I'll give you $100. Deal?"

You happen to know that the host doesn't know ahead of time anybody's birthdays. He has a rare memory disorder where he can only remember birthdays long enough to check whether the outcome of the test means he wins or loses. In fact, everyone at the party has this same disorder. It's the annual gathering of the few folks who have this disorder. (In other words, just assume that the birthdays are totally random.)

Would you take the bet? Is it a good bet, or a bad bet. How good is the bet? What would be the highest amount of money you'd be willing to risk in order to win his $100?

These are pretty good indicators of a person's judgment of the odds or probability of something happening.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Nik K wrote:Yeah, you're

Nik K wrote:

Yeah, you're right, ad hominem attacks are much more logically sound than statistics and mathematic drivel. I concede to your superior rationality.

Hi Nik, since you're new here, I should let you know that the forum does not have rules against generic insulting language, only against empty ad hominems.

If someone says, "You're wrong because of reasons X, Y, Z, and W, not to mention K. Asshole." then technically that's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when an insult (or other irrelevant personal characteristic) is used in place of an argument, like, "You're wrong because you're an asshole."

We also do not allow illegal or abusive attacks, such as personal threats or repeated harassment.

However, redneF's post does not fit any of those categories, as far as I can see. And he did offer points (though they may be wrong), so it is not strictly an ad hom.

He is free to disagree vehemently with you, and you are free to do so also. Or, if you prefer, you can just ignore rudeness and stick to just arguing the points. It's up to you. Just giving you a heads up. See the forum rules for details. Also, if you prefer more politeness in your own posts, you can post in the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum, where we have additional rules to keep things more polite.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Nik K wrote: Yeah, you're

Nik K wrote:
Yeah, you're right, ad hominem attacks are much more logically sound than statistics and mathematic drivel.

Calling you 'Einstein' and 'Sherlock' is an ad hominem??

Did you just arrive here from an Oprah forum, Sporty?

Oh, and you're the Duke of Etiquette to someone you've never even introduced yourself to, or ever had any previous dialogue with?

"Wow. You explain the rationale behind the conclusion, then reject it and go off on an irrelevant rant about faith?"

 

How about you just bite me, k, Sporty?

Nik K wrote:
I concede to your superior rationality.

You should realize that some things are a matter of perspective, and that not everyone agrees on how to view things or how to approach things.

 

The perspective I have on this 'Monty Hall Problem' is that after Door 3 is shown to have a goat behind it, it effectively becomes a non factor. It's no longer part of the equation, as if it was never there to begin with.

You 'reset' the odds. It's a 'new game' now.

 

The 'right answer' that is asserted in the original 3 Door Monty Hall Game is to 'go against your first choice' because it somehow concludes that 'first guesses' are only 33.333% probable vs second guesses when the second guess becomes the only other option in a 2 option dilemma.

Non sequitur much?...

natural wrote:
Well, let me try to pose it in the form of a wager, picking a random number of people so as not to give anything away.

Imagine you're at a party with a total of, say, 30 people. And the host challenges you to a wager. "I'll bet you that at least two people at the party tonight share the same birthday (just the day of the year, like Feb. 29, not exact birth date including the year number)...

...Would you take the bet?

Not really. There's only 366 possible days in a year, and there's 30 people in the room.

natural wrote:
Is it a good bet, or a bad bet.

I'd call it a bad bet.

Just for shits and giggles I'd bet him the next round of drinks.

I don't have the math background like others do, but I wouldn't rely on 'intuition'.

I'd 'model' the problem. The way I'd visualize the odds are that if I was in a room full of 30 people that had each been given a raffle ticket from a roll that only had 366 numbers, I'd think the odds are pretty good that after 30 draws into a pot of 366 numbers there would be more than 2 winners.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:The perspective

redneF wrote:
The perspective I have on this 'Monty Hall Problem' is that after Door 3 is shown to have a goat behind it, it effectively becomes a non factor. It's no longer part of the equation, as if it was never there to begin with.

You 'reset' the odds. It's a 'new game' now.

 

The 'right answer' that is asserted in the original 3 Door Monty Hall Game is to 'go against your first choice' because it somehow concludes that 'first guesses' are only 33.333% probable vs second guesses when the second guess becomes the only other option in a 2 option dilemma.

Non sequitur much?

I see your problem. It does not become a two-option problem, because Monty did not open another door at random, he opened a door guaranteed not to conceal the prize.

Have a look at the truth table I posted above. You will see there are three possible situations in which you can find yourself even though you have only two choices at this point. A view of the reason there are three situations is that you have to allow for each of the two doors Monty may have to open to avoid showing the prize. It is 2 of 3, as discussed.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote:redneF wrote:

Pacioli wrote:

redneF wrote:
The perspective I have on this 'Monty Hall Problem' is that after Door 3 is shown to have a goat behind it, it effectively becomes a non factor. It's no longer part of the equation, as if it was never there to begin with.

You 'reset' the odds. It's a 'new game' now.

 

The 'right answer' that is asserted in the original 3 Door Monty Hall Game is to 'go against your first choice' because it somehow concludes that 'first guesses' are only 33.333% probable vs second guesses when the second guess becomes the only other option in a 2 option dilemma.

Non sequitur much?

I see your problem.

I didn't declare I had a 'problem'. Calling my 'perspective' a problem, isn't scoring you any points.

Pacioli wrote:
It does not become a two-option problem

Ummm, ya, it did.

Read the 'Monty Hall Problem' again. It says so right in the 'problem'.

 

"After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door."

 

It did become a two-option problem. He reset the ability to choose between the only 2 doors that the car can be behind.

 

See it now??

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Pacioli

redneF wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
redneF wrote:
The perspective I have on this 'Monty Hall Problem' is that after Door 3 is shown to have a goat behind it, it effectively becomes a non factor. It's no longer part of the equation, as if it was never there to begin with.

You 'reset' the odds. It's a 'new game' now.

The 'right answer' that is asserted in the original 3 Door Monty Hall Game is to 'go against your first choice' because it somehow concludes that 'first guesses' are only 33.333% probable vs second guesses when the second guess becomes the only other option in a 2 option dilemma.

Non sequitur much?

I see your problem.

I didn't declare I had a 'problem'. Calling my 'perspective' a problem, isn't scoring you any points.

Who here is trying to score points? I am trying to explain a problem about probabilities and optimal strategies. I do not purport to control what you do.

 

redneF wrote:
 
Pacioli wrote:
It does not become a two-option problem

Ummm, ya, it did.

Read the 'Monty Hall Problem' again. It says so right in the 'problem'.

"After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door."

It did become a two-option problem. He reset the ability to choose between the only 2 doors that the car can be behind.

See it now??

I note that in this quotation you omitted all of the material in my post wherein I explained the nature of the two-vs-three question, the fact that one of the binary questions can arise in two states, hence three total states with two out of three winning options to switch.

Do you genuinely misunderstand, or are you [acting] thick as a brick, or are you attempting to play with words with me?

The first I will try to help, the second does not affect me, the third will play out as it does.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote:redneF

Pacioli wrote:

redneF wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
redneF wrote:
The perspective I have on this 'Monty Hall Problem' is that after Door 3 is shown to have a goat behind it, it effectively becomes a non factor. It's no longer part of the equation, as if it was never there to begin with.

You 'reset' the odds. It's a 'new game' now.

The 'right answer' that is asserted in the original 3 Door Monty Hall Game is to 'go against your first choice' because it somehow concludes that 'first guesses' are only 33.333% probable vs second guesses when the second guess becomes the only other option in a 2 option dilemma.

Non sequitur much?

I see your problem.

I didn't declare I had a 'problem'. Calling my 'perspective' a problem, isn't scoring you any points.

Who here is trying to score points?

You are. With the cheeseball tactic of alleging I have a 'problem' because you aren't seeing what I'm seeing.

Pacioli wrote:
I am trying to explain a problem about probabilities and optimal strategies.

The problem is yours. You missed the part that I pointed out to you.

Your condescending assertion that you are trying to 'explain' something that you failed to understand doesn't score any debating points either, but just demonstrates how desperate you've become to project that you are the teacher, and I'm the student.

Give it a rest...

Pacioli wrote:
It does not become a two-option problem

redneF wrote:
 Ummm, ya, it did.

Read the 'Monty Hall Problem' again. It says so right in the 'problem'.

"After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door."

It did become a two-option problem. He reset the ability to choose between the only 2 doors that the car can be behind.

See it now??

I note that in this quotation you omitted all of the material in my post wherein I explained the nature of the two-vs-three question, the fact that one of the binary questions can arise in two states, hence three total states with two out of three winning options to switch.

Red Herring.

I debunked your assertion that 'it does not become a two-option problem' with the proof right in the premise of the 'Monty Hall Problem' that after the 3rd Door is not longer a factor that the game is 'reset' by Monty Hall himself.

And your tactic is to pretend that it didn't happen.

What part of Monty Hall resetting the game to 1 of 2 can't get through your skull?

Pacioli wrote:
Do you genuinely misunderstand

I see clearly what you're desperately trying to do. This isn't my first rodeo.

Keep trying to allege that it's not a 'two-option' problem when 'Monty Hall' has reset you to choose 1 of 2 options, and hope no one else will read the quote that proves you wrong.

Pacioli wrote:
or are you [acting] thick as a brick

The evidence is that I'm sharper than you for picking out that the 3rd door becomes a non factor when the options are reset to 2.

It's your ego talking now. You won't admit you made an error.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF, I explained clearly

redneF, I explained clearly why an apparent choice from two has a setting of three. Go through the truth tables I provided to explain where I am wrong. Are you able to do that, rather than ranting that I must be wrong?


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:natural wrote:

redneF wrote:
natural wrote:
Well, let me try to pose it in the form of a wager, picking a random number of people so as not to give anything away.

Imagine you're at a party with a total of, say, 30 people. And the host challenges you to a wager. "I'll bet you that at least two people at the party tonight share the same birthday (just the day of the year, like Feb. 29, not exact birth date including the year number)...

...Would you take the bet?

Not really. There's only 366 possible days in a year, and there's 30 people in the room.

natural wrote:
Is it a good bet, or a bad bet.

I'd call it a bad bet.

Just for shits and giggles I'd bet him the next round of drinks.

I don't have the math background like others do, but I wouldn't rely on 'intuition'.

I'd 'model' the problem. The way I'd visualize the odds are that if I was in a room full of 30 people that had each been given a raffle ticket from a roll that only had 366 numbers, I'd think the odds are pretty good that after 30 draws into a pot of 366 numbers there would be more than 2 winners.

Maybe $100 is too risky for you to consider losing. What if it was $10 vs. $10? Would you take the bet then? Do you think you'd have a greater than 50% chance of winning (a good bet), or greater than 50% chance of losing (a bad bet)? Or what about $1 vs. $1?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I honestly cannot tell if

I honestly cannot tell if redneF is pulling a Poe on us. If he is, it's excellent so far. For now, I'm sticking with the idea that he's serious.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Nik K
Posts: 5
Joined: 2011-09-28
User is offlineOffline
I sure hope it's a Poe... it

I sure hope it's a Poe... it kinda reminds me of when my grandma first started exhibiting symptoms of alzheimers and she was unable to be convinced by any clear rational arguments... it was like arguing with a brick wall.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
natural, we've already had

natural, we've already had this discussion about informed opinions and scientific evidence and  I don't feel like going into it again except to say that the chess master's intuition comes from years upon years of experience playing chess against the best players in the world.  In other words his intuition is honed in like a laser. I doubt I would take his intuition about which stocks to invest in seriously. In other words, training intuition like that takes A LOT of practice and let's just say I am skeptic of your experience criticing psychology papers.

 

 

It's like engineering, with practice and years of experience, they are more likely to spot the problem right away, than somebody who's just learning, but that doesn't mean I'll take their intuition about what medicine I should take if I'm sick.

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I was getting irritated that

I was getting irritated that I could not get a proper feel for the 'same birthday' problem, as I had MH.

So I surrendered and looked it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem.

And was relieved to find it is mathematically much more complex than Monty Hall, so I don't have to feel dumb.

FWIW, 23 people gives you just over 50% chance of at least two people having the same birthday. 366 people would make it a certainty - that is fairly easy.

It really does reinforce the point that my 'intuition' that 'intuition' is a very inadequate guide to actual truth, although it does become a good guide to how to approach different categories of problem, to how to form hypotheses, especially as you continue to exercise your mind in such things.

That is the value of intuition, it encodes various useful techniques and shortcuts that have seemed to work fairly well in many, if not most similar cases. Saves us the impossible task of reasoning out everything before we do something, or react, or make a choice.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
A different version

natural wrote:

I honestly cannot tell if redneF is pulling a Poe on us. If he is, it's excellent so far. For now, I'm sticking with the idea that he's serious.

True. My first reaction was that it was a good piece of humour, as I said earlier and I have not dismissed that, seeking to cover the possibilities. In any case it remains worthwhile in case there are watchers who might want further explanation.

I dreamed up a different game overnight, seeking to illustrate the difference between the choice and the odds. I invite critique of whether it is apt or could be improved. The idea is to reproduce the Monty Hall end position with less confusion along the way.

You and I each put down $100 as stake. Behind a screen, an attendant places into each of two boxes a note saying the noteholder wins the  stake, $200, and into a third box a note saying the noteholder loses the stake, the other party getting the $200.

I am now shown the boxes and invited to choose one. I do so and you are then offered the choice of taking that box from me or leaving it with me, a binary decision on one box (like a decision on which of two doors). If you take the box and it contains the "lose" note then you lose out but twice as often it will hold the "win" note and as holder of it you will win. Conversely, if you choose to leave it with me then on two occasions as holder I will win and once I will lose.

Your probability of success by taking the box rather than leaving it with me is 2/3 in a binary decision, even though at the point where you make the decision, the single box I am holding can contain only a single win-lose option.

Note that on your optimal strategy, taking the box from me, I am left with a 1/3 chance of success, exactly as in the first choice in Monty Hall.

In this game the decision is simple but the truth table for that second decision is the same as in Monty Hall.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:natural,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

natural, we've already had this discussion about informed opinions and scientific evidence and  I don't feel like going into it again except to say that the chess master's intuition comes from years upon years of experience playing chess against the best players in the world.  In other words his intuition is honed in like a laser. I doubt I would take his intuition about which stocks to invest in seriously. In other words, training intuition like that takes A LOT of practice and let's just say I am skeptic of your experience criticing psychology papers.

Cpt, the reason I brought up trained intuition in this case is because I DO have a lot of practice picking apart the implications of scientific studies such as the MCI one. I'm not a professor or anything, just a very motivated scientifically minded rationalist. You may be skeptical, that's fine. But that doesn't change the reality that I am pretty damn good at spotting hidden assumptions, misinterpretations, over-hype, and lots of other kinds of distortions (most unintentional, but nevertheless there). The MCI research I watched earlier did not contradict anything I've said in this thread, or ever before, as far as I'm aware.

In fact, the only one who seems to be over-stating the case of the research is you. This is early, preliminary science, and yet you made a Freudian slip calling it a scientific principle, and misinterpreted my alternative hypothesis as an 'attempt to invalidate' this 'scientific principle'. Well--setting aside for the moment the fact that that is not what I was doing--maybe you've forgotten, but that's how science advances in the first place: People question and even 'invalidate' preliminary research in order to work out the deeper realities at play (such as my mentioning of the phenomenon of paradigm shifting). They don't just sit back and go, "Good show, good show! I'm sure your eminent credentials are sufficient to ensconce this new discovery into the permanent canon of scientific fact for all time! Hip hip hooray!"

 

And simultaneously, hypocritically, and ironically, you are proposing your own interpretation of the research that even the researchers are more tentative about. Yet you tell me you're skeptical of my ability to criticize psychology research. Right back atcha, Cpt. Right back atcha.

Let's just say that I'm also skeptical of my ability. Which is why I phrase things the way I do as, "in my view", etc.

But I'm even more skeptical of your ability. I don't see much similar self-skepticism from you, for instance. You assume you've gotten the interpretation exactly right, and that you alone clearly see the truth of the matter. At least, that's how you come off, to me.

At least I can definitively say that I've had academic experience (undergrad, but nevertheless) in examining psychological, and also sociological research. I took one Psychology course, and two Sociology courses in university. Part of that involved assignments of putting together assessments of research in selected topics in Psychology and Sociology. I also took a course in Cognitive Science, which included a project to discuss research on a chosen topic (I chose human and animal perception, which included examining the famous intuition-based optical Moon Illusion). (edit: clarification) Furthermore, my degree in Computer Science was specialized in Human-Computer Interaction, where the 'intuitiveness' of a user-interface is of primary concern to the research in this sub-field. I've done projects and been graded (I passed, in case you're 'skeptical') on how well I could perform actual research on actual people to actually test the intuitiveness of competing user interfaces. I also worked for several years in the field, where I specialized in developing intuitive user-interfaces for non-technical software users. I got paid based on my ability to put my understanding of human intuition into practice. So, yeah.

Can you say you have the same or similar experience? (Not that I really think it matters. I'm just making a point about how petty your criticism appears to me, when I'm getting the feeling you don't apply the same criticism to yourself.)

So, by all means, be skeptical. I've played this game many a time, and I'm very satisfied with my record. We'll watch the research unfold over the years, and see whether minimally counter-intuitiveness is really the crucial factor, or if it simply comes along for the ride because of the more powerful effect of an intuitive paradigm shift effect.

It's my intuition vs. your intuition. The universe will decide.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
It's like engineering, with practice and years of experience, they are more likely to spot the problem right away, than somebody who's just learning, but that doesn't mean I'll take their intuition about what medicine I should take if I'm sick.

Ditto, Cpt. Psychologis-- er, Pineapple.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote:natural

Pacioli wrote:

natural wrote:

I honestly cannot tell if redneF is pulling a Poe on us. If he is, it's excellent so far. For now, I'm sticking with the idea that he's serious.

True. My first reaction was that it was a good piece of humour, as I said earlier and I have not dismissed that, seeking to cover the possibilities. In any case it remains worthwhile in case there are watchers who might want further explanation.

I dreamed up a different game overnight, seeking to illustrate the difference between the choice and the odds. I invite critique of whether it is apt or could be improved. The idea is to reproduce the Monty Hall end position with less confusion along the way.

Personally, I like your idea, and would be curious to see its effectiveness.

When I tried to visualize it, it was difficult at first, because it seems like a very different game from the MHP. I wonder if that difficulty for me would translate into an easier visualization/understanding for someone who intuitively holds the wrong answer, or if they would also have difficulty understanding it.

I'm guessing it was harder for me because I've  internalized the correct answer after studying the MHP in depth several times over the years. So what is normally counter-intuitive (right answer) has become intuitive, and what was once intuitive (wrong answer) has now become counter-intuitive. And your formulation of your game does seem to reproduce the conceptualization that redneF was arguing for (which didn't really make sense to me at first).

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
natural, for the record I

natural, for the record I have a physics degree with a minor in math and also took psychology courses.

 

I get a lot of flack for constantly citing Atran, but the reason for that is I`m not a Anthropologist, he is. I cite his studies/work because I can safely assume that his opinions are far more informed than mine. His book In Gods We Trust, about religion and MCI, has over 30 pages of references the majority from scientific peer reviewed journals.  He has his opinions sure, and some of them are wrong, but I try not to cite his opinions, I cite his research.

 

Look at my first comment

 

I wrote:

 

The research I've seen suggest that religious ideas hold because they're counter-intuitive, but I can see how intuitive thinking can lead to them.

 

 

[emphasis mine]

The point is that there is evidence in peer review journals that religion propogates because of MCI

 

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/AtranNorenzayanBBS.pdf

 

 

And I know that the science is still in it`s infant stage, but there`s a BIG difference here.  Where exactly do you see MY opinion in this?

 

I have seen studies that suggest that it is. How many studies can you produce that support your view? My issue with you is that you take a "prove me wrong" approach. and "that study doesn`t disprove me!" It`s up to you to prove it`s true, not for me to prove that it isn`t

 

 

You remind me of a young physics student who thinks they can crack quantum gravity because they figured out their intelligent states assignment.

 

The fact of the matter is the presentation I showed, Ara wasn`t making a scientific presentation. He was doing it for the general public. That is he didn`t have to use fancy psychology terms that neither of us would even knew existed. let alone what they mean.  Imagine if he walked into a science convention and just said "prove that it ISN`T MCI"!

 

 

You say I´m a tad picky about stuff like this and you`re right. You say that I refuse to apply the terms to myself and you`d be wrong.  If you were right, I`d still be a theist.

 

I remember flaunting my education and intelligence that my intuition is correct about god and guess what, there wasn`t a single peer reviewed study that showed I was wrong!

 

I made those mistakes big time and I don`t want me or others to repeat them.

 

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I get a

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I get a lot of flack for constantly citing Atran, but the reason for that is I`m not a Anthropologist, he is. I cite his studies/work because I can safely assume that his opinions are far more informed than mine.

Only problem is you consistently read more into his (and others') research than is actually there, and then also fail to compare with and/or actively ignore research that goes against your entrenched opinion on this topic. You put too much weight behind vague and arguable studies which you merely happen to interpret as supporting your existing view. It's called bias, to be blunt. You have an agenda and this colours your perspective, and you are not sufficiently self-skeptical to detect it or correct it (by my standards, anyway).

Quote:
Look at my first comment

I wrote:

The research I've seen suggest that religious ideas hold because they're counter-intuitive, but I can see how intuitive thinking can lead to them.

[emphasis mine]

The point is that there is evidence in peer review journals that religion propogates because of MCI

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/AtranNorenzayanBBS.pdf

And I know that the science is still in it`s infant stage, but there`s a BIG difference here.  Where exactly do you see MY opinion in this?

 

Hmmmm, let's see.... hmmmm, I wonder..... maybe Cpt is right and has not inserted her own opin-- oh, wait, there it is in your third comment:

Quote:
Actual, it IS counter-intuition that makes the ideas so appealing.

Aaaaand this one:

Quote:
natural, so in a topic about how intuition can be misguided, you use your intuition to attempt to invalidate a scientific principle? For example an idea with MCI is more likely to grab attention than no CI elements or TOO much counter intuitive elements.

First, you make a claim that goes beyond what the research has actually shown, stating that "it IS counter-intuition that makes the ideas so appealing". The research does not show that.

Second, you slipped on the word 'principle', which I just thought was quite funny and revealing. Also, the use of the words 'attempt to invalidate' which is a clear misinterpretation of what I wrote. Please quote where I attempt to 'invalidate' their research. I wrote waaaay more than what you responded to. You should have no difficulty sifting through all that stuff to find even a single instance of my 'invalidating' the MCI research.

What I did do was to offer an opinion (clearly stated as such) in the form of an alternative hypothesis which is compatible with the MCI research data, but offers a more sensible mechanism by which the counter-intuitive ideas actually trigger appeal. Namely, that it is not the counter-intuitiveness itself which is attractive, but the subsequent intuitive cascading paradigm shift effect. The 'Ah Ha!' experiences which are on the down-slope of the counter-intuitive hurdle/barrier.

The MCI research does not show causation. It only shows correlation. It is (possibly) the researchers' hypothesis that MCI is causative of the attraction, but they did not perform a strong enough test of that hypothesis, because they did not even consider good alternative hypotheses like the paradigm shift hypothesis. Probably because it never occurred to them, so I'm not criticizing them for that. What I'm criticizing is your misinterpretation of their findings. You are the one over-stating the case for MCI.

Quote:
I have seen studies that suggest that it is.

"Suggest"! How do you get from "suggest" to this:

Quote:
Actual, it IS counter-intuition that makes the ideas so appealing.

Or this:

Quote:
you use your intuition to attempt to invalidate a scientific principle

Hmm?

I'd like a serious answer, please. I'm testing my hypothesis about your self-skepticism. How you answer will influence my opinion on that. Not that you should care, necessarily, but I want to give you as many chances as possible to notice your unexamined biases, and possibly correct for them.

Quote:
How many studies can you produce that support your view?

Begging the question. You are (again) presuming that 'your' study actually supports your view. That is the very question we are debating. You cannot assume what you are trying to show, in a logical argument.

Also, it is a loaded question. Because again you are misinterpreting what I've written. You seem to think that my view is not supported by the MCI research. But it is! Perhaps if you took the time to properly comprehend my view in the first place, you would be able to see that.

Furthermore, I have not stated my view as a fact, only an opinion:

natural wrote:
IMO, not based on evidence except, ironically, my own intuition

You seem to think this is a damaging admission. I simply see it as intellectual honesty. By the way, "IMO" means "In My Opinion", in case you're not familiar with the new-fangled jibber-jabber of us 'young kids these days'.

Quote:
My issue with you is that you take a "prove me wrong" approach. and "that study doesn`t disprove me!"

Well, the study doesn't disprove my hypothesis. Are you still saying that it does? If so, then of course I'm going to challenge you to back up your claim with evidence.

It's easy Cpt. You just gotta take the time to do your homework. Find a statement I've made that is clearly contradicted by the study and quote it. Then find the part of the study which demonstrates this clear contradiction, and quote that. Then post the two quotes side by side to show everybody that you've accurately interpreted both myself and the study.

Otherwise, turn your fucking half-assed skepticism back on yourself, please. Realize that you've consistently misinterpreted me (and the study), admit that error to yourself, and learn something new from it!

Quote:
It`s up to you to prove it`s true, not for me to prove that it isn`t

No, silly. It's not up to me to 'prove it's true', because I didn't claim it is a fact! I don't know if it's true or false. It's just my opinion. As I fucking stated. Clearly.

Now. Will you start to re-examine your biases and hidden assumptions? Will you dare to ask yourself, "How do I really know that natural is saying what I think he's saying? What if I could be wrong? Can I really justify my beliefs about that?" Will you face up to the reality that your intuition isn't perfect either, without flinching? Without getting defensive? Without trying to turn it around on other people? Without projecting it onto others? Will you face that terrifying unknown and resist the urge to turn away from it, cowering in fear that you could be wrong?

Will you accept the reality that the universe is presenting to you, and do the painful, but honest thing of beginning to challenge your own assumptions and biases? Fear not! (Fear is the mind-killer.) You're not alone! We all have them. Me included. I'm quite comfortable with that reality actually. It's nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to fear. And the initial fear and pain fades quickly, as you break out of self-made chains and experience new-found freedom of thought.

It's an ongoing process, not a one-time thing. We all have biases. That's not the problem, per se. The problem is when you cannot face up to them, acknowledge them, and correct for them. It's dishonest to others, but perhaps more importantly, it is dishonest to yourself.

Why would anyone not want to eliminate their own biases? The benefits are so tremendous and the tortured existence of false belief is so dismal. Seriously. Waking up to reality is awesome. And you get to do it again and again, as you peel away more layers of self-delusion. Each time, it is more and more freeing. To be less and less wrong. Personally, I love it.

I don't condemn you for your biases, Cpt. I sincerely mean what I just wrote, above. I simply happen to know for a fact that you have biases on this topic because you're accusing me of things I have not done. It's quite impossible to do that without being simply mistaken. It's plain for me to see. But having woken up from several previous biases myself, and understanding that I undoubtedly still have several more to shake off whenever I become aware of them, I know what it's like not to be able to see your own biases. So I don't condemn you. Sure, you're not perfect, but I'm not either, so who am I to condemn you over that?

I do, however, sincerely wish you would wake up to reality. Just a little bit more. 

I will refer again, to that most excellent piece of advice from Richard Feynman:

Richard Feynman" wrote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool! So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

Quote:
You say I´m a tad picky about stuff like this and you`re right. You say that I refuse to apply the terms to myself and you`d be wrong.  If you were right, I`d still be a theist.

Theism is only one layer of self-delusion. Perhaps the next layer of self-delusion you need to peel away is the layer that tells you you are done peeling away the layers. You will never be done. Nobody is perfect. Our intuitions are flawed, and systematically so. We need to be aware of that and be prepared for the fact that we will be wrong again and again, and be open to discovering how we are wrong. No, not just 'open' to it. We need to actively hunt down the biases and false assumptions that we know are there, just outside of our awareness.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I regularly interrogate my beliefs and try to test them against reality, or that I constantly ask myself, "How do I really know that?" I do. And I really think it is a great thing to do constantly, and I really do think that this is a good occasion for you to apply it to yourself. Obviously, you can do whatever you want. I'm just saying what I really think.

Quote:
I remember flaunting my education and intelligence that my intuition is correct about god and guess what, there wasn`t a single peer reviewed study that showed I was wrong!

And you broke out of that fallacious reasoning! Awesome! Good for you.

Thank goodness that's not what I'm doing in this thread. Wow, I would be really embarrassed if I had claimed that my intuition is factually correct, rather than just my opinion.

Quote:
I made those mistakes big time and I don`t want me or others to repeat them.

Do you think it is possible you might be repeating some of those mistakes here? At least possible?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Minimally counter

"Minimally counter intuitive" seems entirely consistent with Dennet's ideas covered in "Breaking the Spell", that a certain level of mystery connected with the doctrines helps people to remember them, and be attracted to them. The idea that a 'faith' have some 'counter-intuitive' aspects is, in itself, intuitive, since we cannot expect to completely understand a deity and his actions/words.

I don't see anything especially new or remarkable there.

So ultimately, it is all based on intuition. 

As natural said, intuition is fine, necessary, and basic to our cognition, but potentially very unreliable, so it needs to go hand-in-hand with 'reason', otherwise it can lead one completely astray. Especially on concepts such as God and the supernatural, where it cannot be honed to a fine skill as in chess, where it is constantly tested against the skill of others, in real situations.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote:redneF, I

Pacioli wrote:

redneF, I explained clearly why an apparent choice from two has a setting of three.

No, you only 'explained clearly' what you think, why you think it, and why you think it's best that others think the way you think. 

Good thing I never took anyone's word as if they were a god, because in studying problems on my own, I didn't develop 'textbook' habits, and therefore think 'out of the box'.

 

You're being a zealot.

What started off as a game with the possible options being right/wrong/wrong (1/3) was altered to the possible options being reduced to right/wrong (1/2).

You and others disagree on how to calculate the odds, and it doesn't mean shit, because it's your opinions, not the facts, and it doesn't mean that you can't choose 100% incorrectly.

The 'facts' are this:

1- You can choose 1 door.

2- The car is behind 1 of 2 doors.

 

All this talk of how many doors other than door 1 and door 2 there were to begin with isn't relevant. It's completely redundant.

Why people want to keep factoring in something redundant into an equation is an interesting psychological phenomenon.

Pacioli wrote:
Go through the truth tables I provided to explain where I am wrong. Are you able to do that, rather than ranting that I must be wrong?

You keep talking about switching from your initial choice (door 1) to the only other choice available (door 2) and talking about how the 'other' one will win 2 out of 3 times, but the game isn't 'best 2 out of 3', it's a 1 shot deal.

And the painfully obvious kicker is that in choosing door 1 you could have chosen correctly right from the beginning, so moving to the 'other' door would be a fatal error.

 

Do you really mean to tell me that if you were playing this game and Monty gave you the opportunity to switch after opening door 3 that you'd switch or contemplate these kinds of odds?

'Cause that would crack me the fuck up...

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
An interesting post, redneF,

An interesting post, redneF, although not for its content but its approach, as I will explain at some length.

redneF wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
redneF, I explained clearly why an apparent choice from two has a setting of three.

No, you only 'explained clearly' what you think, why you think it, and why you think it's best that others think the way you think. 

Tripe.

I explained various facts in logic and probability. Some people will understand this. You appear to want to personalise the issue as a matter of opinion. I find it interesting that you make no evident attempt to understand what is put before you but rather try to make it a matter of one opinion vs another. Creationists regularly exercise the same pointless tactic.

redneF wrote:
Good thing I never took anyone's word as if they were a god, because in studying problems on my own, I didn't develop 'textbook' habits, and therefore think 'out of the box'.
Who asked you to take anyone's word as if they were a god? Such fantasies arise entirely from you. Meanwhile, you fail to address information and questions. What should one conclude from your behaviour, other than that you prefer belief to analysis?

Quote:
You're being a zealot.

Did saying that make you feel better? Beyond that, zero information was contributed.

Quote:
What started off as a game with the possible options being right/wrong/wrong (1/3) was altered to the possible options being reduced to right/wrong (1/2).

You and others disagree on how to calculate the odds, and it doesn't mean shit, because it's your opinions, not the facts, and it doesn't mean that you can't choose 100% incorrectly.

This is where your post sounds like a POE, because it is difficult to see the last statement as other than overreaching silliness.  Of course a wrong choice is 100% wrong and a right choice is 100% right. Will you now argue your probabilities are 100%?

Still, if you consider there has been disagreement on how to calculate the odds, point out where, with your analysis. If you can not, then you have said nothing, again.

Quote:
The 'facts' are this:

1- You can choose 1 door.

2- The car is behind 1 of 2 doors.

All this talk of how many doors other than door 1 and door 2 there were to begin with isn't relevant. It's completely redundant.

Why people want to keep factoring in something redundant into an equation is an interesting psychological phenomenon.

Did you put "facts" in quotation marks because you knew they were not all of the relevant facts? Your assertion about relevance needs demonstration by analysis. Your preference for assertion over analysis is the curious phenomenon here.

redneF wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
Go through the truth tables I provided to explain where I am wrong. Are you able to do that, rather than ranting that I must be wrong?

You keep talking about switching from your initial choice (door 1) to the only other choice available (door 2) and talking about how the 'other' one will win 2 out of 3 times, but the game isn't 'best 2 out of 3', it's a 1 shot deal.

And the painfully obvious kicker is that in choosing door 1 you could have chosen correctly right from the beginning, so moving to the 'other' door would be a fatal error.

Again, there is a comment there ('choosing door 1 you could have chosen correctly') which is so facile, so obviously irrelevantly true, that one has to suspect POE. Few people are capable of being quite so silly, so credibility for the comment is low.

I note you have made no analysis of the truth table nor argument related to it. Did you consider also the alternative, simpler game I provided with the same truth table? Did you understand it such that you can sensibly explain it back to people here?

redneF wrote:
Do you really mean to tell me that if you were playing this game and Monty gave you the opportunity to switch after opening door 3 that you'd switch or contemplate these kinds of odds?

'Cause that would crack me the fuck up...

I will put money down on this game. What is your preferred stake? We will need a formal intermediary to make sure payment is made. I will play as often as you like, the more often the better.

I expect that will crack you up, one way or another.


Pyrismaragdos
atheist
Pyrismaragdos's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-09-24
User is offlineOffline
I've written a small program

I've written a small program in Visual Basic For Applications that can be run in MS Excel.
The purpose of the program is to test whether the odds of winning the car actually double
from 33,3% to 66,6% when MH opens a goat door and the contestant changes his/her
initial choice. The program records the number of correct choices per 1,000,000
repetitions and the correct choices are written in a cell. The process is repeated 10
times with the contestant changing his/her initial choice, and another 10 times with
him/her sticking to the initial choice. So the game is replayed 10,000,000 times with
the initial choice changed, and another so many times without changing the initial choice.

The car and the two goats are placed behind the three doors at random. The
contestant's choice is also randomly made. If the contestant has the right (i.e. the car) door,
MH randomly opens one of the two goat doors. If not, he necessarily opens the only other
door with a goat behind it.

If the program is correct, it seems that it verifies the contention that your odds are
actually doubled when you switch doors. I ran it about a dozen times and the results
I got were very consistent. Below is a set of results I got (the 1st column shows what
happened when the initial choice was changed, i.e. the contestant chose the other
one of the [now] two closed doors than the one initially chosen, whereas the second
column shows what happened when the initial choice was stuck to).

SWITCH   NO SWITCH
666,000   332,445
666,651   334,787
666,161   333,053
666,629   333,759
666,027   334,031
666,519   333,445
666,728   334,342
666,407   334,047
666,254   333,048
665,716   334,293 - Each instance: wins in 1,000,000 game runs

66.63%   33.37% - Per cent wins

If you wish to test the program for yourself, open Excel and click Tools->Macro->
Visual Basic Editor->Insert->Module, then copy the program below and paste it in the
new module (make sure you have macros enabled). Then run it and you should get
results similar to the above in the upper left corner of your open sheet.

If someone thinks there may be flaws in the program, I'd appreciate if you'd let me know.

'-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'START COPY AT BEGINNING OF NEXT LINE
Private Sub GoatsAndCar()
    seira = 1: stele = 1 '(seira = row, stele = column)
    'results will be written in two columns
    'ten cells in the first column will hold results when SWITCHING
    'ten cells in the second column will hold results when NOT SWITCHING
    '------------------------------------------------------------------
    For m = 1 To 20 'process will be repeated 20 times, 10 for each column
        win = 0 'with each new run, wins (getting the cardoor door right) are set to zero
        For o = 1 To 1000000
        'there will be 1,000,000 repetitions for each of the 20 cells
            '--------------------------------------------------------
            'now randomly selecting the door behind which the car will actually be
            Randomize
            cardoor = Int((3 * Rnd) + 1)
            'now putting goats behind the other two doors
            If cardoor = 1 Then
                goatdoor1 = 2
                goatdoor2 = 3
            ElseIf cardoor = 2 Then
                goatdoor1 = 1
                goatdoor2 = 3
            Else 'if cardoor = 3 then
                goatdoor1 = 1
                goatdoor2 = 2
            End If
            '-----------------------------------------------
            'the contestant now makes his/her initial choice
            choice = Int((3 * Rnd) + 1)
            '-----------------------------------------------
            'if the choice coincides with the door the car is behind...
            If choice = cardoor Then
                'MH chooses one of the goat doors at random
                randomdoor = Int((2 * Rnd) + 1)
                If randomdoor = 1 Then
                    doortoopen = goatdoor1
                Else 'if randomdoor=2 then
                    doortoopen = goatdoor2
                End If
            'else if the contestant has chosen a goat door...
            ElseIf choice = goatdoor1 Then
                'MH has to open the only other goat door
                doortoopen = goatdoor2
            Else 'if choice = goatdoor2 then
                doortoopen = goatdoor1
            End If
            '--------------------------------------------
            'the first ten sets of a million runs each
            'will correspond to the contestant switching his/her initial choice
            If m <= 10 Then 'SWITCH
                If choice = 1 And doortoopen = 2 Then
                    finalchoice = 3
                ElseIf choice = 1 And doortoopen = 3 Then
                    finalchoice = 2
                ElseIf choice = 2 And doortoopen = 1 Then
                    finalchoice = 3
                ElseIf choice = 2 And doortoopen = 3 Then
                    finalchoice = 1
                ElseIf choice = 3 And doortoopen = 1 Then
                    finalchoice = 2
                Else 'if choice = 3 and doortoopen = 2 then
                    finalchoice = 1
                End If
            'and the next ten sets of a million runs each
            'will correspond to the contestant not changing his/her initial choice
            Else 'if m > 10 then - NO SWITCH
                finalchoice = choice
            End If
            '--------------------------------------------------------------
            'each time a choice is the correct one, wins are augmented by 1
            If finalchoice = cardoor Then win = win + 1
        Next o
        '------------------------------------------------------------------
        Cells(seira, stele) = win 'number of wins written in cell
        seira = seira + 1 'moving to new cell for next total of wins
        If seira = 11 Then seira = 1 'returning to 1st row...
        If m = 10 Then stele = 2 'and moving to second column after 10th time
    Next m
End Sub
'END COPY AT THE END OF PREVIOUS LINE

Spare the rod and spoil the god!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: hen also

natural wrote:

 

hen also fail to compare with and/or actively ignore research that goes against your entrenched opinion on this topic.

 

What research am I ignoring? The only person posting studies is me. I've seen Dennet's name thrown around, but his ideas rely too much on memes, which are not recieved well in the psychological community.


http://sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/human_nature_01.pdf

 

http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html

 

 

 

I think this is a good illustration of the so called "skepticism" of the atheist movement, it's good for religious ideas and such, but for their own claims not so much.

 

 

This is basic scientific method. If Ara proposes MCI, he has to prove it like anybody else. If you watch the video, he presents research and the paper I linked to was co-authored by him. He's not just some random guy who smoked pot and came up with MCI on the fly. If Dawkins or Dennet want to propose memes are an hypothesis, they have to prove it just like anybody else. Where are the papers establishing memes? It's been what 35 years?

 

The issue with the atheist movement is that they're VERY selective of what they demand evidence for.

 

Now, you may say the this or that study doesn't disprove the paradigm shifting. It may or may not, it's irrelevant, the point is that you have to show studies that prove that paradigm shifting is the best explanation.

 

Quote:

It is (possibly) the researchers' hypothesis that MCI is causative of the attraction, but they did not perform a strong enough test of that hypothesis, because they did not even consider good alternative hypotheses like the paradigm shift hypothesis.

 

Did you even read the study I linked to? They had fancy charts/tables that show their experiments. How many experiments

 

natural wrote:

Hmm?

I'd like a serious answer, please. I'm testing my hypothesis about your self-skepticism. How you answer will influence my opinion on that. Not that you should care, necessarily, but I want to give you as many chances as possible to notice your unexamined biases, and possibly correct for them.

 

I was going with the most recent studies I've seen. But if it makes you happy, I'll revise my statements to "The most recent studies I've seen suggest"

 

natural wrote:

Begging the question. You are (again) presuming that 'your' study actually supports your view. That is the very question we are debating. You cannot assume what you are trying to show, in a logical argument.

 

Okay, what DOES the study I linked to say?

 

Let's read it! But first here's what YOU said

 

natural wrote:

It is not the counter-intuitiveness that is making the beliefs attractive, it is the paradigm shifting that happens after the counter-intuitive hurdle is overcome, and the resulting cascade of intuitive Ah Ha! moments.

 

 

Quote:

A small proportionof minimally counterintuitive beliefs gives the story a mnemonic advantage over stories with no counterintuitive beliefs or with far too many counterintuitive beliefs,

 

Quote:

Minimally counterintuitive beliefs may have a potent survival advantage over intuitive beliefs:
once processed and recalled, they degrade less than intuitive ones. Disadvantage in recall may be offset by resilience,
so that over generations of transmission, an idea that is less remembered, but also less degradable, may prevail over an idea that is initially remembered well but eventually dies out because of a higher rate of degradation.

 

As you can see, memory of INTUITIVE ideas degrade faster than memory of MCI ideas as shown by that chart.


 

Did you read the study? Your answer to this will affect my opinion of YOUR bias.

 

 

Now that that's out of the way, I want to touch on opinion. My former theism is the perfect example, how dare you question my opinion that god existed! But when I found no evidence for that opinion, I dropped it.

 

 

I'm going out of town for the weekend, I may or may not be available for comment tonight and defently won't tomorrow or Sunday until the evening.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Did you

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Did you read the study? Your answer to this will affect my opinion of YOUR bias.

As I have stated, I'm going by the video I saw (over a year ago, at least). And when I saw whoever it was (may have been Atran, not sure), that was when I realized he hadn't even considered paradigm shift cascade.

And, by the way, your fancy chart does not contradict my hypothesis. My hypothesis explains the same data. As I noticed over a year ago. I do wish you would take the time to read what I wrote and respond to that. The study you've quoted does not appear to have changed in terms of its findings regarding the underlying mechanisms of the MCI correlation. It still does not show causation. 

Based on my past experiences with you misinterpreting studies/books, I'm not willing to spend my free time reading through everything you link to. Quote it. Quote me. Compare the quotes and show where I'm wrong.

Do your own bloody homework.

Hint:

Increasing the counter-intuitive barrier, while leaving the intuitive conclusion the same, increases the paradigm-shifting cascade also. The roller coaster goes up the hill, rounds the top, and then comes rushing down again on the down-slope. Increase the size of the hill, and you increase both initial counter-intuitiveness and also paradigm-shiftingness. An appropriate test of the MCI hypothesis would be to offer a counter-intuitive idea that does not lead to a new understanding at all, it is simply counter-intuitive.

I'll give you an example from Human-Computer Interaction:

Early versions of technical software tend to be nearly-unusable counter-intuitive nightmares. Why do you have to click the check-box before you hit the button? Nobody knows! It makes no sense. It is entirely counter-intuitive. It is because of a random quirk of personality that the programmer thought the check-box should be clicked to 'confirm' that you really wanted to click the button. Unfortunately, the check-box is labelled "RFC Valid", which is totally un-intuitive. Nobody using the program on the first try can figure it out without getting help from someone else who already knows the program, "Yeah, I know it's stupid and makes no sense, but you have to click RFC Valid in order to be able to click OK. We've been asking IT to fix it for years, but the guy who programmed that part is gone, and nobody can understand his code."

Early technical software (made by nerds, for nerds) tends to be full of these kind of counter-intuitive barriers that offer no down-slope benefit for learning them. They only get in the way.

Users forget to click the RFC Valid check-box repeatedly. It offers no benefit, it's just a useless barrier to understanding and productivity. When people go on vacation for two weeks and come back to work, they again forget to click RFC Valid and scream in rage, "Why won't this fucking thing accept my report?!!?"

This is not an example of counter-intuitiveness being beneficial. It is only a barrier.

Now, compare this with a typical Point And Click game (e.g. The Visitor), where progress through the game is blocked by counter-intuitive barriers which the player must puzzle out. Why does the frog have to eat the worm-alien? I don't know. That makes no sense. <paradigm shift> Ohhh! I get it! Why can't I get the fish to bite the fishing line? Gargh! This is frustrating! I fucking hate this game--wait a second, now the worm is on the fishing pole. Okay, maybe we're getting somewhere. Come on wormy, get on the hook. errgh. This game is too hard. Way too counter-intuitive. Wait, that was weird. What happens if I click on the fishing pole again. And again. But how will this help? It makes no sense. Click click click. <paradigm shift> Ohhh! That's hilarious! I gotta tell my friends about this game.

See? The counter-intuitiveness can make the game more frustrating, but ultimately, if there's a good wonder experience after finally figuring it out, then that initial frustration (which was not enjoyable or interesting on its own) gives you a bigger payoff from the resulting paradigm shift. Without the paradigm shift, and only counter-intuitive road-blocks to enjoyment, the game goes into the dust-bin of history as boring and stupid. (The rest of the game is suitably entertaining to make my point even more, if you finish it.)

The MCI hypothesis makes no mention of the intuitive experiences of Ah Ha, Eureka, Ohh!, Wow, Cool, or any of the other basically identical exclamations/experiences during a significant paradigm shift. If I'm wrong on that, quote where they refer to that and show that they have taken that effect into account. I do not believe you will be able to do so, but you're free to try.

Since the MCI hypothesis and my hypothesis explain the same data, your own personal interpretation that the MCI research contradicts my interpretation is not at all convincing to me. It only convinces me that you are reading too much into what limited research you are able to locate that only on-the-surface seems to validate your existing, biased viewpoint.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpn,I can see some possible

Cpn,

I can see some possible disagreement with natural, but when you say you've "seen Dennet's name thrown around", I am not sure if you really read or understood what I said when I referred to Dennett.

The way I see it, the study you quote seems to be in basic agreement with Dennett's ideas about what makes a belief more appealing and/or persistent.

So MIC supports Dennett's ideas , as I have basically already said.

And BTW, Dennett, at least in that book, was not using 'meme theory' in any obvious way to justify his ideas, AFAICR. I have read a lot of his books, and I don't recall him using 'meme theory' particularly to explain anything. Although he does see the concept of 'memes' see as a useful alternative perspective on the cultural transmission of ideas, and I agree. That is NOT using it a rigorous theory to prove anything as such.

EDIT: Note, I started writing this post before natural's most recent response...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Alright natural, let's test

Alright natural, let's test your little hypothesis and see if it fits the data

 

 

natural wrote:

An appropriate test of the MCI hypothesis would be to offer a counter-intuitive idea that does not lead to a new understanding at all, it is simply counter-intuitive.

............

That's kinda what they did

 

 

What new understanding does "Sobbing Seaweed" lead to? Where is the "AH AH!!" moment when thinking about a "Cursing Frog"?

 

Now I think you can understand why I see your objections to the study so confusing

 

THIS is what they mean by MCI:

 

 

Anything with a "-" in the column is counter-intiative. For example a plant that has Folkpsychology can [think, feel etc...] is counter intiative.

 

Now where is this "EURIKA!!!" moment when thinking about a thirsty plant or a plant that knows the multiplication table?

 

 

I'm just not getting it. Which is way I think you're WAY off base here.

 

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
A run around the mental block.

 Thank you, Pyrismaragdos, for the simulation example.

While myself thinking of pseudocode I could write to illustrate it I realised a simplification in how the thinking may be expressed.

We assume perfect honesty from Monty or the problem is pointless. This becomes important later.

it is agreed that the initial choice from three doors has a 1/3 chance of success (If not, the reader has other problems ).

It is agreed that in a 1/2 chance, say heads or tails, door A or door B, then a perfectly sound strategy, as good as any other, is always to call heads, always to stick with the door you first chose (see parenthetic comment above).

In fact, if we will always stick with the door we first chose, then we can shut our eyes to do it. That makes no difference (unless you believe in some form of unconscious telekinesis relying on open eyes) because it is defined that Monty will always expose a goat.

If our eyes are always shut, Monty need not bother opening a door, because your supposed 50:50 bet is good by sticking with your first door whichever one he opens and you are not going to look at the goat anyway. Staring at goats does not help.

You have agreed you will choose the door you first chose at 1/3, and with no actual change in conditions will assume it mysteriously has become 1/2.

So, if you will always stick with the first door with your eyes shut, good strategy for a 1/2 chance, then why have the odds improved to 1/2 compared with when you first chose your door with a 1/3 chance?

If your chance of winning by sitting is 1/3 then your chance of winning by changing to the now only possible remaining door is 2/3.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to give one more

I'm going to give one more example of how counter-intuitiveness alone is not enough to make an idea stick. There must be a payoff of some kind to make the counter-intuitiveness worthwhile--the 'other side' of the hill in the roller coaster metaphor.

I've never been a theist, but I have had a 'religious experience'--or, to put it in my preferred terminology, I had a 'wondrous experience' associated with a religion, specifically Christianity.

Now, this isn't the kind of experience like going into a nice-looking church and enjoying the aesthetic (ignoring the dead guy on the stick, of course). That's an interesting experience itself, but it's not likely to convince anybody that the dead guy on the stick is a god.

This experience I'm about to relate is of the MCI type, where an initially counter-intuitive idea suddenly seems to make sense, and you (or I, in this case) experience a rather strong Ah Ha! effect, where suddenly a whole lot of other strange ideas suddenly start to make sense.

It's the kind of experience I could imagine would be enough to convince a non-skeptical non-believer that there must be some great 'truth' to the Bible, and perhaps that 'the Holy Spirit' was visiting them, and that they were about to be 'born again'. I'm not sure of that, but it seems plausible to me. Maybe a former theist can chime in.

Anyway, so it was several years ago, before the RRS, so at least 6 years ago. I was an active listener of the Infidel Guy Show at the time, and was a subscribed Gold Member, so I was going through his massive archive (highly recommended) of older shows.

And, I don't remember the exact show, but he was interviewing this one Christian guy, and the guy was a total brick wall. And I don't mean he was rude or anything. He just didn't get anything Reggie was saying, even though Reggie was trying all sorts of different approaches to try to explain things to him. But the guy just could not comprehend anything outside of his Christian mindset. It was kind of sad, actually, and I mean that sincerely. I really felt sympathy for this person trapped in his religious fantasy world.

Well, I just so happened to be both moderately drunk and high at the time I was listening, and I was getting all sorts of interesting insights about belief and religion, and whatnot. I was trying to figure out, "What is really going on in this guy's mind? Why can't he see how his responses to Reggie's questions just don't make sense?"

So, I was trying to see things from his perspective. And Reggie asked him some question, and the guy responds by missing the point and just resorting to repeating the Jesus story again. So he starts talking about how Jesus died on Passover, and how the old traditions required a blood sacrifice, and they used to slaughter a lamb, and how Jesus was trying to save them from all of these old backwards ways, and so he became the sacrificial lamb, whose blood became the sacrifice to fulfill the old traditions.

And I was like, "Whoah! That actually makes sense!" And, bam bam bam, all these other strange ideas inside Christianity started to suddenly make sense to me. How Jesus had to be pure, how he had come to fulfill the law (or whatever the phrase is), etc. etc.

I fully admit, it was a pretty mind-blowing experience. A real 'wondrous experience'. And it really did make sense to me. For about 30 seconds, give or take. And then I remembered that I was both drunk and high. And that I had had many other such mind-blowing experiences in the past, where things had suddenly started to make sense (even without the mind-altering substances). And how some of those experiences turned out to be relatively true, but others had turned out to be false and self-deluding. And how the whole lamb sacrifice thing still didn't make any real god-damned sense in the first place.

So, I couldn't believe the Jesus story this guy was telling Reggie and everyone else listening. But the guy believed it! And I could understand why the guy believed it. I could imagine deluding myself, perhaps at an earlier age, perhaps if I wasn't so skeptical, to believe that this kind of intense experience could be 'the real thing'.

And that's when I thought, "Holy shit! This must be what people are talking about when they say they've had a 'religious experience', and that's why they 'just know' that Jesus is Lord (or whatever)."

Again, I'm not 100% sure about that, and today I tend to believe that there are different varieties of 'religious' experiences, some very different to what I had briefly experienced listening to this brainwashed guy regurgitating a mythical tale that he believed. But I also believe that all 'religious experiences' all play off of this intense intuitive feeling of 'truthiness', which is what I'm talking about when I refer to a cascading paradigm-shifting experience.

But note that, prior to this paradigm-shifting experience of suddenly understanding a lot of previously counter-intuitive religious ideas, the ideas themselves, without the paradigm shift, were just plain old counter-intuitive ideas, and I neither believed them, nor particularly had a clear idea of them (they were not strong in my memory, having never been a Christian), and definitely wasn't attracted to them.

Counter-intuitive ideas which have no intuitive pay-off will just remain counter-intuitive, and no one will believe them or bother to remember them. Why should they? They make no freaking sense.

It's only when a counter-intuitive idea starts to make a new kind of sense that they will be particularly memorable or believable.

At least, that's my opinion. Anyone relate to this?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Alright

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Alright natural, let's test your little hypothesis and see if it fits the data

 

 

natural wrote:

An appropriate test of the MCI hypothesis would be to offer a counter-intuitive idea that does not lead to a new understanding at all, it is simply counter-intuitive.

............

That's kinda what they did

'Kinda'? That's all you've got?

Sorry, not going to do your homework for you.

Quote them. Quote me. Show contradiction. The end.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
For a counter-intuitive idea

For a counter-intuitive idea to have any real effect, it has to have some aspect beyond just being counter-intuitive.

In religion, it obviously has to be something strongly connected with the doctrine/dogma of the religion.

To get the "Ah Hah!" natural is referring to, of course you aren't going to get it from any arbitrary CI proposition, it has to be some relevance to a current problem which is engaging you, such as some suggested explanation that seems too CI for you to take seriously, at least intially.

So the set of arbitrary CI phrases used in that test is almost completely irrelevant to what natural is arguing, IMHO. They have none of the relevance or association of some kind to a specific context that can make CI have an impact on belief or understanding.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pyrismaragdos
atheist
Pyrismaragdos's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Very good explanation,

Very good explanation, Pacioli. Congrats!

Here's another way to look at it (if someone else has already come up with it, my apologies - I've read most posts here, but not all). Of course, we take as a given that Monty is honest and the game is played as described. We should also agree that chances of the contestant initially picking a goat are 66,6%. Let's see what happens if the contestant always changes his initial choice:

If the contestant's first choice is a goat (66,6% odds), that's where the story ends! The rest is an obligatory, automated process. Monty has to open the only other goat door. Contestant switches. The car is hers/his! No change of odds.

IOW, a 'wrong' first choice (again, remember it's 66,6% odds) is what the contestant should be begging for. Such a 'wrong' pick automatically eliminates the other goat, too, since Monty has to reveal the other goat. Now switching to the other closed door definitely gives you the car!

Perhaps, the question we should be asking is what makes the solution to this problem so counter-intuitive in the first place.

Spare the rod and spoil the god!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote:An interesting

Pacioli wrote:

An interesting post, redneF, although not for its content but its approach, as I will explain at some length.

redneF wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
redneF, I explained clearly why an apparent choice from two has a setting of three.

No, you only 'explained clearly' what you think, why you think it, and why you think it's best that others think the way you think.

Tripe.

Actually, no.

It's factual.

Pacioli wrote:
I explained various facts in logic and probability.

And either you're dancing around what I'm saying on purpose, or what I'm explaining to you is completely over your head.

Pacioli wrote:
  I find it interesting that you make no evident attempt to understand what is put before you

I'm beyond the peripheral view of the 'problem', and caught on to the mindfuck aspect of this so called dilemma given that good ole Monty leaves you with a single winning and a single losing option to make a final decision on.

Pacioli wrote:
...but rather try to make it a matter of one opinion vs another. Creationists regularly exercise the same pointless tactic.

I pointed out earlier how the 'conclusion' of the odds are a 'false positive', and how apologists use these types of mindfucks to tie the average person's mind up in knots and 'conclude' the odds are much much greater that there is a god.

Pacioli wrote:

redneF wrote:
Good thing I never took anyone's word as if they were a god, because in studying problems on my own, I didn't develop 'textbook' habits, and therefore think 'out of the box'.

Who asked you to take anyone's word as if they were a god?

What a meaningless, retarded response. I'll have to make sure to waste bandwidth and respond in the same manner to you at some point.

Grow a fucking brain. You're posturing here that you have got the 'absolutely' true answer, as if you had absolute understanding, and I'm commenting that it's a good thing I don't take anyone's word for it when they feel like they have some greater level of understanding that I don't.

Pacioli wrote:
Meanwhile, you fail to address information and questions.

False.

My answers are based on the Monty Hall Problem, and the questions on what the odds are of choosing the car, which are only 50/50 despite what you and many others 'believe'.

Pacioli wrote:
What should one conclude from your behaviour, other than that you prefer belief to analysis?

Is this your way of being non committal to clearly state that you are positive I'm not being analytical enough to avoid embarrassment?

Pacioli wrote:

redneF wrote:
You're being a zealot.

Did saying that make you feel better?

That's a retarded response to a positive claim. Why not try and prove that you're not instead?

Oh, I know, that way you can't be shown to be wrong.

Again.

Pacioli wrote:
Beyond that, zero information was contributed.

False.

The claim that you're a zealot is either true, or false.

And you haven't done anything to confirm it, or debunk it.

Just more 'dancing'...

Pacioli wrote:

redneF wrote:
What started off as a game with the possible options being right/wrong/wrong (1/3) was altered to the possible options being reduced to right/wrong (1/2).

You and others disagree on how to calculate the odds, and it doesn't mean shit, because it's your opinions, not the facts, and it doesn't mean that you can't choose 100% incorrectly.

This is where your post sounds like a POE, because it is difficult to see the last statement as other than overreaching silliness.  Of course a wrong choice is 100% wrong and a right choice is 100% right. Will you now argue your probabilities are 100%?

Still, if you consider there has been disagreement on how to calculate the odds, point out where, with your analysis. If you can not, then you have said nothing, again.

Then you're just not getting it.

It's either:

A- Because you're intentionally being obtuse to try and 'win'.

B- You honestly don't understand what I've shown.

Pacioli wrote:

redneF wrote:
   The 'facts' are this:

1- You can choose 1 door.

2- The car is behind 1 of 2 doors.

All this talk of how many doors other than door 1 and door 2 there were to begin with isn't relevant. It's completely redundant.

Why people want to keep factoring in something redundant into an equation is an interesting psychological phenomenon.

Did you put "facts" in quotation marks because you knew they were not all of the relevant facts?

Did you understand what I wrote, in what you quoted? Do you understand that the odds get 'reset'?

Apparently not.

There are 'parallel' odds in this 'problem'. That is what I'm pointing out to you, and you either don't get it, or won't acknowledge it.
The 'parallel' odds are 50/50. It depends on how you view this 'problem'.

Pacioli wrote:
Your assertion about relevance needs demonstration by analysis.

I've given you the relevance, numerous times. You simply don't get it, or won't acknowledge it.

Pacioli wrote:
Your preference for assertion over analysis is the curious phenomenon here.

I've given you the analysis numerous times. You simply don't get it, or or won't acknowledge it.

Which keeps you and I going in circles.

Pacioli wrote:
Go through the truth tables I provided to explain where I am wrong. Are you able to do that, rather than ranting that I must be wrong?

redneF wrote:

You keep talking about switching from your initial choice (door 1) to the only other choice available (door 2) and talking about how the 'other' one will win 2 out of 3 times, but the game isn't 'best 2 out of 3', it's a 1 shot deal.

And the painfully obvious kicker is that in choosing door 1 you could have chosen correctly right from the beginning, so moving to the 'other' door would be a fatal error.

...I note you have made no analysis of the truth table nor argument related to it.

Because I explained why it's not relevant, duhhh...

This MHP is a clever way to argue and convince people (make the person 'believe' dogmatically) that 1 choice has clearly the better chance of being 'correct' when in fact, it's illusory. You odds are reset to 50/50 by good ole Monty.

Pacioli wrote:
Did you consider also the alternative, simpler game I provided with the same truth table?

Why would I want to waste my time on something I know is not relevant?

Pacioli wrote:
Did you understand it such that you can sensibly explain it back to people here?

Yes, but it's not even relevant to what the 'odds' actually are.

Pacioli wrote:

redneF wrote:
Do you really mean to tell me that if you were playing this game and Monty gave you the opportunity to switch after opening door 3 that you'd switch or contemplate these kinds of odds?

'Cause that would crack me the fuck up...

I will put money down on this game.

Who asked you if you'd put money down on this game? (See? I used your 'stock' question to me earlier. See what kind of a waste of bandwidth it is?)

I assumed you would put money down. My point is why you can't see that the reset odds are really only 50/50.

Pacioli wrote:
What is your preferred stake?

Who told you that I'd put money down on this game? (See? I used your 'stock' question to me earlier. See what kind of a waste of bandwidth it is?)

Pacioli wrote:
  We will need a formal intermediary to make sure payment is made. I will play as often as you like, the more often the better.

Keep talking past me. You really must like going in circles. Really.

But let's test that theory to see if it's true that you like going in circles.

Let's try this:

Can you tell me what Monty's odds are of announcing the contestant has won the car, what his odds are of announcing the contestant has lost the car, when the contestant has made their final decision?

And can you understand it such that you can sensibly explain it back to people here?

 

Let's see if you will give directly answer my question, or do your 'circle dance'...

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Cor.

 

What a bee-arch of a thread. 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
News: Unexpected death of Mr M Hall.

redneF wrote:
<much of the redNef waffle deleted>

What started off as a game with the possible options being right/wrong/wrong (1/3) was altered to the possible options being reduced to right/wrong (1/2).

Pacioli wrote:
Go through the truth tables I provided to explain where I am wrong. Are you able to do that, rather than ranting that I must be wrong?

...I note you have made no analysis of the truth table nor argument related to it.

Because I explained why it's not relevant, duhhh...

If the truth table lines are not relevant, it will be easy to point out the errors of irrelevance, line by line. Why have you been incapable of doing that so far, redneF?

 

The following quotation I have captured here to keep it fresh, in case redneF later wishes to pretend he said otherwise:

redneF wrote:
This MHP is a clever way to argue and convince people (make the person 'believe' dogmatically) that 1 choice has clearly the better chance of being 'correct' when in fact, it's illusory. You[r] odds are reset to 50/50 by good ole Monty.

 

redNef wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
Did you consider also the alternative, simpler game I provided with the same truth table?

Why would I want to waste my time on something I know is not relevant?

Pacioli wrote:
Did you understand it such that you can sensibly explain it back to people here?

Yes, but it's not even relevant to what the 'odds' actually are.

If you understand it, why can you not explain it? What is your explanation to "know it is not relevant"? 

 

redneF wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
I will put money down on this game.

Who asked you if you'd put money down on this game? (See? I used your 'stock' question to me earlier. See what kind of a waste of bandwidth it is?)

I assumed you would put money down. My point is why you can't see that the reset odds are really only 50/50.

 

That point, "reset odds are really only 50/50 [of winning]" you have avoided explaining at any time other than to assert it without providing logic or evidence. I can understand that the fact you would lose may not be the only reason you would not bet but doubtless it is compelling, while you keep up this public pretence or ignorance that switching is not the optimal strategy.

 

redneF wrote:
Can you tell me what Monty's odds are of announcing the contestant has won the car, what his odds are of announcing the contestant has lost the car, when the contestant has made their final decision?

And can you understand it such that you can sensibly explain it back to people here?

Is the contestant ill-informed or a right twit who would make a 50/50 choice, such as always sticking with their first choice? It affects the odds.

If so, and they make a randomised 50:50 choice, their odds of correct selection at this point of the game are 50%, comprising 50% of 33% (sub-optimally sitting) plus 50% of 67% (optimally switching). If they choose always to sit (equally valid on 50:50 odds) their odds are 33%. If they choose always to switch then they are indistinguishable from an optimal strategy, below.

If the contestant is rational, their odds of correct selection are 66.7% approximately.

The probability of Monty announcing the contestant as a winner will be reduced equally in either case by the possibility of unexpected technical failure, destruction of the game studio, or random death of Monty, probably because he died laughing at redneF.

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I believe now would be an

I believe now would be an appropriate time to reveal perhaps the most intuitive (as far as I know, anyway) way of showing why switching is the correct response.

The Super-Duper Monty Hall problem

Suppose you're on a game show and you're given the choice of one billion doors [and will win what is behind the chosen door]. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats [unwanted booby prizes]. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open 999,999,998 of the 999,999,999 remaining doors, and each of the doors he opens must have a goat behind it. If all of the remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses the 999,999,998 doors [uniformly] at random. After Monty Hall opens the doors with goats, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Doors 2, 3, 4, 5, ...., 734,646,725, 734,646,726, (skipping Door 734,646,727), 734,646,728, 734,646,729, ..., 999,999,998, 999,999,999, and 1,000,000,000 which all have goats. He then asks you "Do you want to stick with your first choice (Door Number 1), or switch Door Number 734,646,727?" Is it to your advantage to change your choice?


Question 1: After making your initial choice, but before Monty opens the 999,999,998 other goat doors, what is your initial probability of choosing correctly?

Question 2: Do you really think that after Monty opens 999,999,998 other goat doors (randomly, if you happen to be initially correct, deterministically if you happen to be initially wrong), your initial probability of being correct magically changes to 50:50?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:I believe now

natural wrote:

I believe now would be an appropriate time to reveal perhaps the most intuitive (as far as I know, anyway) way of showing why switching is the correct response.

Guys, I'm not being a Poe, and I respect both of you, but you're just not understanding.

You are all consciously forcing yourselves to look a 'certain way', and not 'another' way.

That's the exercise here. It's been presented to you as a 'probability' problem, and that's how this becomes a double blind psychological test in 'self deception'.

 

I thought to 'expand' the problem to a 1 in 10 game, or a 1 in a billion game as well, but....that's why this whole Monty Hall Problem is so illusory.

I thought at least 1 person here would be able to understand what I'm talking about, but I guess not.

 

I'll try and explain it 1 more time.

The 'trick' here works because it's a 3 option game. The 3rd option is integral because of it's function. It's a random 'pivot' point (that's the best thing I can think of calling it).

Why?

You have to look at the problem as if you are Monty Hall, and not as the contestant. The game is predetermined to be a 50/50 game.

By telling Monty your '1st' choice, what you are doing is actually arming him with information as to which door he can use as a deception. You are instructing him on how you will ultimately deceive yourself.

The illusion is that you feel as if your initial choice is 1 out of 3, but your initial choice (because you can switch it later) is actually 2 out of 3. You are picking 1 door with a car, and 1 door with a goat.

No matter what door your initial choice (moveable choice) is, right or wrong, it does not matter.....get it????.....Monty will always be able to open a wrong door with a goat behind it, and leave you with a 1 out of 2.

He is/was always misleading you into thinking in 1 out of 3 terms, he was just tricking you with a non option.

Because you have 2 options (stay or move away from your initial choice) you can always choose between a door with a car, and a door with a goat. You are assured by the open door that you have a 50/50 chance no matter if you stay, or pick the other remaining door.

 

I don't know why some people have a 'mental block' in seeing that this boils down to a 50/50 game.

This is not a mathematical probability 'problem'. It never was. It's a psychological test. It's to see if you'll 'outfox yourself' into a self deception. Sorry to say.

If you conclude that your odds are not 50/50, (1 choice from 2) then you fail the test. You not only took the bait (the pivot door appearing to be a factor) but you will defend dogmatically that it is, even though it never was.

I'd like to think that at this point, you'll 'get it'.

Maybe one of you who initially defended 2/3 will now get it, but denial is such a powerful force, that I can't cling to 'hope' that you'll over come it. At least not for some time. And I don't know why you will cling dogmatically when it's so obviously a mental trick.

The mental trick boils down to "How many doors are you really choosing from?" (Keep in mind the deception...)

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"One choice out of two" does

"One choice out of two" does not necessarily always mean a 50/50 chance of winning.

Imagine a different scenario. if they had only two doors, and Monty threw a dice before you came on, and if it came up '1', put the car behind the first door, otherwise put it behind the other one, and all you had to do was choose one of the two, with none of the other business. 

Still one out of two.

If you knew that was how they ran it, would you still consider you were faced with a '50/50' choice, just because you only ever had two doors to choose from?

If you didn't know the way they chose which door to put the prize behind, would you reckon that if you always chose the first door, or chose at random, you would win 50% of the time?

That assumption where you seem to equate one out of two always implying a 50/50 chance of a particular outcome, seems to me where you might be missing the boat.

In the actual MH game, if you shut your eyes, and picked one of the other doors at random, you would still have the original odds of 1/3, even though you were now choosing of out of two. That is because you are now choosing one out two, but after 'choosing' a set of two out three. So it is 1/2 X 2/3 =1/3. So two consecutive choices are involved.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:In the

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the actual MH game, if you shut your eyes...

Do you realize that Monty will only ever open a door with a goat, no matter if your initial choice is a door with a car or with a goat? That's the whole point of this game, is to screw with your mind, otherwise the game would be that you choose a door, and Monty opens the door that you chose, and there would be nothing to 'argue' about.

Ok, let's try this illustration.

At the beginning of the MH game, the odds are 1/3 in your favor. When Monty opens the door with the goat, what does that do to your odds?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
 redneF, thank you for that

 redneF, thank you for that clearer explanation of your position.

Taking what you say about a 50/50 choice at face value, why is it not a perfectly good strategy for you always, 100% of the time, to stick with the door you first chose, eyes shut?

If there were four doors initially rather than three, and two were opened, does this make your odds 1/2 or are they now 3/4 to switch? IOW, how and why do four doors differ from three?


HumanVuvuzela
atheist
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:I believe now

natural wrote:

I believe now would be an appropriate time to reveal perhaps the most intuitive (as far as I know, anyway) way of showing why switching is the correct response.

The Super-Duper Monty Hall problem

Suppose you're on a game show and you're given the choice of one billion doors [and will win what is behind the chosen door]. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats [unwanted booby prizes]. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open 999,999,998 of the 999,999,999 remaining doors, and each of the doors he opens must have a goat behind it. If all of the remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses the 999,999,998 doors [uniformly] at random. After Monty Hall opens the doors with goats, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Doors 2, 3, 4, 5, ...., 734,646,725, 734,646,726, (skipping Door 734,646,727), 734,646,728, 734,646,729, ..., 999,999,998, 999,999,999, and 1,000,000,000 which all have goats. He then asks you "Do you want to stick with your first choice (Door Number 1), or switch Door Number 734,646,727?" Is it to your advantage to change your choice?


Question 1: After making your initial choice, but before Monty opens the 999,999,998 other goat doors, what is your initial probability of choosing correctly?

Question 2: Do you really think that after Monty opens 999,999,998 other goat doors (randomly, if you happen to be initially correct, deterministically if you happen to be initially wrong), your initial probability of being correct magically changes to 50:50?

1: The initial probability of selecting the door with the car behind it is 1 / 1,000,000,000. 

2: No. The probability of selecting the door with the car if you switch is 999,999,999 / 1,000,000,000 against the same 1 / 1,000,000,000 if you remain with your initial choice. 

If you consider the two subsets: A = [Door 1] and B = [Doors 2 to 1 billion], the initial probability that the door with the car is in subset A is 1 in a billion, and subset B is 999,999,999 in a billion. If Super Monty opens one door in subset B, revealing a goat, the contestant's chances improve to (1 / 999,999,998) x (999,999,999 / 1,000,000,000). This is (the probability that the car is behind any individual door of the remaining unopened doors in subset B) x (the probability that the car is behind a door in subset B). If Super Monty opens a second 'goat' door in subset B, the chances improve (slightly) further to (1 / 999,999,997) x (999,999,999 / 1,000,000,000). As Super Monty opens more doors (and is forced to reveal where more goats are, increasing the probability that a car is behind any given individual unopened door in subset B), until only two doors in subset B remain, the contestant's chances are now (1/2) x (999,999,999 / 1,000,000,000). Once Super Monty opens the final 'goat' door to be revealed, leaving doors 1 and 734,646,727, the contestant's chances with the door in subset B are now (1/1) x (999,999,999 / 1,000,000,000) versus 1 / 1,000,000,000, the initial probability with selecting door 1. 

By opening the doors in subset B, Super Monty doesn't alter the probability of the car being behind a door in subset A. By showing the goats behind the doors in subset B, he is only altering the probability that the car is behind a door in subset B.  

 


HumanVuvuzela
atheist
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:At the

redneF wrote:

At the beginning of the MH game, the odds are 1/3 in your favor. When Monty opens the door with the goat, what does that do to your odds?

At the beginning of the MH game, the odds are 1/3 in your favour, and 2/3 against. That is, if you have a one in three chance of correctly choosing the door with the car, you also have a two in three chance of choosing a door with a goat. 

Assume you choose door 1. Door 1 becomes Subset A, and [Doors 2 and 3] become another Subset B. The probability that the car is behind Door 1 (ie in Subset A) is still 1/3. The probability that the car is behind a door in Subset B is 2/3. 

Using the sum of probabilities, Subset A = 1/3, while Subset B = [1/3 + 1/3] = 2/3. 

Do you agree so far?

Now, ignore Subset A. 

If Monty shows us that Door 3 contains a goat, then this leaves us one door to choose from within Subset B. But we already know that Subset B has a 2/3 chance of containing the door with the car. The sum of probabilities across the problem must still add up to 1, and Subset A remains at 1/3. Subset B, which has a 2/3 chance of containing the car, now has the probabilities balanced [2/3 + 0/3]. Given door 2 is the only unopened door in Subset B, the probability of it concealing the car is 2/3.

The key is that Monty knows where the car is, and deliberately shows us a goat. If Monty doesn't know where the car is, he is likely to reveal the car 1/3 times, as he has the same knowledge as any contestant. In this case, and the probability of each of the two remaining doors concealing a car is 1/2.

By knowingly opening a door with a goat, Monty is giving the contestant information about where the car isn't


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:BobSpence1

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the actual MH game, if you shut your eyes...

Do you realize that Monty will only ever open a door with a goat, no matter if your initial choice is a door with a car or with a goat? That's the whole point of this game, is to screw with your mind, otherwise the game would be that you choose a door, and Monty opens the door that you chose, and there would be nothing to 'argue' about.

I agree with all that, it is definitely designed to confuse you, and your intuitive decisions.

Quote:

Ok, let's try this illustration.

At the beginning of the MH game, the odds are 1/3 in your favor. When Monty opens the door with the goat, what does that do to your odds?

Since he is not going to open the door he know hides the car, then if he randomly opens one of the two other doors, you would be right to assume a 50/50 on the two unopened doors.

But there is a further constraint - he is not going to open the door you initially chose. This is what swings the probabilities beyond 50/50. If the car is not behind your door, he has no choice in which door to open.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote: redneF,

Pacioli wrote:

 redneF, thank you for that clearer explanation of your position.

I'm trying to explain to you guys why this problem really isn't about mathematical probabilties. I'm sincerely not jerking your chain here. I'm trying to find a way to describe to you the 'misdirection' into believing something is 'true' when it's really a cool illusion.

Pacioli wrote:
Taking what you say about a 50/50 choice at face value, why is it not a perfectly good strategy for you always, 100% of the time, to stick with the door you first chose, eyes shut?

Ok, I'll try and explain it using someone else's initial and then their final perspective on the 'solution'. I told you I'd ask a friend of mine who did computational statistics in University.

I called him and told him the MHP. Of course, naturally, when he heard that the initial game premise of 3 doors, 1 hiding a car, 1 hiding a goat, and 1 hiding another goat, he also concluded that the odds of choosing the car were 1 in 3, which equals 33.33%.

I then told him that MH then reveals a door with the goat. His response now was that the odds just went to 2/3 which equals 66.66%.

I asked him 'which' remaining door is 66.66% probabilty. He answered that the door he picked has to now have better odds, because 1 of the 3 doors no longer has any potential to carry odds of having the car behind it.

I explained that everyone I'm debating says to switch to the 'other' door that wasn't opened, because it supposedly has 2/3 odds of being the 'correct' one.

He didn't agree, and he couldn't stay on the phone any longer, so I just dropped it with him.

Pacioli wrote:
If there were four doors initially rather than three, and two were opened, does this make your odds 1/2 or are they now 3/4 to switch? IOW, how and why do four doors differ from three?

I asked myself the same question. I thought of the odds with 10 doors. Then with 4 doors etc, etc... Then it dawned on me that the whole point is not to determine how to calculate odds. That's a red herring.

I tried to point out that the game is misleading because it gets reset to a game of 50/50. It's easy to go into full blown 'slide rule' mode, and extrapolating into 'if it were like this, or like that, then X, but it obscures the salient point.

If Monty simply wanted to have a game where your odds are 1/3, he'd ask you to pick a door, and then he'd open the door you picked and that would be the end of it. Nothing to talk about.

But as this 'problem' is presented, it's to see what goes on in peoples' minds when they learn that they still have a shot when a door with a goat is revealed.

In effect, what Monty is doing when he asks you what door you are thinking; is simply determining which of the 2 'goat doors' he's going to open and keep the suspense going.

It doesn't matter which door you 'pick', (car, goat 1, or goat2) his odds of being able to reveal a goat (after you tell him your choice) are 100%.

He's not going to open a door with the car, because the game would be over then. No more exciting than if it was a choice between 2 doors.

 

The whole thing about the game show is to create as much tension as possible. The longer the odds, the less hope people have for winning. The closer the odds, the more nail biting. Right?

Why wouldn't they have a game with 100 boxes, with 1 with the keys to the car, and 99 boxes with a penny? Or with 10 boxes, 1 with keys, 9 with pennies? Cause people would fall asleep.

The way I'm looking at this game is that you are told that

" There is a 'set' of boxes, and 1 box contains the keys to a car, the remaining boxes in the 'set' contain a penny....Oh, and by the way, never mind the rest of the 'set' (reset of the game) here are 2 boxes to choose from. 1 of them has the keys, the other has a penny.

Good luck."

That's why I'm saying the odds are 50/50.

Another way to look at the 3 box problem is to see that the 'goat being revealed' is like having used up 1 of 2 guesses. So, when the time comes to make your ''firm guess' it's actually your 2nd guess out of 3 possibilities.

No????

When Monty opens the 'goat' door, it's as if you took 1 of 2 guesses in a game with 3 boxes, and you are still left with 1 guess.

That's about the best way I can articulate why the game is (in fact) 50/50 when it's 'is that your final decision?' time.

You have 2 boxes remaining, and 1 guess remaining.

50/50

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris