frosty99c

The original Star Wars would never have specifically created a character just to sell merchandise...

Do you know the third door is never correct? Because then the probability doesn't change.

Scenario 1: You chose 1/2 at first with a 50% chance of being correct, I introduce a 3rd door (but it isn't a legit possibility), so the actual choice for you is still 50/50 (between doors 1 and 2)

Scenario 2: If you think it's possible that 3 could be correct (but it actually never is) then, no, you wouldn't want to switch. By staying with your first choice has a 50% chance of winning, by switching it only has a 33% chance. But there's no way to know this ahead of time (because as soon as you know you shouldn't switch bc 3 is the wrong door, then you're back in scenario 1)

Scenario 3: For completeness, let's say the 3rd door can be correct sometimes. Then it doesn't matter if you switch or not. It's a 33% chance of winning either way. If there is a chance it can be correct, then your first choice doesn't matter at all and the second choice is the 'real' choice bc that's the only time you're able to choose from all real possibilities.

The only reason that the Monty Hall problem changes probability in the second choice is because you are provided more information before the switch (that the opened door is absolutely not the one with the prize)

Agreed. And I've never read anything quite like The Savage Detectives. His short stories are great too, and you can find a lot of them online published by the New Yorker.

Yes, it's the same concept. The same math/logic behind it doesn't change. You're choosing 1/3 or you are choosing 2/3 and I'll tell you which of the two is incorrect. It's just easier to visualize with 100 doors instead.

I'm not sure I'm following the other angle..there are 3 correct possibilities at the start but I can only choose 2? Or there are 2 possibilities and then you introduce a 3rd door that is never correct?

Roberto Bolaño

I haven't spoken to her since that comment over 2 years ago. I agree, they need to be shunned

My mother described it as "eugenics, you know, like the Nazis did."

I think it has something to do with the idea that they think a clump of cells is the same as a real person, so if they're outlawing abortion as murder, then IVF is murder too.

Because when you first picked 27, it was 1 out of 100 choices. Then I tell you that you either got it right, or it's this other number. None of the others are correct, only 27 or 44.

So you think your 1/100 choice was better than the one I'm giving you now? On average, you'll be right 1% of the time if you don't switch. If you do switch, you'll be correct 99% of the time.

Another way to think of it is: you choose 27 or you choose ALL of the other 99 numbers knowing that I'll tell you that 98 of them are wrong and you'll be left with the correct one out of that batch. One of those clearly has better odds, no?

Correct, extend it to 10 or 100 choices instead of 3 and it's easy to see.

Me: Pick a number between 1 and 100.

Them: 27

Me: Okay, the number is either 27 or 44, do you want to change your choice?

Them, somehow: No, changing my choice now still has the same probability of being right as when I made my first choice.

It's obvious that they should want to change every time.

Bastion

Ok, now take it one more step. Why can't that person walk? Is it because someone broke their leg? In that case, it's not an 'exception' it's an aid. It makes the situation more equitable.

It's ok to say that a certain class is deficient. Sometimes we need to accept that. The problem is that, at this moment, the poverty class is deficient due to our capitalistic system that has oppressed them for years. They are not inherently deficient due to any fault of their own. And unfortunately, a large percentage of those are people of color due to years of systematic racism and discrimination (red lining, underfund education, food deserts, etc).

It's wrong to say that people of color are deficient because they are people of color. It's (more) correct to say that deficiencies do exist due to the current/historical structure of our society and we should start to find solutions to these issues.

Racism and insults occur when someone says "systematic racism doesn't exist so giving these people handouts is unfair to me" or "this person is deficient because they are black." We need to accept that inequality exists and do our best as a society to help overcome it.

I think this is one of the main reasons that critical race theory became such a hot button issue. This type of systematic inequality needs to be studied and understood so that reasonable, well researched solutions can be discovered. The privileged class is against it because they want to remain privileged; they want the rest of the upper/middle class to put their head in the sand and ignore that the systematic issues exist in the first place, so that fingers don't end up pointed at them and things won't ever need to change. It's easier to demonize the topic all together than to form actual arguments against equality.