Because there are several people here who have questioned the logical faculties of other people here, I thought that I'd resurrect a problem in logic / probability from a few years ago. If you recall this one from the distant past, please have the courtesy to refrain from ruining it for the rest.

In the early 1970s - maybe even the late 1960s - there was a game show on (American) television called "Let's Make a Deal". At the end of the show, the host, Monty Hall, would have one of the contestants choose one of three marked doors - door #1, door #2, and door #3 - explaining that behind one of the doors was a new car and behind the other two were junk - two goats, let's say; the contestant would get to keep the prize behind the door he chose.

After the contestant chose one of the doors, Monty would have one of the other doors opened to reveal a goat, and then would ask the contestant if he wanted to keep the door he's chosen or switch to the other (as yet unopened) door.

Here's the question: Should the contestant stick with his initial choice, or should he switch? If you think that he should stick (or that he should switch), is there a substantial reason to do so, or only a slight reason to do so?

 

Did you want us to post our reasoning or wait and let some more votes come in first?

 

Ah, the Monty Hall logic problem. Very interesting

 

I'm pretty confident I answered right and have a good reason. But I don't want to spoil it for anyone.

 

Damnit I want to change my vote after hiting "vote" I realized the answer .0002 seconds after I hit click.

I guess I will say my reason later, when you feel the vote is over.

 

You might be able to PM a moderator and get them to change your vote.

I don't know; it's worth a try.

 

Go ahead and post your reasons, if you want.

I've found that this can stir up a good argu . . . er . . . debate.

 

I ain't not very smart, and I wisher someone would let me know the logic, since I reckon it would be more funner.

 

...

 

After I voted and asked for more information, I went ahead and searched around the internet on my own. I found plenty of really long writing saying why changing your door with yield a greater chance of winning the prize, and how this is very counter-intuitive. Such proponents ask for individuals to try both ways (by changing, and not changing) in an expiriment to prove that changing increases probablility, but I still - in all my ignorance - cannot grasp the arguement.

You make your choice, a door is removed. Now there will always be two doors left, one correct and one incorrect. The other door tells you nothing about wether or not your choice is good or bad, and you simply have 2 doors to pick from, each with a 50% chance of being correct - so you can change if you want - but it doesnt "improve" your odds.

I all my internet wandering, it seems as many of the heralded logic-ist concentrate on your first choice being of 33% probability, and then the second choice as a 50% probablility. Then they constuct some arguement saying it is better to switch.

I see only one choice, since you wouldnt even have to select a first door, and one of the goats would still be removed, leaving you with 2 doors, one right, one wrong.

Logic, smogic - Keep It Simple Stupid.

But like I said, I ain't very smart and I wisher that someone might showed me the rightest way to reckon a more corrected answer-er.