the monty hall problem

[pianistimo]

ok.  in an attempt to right myself back into chances of joining a high iq society - i am going to prove that i understand complex ideas such as the monty hall problem.  it was discovered by thomas bayes and can be found here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem  scroll down

now a more basic theorem derived from this is simply called ODDS

odds = probability x failure / probability x success

now - i would like to relate this to the move 'out east' where john candy (a stagecoach driver) uses pots and pans to attempt to diagram the path back to the east and the probability of them making it - becomes higher and higher.  random chances seem to prove that it isn't always clear cut.  sometimes probability depends on circumstances.  for instance - one could ask 'what are the odds an elephant is going to walk in front of me?'  but - if one hears circus music - suddenly the odds become very high.

ok. do i qualify for mensa now?

[pianistimo]

there is no such thing as a 'riskless activity'  - or a 'riskless society' that we know now.  take the insurance industry.  not everything is insured.  but, that doesn't mean that what is not insured can't happen.

also, did you know that amniocentisis to check for sydromes such a downs - could also cause pre-labor.  the mathematic risk assessment for some women is larger for miscarriage from the amniocentisis than for finding out yes or no for the syndrome. 

this leads to decision vs worry.  once you've made a decision - the odds are good it was the right one - unless you excessively worry about it.  perhaps our perception of risk is what is at stake?  you have to decide 'whether or not' on many things in life.  how can we tell when we are making a good decision?  perhaps knowing all the alternatives and which way is up?  new and available information - leads us back to bayes.

you start with your initial beliefs.  you study and update them.  then, you analyze the possibilities and attempt to choose the one that causes the least worry.  for me, the choices that cause the least worry on based on faith, though.  this is harder to explain.  although bayes seemed to incorporate this into his theorem by making room for 'unexplainable phenomenon.'  basically situations that would be updated by more recent findings - and not that all questions deserve the same answer or that all odds are 'stacked against' you.  take the movies 007.  what are the odds.  and yet - the movie is believeable (or used to be).  now if you are a christian - just think of yourself as james bond.  you become more and more flexible to new ideas.  that way you can incorporate them into your choice making - and they increase the probability for success.  prayer for instance.  i'd like to see a study where 10 people pray about an outcome and 10 people simply use non-bayish theories of probability.

[pianolearner]

If you are serious about membership try these brainteasers instead

https://www.mensa.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?category_cs=144

[pianistimo]

those were too easy. 

[pianolearner]

those were too easy. 

Well you might just have what it takes.

try this:
https://www.mensa.org/workout2.php

[thalbergmad]

ok.  in an attempt to right myself back into chances of joining a high iq society

More chance of hell freezing over

[prometheus]

It takes great intelligence to twist reality around so much so that you can deny obvious things. Like the grand canyon not being a product of a global flood.

That must be one of the most stupid things I have ever heard.

[pianistimo]

thanks, prometheus.  you're finally coming around.  btw, when are you going to post in the audition room?  what have you been practicing?

[ted]

The Monty Hall question is very interesting because of the fact that the amazing mathematician Paul Erdos, world authority on probability theory, kept on insisting the answer was wrong to the extent of having to be shown its truth by repeated manual experiments with a pack of cards. If a mind such as his could do that, I would question the value of using such puzzles to determine general intelligence.

I asked people in the office and factory where I work and a reasonable number got the right answer for the right reasons. Maybe this is just a very peculiar question in some way.

[pianolearner]

The Monty Hall question is very interesting because of the fact that the amazing mathematician Paul Erdos, world authority on probability theory, kept on insisting the answer was wrong to the extent of having to be shown its truth by repeated manual experiments with a pack of cards. If a mind such as his could do that, I would question the value of using such puzzles to determine general intelligence.

I asked people in the office and factory where I work and a reasonable number got the right answer for the right reasons. Maybe this is just a very peculiar question in some way.

The point is Ted, they would not use puzzles like this. A well designed IQ test should normally follow at least these 2 Golden Rules:

1) The question should contain all the information required to find the answer.
2) Given enough time MOST people should be able to answer ALL questions correctly.

What they test is how quickly people can come to the MOST correct conclusion in the quickest time. IQ is not an absolute level, it is a relative level.

[pianistimo]

agreed on that.  excepting - didn't people like einstein take their time in coming to conclusions.  periods of years.  so, what if a person is really smart and people think they aren't because they take so long to come to a conclusion.

anyways - as i see the whole monty hall problem - the deck of cards (if one used a deck of cards) would have to have something unusual happen to it - for the odds to be better.  for instance - someone having recently dropped a spot of juice or bent the corner.  suddenly, the odds become better of picking the correct card out of a deck of 52. 

as i see it - gambling is just giving your money away.  the odds are stacked against you that they have figured out all of the possibilities (excepting big time cheaters - but they find them, too) - and that the montey hall problem does not apply to cards and gambling - but rather to life situations.

perhaps this is the biggest odd of all -being alive.

[pianolearner]

agreed on that.  excepting - didn't people like einstein take their time in coming to conclusions.  periods of years.  so, what if a person is really smart and people think they aren't because they take so long to come to a conclusion.

Albert Einstein came to conclusions that baffled most scientists for years. Time is relative (no humour intended), so the question is, how long would it take the average person to come up with the Theory Of Relativity?

[pianistimo]

maybe we are free thinkers and would feel a bit stifled in a 'high iq society.'  for instance, when i take tests (esp. that have essays) i'm not so concerned about the 'right' answer - as the one that makes the most common sense.