🦋🤖 Robo-Spun by IBF 🦋🤖

The Monty Hall Problem, a classic probability puzzle, has sparked countless debates and discussions due to its counterintuitive solution. The problem is often presented in the context of a game show where a contestant must choose one of three doors, behind one of which is a car (a desirable outcome), and behind the other two, goats (undesirable outcomes). After the contestant makes their initial choice, the host, who knows what is behind each door, opens one of the remaining two doors to reveal a goat. The contestant is then given the option to either stick with their original choice or switch to the other unopened door. Statistically, switching doors is supposed to give the contestant a 2/3 chance of winning the car, compared to a 1/3 chance if they stay. However, a closer examination reveals that this supposed statistical advantage is not as clear-cut as it seems.

The outcomes “car vs. goat” symbolize more than just a game; they represent contrasts such as “dynamic vs. static,” “signal vs. noise,” “figure vs. background,” “technology vs. nature,” or even the astrological dichotomy of “Aquarius vs. Capricorn.” These symbolic contrasts contribute to the problem’s complexity and the emotional responses it evokes.

When a contestant chooses a door in hopes of winning the car, they engage in a process of identifying a “hidden dynamic” that differentiates “my door” from “the other doors.” Human psychology tends to favor maintaining one’s initial choice, a phenomenon rooted in the endowment effect, where people ascribe more value to things merely because they own them.

The host’s act of revealing a goat behind one of the other doors introduces an “open statistic,” which seemingly clarifies the situation regarding “the other doors.” This revelation shifts the “hidden dynamic,” creating an illusion of transparency and objectivity that encourages the contestant to abandon their initial choice. Statistical science, in turn, promotes switching as the rational strategy due to the altered probabilities.

However, this “open statistic” essentially shifts the perception of the game. The visibility of the goat paradoxically influences the perceived location of the car, akin to how a car’s horsepower defines its potential within the constraints of its engine. The shift in perception underscores the car’s nature and the limitations inherent in its technological framework.

The decision to switch or stay can be viewed through two philosophical lenses: accelerationism and brakism. An accelerationist embraces the change and opts to switch, trusting the statistical advantage. A brakist, however, remains wary of the host’s manipulation and sticks with their original choice, doubting the apparent clarity provided by the statistics.

The question arises: Is the host’s nudge reducing noise or adding it to the situation? From a psychological perspective, the contestant’s attachment to their initial choice breeds suspicion of the nudge. From a statistical standpoint, welcoming new data and switching doors aligns with the perceived rationality. Yet, this duality reinforces both the signal (clear choice) and the noise (doubt and ambiguity), thereby deepening the contestant’s ambivalence between subjectivity and objectivity.

Ultimately, the Monty Hall Problem epitomizes the tension between psychological intuition and statistical reasoning. The problem’s resolution often feels philosophical but remains elusive and inarticulate. It divides the contestant as a subject, torn between the reassurance of their initial choice and the allure of the statistical advantage.

Returning to the astrological analogy, the host’s nudge symbolizes the broader cosmic interplay between conflicting forces. Just as Aquarius and Capricorn are governed by Saturn, representing structure and change, the Monty Hall Problem encapsulates the dynamic struggle between psychological steadfastness and statistical rationality. Thus, the controversy surrounding the Monty Hall Problem continues, not merely because of the statistical solution but due to the deeper, more nuanced human responses it provokes.

Prompt: Turn this text into an article that falsify the supposed statistical advantage!

In the Monty Hall Problem, the outcomes “car vs goat” symbolizes the contrast “dynamic vs static” or “signal vs noise” or “figure vs background” or “technology vs nature” or even “Aquarius vs Capricorn” (two signs ruled by Saturn). This is why the problem caused so many disputes.

Choosing one of the doors in order to get the car symbolizes a “hidden dynamic” that distinguishes “my door” from the “other doors”. This is why human psychology favors keeping the choice.

The host revealing a goat behind another door symbolizes an “open statistic” that brings false clarity to the “other doors” thereby reversing the “hidden dynamic” and making me disown “my door”. This is why statistical science favors switching the choice.

In any case, what happens is that the open statistic “shifts” the hidden dynamic: The visible animal moves the invisible car. This symbolizes the car’s horsepower, the natural limitation of its technology. The car can be figured out only against the background of its engine.

If I am an accelerationist, then I believe in “the shift” and switch my choice. If I am a brakist, then I am suspicious of the host’s nudge and keep my choice. This is why the official answer on the internet “agrees with the statistics” (it is accelerationist).

Is the host’s nudge reducing noise or adding noise to the situation? Insofar as I am psychologically attached to my choice, I am suspicious of the nudge. Insofar as I am willing to listen to new data, I welcome the nudge, but this probable reaction can also be used against me. It reinforces both my signal and my noise.

So, the nudge simply reinforces my ambivalence between psychology and statistics, between “subjectivity” and “objectivity”, it divides me as a subject. Again, this is why the problem caused so many disputes that were somewhat philosophical but inarticulate.

Coming back to the astrological reference, what did the nudge symbolize?

IBF: The official problem definition says “The host will always reveal a goat whatever happens” and automatically gives the official result. I don’t accept the official result because I find the official definition unrealistic (even though it is “well-defined” mathematically). I think the host would guess whether the contestant is a “keeper” or a “switcher” and choose to reveal or not reveal the goat accordingly, and thereby balance his objectives (1) to keep the expensive car and (2) to keep the audience’s attention. The whole point of having such a show on TV is because the host is in charge of adding to the surprise. This is why I elaborated the symbolic associations.