[extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs

[Spike]

>  Spike wrote:  ...I fear that many of us
> including myself might do the right thing for the wrong
> reasons, in which case it is still the right thing.
> 
> Conversely, to err on the side of caution is to 
> err just the same... spike


I may need to explain that comment further.  Some have
chosen a stick/swap choice, then given reasons for their
choice which are self contradictory, in which case the
reasons cannot all be valid.

Preliminary results of the informal poll I have taken
at my workplace are interesting.  Of those who gave a
clear answer, there were 3 women and 18 men, all with
formal training in a technical field, nearly all with
masters degrees or higher.  

Of these there were 4 stickers and 17 swappers.  

Curious observations:  The three women were all stickers.

The lone male sticker is gay.  (Im not kidding this time.)

The three women offered reasoning for sticking that is
uniformly irrelevant or incorrect (from my current view); 
that is they suggested what I think is the right answer for
what I think is the wrong reason.  The ladies often gave more
than one reason, apparently self contradictory, such as:

	- My first guess is usually best.

	- I do not like gambling.

	- I recognize that the other envelope probably contains
more zorgs, but I would not take advantage of a generous benefactor.

	- God does not wish for us to be covetous, but rather to
be satisfied with what we have.

	- I would stay, suspecting a diabolical trick

	- I am happy with my 10 zorgs, regardless of 
their size.  Size really doesn't matter to me (har har har)

	- Our society is far too materialistic

	- Greed is a bad thing

etc.  Only the gay man (brilliant PhD in mathematics) trotted out
a calculation showing that the probability of the larger
amount in the other envelope collapses to 1/3 upon your
gazing at the amount in your first envelope.  It doesn't
matter if you know not how or why, it must happen that way.
A simple simulation proves it.

Or so goes that line of reasoning.

Which tempts me to speculate: is there really something
to women's intuition?  We might even observe that clearly
testosterone makes humans do stupid thing, the examples
being numerous indeed; just watch The Man Show on the Spike
Channel (no relation) to see many young single males,
(all high testosterone units) doing stupid human tricks.
These often involve skateboards, bicycles, motorcycles, all high
risk, low payoff stunts.  If testosterone leads to stupid, 
then not-testosterone leads to not-stupid?  How universal
is that observation?

But what happens to that concept if the not-testosterone
individuals give faulty or irrelevant reasoning for
the correct answer?  Does it still count as correct?

Is the lesson here that whenever one is in a logically
insoluble dilemma, to simply round up some smart women,
ask them what to do, but don't ask them why?  Or to
round up a number of high-testosterone individuals,
ask them what to do, then do the opposite?

Or perhaps that this outcome is mere coincidence, and 
that a larger sample size would erase this signal?
I note that none of our extropian female RSPs have 
offered their insights so far.

All this would make a tidy picture except for the
observation that most of the (all male) swappers also 
offered multiple self-contradictory, irrelevant or clearly
erroneous lines of reasoning.  Furthermore, if one decides
that swapping is erroneous, then one could argue that
*all* the swappers offered erroneous reasoning, for it
leads them to an erroneous conclusion!

Oy vey.

spike