Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Newsthink" channel.

Being a mathematician doesn't make you a logician.
1
@max5250 You just watched a top MIT mathematician and his graduate students disregard how the knowledge gained in the evolving situation made a difference in the probability in switching doors. Are you a mathematician? You just disregarded that evidence you just watched that being a mathematician doesn't necessarily make you a good logician. Understanding the logic within a field of study is not equivalent to being a logician who is an adept at applying logic principles to varied and complex situations.
1
@max5250 If they were good at logic, their intuition would have been better calibrated to see that an undesired result being removed from the pool would affect the probability of switching. So, yes, they're bad at logic. If I effectively train you on a decision tree to determine a proper outcome for a specific task, you will be adept at navigating that decision tree; however, that doesn't mean that you can easily apply the principles behind that decision tree to novel situations in an efficient or timely manner. Also, I'm saying there's no 1:1 correlation between being a good mathematician and a good logician. It's clear, or at least it should be, that I'm not saying that mathematicians are all bad at logic.
1
@klaus7443 I'm not sure where you get the idea that my logic is lacking. Without the host revealing an undesired possibility, the probability of staying or switching doesn't change. In that case, it will remain a 1 in 3 chance of winning the car and a 2 in 3 chance of getting a goat as there will still be 2 goats and 1 car in the pool of possibilities. It's only the removal of one of the goats that matters here.
1
@max5250 Generally speaking, the research does show that you cannot teach generalized critical thinking. It seems to be an innate trait. Whether or not that's true or if the necessary instruction methods (or timing of instruction) just aren't there is something that I can't know at this time. However, what we do know is that we aren't able to teach it now. And if someone doesn't have that innate ability, it means they're bad logicians. Clearly, someone can be a good mathematician and be bad at logic, as this MIT mathematician and all of his graduate students have demonstrated. Here's a rundown: 1. Can a good mathematician also be a good logician? Yes. 2. Does being a good mathematician mean that you're guaranteed to be a good logician? No.
1
@klaus7443 Revealing the goat is the defining condition of the problem, not a redundant condition. If the goat isn't revealed, then switching or staying doesn't matter. Only if the goat is revealed does switching increase by 100% the odds of winning the car.
1
@klaus7443 I know that's what you're claiming, but you're wrong. If the host doesn't reveal a goat, the odds of having selected the right door, regardless of the player's choice to switch doors or stay with the original door picked, would remain at 33%. There are still 2 goats and 1 car in the pool of options. Here's a truth table. Selecting door 1 in every scenario to control for that variable. Games 1-3, the contestant selects door 1 and switches. Games 4-6, the contestant selects door 1 and stays with that door. Switch: Game 1 G G C Lose Game 2 G C G Win Game 3 C G G Lose 1 in 3 to win. Stay: Game 4 G G C Lose Game 5 G C G Lose Game 6 C G G Win 1 in 3 to win. There's only one winning condition in three possibilities in either case. Here's a truth table done in the same fashion when removing a goat: Game 1 G G C Win Game 2 G C G Win Game 3 C G G Lose 2 in 3 to win. Game 4 G G C Lose Game 5 G C G Lose Game 6 C G G Win 1 in 3 to win.
1
@klaus7443 You're also making truth tables, but they're incomplete. If you finish them, you'll see that only after the host reveals a goat that switching increases the odds of winning the car. Otherwise, the odds do not increase.
1
@klaus7443 If you actually have a below average intelligence, which I doubt, then I've given you all the information you need to figure it out. If you're trolling, then you're going to continue making yourself look dumb to try to bait me on (which is a strange pastime). I can't comprehend it for you and you already do comprehend it if you're trolling. There's nothing more for me to engage with. If trolling was your goal, you wasted a whole 5 minutes of my life, and I'll still continue to assume people are approaching me in good faith. I'd suggest doing more with yours, however.
1
@klaus7443 I'm mad? That's news to me. If I feel anything, it'd be pity for whatever trauma has happened in your life that has made trolling look good in your eyes. I don't mind wasting a little time with trolls by assuming good faith first. That's a conscious decision I'd made long before you crossed my path. But that doesn't mean that I think you're making good life decisions either.
1
@klaus7443 I'm not talking to you about that anymore because there's nothing that can be said to further that conversation, but the fact that you're trying to drag that conversation back to that says I hit the nail a little too close to the head with what I said. It made you a bit uncomfortable. Arguing about doors and goats is much more comfortable than speaking about your traumas which lead you to act out and the questionable life decisions that issue from that--and not just online trolling. These traumas are like tumors with deep roots that reach every aspect of life, creating little pools of toxicity that infect everything to some degree. The superiority you feel from trolling is something you need to feel throughout your life in every endeavor. Why is superiority so important to you? Were you told a lot as a child how smart you are? I have a strong suspicion you were.
1
@klaus7443 What are you so desperately trying to hide? You won't tell me that I'm wrong, but you also won't address it.
1
@klaus7443 Alright. If you don't want to face your problems, I guess that argument's closed off too. You're dismissed then.
1