蒙蒂·霍尔和“莱布尼茨幻觉”

Steven Tijms
{"title":"蒙蒂·霍尔和“莱布尼茨幻觉”","authors":"Steven Tijms","doi":"10.1080/09332480.2022.2145124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hardly any mathematical problem has been debated so fiercely and widely as the Monty Hall problem.The question of why so many people were mistaken, and moreover, why they were so deeply convinced that they were right and Marilyn vos Savant was wrong, still awaits a proper answer. Steven Pinker and other cognitive psychologists before him blame the equiprobability bias. I will show that the equiprobability bias is in fact a sound stochastic intuition. But through our labeling the three doors, a “probability shift” occurs. Instead of looking for the probability that we picked the door with the car behind it, we are now looking for the probability that the car is behind the door we picked. As a result, Marilyn’s critics suffer from a stochastic illusion that I have called “the Leibniz Illusion”. This illusion makes us believe that, after the host opens one of the three doors, there remain only two alternative possibilities. The uniformity belief now says that chances are fifty-fifty that the car is behind the door we picked. In reality, there still remain three alternative possibilities for the door we picked. This seems paradoxical, since only two doors are left. Once we compare our picking one of the three doors to drawing a playing card from a deck and realize that just like the playing cards each of the three doors has its own hidden label, the paradox is resolved and it becomes clear how Marilyn’s critics were deluded","PeriodicalId":88226,"journal":{"name":"Chance (New York, N.Y.)","volume":"78 1","pages":"4 - 14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monty Hall and “the Leibniz Illusion”\",\"authors\":\"Steven Tijms\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09332480.2022.2145124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Hardly any mathematical problem has been debated so fiercely and widely as the Monty Hall problem.The question of why so many people were mistaken, and moreover, why they were so deeply convinced that they were right and Marilyn vos Savant was wrong, still awaits a proper answer. Steven Pinker and other cognitive psychologists before him blame the equiprobability bias. I will show that the equiprobability bias is in fact a sound stochastic intuition. But through our labeling the three doors, a “probability shift” occurs. Instead of looking for the probability that we picked the door with the car behind it, we are now looking for the probability that the car is behind the door we picked. As a result, Marilyn’s critics suffer from a stochastic illusion that I have called “the Leibniz Illusion”. This illusion makes us believe that, after the host opens one of the three doors, there remain only two alternative possibilities. The uniformity belief now says that chances are fifty-fifty that the car is behind the door we picked. In reality, there still remain three alternative possibilities for the door we picked. This seems paradoxical, since only two doors are left. Once we compare our picking one of the three doors to drawing a playing card from a deck and realize that just like the playing cards each of the three doors has its own hidden label, the paradox is resolved and it becomes clear how Marilyn’s critics were deluded\",\"PeriodicalId\":88226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chance (New York, N.Y.)\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"4 - 14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chance (New York, N.Y.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2022.2145124\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chance (New York, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2022.2145124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几乎没有任何数学问题像蒙蒂霍尔问题那样引起如此激烈和广泛的争论。为什么那么多人都错了,而且,为什么他们如此深信自己是对的,而玛丽莲·沃斯·莎凡特是错的,这些问题仍有待一个恰当的答案。Steven Pinker和他之前的其他认知心理学家将此归咎于等概率偏见。我将证明等概率偏差实际上是一种可靠的随机直觉。但是通过给这三扇门贴上标签,“概率转移”就发生了。我们不再求选到的门后面有车的概率,我们现在求的是选到的门后面有车的概率。结果,玛丽莲的批评者们患上了一种随机错觉,我称之为“莱布尼茨错觉”。这种错觉使我们相信,在主人打开三扇门中的一扇后,只剩下两种选择的可能性。均匀性信念现在说汽车在我们选的门后面的概率是50%实际上,我们选的那扇门还有三种可能。这似乎很矛盾,因为只剩下两扇门了。一旦我们将选择三扇门中的一扇比作从一副扑克牌中抽出一张牌,并意识到就像纸牌一样,三扇门中的每一扇都有自己隐藏的标签,这个悖论就被解决了,很明显玛丽莲的批评者是如何被欺骗的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Monty Hall and “the Leibniz Illusion”
Hardly any mathematical problem has been debated so fiercely and widely as the Monty Hall problem.The question of why so many people were mistaken, and moreover, why they were so deeply convinced that they were right and Marilyn vos Savant was wrong, still awaits a proper answer. Steven Pinker and other cognitive psychologists before him blame the equiprobability bias. I will show that the equiprobability bias is in fact a sound stochastic intuition. But through our labeling the three doors, a “probability shift” occurs. Instead of looking for the probability that we picked the door with the car behind it, we are now looking for the probability that the car is behind the door we picked. As a result, Marilyn’s critics suffer from a stochastic illusion that I have called “the Leibniz Illusion”. This illusion makes us believe that, after the host opens one of the three doors, there remain only two alternative possibilities. The uniformity belief now says that chances are fifty-fifty that the car is behind the door we picked. In reality, there still remain three alternative possibilities for the door we picked. This seems paradoxical, since only two doors are left. Once we compare our picking one of the three doors to drawing a playing card from a deck and realize that just like the playing cards each of the three doors has its own hidden label, the paradox is resolved and it becomes clear how Marilyn’s critics were deluded
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Multiple discoveries in causal inference: LATE for the party. Bayes Factors for Forensic Decision Analyses with R Three Welcome Arrivals for 2023: 1. Florence Nightingale Bayesian Probability for Babies Fresh Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1