Was this a 27 minute lecture about why shovel is the best relic in Slay the Spire?

I feel like this is misrepresenting what you can do with game theory. Game theory isnt necessarily presctiptive. You dont have to take it as "this is what you should do". Its the question: "If everyone acts to maximize their own value, what happens?" and in a world where many people and corporations act that way, its usefull to understand why something is happening. Things like: how do we design systems so they cant be exploited by greedy people? How to make better voting systems? How to share items that have different value to different people in some way that you could call "fair"? Or "how do you get corporations that only care about their profit to act for some common good (like fixing the climate or some equality notions)? Are all questions that gametheory can be helpfull to answer. I totally agree that you should not live your day to day life "according to gametheory", but that doesnt mean the field is useless or bad. Otherwise great explanation of Monty Hall!

The first time someone introduced me to the Monty Hall problem I got so angry. Not because I didn't get it, but because they didn't get it. The way they said it they never stressed the host HAD to show a false door after the contestant selected and before offering the option to switch. I realized the math was enticing to switch, assumed the game host was trying to entice the switch by showing a false door, and opted to not switch. Somehow in the moment neither of us realized the disconnect -- I was arguing over the psychology of the host and they were arguing about the statistical incentive. We were only at odds because I assumed the host was a second rational actor, acting in opposition to the contestant, and they failed to explain this was a scenario with only one rational actor, the contestant.

Never knew that there were actually many written versions of the Iliad spread across multiple cultures. Probably the most interesting part of the video to me.

The preoccupation with not whether or not we want the goat pays off in this video, but I always viewed the Sports Car/Goats as symbolic for "Desirable outcome/Undesirable outcome". To me it's pretty clear that those things were picked because that was an easy shorthand from the framers culture which fit context being constructed around the problem. It's irrelevant what's behind the doors to the theory itself, the only thing that matters if that you want to open a particular one...

Don't worry Jorbs, ancient Greeks used dual-determination to justify all kinds of genocide. See origin of Sparta or myths of Dionysus,

I feel like this is being unnecessarily harsh on statistics, for example you seem to dislike that statistics is "based on rigid assumptions which are knowably and provably untrue", but simplifying assumptions are important and useful in many cases. When you learn about projectile motion in physics, you are taught to assume that air resistance due to friction is 0 which is provably false but does that make the underlying equations bad? No, they are still very useful even though they're technically not "true". Relating this back to statistics, yes you're correct that we're assuming that the car/goat/whichever outcome you like best has an equally likely chance of being behind any of the three doors and that this assumption may not be correct, but isn't it still useful and cool that we can know what the right answer is IF that assumption were correct? And isn't it useful/cool that if we relaxed our assumption (and figured out the true probabilities), we could still use the framework of statistics to come up with an accurate answer? Idk I guess I'm just saying that from my layman point of view, statistics seems kind of amazing and I feel like you're being overly dismissive of it. Of course, your perspective is probably more informed than mine given that you've studied (and taught I think?) statistics so I acknowledge that I'm probably underlooking some things and missing some perspective. Also fwiw, I'm not a huge fan of the argument that statistics is bad because it was originally used for bad things (eugenics in this case). Statistics can be used for good or bad things and what it's used for doesn't make it inherently good or bad, it's just a tool. It's our job as humans to try to use it for good things. Anyway, thanks for the video, it was interesting and thought provoking at the very least even if I don't fully agree with everything presented.

This could use a clarifying example of a problem that can be solved with game theory and with the ancient technology, yielding alternative solutions. As it is dual-determinism doesn't sound like a decision-making process. What uncertainty is Achilles trying to get over when he decides to work on being a warrior while favored by his deity? Would Achilles' approach to the Monty Hall problem surprise us with new insights the probability calculations couldn't get at? Associating game theory with eugenics is suggesting something you don't say explicitly. What is it? It's not as if humanity's capacity for racism and reverse-justification reasoning for racism lay dormant until the advent of game theory. Anti-jorbs could harshly criticize dual-determinism by highlighting its role in some historic atrocity, while gesturing towards comparatively innocuous uses of game theory. That wouldn't illuminate much either. Hence the need for a like-to-like comparison of solutions to, well, compare the two decision-making methods

I’ve read explanations about this one and each time I fail to understand. Jorbs has another chance.

2 things. 1. I need to know where I can get your shirt. 2. The RPS totals actually add up to 89, so I am very confused

I talked to my mum about this problem before. She understood the 100 door version instantly, the 99 version etc, but at 3, she thought it felt "different", like it was a special case when its 3, because she picked a door, one closed so shes only picking another. I wasnt able to explain it in a way that made intuitive sense for the 3 door problem.

Replacing "virgin" with "incel" in the "chad vs virgin" meme format is fundamentally genius and more accurate than relying on purity culture rhetoric like "virgin" and I approve 1000 fold.

When I was studying economics, the thing I always found baffling is that new concepts would often start with "We're going to assume a dollar holds similar utility to whoever gets it." Which... Just... I'm starting to see why we have the problems we have.

I was really hoping this was just a subtweet to the cedh draw discussion in some form

interesting also to think about this dual determinism in relation to the concept of the locus of control. by saying that there is this external force which determines the outcome but which you work in concert with and might be able to sway, it's like, encoding the component of chance in the language of effort and control. whereas thinking statistically, we have to contend with the idea that beyond a certain point we cannot improve our outcomes with more effort or desire and the outcome is entirely down to random chance. easy to say that's more logical, but human psychology or at least society is pretty foundationally illogical in some ways. it's all contextual but how a mode of decision-making shapes a person's locus of control is a meaningful consideration. to fit it to the statistical mode, you might need to adjust for the deleterious effect you would expect an external locus of control to have on the expected outcomes.

The RPS association first has to explain what people are throwing that other 11% of the time…

I have always found the hardest thing to understand about the Monty Hall Problem to be why the sports car is assumed to be the desired choice. Thanks for acknowledging in your statement of the problem that this is not always a given lol Edit: okay I wrote that after only having seen the first slide lol I didn't expect it to be elaborated on later but I am all here for it

I feel like you are arguing more against the people that use game theory and the way in which it is applied more than you are arguing against game theory itself. For example at the end there you talk about what game theory says about the climate crisis, but game theory itself does not make any assertions about the climate crisis, only people that try to apply game theory to the climate crisis do. I don't think it makes sense to look at situations where game theory and statistics are misused and then say that game theory and statistics are rubbish because of that. Though I could be taking your point wrong and all you are saying is that we should be aware of the problems with how game theory and statistics are commonly applied, not that we shouldn't use game theory and statistics, in which case I agree with you.

I didn't like this presentation at all, it makes lot of assertions on game theory which have nothing to do with the field at all. The whole point of using utility values is that you can assign them however you want, if you value goats more, you can plug that in the equations and calculate how best to get the goat. Maybe you were more aiming to critique the application of it in e.g economics, instead of viewing statistics and game theory as subfields of math, which is what they actually are. But then this should have been made much clearer in the slides. As it stands, you might as well start discussing about how differential equations are a detriment to human civilization because they have been used to calculate ballistic weapon trajectories.

When was first told of this problem, I was disappointed to learn you didn't actually get to keep the goat, but it was just a loss state.

My biggest problem with the monty hall problem is that most of the time they dont mention that the host knows which door is the right one before opening one and then you get treated like an idiot for saying it dosnt matter if you switch or not. I totaly agree that if he knows and has to choose a wrong door you should switch but when you dont mention it the solution becomes different

The best explanation to simplify it that I have heard is, imagine there are 1000 doors and you choose, then the host eliminates 998. Obviously you’d want to switch, and the same is true for 997,996 etc. down to 3 doors. Really makes it click for me

Always was one of my favorite bits, saying "I want the goat though." Also stating that "I understand the monty hall problem, I just don't believe in it."

I showed this problem to people a number of years ago (though with 2 empty doors rather than 2 goats), and was surprised by how many people got the math wrong. Even people that know a lot of math and that are pretty good at math usually gave the wrong answer. I think it's due to people that learn math sloppily applying heuristics for probability that either don't apply in this case or are applied at the wrong point in the problem. So most of them apply the heuristic without closely examining whether it applies or how to apply it. I agree that there are a lot of things in statistics that don't make intuitive sense. Bayesian statistics and quantum mechanics in particular stand out to me as not fitting my intuition. I also agree that many of the assumptions in probability problems are rigid. Often, in order to form the simple question with clear answers, you need to make enough assumptions that the question becomes divorced from reality. I see statistics as an important tool for evaluating risk and evidence in science. It can be used to inform decision making, but you have to be cognizant of the assumptions that are implicit in the framing of the problem.

35% + 28% + 26% = 89%. Apparently, 11% of the time, people do not choose any of the 3 options available to them in the game

I cant believe my favorite video of the year is a 30 minute powerpoint presentation in which jorbs uses the monty hall problem as a spring board from which to make a case for greek polytheism

i was 99% sure before the vid that switching was right but i was legit nervous that i was wrong and jorbs would laugh at me (in a nice professional way) as he showed why

14:47 The game show host is a he because Monty Hall was a real person and man that this scenario is based on.

The video is entertaining but the last few slides are basically 'did you know HITLER was also VEGAN?'

Obviously I have no opinion because it was just uploaded but JORBS ON A POWERPOINT?!?! My weekend has been perfected. He always makes me grow as a person from these.

Gotta love those "problems with applying pure mathematics to the real world because in real world we can't isolate for variables" bits

Its 50/50, either its a sports car or its a goat 🗿

If you made your initial pick and then were asked if you would like to switch and can now open both remaining doors instead would that fix your intuition?

Hi Jorbs I love your Shirt and the content you make is always so mindful and interesting even your "lets play's" which are much more than that are always good to watch because of you!

Like many of your videos this one was very helpful to me because I used to be really interested in game theory, but that was at a time where I was a much less empathetic person

Every time I watch one of these, I always learn to think in ways I've never thought before.

Magic twitter leading to great jorbs videos is a wonderful coincidence

What I took away from this is that you portrayed dual-determination as the handsome muscular gigachad and game theory as the incel virgin soyjak. Game theory is no more

I need to up my teaching game after seeing this. Thanks.

unfortunately, the major problem here is that people are bad at keeping discourse / context straight (which makes sense, because they're usually co-created, not a feature of individual thinkers at one time). statistics generally, and to a lesser extent, game theory, are fine in the limited use cases where they are abstractions helping a particular agent make a choice about possible outcomes. sadly, people want to *generalize* from individual instances of statistics helping one make a decision---but those instances were possible because of generalized knowledge both scientific and of the sort mentioned in the video (Iliad style knowledge). seeking to generalize wisdom from individual uses of game theory is like trying to get LLMs/generative AI to "be creative." that's not going to happen, because LLMs aren't spontaneously-or-rationally reacting to a lifetime of encountering myriad complexity, they're predicting the most likely next token based on things they've already "seen" according to predefined rules. this tendency to not properly scope thought and discussion is historically used to manipulate people into acting, collectively, against their best interests (both collective and individual). it's evil, and that's one reason among many that smart people think game theory sucks. game theory is a science-y way of doing the kind of reasoning where someone systematically disadvantages one group according to a certain metric, then talks about the wholesale inferiority of that group in virtue of their failing to thrive, as a group, according to that metric. it's for stupid people and sociopathic abusers (and strategy gamers).

I don't like sports cars, I find them revolting. I do love Monty Hall. It's a great, simple example to demonstrate that our intuition can be wrong and needs calibration. Without proper reflection, you will make decisions contrary to your own interests. I think it shows when truth is better than conviction, even to folks far outside the spectrum. That goes far beyond game theory, it is a statement about philosophy, politics, UX, intrapersonal relations, whatever. The extension of it as "would society be better if people acted game-theory-optimally" I hadn't considered, ever at all. Sort of makes me think statistics is a sort of toxic subject (on account of culture, not substance). Well, that's my intuition anyway. Monty Hall as used to promote "anti-intuition" as opposed to promoting relentless exploitation via statistic optimization, I'm not too worried. Then *should* we be smarter and do math and go to space or should we live in the jungle and worship trees and trade rocks? It we end up there, it's gonna be a while. Now if they put Athena instead of a sports car, it would be a different story.

As a someone who has acquired multiple advanced degrees in mathematics, published academic papers in mathematics, and has taught post-secondary mathematics for over a decade, I love the analogy to heart surgery - will happily and readily admit I am bad at statistics and game theory (in part because it is so far removed from my field of expertise, but also because statistics and game theory are so antithetical to every-day "common sense"). I think another point to raise with respect to stats is that they are only really meaningful in the context of a large number of repeated trials/experiments: as an example, the "expected value" from rolling a 6-sided fair die is 3.5 which is not a result you can ever actually achieve. Similarly, game theory makes assumptions about actors "behaving logically," which humans often won't do - just consider a particularly spiteful CEO who'd rather screw over a competitor than maximize their own gain.

The last part of this reminds me a bit of a book i picked up recently called storythinking by angus fletcher. I'm not done with it and it's a bit of a strange thing, but it talks about stories as a fundamental mode of human thought and not just a tool subservient to the modern concept of logic. It discusses the difference between the transient "should" and eternal "is", which I've suspected is a little ethics 101 but is new to me and difficult to parse. Your video, I believe, has some overlap here and is helping me to digest some of my thoughts about it. Apologies if this seems like a bit of an unrelated comment, and thanks for an interesting presentation!

Conditional probability is a description of how much information you have.

Honestly this was a very thought-provoking video for me. I've been spending a while deconstructing my hyper-rationalist tendencies, but struggling because those same tendencies are very good at feeling like they are sound, reasonable, logical arguments. There were a few things in the video, especially near the end, which gave me enough of a jolt that I think it's going to be much easier for me to shake those things free. So, thanks, I think that did a number on me in a good way! This isn't necessarily an argument that was new to me, it reminds me of things that friends have tried to help me internalize and process, but I think this video put it in words that were well-suited to my background/frame of reference, and I think that was very valuable to me. Keep on doing what you do, it's good stuff.

Slightly unrelated, but I was reminded of a seminar from a philosophy professor who believed that ancient Greeks had a less developed sense of self than we currently have, or even none at all, because they state so often that Gods influence their actions. He called it the "Greek zombies" theory. I wondered a lot how it would affect their sense of accountability. Anyway, nice video, thanks for making it!

I don't really get the part about "it assumes the car to be the desired outcome. But not everyone would think of it as the desired outcome". And by that I mean that I always thought you could just replace it with anything. To me, "sport car" and "goat" are just word put there instead of having a placeholder "good outcome" and "bad outcome". But if that's really a problem with this game problem... Then wouldn't it be easier to say "the desired outcome you get something like money, which can then be used to buy something you'd want. And the undesired outcome is you receive absolutely nothing." Or if you reeeeaaaally want to fit all scenarios including one were money doesn't have any value. Then we can just say "The desired outcome is something good, the undesired outcome is something bad." So we're all on the same page... Right ? It just feels like a weird thing to me... But I guess the problem itself is kind of whacky, so... Yeah. That tracks I guess.

I'm not sure if I missed something in the RPS stats, but I think that adds up to 89, which even if you rounded down all the numbers would max out at like... just shy of 92

What a twist! From the thumbnail I did not expect this video to involve Jorbs coming out as a religious conservative.

These videos bring out the best possible of all Jorbs. I chose the door with this video, not some bunkum possibly vaguely imagined sports car (that I couldn’t drive on roads here 9 months out of 12, and the insurance alone would require a second job - at least videos are entertaining and goats are delicious).

If game theory is 'made up' then so is mathematics. That's a fine assertion but it's important for people to understand math.

Really enjoying this type of video, Jorbs :)

Would you switch doors if the host was a bear?

zephyr noise at 10:44

IDK man, I'd just bet 1/3 on the flop.

In my (not very😀) humble opinion, the video didn't realy explicitly name what I feel is the core issue. Math (including statistics and game theory) in its purest form exist only in an abstract world and it is meant to be used there. There are fields that use mathematic tools, but only as a tools. For example, to determine how far can you throw a stone, you would probably use physics to describe the motion of the stone and also probably biology to understand how you are throwing it (e.g. to determine force and angle your muscles and bones are capable of), maybe even psychology (if you are angry, you would probably throw with bigger force), etc. Yes, you are using (mathematicians would say applying) math to help with this task, but you would not be able to do it with just math. There are simply no stones or people to work with in the beautiful and (more importantly) abstract math world. One problem is, we are generaly very bad at navigating in this abstract math world, so we often tell ourselves little stories to help us feel we understand what things are. Goats, sport cars and doors in the Monty Hall Problem are great examples of them. But often these stories are actually hurting our ability to understand, rather than helping it. Notice when jorbs tried to explain the original correct solution to the Monty Hall Problem, he did it by making the problem more abstract, not less. He switched from doors and goats in a game show to squares, letters, numbers and arrows. The problem itself became a little harder to follow (asuming you don't have prior knowledge about the original formulation with goats behind doors etc.), but easier to solve. (I believe that making the problem more and more abstract would eventually made the problem totaly incomprihensible for humans while also self-evident). Making the problem less abstract by packing it with all the emotional and cultural baggage managed not only to make it less intuitive but, as jorbs argued in the video, it outright changed what the correct solution is. Game theory and statistics are also operating in the abstract world, as they are part of math. But making stories about inhabitants of the math world made lot of people (including some mathematicians) think they are real, as real as goats (or humans for that matter). But they are not. E.g. game theoretical "rational agents" are not people, they are abstractions and thinking about them as people is just wrong. It's like using a saw to hammer a nail, you can succed sometimes, but you can also fail spectacularly, it is just not a right tool for that. And if a saw is the only thing you have available, you should probably use it to make yourself a hammer (i.e. tool which is actually suitable for the task) instead of just repeatedly bashing the nail with it. TL:DR, blindly using math in the real world without factoring in context - bad, using context to know how (or if) you should use math - good. Anyway, thanks for listening to my TED talk😀. Disclaimer: Sorry for all potential spelling or gramar mistakes, english is not my first language, it's too hot outside today, I haven't slept well, yada yada...

Very interesting discussion. Enjoyed over my morning coffee while doing 'dles

I was shitposting about monty hall problem literally last night in your Gloomhaven stream, and then this happens, what are the odds?

The moment I saw the title of this video, I just immediately heard 'BOOONNNNE!' in my head XD

I wonder what the 4th move is in RPS that makes up the other 11 percent, and what its interactions are with the base moveset.

Data and statistics can be used to find vulnerable people. Often the goal is to exploit those people for profit, but imagine the world we could live in if that data was instead used to give help to the people who need it most

I do believe the world would be a much better place with more people acknowledging „Real World Economics“ (or Plurale Ökonomie as we say in Germany). It’s a small field of economic research which really needs more attention!

What school do I go to to get professor Jorbs?

Yo, I’ve rarely seen KZfaq-Jorbs this unhinged. Jorbs woke up and chose sarcasm 'n sh*t. Did people actually annoy you this much into making this video? I really enjoyed it, though.

Didn't know Jorbs was a Tomska fan, but I am happy to know that factoid.

Shoutouts to Zero Time Dilemma for illustrating the Monty Hall problem in a novel way. As an addendum to dual determinism, it always irked me that success was shared with the divine, but often failure was hung squarely on the shoulders of the mortal- a deliberate fallacy that we still use today in some circles.

omg that's totally a Monogatari reference

> doors don't actually have names, they're doors Well I'm naming my door just to prove you wrong è_é

As someone who does statistics for a living... I like to think I've graduated from "bad at statistics" to "mediocre at best at statistics" ;P I will push back a bit on the "provably false" part for the rigid assumptions - it's a bit more that the axiomatic assumptions underpinning statistics are *unprovable* It's a subtle distinction, but it's more that proving Wonder Woman's Invisible Jet is neon yellow - if you could see the color it reflects/emits, it wouldn't be invisible.

I like how it has to be specified that you prefer the sports car since a farmer in Tajikistan might actually prefer the goat, lol

I hate the goats vs car, to me it would be better answered by item you want, and two empty door, and the game show host is a all knowing being that has to do only one thing open all doors to nothing that are not currently picked and the one that has the item you want. To me we should use this as stepping stone to show that not everyone is out to stop us, and that an all knowing being is not always out to screw us over.

I am confused, bemused, and abashed by this video . . . ty?

This video is helping me quit smoking nicotine products

Gosh I love these videos.

You didn't mention the respective dollar values of the car and the goat. Don't forget to take future petroleum shortages into account.

None of this is interesting or relevant. You could simplify the problem by saying "one door contains a desired thing, the other 2 doors contain undesirable things", there's really no need to discuss the gender of the announcer or the desirability of the goats. These aren't the interesting parts of the problem, the probability shifting is whats interesting

Honestly, I don't really know physics, either.

Such a good and strong ending slide, Truely blessed by Iris to convey this message with precision and excellence!

I think I missed the most important part. Which pantheon god did I need to pray to to get success in Slay the Spire?

and thats why you should always !dig

The thing that often isn't brought up in consideration of this problem is the psychological damage of having essentially "won" something and then giving that up (by changing your choice to the losing door) versus just picking the wrong door in the first place. I think this has a lot of sway over people who are in this position - imagine you'd picked the winning door and you were silly enough to swap it? Whereas if you'd picked the losing door, well, you only had a 1 in 3 chance right, so that's not on you? Mathematically the right choice is to switch (assuming you don't want a goat for some weird reason), but that's not really how brains work.

Another western science assumption that has upset me ever since I first learned of it was the one about kids and marshmallows. You have a kid sitting alone in a room, but are being watched. You place a marshmallow on the table in front of them, but explain they will get more marshmallows if they don't eat it and wait instead. But what if the kid doesn't trust these candymen? They could very well withold marshmallows indefinitely, this might be the only chance at a marshmallow. But you don't know for sure, so you wait a bit. But notice the longer the kid waits, the more convinced they become the adults are not going to deliver. It takes some serious conditioning to not only overcome impulses, but also decide that most other people are not generally trying to hurt or steal from you. Is that really a prophecy of intelligence then? Or a coincidental indicator of supportive upbringing?

Game theory can absolutely arrive at the Golden Rule. Look up the Prisoner's Dilemma. Veratasium did a great video on it a while back, and the conclusions that game theory leads to are entirely that being among the most cooperative and forgiving people in the room leads to the best outcome for yourself.

I never realised that the Monthy Hall problem actually has very little to do with probability and everything to do with figuring out if the game host is adversarial towards you. If you correctly deduct that the host is adversarial, you always win. If you fail to identify an adversarial host, you always lose. One does not need to consider any probabilities to deduct this fact. Figuring out what happens after you correctly deduct that the host is not adversarial towards you feels like a secondary priority under these circumstances.

great video! I learned a lot.

Brooklyn 99 beat you to it

1) you have valid points but the part about cultural value is a bit pointless. yes, it is true, but the problem could be rewritten with anything that would make sense for a given culture. or, given that it is mostly used as a toy problem nowadays, it could just be "bad thing, good thing" without specifying anything in particular. the statistics still apply. 2) and speaking about toy problem, this started as a real world "problem", not a toy problem. 3) the host is described as a "he" and called monty hall because monty hall is a real person and a man.

I wanted to see some goat pictures. very disappointing

By the way, there's something called generic masculine. Has fallen out of favor somewhat, but "he" can also be a woman.

I know you will likely dislike this comparison, but this video has a great number of similarities and narrative outcome with what Jordan Peterson lectured about in his Maps of Meaning course.

I come from a tradition of tearing down previous traditions for great good and great ill. The previous traditions either say that it is my destiny (inescapable) to self-destruct for violating the natural order or that people such as I should be shunned as my existence is corrosive to the society which is what the tradition lives in. What I am heir to is the result of the things that made this world what it is now. It says little about me directly, but tells me that I can aspire for more, and it cares not if that is for ill or good. I think I will choose instead to make something better out of all the flawed things that came before, and teach my children to do the same.

I mean, this is all just a theory. A _game_ theory. ...I'll see myself out

8:00 "the problem assumes you want a sports car more than a goat" Yes. This, 100 times, yes! I feel like this points out very eloquently why game theory is much more limited than it seems when it comes to real life applications. Essentially, what game theory is, is a function that takes as input the value hierarchies of one or more agents, applies them to a particular game, and outputs a winning strategy. The value hierarchies determine the winning strategy, yes, but game theory does not determine/prescribe the value hierarchies. It has nothing to say on the matter. Those are *givens* . To say that game theory can tell you what you should fundamentally want is equivalent to saying that when using the function f(x)=x^2, you should have x be equal to 6.

the reason car and goat is used is the same reason the you're speaking english. why are you speaking english? is it not possible for this video to be done in so many other languages? does it have to be a video? why are you on the screen? why do you have a powerpoint? the purpose is communication and not just any communication to any group of people. the goat and car is used to communicate with a demographic that generally values cars over goats. the trivial case of broken car and really really nice goat that can get you exactly what you actually want in life is implicitly discarded. if you were speaking to a demographic that did not value cars over goats, you wouldn't use that example and if you speak to people who dont know what a game show is you won't use that example and if you speak to an audience that doesn't understand english or are unable you hear you, you would probably not use a video that relies on english audio to communicate with them. the reason why game theory is so good is because it doesn't actually have any implicit biases except for the ones you input into the system. game theory does not demand you use game theory all the way through. if im in some life or death situation and i have some being with other inherent decision making capabilities imparted to me through my evolutionary past and the situation is exactly what my other inherent decising making ability is trained for, then game theory says that the probability of me surviving if i use my evolutionary abilities trained to help me survive this situation is gonna be more useful a mechanism for making decision than trying to apply statistics in that situation where i have neither sufficient explicit knowledge or enough time or skill to apply statistics. the key here is if you want something out of game theory you need to put something into game theory. put it "how do i survive this life or death situation" and game theory might say "stop asking and follow your instincts you have no time." if your bias is "how do i make the most money" why are you surprised that game theory is telling you about making money? you're right to say that people are bad at game theory and bad at statistics and that's important to know. game theory is a tool in your toolbox. you pull out that tool when the tool makes sense. it is not a hammer to apply to everything (tho conveniently it is a hammer that with enough awareness, will often tell you to stop using it on the screw and go get your screwdriver.) why are you glorifying society btw? do you not look back on human history and see that maybe the culture of many different societies are fucked and flawed and picking ancient greek decision is a really really fucked argument?

...Are you not aware that Monty Hall is a real person and Let's Make a Deal was a real gameshow in the 60s that really had sports cars and goats behind real doors? You're presenting this as if the Monty Hall problem was just made up from whole cloth by three white guys in the 90s.

I like trans

This problem can be better understood if you increase the amount to say 99 goats and 1 prize. The chance that you initially picked a goat is 99%. So, by removing 98 doors where one of the two doors is guaranteed a prize, you have a much higher probability to succeed by switching doors.