Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
PhDs in what? Forget wrong or right. I have a serious problem in someone getting a PhD in a Professional Field, sucking resources and opportunities from someone else and then going to work on Wall Street. I'm glad they were wrong. Need to stick to your own field.
Reply to @VintageFreak: The article didn't mention whether or not the Ph.D's worked on or for Wall Street. It just said that 1000 of them couldn't answer Ms. vos Savants' problem correctly.
Reply to @Mark: Simply making a point. Just because you are a PhD in something does not mean you are "smart". I say "smart" not to say they are dumb, but the simple fact of the matter is there are 3 PhDs in my immediate family. None of them could program a VCR, or operate a DVD player. One of them needs help watching movies on NetFlix.
With all due respect to our fearless host, Mr. Snowball, the answer is yes. Having worked at three universities in my previous life, I can assure you that 1,000 PhDs CAN be wrong. It's not referred to as Piled Higher & Deeper for no reason. There are, of course, many exceptions. But there is something to be said about the observation that, at least in the business/investment arena, the majority of 'professors' have no real-world experience. I read white papers, research papers, and industry magazine articles written by folks who have spent their entire life in the academic world. While there is no denying they are smart, the reams of numbers they produce and the thousands of words they write often are simply not applicable in real life or they may only work in certain unique situations. This does not really pertain to the article above, but it does point out, I believe, that there is sometimes a misplaced perception of academia being the know-all and be-all of the business world. Truth is there is no substitute for real-world experience when it comes to managing money, making financial decisions, and dealing with all the bizarre things governments do to us. All the research and number crunching in the world cannot substitute for it.
The correct answer to the problem, as formulated is: No, the odds are the same. For the answer to be yes the problem should sound like this:
In short, the scenario presented three closed doors. Behind two are goats, and behind one is a new car. Monty Hall knows what’s behind each of the doors but you—the contestant—do not. Let’s say, you pick Door Number 3. Monty Hall ALWAYS opens THE DOOR THAT HE KNOWS HAS A GOAT, IN THIS CASE, Door Number 2, revealing a goat. Now there are two doors left: 1 and 3. One has a goat and one has a new car. When Monty Hall asks if you want to change your door selection, do the odds favor you making a new selection?
The problem is ambiguous, math and ambiguity don't mix well. You don't need a PhD, just some common sense. I've seen people running simulations to get the answer to this problem. If you run a simulation for this problem, the only thing you find out is that you are an idiot.
"While there is no denying they are smart, the reams of numbers they produce and the thousands of words they write often are simply not applicable in real life or they may only work in certain unique situations. "
I have occasionally suggested that MFO may not be entirely immune from such contributions. It's safe to say that the author of these encyclicals does not appreciate my perspective, as I have been awarded the coveted "Luddite" demerit badge. I'm considering applying for whistleblower protected status.
Oh, the monty hall problem. I love this problem - I have to say someone had to explain it to me before I understood it. This is a classic, very famous problem is statistics.
Reply to @BobC: "[T]here is no denying they are smart ... "
Uhhh .... a PhD alone certifies that you know almost everything about almost next to nothing. Some folks with PhDs are also brilliant, curious, reflective, thoughtful and wise but mere possession of a PhD doesn't predict any of that stuff.
Comments
In short, the scenario presented three closed doors. Behind two are goats, and behind one is a new car. Monty Hall knows what’s behind each of the doors but you—the contestant—do not. Let’s say, you pick Door Number 3. Monty Hall ALWAYS opens THE DOOR THAT HE KNOWS HAS A GOAT, IN THIS CASE, Door Number 2, revealing a goat. Now there are two doors left: 1 and 3. One has a goat and one has a new car. When Monty Hall asks if you want to change your door selection, do the odds favor you making a new selection?
The problem is ambiguous, math and ambiguity don't mix well. You don't need a PhD, just some common sense. I've seen people running simulations to get the answer to this problem. If you run a simulation for this problem, the only thing you find out is that you are an idiot.
I have occasionally suggested that MFO may not be entirely immune from such contributions. It's safe to say that the author of these encyclicals does not appreciate my perspective, as I have been awarded the coveted "Luddite" demerit badge. I'm considering applying for whistleblower protected status.
Uhhh .... a PhD alone certifies that you know almost everything about almost next to nothing. Some folks with PhDs are also brilliant, curious, reflective, thoughtful and wise but mere possession of a PhD doesn't predict any of that stuff.
David