Reply to comment

Very interesting discussion with Paul just now about the paper we read regarding the difference in birds' vs. humans' approach to the Monty Hall Dilemma.  The paper's data, as well as a computer model created by Paul, supports the fact that birds are optimizing (they come to the conclusion that if they switch which door they want to pick it will end in a reward 67% of the time, and they stick with this conclusion 100% of the time) while humans are drawing conclusions based on empirical probability (they switch which door they want to open 67% of the time, not 100% of the time like birds do). So the difference between these two species when it comes to the MHD is not about "cluttered" thought getting in the way of the process through which they learn how to solve the puzzle--it is about the way in which they treat the data.  But why...?

Have to look more into this, but perhaps it relates back to our discussion about humans being born with a "scientific" or "analytical" brain that requires evidence, or a "right answer."  Are we too scientific to deal with the MHD? Maybe we are too focused on proving which door is the right choice every time; maybe we don't want to trust in a conclusion that will potentially work for a while and then turn into a "wrong answer." Are we afraid of committment to one answer? Perhaps our inquisitive nature is not well-suited for this puzzle because we are subconsciously not satisfied with one solution that stands the test of time...