I should have said "They are deaf but not mute",
because they sure are as dumb as can be also.

In a post in BGO,

https://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?read=210964

someone likened "backgammon pros" reactions
to the “take with 25% rule" in the early days of the
doubling cube to people's (including math PHDs)
reactions to "a young lady"s solution to the "Monty
Hall Problem" in the 1990's.

The latter "problem" is due to the correct answers
depending on the wording of the question and has
nothing in common with the "25% rule" but what is
worse is that the "avalanche of insults and personal
attacks" against her, that he likens to the arguments
against the doubling skill, (supposedly proven by a
"simple equation" using "grade-school arithmetic"),
is more like what is inflicted upon the critics of the
so-called "cube skill" by the fabricators, promoters,
defenders of that cube skill fantasy...

The poster finishes by saying:

"It seems that many people are hardwired to
"react this way when confronted with new
"information or facts that conflict with their
"existing beliefs or intuition. They start by
"denouncing the validity of the new-to-them
"information ..... and then they join up with
"other like-minded naysayers and ridicule
"anyone who doesn’t see things the way they do.

How true! This is indeed what I (and some others)
have been subjected to in RGB for the past 25 years.

If only they could hear what comes out of their own
mouths...! :(

Speaking for myself, my objection is not to the "25%
rule" being applicable during the final stages of the
games but to the fallacy that cubeful equities can be
accurately calculated during the middle and even the
beginning stages of the games, applying the current
elaborate cube formulas to cubeless winning chances,
(which are inaccurate themselves to begin with).

Even though the "cube skill theory" bullshit can be
easily debunked by simple empirical experiments,
the mentally ill gamblegammon playing gamblers
won't/can't bring themselves to doing some simply
because they won't/can't even admit their gambling
addiction, (hich is said to be harder to give up than
alcohol/tobacco/drug/etc. addictions).

One thing that reading the article in BGO made me
realize, as a small consolation, is that even if it was
Marilyn vos Savant who had said all that I had said,
RGB's inbred pack of sick puppies, including math
PHD's and all, would have attacked her just the same...

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/29/2023 11:46 PM, MK wrote:

someone likened "backgammon pros" reactions
to the “take with 25% rule" in the early days of the
doubling cube to people's (including math PHDs)
reactions to "a young lady"s solution to the "Monty
Hall Problem" in the 1990's.

The latter "problem" is due to the correct answers
depending on the wording of the question

It is certainly true that wording the question differently,
or making different assumptions from the usual unstated
assumptions, can change the answer. But I have posed this
problem to many people, and made sure they understand the
problem correctly, including all the relevant background
assumptions, and *still* many people get the problem wrong
and refuse to accept the correct answer.

---
Tim Chow

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On June 29, 2023 at 10:39:56 PM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

On 6/29/2023 11:46 PM, MK wrote:

The latter "problem" is due to the correct answers
depending on the wording of the question

I have posed this problem to many people, and
made sure they understand the problem correctly,
including all the relevant background assumptions,
and *still* many people get the problem wrong and
refuse to accept the correct answer.

I find the reason for this more broadly intrigueing,
interesting than the specific problem itself. Why
do you think this is?

If it's a matter of simple logic, once people say they
understand the problem, they should be able to give
the correct answer. What gives?

I think this is the ultimate proof that communication
through "word-based" language can never be exact.
A third party arbiter can not determine which side's
understanding is the correct one either.

People can be honest enough, at least to themselves,
to not say they understand something when they don't
but they may understand differently, "misunderstand".

Of course, the person explaining may be the one who
misunderstands and "misexplains".

About the "cube skill theory" debate, obviously I believe
that my arguments, (based on the inaccuracy of all the
calculations that go into it), are the correct ones but I
wonder if at least part of the disagreement may be due
to "miscommunication"?

And to contribute my good efforts towards it, lately I
have been trying to avoid posting in half-sentences
in order to be less wordy. I figure that if I am going to
bother with spending any time at all for posting here,
I should try to do it right even if it takes me twice as
long. As a nihilist, I think this is about the best that I
can towards doing anything temporarily meaningful...

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/30/2023 5:06 AM, MK wrote:

I find the reason for this more broadly intrigueing,
interesting than the specific problem itself. Why
do you think this is?

If it's a matter of simple logic, once people say they
understand the problem, they should be able to give
the correct answer. What gives?

I think this is the ultimate proof that communication
through "word-based" language can never be exact.
A third party arbiter can not determine which side's
understanding is the correct one either.

I agree with your point that language is inexact, but I
think the explanation here is much simpler. People don't
use logic. They rely on their gut instinct and their
experience, which they trust more than they trust logic.

---
Tim Chow

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On June 30, 2023 at 6:26:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

People don't use logic. They rely on their
gut instinct and their experience, which
they trust more than they trust logic.

What about "gut logic"? Am I inventing things
or is there such a notion already by chance?

I believe it is possible for people to know the
correct answer but still give the wrong one. I
want to bring backgammon somehow back
into this and maybe some of you will help out.

Even though the contestants have nothing to
lose and only fail to win something, when they
get the wrong door, it is worded as they "lose".
So there is the psychology of gambling at play.

Does the show give away a car every week?
Once or twice a month? How long has it been
since the last one? Is one due this time? Does
the host try to steer the contestants to win or
to lose as needed? Which will he try this week?

A contestant may know the correct answer but
because of such questions, he may choose the
opposite answer by relying on his "gut logic" in
order to outmaneuver the game host.

I can personally relate to this in backgammon.
Since the days of Jellyfish, I wrote about things
like how I thought I could detect suspiciously
inferior moves by the bots, looking ahead and
preparing for the upcoming dice, and preempt
by making an inferior move myself also, etc.

I also often openly wondered whether my doing
so did not hurt more than help me. In the worst
case, it probably averaged out over time anyway.

Other people may deviate from their normal play
by feeling that they will get lucky and roll a jocker
on the next turn, etc.

Anyone else willing to confess to having used
"gut logic" in backgammon, gamblegammon or
in other games, game show contests, etc.??

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/30/2023 10:02 PM, MK wrote:

Does the show give away a car every week?
Once or twice a month? How long has it been
since the last one? Is one due this time? Does
the host try to steer the contestants to win or
to lose as needed? Which will he try this week?

A contestant may know the correct answer but
because of such questions, he may choose the
opposite answer by relying on his "gut logic" in
order to outmaneuver the game host.

I agree with you partially. In the real game show, for
example, the contestant is not always given the opportunity
to switch. So the "correct" answer is not correct in practice.

But even if I specify that the host is required by law to
always open a door and offer the opportunity to choose another
door, and that the door opened must not be the door that you
chose and must not contain a prize, there are plenty of people
who still insist that it doesn't matter if you switch.

---
Tim Chow

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)