The Three Doors of Serendip: Comments

    Pigeons respond better when confronted with the Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD) than humans? Many would probably wonder how on earth this could be true. Are humans not supremely more intelligent than pigeons? I must admit that after watching television shows such as Deal or No Deal and witnessing the ridiculous measures contestants take (most notably rubbing the boxes as if that will bring them luck in the game) I can see how pigeons would have a leg up over humans in this experiment.

    The link /exchange/threedoors/door1 brings visitors to Serendip to the beginning of the application simulating the MHD and allows web gurus to test their luck with the incentive of winning five dollars if after eliminating the wrong door they then select the door that contains the money. However, one should be warned that there is no solid strategy to winning. One should simply follow their intuition (much like the pigeons) and they will find greater success than if they attempt to devise what they believe is a genius strategy. Essentially, rather than engaging the conscious portion of the mind it is most effective to engage the un-conscious portion for this endeavor.

    The second page of the game /exchange/threedoors/door2a encouraged participants to devise a method/strategy for completing the game to test if there really is a full-proof way to play the game. However Serendip presents the audience with a huge spoiler!

It DOES matter if you stay or switch.

You have 2 chances in 3 of winning if you switch, and only 1 chance in 3 if you stay.

The odds of winning are twice as good if you switch than as if you stay.

It is here that the transition is made from primarily using the un-conscious mind to enacting the conscious mind as well.

    Finally, the third door /exchange/threedoors/door3 deals mainly with logic and when it is appropriate to trust a certain logic. It is clearly outlined on the website (with the two possible logics) aligned side by side. It is further explained that after eliminating one door by concluding that the prize is not behind it, it is best to switch your option because you will have twice the chance of winning,

    "Since the prize has to be behind either the door you picked or the other closed door, and there is one chance in three that its the one you picked, there must be two    

    chances in three its behind the other door. Switch, and you'll be right twice as often."

Makes sense, right?

    I personally found the information that was contained on the last door page the most enlightening. Day in and day out as humans we are constantly faced with the struggle of making decisions. However, Serendip offers suggestions in this portion as to which logic we should employ when making a decision. That decision should be based on past experiences and observations. Essentially, the take home message which I find very applicable to multiple facets of my life is the importance of not 'being right' but rather 'being less wrong'.  An excellent example of this idea is given as well and concerns the fact that if one is arguing with two friends, they will travel in the direction that produces a minimal amount of conflict. Of course, often when one is the midst of an argument, there is no black or white side, there is no right or wrong however there is always a direction that one can choose that will produce lesser conflict.

The ideas presented in Making Sense of Understanding: The Three Doors of Serendip are more than just an entertaining game, they  can be applied to many people, to many lives, and in many circumstances! Although it may have taken several clicks and a couple of virtual simulations, consciously thinking about making a decision was quite eye-opening.