Intelligence and Political Ideology

no it isn't

50%
natsoc
lol kys for the greater god then

good*

80% of people are right hand dominant and 90% of that 80% will pick the box to the right, vice versa for the left handed people

That means that it's only a 15% chance that you pick the box with the other golden ball

2/3 and i honestly dont believe slapping lables like conservative or leftist on my ideology because both sides have their good sides and both are just as cancerous

You could have gone with doesn't or hasn't
But you went with isn't
I admire the subtlety

Well, if I have picked a gold ball already, then it must have come from one of the two boxes that contained gold balls.
If it was the one with 2 gold balls, there is a 100% chance I will get another gold ball.
If its the one silver, one gold box, then there is no chance of getting a gold ball a second time.
One of the boxes is guaranteed to contain a gold, the other guaranteed not to.
The answer clearly is potato.
>Right wing nut job

>I don't fucking know I'm here for the memes

One in two

Not doing gay politics shit, here for the probability problems.

You can use the Law of Total Probability to formally solve this by conditioning on which box you pick, but for each box the probability that you picked it is obviously not the same after you also condition on having initially chosen a golden ball. If you inform your probabilities of having chosen from each box based on your initial choice (gold), and then use LOTP using these updated probabilities, you get 2/3.

50%

Fascist

50% chance that a ball taken from the same box will be gold, 66% chance if the second ball can be drawn from either box A or box B, 40% chance if the second ball could be drawn from any of the three boxes.

This

33% Or 1/3 Nat Soc. The only thing that matters if that I can melt it down into a gold bar in the same oven I melt my jews in.

That's the probability of GG, which is different, but gets at the heart of the "paradox"

Fuck I forgot about monty hall

It's not a paradox, it's retarded.

It's 66% in aggregate

2/3

Nationalist with no clear leaning.

It's confusing because it's an intermediary step, you're right in that it's not really a paradox but t seems like one when GG is 1/3 but given G -> G is 2/3

it is 50-50 because if you pull a gold ball than the chances of getting the all silver box is 0

40%

Libertarian

How the dickens did you get 40%

The answer is 50/50.

It's obviously 50/50 even though math states it should be 2/3. The pure math is wrong, even though it makes perfect sense, hence it is called a paradox because pure logic provides a different answer than reality.

>melt my jews in
Fucking retardnigger. Jews don’t melt, they sublimate.

1/3 if starting from scratch or 2/3 if you've already drawn a gold ball

1 in 3? fuck i was never good with these math problems. especially probability.

my political ideology is blackpilled white nationalism

Paradoxal question, already explained why
t. natsoc that went to GCU and was part of MENSA before leaving due to autism overdose.

77%
leftist

yeah that makes sense. i just figured there's 3 of each so that's it

this is a barefaced lie
you are talking about "education" not IQ

The stats for IQ pan out differently you retarded fucking idiot

education is completelty differemt and includes degrees oin gender studies and the arts
you leftists fail to understand this obvious fact and have been parrotting this horseshit in a smug display of self superiority for too long now

Attached: main-qimg-11301f1b724ba5d51d63a71011771cdb.png (602x422, 193K)

2/3
Fascist.

Please explain how to read this chart

Having picked a golden ball from one of the boxes gives you 3 scenarios:

You have picked the 1st golden ball from the 1st box.
You have picked the 1st (only) golden ball from the 2nd box or
You have picked the 2nd golden ball from the 1st box.

So 2/3 you pick up another golden ball. The 3rd box gets discarded 100% of the time, the 2nd box 50% of the time, and the 1st box is never discarded.

This, but unironically.

1. 50%
2. I don't subscribe to a political ideology

1 in 3
the box cannot be changed, it was chosen when the statistical likelyhood was 1 in 3

in isolation it now becomes 50%

white nationalist

Attached: _.jpg (300x334, 12K)

Yeah, people are really only thrown off y the fact that it's an intermediary step in the process of drawing, which changes the odds

I guess that's true when you phrase it that way, but that's not the question

And no in isolation it becomes about 66%

Nationalist. 50% The box with the 2 silver balls is disqualified. so it is between one of 2 boxes.

One of the two has twice as many opportunities tho

50% since only two boxes of the three can yield such a result.

Nationalist

Nice self portrait

Let me explain this to you faggots
You already have a box that contains a gold ball. Either 2 gold or one of each.
Only one ball remains after you make your selection because you don't put the first ball back. The box isn't scrambled. No balls are added.
The remaining box, the same one you just drew from contains either one gold or 1 silver because it is impossible to draw a gold ball from a box with only silver balls.
That's a 50% chance of drawing a gold ball.
>nationalist

You selected one gold ball. Must use same box as stated. There is a 50% chance. Number of opportunities is mute at this point.

Ya mum's mute from choking on cock all day, ya nerdo cunt.

i dont kno about all of the random numbers but to understand it, the colours are nothing to do with political affiliation, they are merely extra information about predicted vs actual results

so on the wordsum axis, higher is better and on the partyID further right is republican/right leaning

on the bottom right, you can see there is a much higher than expected distribution for both "stongly republican & higher intelligence"

on the top right, there is a much higher than expected distribution for poor performance and strongly democrat

slightly more information here
sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/analysis/exec?cflevel=95&ch_color=yes&ch_effects=use2D&ch_height=400&ch_orientation=vertical&ch_type=stackedbar&ch_width=600&color=on&column=partyid&columnpct=on&dataset=gss12&decdeft=3&decpcts=1&decse=1&decstats=2&decwn=1&design=complex&formid=tbf&row=wordsum&sdaprog=tables&sec508=false&weightedn=on&weightlist=COMPWT

note, its a vocabulary test, i couldnt find the IQ one which is even more clearly defined (shouldve saved it, ill keep looking)
however IQ and vocabulary size are strongly correlated

You draw the silver ball from the 2nd box on your first draw. What happens?

That's interesting, thanks

explain?

because in isolation the box containing 2 silver balls is no longer relevant

given that you have 1 gold ball, you can isolate the problem and it becomes 50%

admitedly, im no stats genius, could you elaborate further, just for my own education?

Like I said, pure math and logic is providing you with a result that doesn't match reality. That is why it is a paradox.

The reality is you either picked the 2 gold box or half and half box with no way to gather more information. That means your next pull from that same box can only have one of two outcomes.

So it is 50/50 even though pure logic and hard math clearly states it is 2/3.

Paradoxes point out how reality and mathematics aren't always on the same page.

But you don't, it explicitly states you take a gold ball out.

Jewish bullshit question, does not give enough information to arrive at a definite answer, so they can make it mean whatever they want afterwards.

1. 50% chance
2. Monarchist

ok then there is about a 33% chance the next one will be gold

which is basically a rewording of what i already wrote

The first draw in this simulation is always gold.

Exactly. And there are 3 golden balls in total. 2 of those are in the same box.

40% chance.

Moderate

So it's like this
When the problem first starts you have a 1/3 shot of getting two gold balls in a row, because only one box of the three boxes has two gold balls. When you draw one, it's twice as likely that it came from box #1, so when the problem tells you that you did indeed draw gold, the likelihood of a second gold ball is weighted based on that fact, so the intermediary odds shift to 2/3

>50/50
>Independent

For what it's worth if one ball is already confirmed to be gold then there is zero relevance to the fact that a box exists with only 2 silver balls. Unless of course a (((coincidence))) occurs.

We've already had this fucking thread. The answer is 2 in 3. The problem here is people misunderstanding the problem and thinking that you have an equal chance of picking the GG and GS box given that a gold ball has been selected. The people that come to this conclusion do not understand conditional and unconditional probability.

The following equation is known as Bayes Theorem:
P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)

The formulation of A|B means "A given B". Thus, P(A|B) means "the probability that event A will occur given the precondition that event B occurs".

Intuitively, we know that a second gold ball will be drawn only if the GG box is chosen. Thus, we can use this equation to define two events:

A = Box GG is selected.
B = A gold ball is selected.

The problem is asking what the probability is that we chose GG given the precondition that we got a gold ball. Let's consider our probabilities:

P(A) = 1/3. This is the unconditional probability of selecting Box GG without any concern for what ball was selected.
P(B) = 1/2. This is the unconditional probability of selecting a gold ball in the first draw, given that any box could have been selected.
P(B|A) = 1. This is the conditional probability that we will get a gold ball in our first draw, given that box GG was selected. No matter which ball we pull out, it's always gold.

Plugging these numbers in, we get: P(A|B) = 1 * (1/3) / (1/2) = 2/3.

>But we ignore the case where the first ball isn't gold
We're computing a conditional probability. To do this, we use some unconditional probabilities. By definition, we include the cases that we otherwise would have ignored in order to compute the final conditional probability. This is part of Bayes Theorem. Bayes Theorem is not up for debate.

I am a conservative libertarian, and a Computer Science PhD student.

Take 3 boxes and put 2 balls in each. One golden, one silver. Take one out without looking at the other one. If it's gold, see if the other one is gold too. If not, start over. You will statistically get the other gold ball 2/3 of the time, in real life.

The second ball comes the same box as the first. You don't swap box.

this isnt thr monty hall problem by the way, i went and checked it out
theres no option to switch boxes, you are presented with 3 and you cannot switch boxes

you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting the double gold, a 2 in 3 of at least one gold.

once you pick up a gold, you now know more information and so the game has changed, you are left with a 50% chance

as the game is presented, you are at the 50% chance phase

50%
I've either picked the box with the golden balls or I haven't; with no chance that I've drawn from the silver-only box.

Unironically Monarchistic

i agree with this, the information that is known changes when the first ball is picked, the game is now different from the starting game.

in its current state its 50%

This guy maths
>t. aerospace engineer

same as if it were gold, just a different colour

Your chance of picking the box with the two gold balls is 1/3, 66%. The fact that you picked a gold ball already is an irrelevant detail, it does not change the probability.

Is this correct?

I don't hold political beliefs, it's a waste of time. Principalities and natural hierarchy are formed by God. I believe in obeying the commandments of God and believing on the Lord.

Everything is up for debate. Bayes is a bitch.
The next ball is either gold or silver.
Suck a dick.

3 golden balls. 2 in the same box. 1 separate. You have picked a golden ball. What is the probability that you have picked a ball with another golden ball in the same box if 2 out of 3 is in the same box?

66%
I don't subscribe to a specific ideology, as I have different opinions on lots of different topics.

Communist
1/7

i cant say i fully understood that explanation, you lost me at the reason the "2nd gold ball is weighted based on that fact"
you have no ability to switch boxes, and the current box is not eliminated from play by the discovery of a gold ball.

if you could switch boxes you are still stuck at 1/3 and if you cant then its now 1/2
its now 1/2 because the terms of the game have changed, more information is present

the next ball to come out of that box will either be a gold or a silver, there is no other factor to consider at this stage in the game

No, you suck a dick.

hep.upenn.edu/~johnda/Papers/Bayes.pdf

The simulation has already decided which box you are in by defining that it is gold. 2/3 assumes it hasn't been yet.

No, you would have been disqualified and wouldn't even have made it this far. This happens 50% of the time someone picks the 2nd box. But you have picked a gold ball. 2 out of 3 gold balls are in the same box.

2 in 3. Right nationalist.

I am grasping a ball made of gold inside a one of three boxes containing G/G, G/S, or S/S. Thereby one of the other two boxes is S/S. I am inside either the G/S or G/G box. Pulling the second ball from the same box I have a 50% chance to pull either a gold or silver ball.
>anarchy

Attached: 1543048488752.jpg (722x239, 61K)

1/3 , only one of the three boxes has 2 gold. Wow really fucking hard. NWO

50%
Locke Liberal/ Classical liberal

With all of the provided information you have a 50% chance of getting a second Golden Ball. The problem states you have drawn one golden ball, meaning you have either drawn from the first or second box. Drawing from the same box, box one gives you a golden ball. Drawing from the same box, if you draw from box two, you will not get a golden ball again. This is a binary question “choosing at random between two boxes, what is the probability of choosing the first box?”

Its actually g1/g2, g1/s1 or g2/g1.

ahh, but the qustion is at stage 2, therefore P(A) isnt an option, there is more information available and the game changes, there are no longer 2 events, you are calculating a forecast at the stage of having zero information to go on

since we know we have a gold ball, and cannot change, that leaves only 2 options left, gold or silver, its 50%

bayes theorem might not be up for debate, but its application certainly is

>Like I said, pure math and logic is providing you with a result that doesn't match reality. That is why it is a paradox.
It's not a paradox unless you incorrectly apply math and logic by assuming circumstances that are untrue. The situation described about the relationships of the boxes and balls pertains to before any ball was drawn but the question is asking about your second draw after a ball has already been drawn. Since a gold ball has already been drawn you either have a box containing a second gold ball or a silver ball; if you apply logic to that situation then the results are as clear as the common sense answer.

no, there are three gold balls

2 of those gold balls are paired with another gold ball
only 1 of those gold balls is paired with a silver ball

ok fair point,

- 2/3.
- Scientific Liberal

I think you'll have a confounding variable though - Most cons will be too dumb to follow the instructions and say their political ideology.