Are Germans bad at conceptual logic?

People don't count the gold-gold box twice, but they need to do exactly that.

Probability isn't exactly the most intuitive knowdledge branch

Germans are all about orders, not logic.

Depends on the mind, methinks. Some people are good at engineering because it's a little more straightforward, but suck at chess because it's non-deterministic

That's my suspicion

Ok I got a logic problem for you faggots:

You're in prison, and you are presented 2 doors. One leads to freedom, the other to certain death.
There are 2 guards, A and B, and you are allowed to ask 1 of them exactly 1 question. A always lies, B never lies, and both know which door is the door to freedom. You do not know which guard is A and which is B.

What do you ask to find out which door leads to freedom?

75% chance or something , probably wrong.
But I guess 50% is not correct because of the higher number/probability of goldballs
I suck at this, also Germans are bugmen yadayadayada
Kannst mich auch mal

Attached: 027.png (1000x1000, 137K)

Attached: téléchargement.png (183x275, 6K)

Remember this problem from cub scouts (age 10?).

My solution back then was to ask one guard what the other would say is the door to death, then pick the opposite. Haven't re-thought it since then

*56%

(Nearly) correct, if you ask for the door to death, they will both point at the door to freedom.

Yeah, something like that. I got it right when I was 10

And now you didn't
Really fires up the neurones

I went from memory instead of logic. My memory is far from perfect :)

why did you delete your post?

embarrassment is my guess

he wasn't wrong though

aaaand now you're wrong.

Show your work please

It's 50%. The fact that you got a gold ball already means that you know that you've got either GG or GS therefore making SS irrelevant to the probability of the second test.

33%

>I won't think about this question because I solved it once but don't remember. But I promise I'm smart

This would be true if the question were the probability of picking two gold balls in a row, but it isn't

if you got a gold ball you're twice as likely to have chosen the first box than the second silly billy

you either took from GG or GS since SS has no gold balls

GG GS SS - SS = GG + GS

You already took a G

GG - G = G
GS - G = S

Effectively you now either are taking from a box with 1 G, or 1 S, the previous odds you had of taking from GG or GS are now irrelevant (See the goat problem)

You have two choices, G or S
1 in 2
50%

On further inspection, you are correct. The correct answer is 2/3

There are two ways to correct your answer that I can see. 1) Point out that picking gold first only eliminates the third box and nothing else. 2) Point out that the chance of picking the 2nd box vs the 1st isn't the same

I just assumed I wasn't stupid enough to take out the same ball twice.

Jow Forums forgive us, not all our countrymen are this retarded.

Attached: 1q5ezpy.png (1280x720, 181K)

It doesn't make you retarded to fall for Bertrand's box. The entire point of it is that our brains are not designed to have good intuition for probability.

There´s 5 balls left of which 2 are gold
2/5=0.4
It´s 40%

u fukn wot m8

Yet plenty of people solve it easily. If we're talking about brain design, then all it indicates is genetic superiority on the part of those who get it right.

Do you put the one you took out back into a box?
It seems like taking out one gold would leave you with just box A (one gold ball) and box B (now with just one silver ball in it) and we know it’s not box C cause you couldn’t have pulled out a gold
I’ve heard the 2/3 meme but if you’re still holding the first ball you pulled out, and then reach in for the second, why isn’t it 1/2?

Like 66% or 2/3

Not all brains

Why would I count the gold box twice if I already took out a ball, I’m not putting the ball back in wtf

Because you could have got the gold ball on the left or the gold ball on the right.

ok, this is a new one :D

Because the fact that you pulled out a gold to begin with means you are more likely to have picked the gold/gold box than the gold/silver box
Say there were a million golds in box 1, and 1 gold and a million silver in box 2. If you pick a box and it's gold then it's obviously way more likely the box is box 1 than 2. Hence if you draw another afterward you most likely get another gold.

>let me post the first lecture of my probability class and prove how smart I am to these brainless!!!

Attached: boring-niche-content-writing-1210x423.jpg (1210x423, 77K)

fucking this.
STEM faggots are insifferable, work hard make hard money
they couldve picked gammastudies and barely work and make hard money
of course humanities are the biggest retards cuz theyll make no money but atleast they aren't insufferable

You have only one grab for 2 boxes that will determine from the very start if you win or not.
We already know from the question that it's certified that you hit one of the boxes with gold in it
Since these are 2 boxes that first of the two grab s already determines whether you fail or not, independently from the whole Bertrand box thing.
So if you see it like that it is actually 50%, but that's not how the questions rule is written so fuck it

what the fuck is gammastudies

The point is that you're grabbing from the same box, that's what makes it 2/3

The question isn't about what ball you will grab, it's about what box you are in, and your odds are 2/3 that you chose GG

The point of the thread isn't that it's hard. Read OP

Attached: solution 2.png (440x364, 60K)

50%

law, economics etc. basically anything that will actually make you money that doeant require math

Yeah but my point was that the chance of picking either gg or gs is 50/50, as long as it turns out you actually took a gold one. But that was only related to the first grab, not the second one, I said that it actually has nothing to do with the actual game, just some alt-point posting

>economics
>no math
?

Since you've already made your choice, then yes, there's a 50% chance that you'll get another gold ball.

Wrong. Show your work

The fact that so many people are convinced with a non 2/3 response makes me worry about the average IQ of this board.

You don't need a high IQ to solve this (I don't think), but you do need to be able to conceptualize the problem.

Maybe this is IQ, but it seems to be a problem of a different dimension

50% is the answer

No it isn't. Show your work

Eitherway, you require intelligence. Most people on this board are not intelligent.

I have dyscalculia and I don't know anything about math past 8th grade so don't worry too much

you either pick a silver one or a gold one so its 50/50 so 50%

Well, IQ is certainly involved in this. I would be genuinely surprised if a balanced person with an IQ of 140 or more gets it wrong. Still, people do not have unbalanced brains, so it is still marginally possible for someone with a relatively high IQ to get it wrong.

In my case, I do not thing my participation in this problem would be fair since I literally remember this from my HS probability class ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You need intelligence to operate a keyboard, too.

Again, I don't think intelligence is necessarily the reason so many get it wrong

Based

You need to consider the entire problem. The chance that the first pick was box a or b isn't 50%

"Not everything is equal"- here is your clue.

In my HS data management class, the first time we solved this problem we basically charted out the probabilities of all outcomes to convince everyone about the answer. This was done before we got into combinations and permutations.

your IQ wont help you lossing your virginity

>You need intelligence to operate a keyboard, too.
Okay, but you require MORE intelligence to solve this problem. Would you prefer that I said then that most people here are of inferior intelligence?

Why do you have to go in that direction bro:^(

I think you are lying

Raping women really shouldn't be an option, achmed

I'm just not convinced with your unvaried theory. I think people think differently and IQ only measures capacity for abstract thought.

Im sorry friendo

>Economics
>no math
nibba what?

Run the python program I made to find out
onlinegdb.com/r1gypLeZV

yes and there is an entire board where you can discuss your shit idea of studying the biggest meme called stem; why dont you go and discuss it there?

Attached: 1541923440644.png (1106x1158, 596K)

But abstract thought is exactly what's needed here

>let's measure all of your mental abilities with one standardized test

This is literally how the system can destroy one's potential

I was curious why so many Germans got it wrong in another thread and thought there might be a racial trait.

It's a requisite, but maybe not the only one. I mean you need some IQ to read a map, but a lot of people with high IQs can't drive

You mean national
I'm pretty sure people lurking behind flags are not 100% of their supposed ethnicity at most cases

Look at it another way. Say you have two boxes, one has one million gold balls and the other has 999,999 silver balls and one single gold ball. You pick one of the two boxes and random and take out a ball, and it's a golden ball. You can see it's pretty obvious that it's highly probable you have the box with 1m gold balls.

And inferior abstraction ability is inferior intelligence.

Yes, people think differently. There is, however, a hierarchy of that difference. The popular adage that everyone is the best in the world at something is correct, but not in the facile way it's generally understood. So the best chess player in the world is indeed the best in the world at chess, but what about the second-best chess player? Well, he is the best in the world at being the second-best chess player lol, just as a junkie lying in a gutter in a pool of his own vomit and urine is the best in the world at being a junkie lying in that particular moment in that particular gutter in a pool of his own vomit and urine. Ultimately, we are all the best in world at being precisely who we are: I could not be as good as you at being who you are if I spent my entire life trying. So we see that the correct way to interpret this adage has nothing to do with how it's generally interpreted. The common interpretation is that, since we are all the best in the world at something, we are in a sense equal. That's why this adage was invented: to counter people saying that some people are inferior or even useless.

IQ doesn't help if I don't have any knoledge about the maths behind this. I looked at the picture and didn't even managed to find out where to start.
It's like trying to understand a book when you can't even read

>racial trait
Germans are a separate race? and you call yourself smart?

Its really unlikely that such a boxes exist.

The polling was national, but I wouldn't base a theory on that category

babby's first probability class?

Fine, ethnic.
Good at making V2s, but not cracking the Enigma

>practical German thinking
See what I mean?

If the balls are tiny painted plastic you can easily have 2 cardboard boxes filled with a million ball bearings painted silver and gold. Why do you even care about that, that's completely irrelevant.

Somehow there was a lost opportunity to use 6 million to make him understand