I recently tried explaining [Wikipedia] to the lovely wife and some family members. While I am mostly enthusiastic about the idea, it was a hard sell to the rest of the family. The lovely wife even declared that it was a preposterous arrangement and that she had little interest in something that seemed as unreliable as a community authored and edited encylopedia.
I personally find it quite useful, though I have some internal reservations about taking it as an authoritative source. One of the things I like to do is drop by Wikipedia and check out the featured article of the day. Here’s one that really set me thinking:
[Monty Hall problem – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
The Monty Hall problem is a puzzle in probability that is loosely based on the American game show Let’s Make a Deal. The name comes from the show’s host, Monty Hall. In this puzzle a player is shown three closed doors; behind one is a car, and behind each of the other two is a goat. The player is allowed to open one door, and will win whatever is behind the door. However, after the player selects a door but before opening it, the game host (who knows what’s behind the doors) must open another door, revealing a goat. The host then must offer the player an option to switch to the other closed door. Does switching improve the player’s chance of winning the car? With the assumptions explicitly stated below, the answer is yes  switching results in the chances of winning the car improving from 1/3 to 2/3.
The thing that is so interesting is, as the article notes: “The problem is also called the Monty Hall paradox, in the sense that the solution is counterintuitive, although the problem does not yield a logical contradiction.”
I read the article and have a firm grasp of the logic. Despite that, when presented with the problem anew, my brain is reluctant. My gut instinct would be to stay with the door I had originally chose. The ‘why’ of that is what really bugs me, and I have yet to come up with an explanation. Taking hints and suggestions…