Vsauce! Kevin here, and I’m about to stretch
my winkey until it snaps. Actually, I’ve
got 3 of these anti-stress emoji people called
winkeys, only one will survive and you will
witness an incredibly simple problem that
almost everyone gets wrong. And at the end,
get to the bottom of one of the most famous
probability problems ever.
It’s time to meet the winkeys: orange, purple,
and blue. They’ve been sentenced to death,
but just one will be pardoned. The other two
are walking the green mile, but they don’t
know which two it will be. All they know is
that I, Warden Kevin, get to decide.
Right now, each winkey’s chance of survival
is 1 out of 3 -- so, ⅓ + ⅓ + ⅓ = 1,
with every winkey having an equal shot at
living. There’s no paradox here… yet.
The fairest, least-biased way to choose which
winkey lives is to put three slips of paper
into a hat and randomly draw a color. I’ll
mix around the slips, and… here we go. But…
what if they know I drew a color, yet I don’t
tell them which one it is? These winkeys would
be left to wonder who will live, who will
die, and what their own personal odds of survival
really are --
Orange: Kevin… Kevin! You can tell me. I
can keep a secret. Tell me who will live.”
Kevin: My winkey is talking to me. And I think
I recognize that voice. A keeper of internet
history. How’d you end up on death row!?
Anyway, I can’t tell you who survives. It’s
just not fair -- and I DEFINITELY can’t
tell you whether YOU live or die.
Orange: “I understand, you bear a heavy
burden. Just tell me one of the winkeys that
will be executed. If purple lives, tell me
blue. If blue lives, tell me purple. And if
I’m going to live, just choose which of
the other two you’d like to name. Do this
for me, Kevin -- pwease.”
Kevin: I… I don’t know, orange winkey.
It really doesn’t seem fair.
Orange: “Please, Kevin. Pretty please. You
are so handsome. And those glasses look so
good on you.”
Kevin: Okay -- what’s the harm? I can’t
possibly give Orange Winkey any useful information
here. Okay... Blue will be executed. Right
now! I didn’t mean to put his body back
that way, upside down. But you know what?
Warden Kevin is a cruel warden.
Orange: “Kevin, you fool. Now I know that
my odds are 50/50 -- I will live, or purple
will live. There is no alternative. You stupid,
stupid man. He’s so dumb. And also fat.”
Kevin: Oh no. He’s right! I got tricked
by a winkey. Now, there are only two choices.
One will live and one will not -- so his odds
improved from 1 out of 3 to 50/50, right?
WRONG, ORANGE WINKEY. You still only have
a 1 out of 3 chance to live, and purple winkey
is actually twice as likely to win the pardon.
This may remind you of the Monty Hall Problem
and we will get to why that’s important
later, but for now let’s break down the
only possible scenarios that orange winkey
faced. Remember that I can’t tell Orange
whether he lives or dies:
Purple lives, I name blue (⅓)
Blue lives, I name purple (⅓)
Orange lives, I name blue (⅙)
Orange lives, I name purple (⅙)
When I named blue, we can compare the two
possible outcomes after naming blue: scenario
#1, where I name blue and purple lives, has
a 1 out of 3 probability of occurring. Scenario
#3, where I name blue and orange lives, has
a 1 out of 6 chance of happening. Since ⅓
is twice as large as ⅙ -- and since they’re
the only two possible outcomes after naming
blue, meaning their probabilities have to
add up to 1 -- purple actually has a 2 out
of 3 chance of survival, and orange only has
a 1 out of 3 chance of avoiding execution.
The probabilities of two events that appear
to be equally likely just… aren’t. And
we can’t handle that.
Alright, it’s time to reveal which winkey
will live and which winkey will die. This
slip of paper determines our survivor… and..
purple lives! Sorry, orange! -- “Kevin,
please!” -- Time for you -- “No, have
mercy!” -- to BECOME history. “My body
is stretching… do not stretch me, Kevin.
Noooooo! Was it ‘cause I called you fat?
I am dead.”
Welcome to the Three Prisoners Problem...
which is actually the Bertrand’s Box Paradox.
And kind of the Monty Hall Problem. But mostly
the Bertrand’s Box Paradox -- which came
out the same year the Eiffel Tower opened,
Van Gogh painted The Starry Night, and Nintendo
Koppai first started producing playing cards.
They eventually made video games.
In 1889, 70 years before recreational math
columnist Martin Gardner started playing mind
games with prisoners on their execution date,
French mathematician Joseph Bertrand published
Calcul des probabilités, in which he posed
a paradox that became the basis, the genesis,
for Monty Hall and will require me to stick
my winkeys in pudding.
Let me to explain.
After making me a plate of tendies and my
favorite dipping sauce, my mom secretly hid
winkeys in these three large candy dishes
full of pudding. One of them contains two
winkeys of the same color. Another one contains
two winkeys of a different color. And then
one contains one winkey each of those two
colors. I’m pretty sure mom said one winkey
color is Yellow, but I’m not sure what the
other one is…
This is so much grosser than I thought it
would be. Ughhh! Let’s reveal this winkey’s
color.
“Thank you for licking me clean, Kevin.
Your tongue is so smooth.”
How are you alive?!?
“You can’t kill me, Kevin. We’re friends
now.”
Ok, well, clearly we have an Orange winkey…
somehow back from the dead. And we know the
second winkey color is yellow. But what are
the chances that the other winkey in this
pudding is also orange?
We know that the three dishes are orange-orange,
orange-yellow, and yellow-yellow. Each combination
is equally likely to be chosen at the start.
We also know that this can’t be the yellow-yellow
dish because I just pulled out the creepiest
orange winkey on the planet. That means it’s
coming from orange-orange, or from orange-yellow,
and both had the same chance of being selected.
Once we pull the orange winkey, we know that
the odds the other winkey in this dish is
orange is 50/50, because I’ve clearly chosen
either the orange-orange pudding or the orange-yellow
pudding. Right?
Wrong. Again. For the same mathematical reason
as our prisoner problem.
This is the mathematical foundation of all
these scenarios: our inability to recognize
that what appears to be 50/50 really isn’t.
Hold on, before I explain further, let’s
just find out real quick where the winkeys
are because I actually don’t know. Okay
this was orange. Orange… ah! So it was orange-orange!
Jar number 2… ugh, I can’t even tell.
Ok, that’s yellow. Now is this one orange,
or is this the yellow-yellow jar? Time to
find out… looks orange, looks orange, let’s
see. Yep, there’s the other orange, so that
was our yellow-orange… which means that
this has to be the yellow-yellow. Yellow…
ughgh… yellow. I really have to clean up
this pudding or else we can’t continue the
video. So, I’ll be right back.
Alright, now that the Vsauce mukbang portion
of the video is complete, let’s get to the
root of this problem.
Bertrand conceived his original paradox with
gold and silver coins in boxes. He had the
same basic setup we used: gold-gold, gold-silver,
and silver-silver, with the player reaching
into a random box, drawing a gold coin, and
wondering about the odds of that box containing
another gold coin.
Once we pull a gold coin -- or an orange winkey,
or one of the prisoners to be executed -- it
feels like our odds of whatever comes next
are an equal 50/50. We’re just choosing
between two leftover options that appear to
be equally likely: we know the other coin
is either gold or silver. But look, if you
pull a gold coin you either pulled gold coin
1, 2 or 3. And at this point you conceptually
know that you’re not dealing with the box
with two silver coins. You don't know exactly
what it is, but you do know what it's not.
If you choose Gold 1, the other coin is Gold
2. If you choose Gold 2, the other coin is
Gold 1. If you choose Gold 3, you’ll get
Silver 1. So 2 out of 3 times you draw gold,
it’ll be paired with another gold, and only
1 time out of 3 will you get stuck with silver.
But it’s almost impossible to shake that
notion of two equivalent options even when
the math shows us that it’s wrong. It’s
the same reason why the Monty Hall Problem
is a Problem.
The Prisoner Problem and Monty Hall add a
story to the math and an additional third
party. It seems like that would make it more
complex, but it actually helps you understand
the probability more easily. Adding a second
player’s perspective lets us see that The
Warden will never reveal who lives and Monty
Hall will never reveal the door with the money.
Despite that additional information, we still
get it wrong.
Why is it so hard when the solution is right
in front of our face?
Probably because it is right in front of our
face -- and it’s why very, very smart people
often get it more wrong than right.
I mentioned this in my “What Is A Paradox?”
video but when Marilyn vos Savant wrote in
Parade magazine that switching doors in The
Monty Hall Problem resulted in a ⅔ chance
of success instead of being an obvious 50/50
trade, Parade received over 10,000 letters
telling her she was wrong. About 1,000 of
them were signed by PhDs, and she claims many
were sent on official letterheads from college
math and science departments. And I still
get comments on my video from people all over
the world telling me that I’m wrong.
Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, author of “Inevitable
Illusions,” said that, “No other statistical
puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people
all the time,” and research in 1995 by Granberg
and Brown found that only 13% of people correctly
switched Monty Hall’s doors.
In a 2003 paper in the Journal of Experimental
Psychology, Stefan Krauss and X.T. Wang described
these particular problems -- from Bertrand’s
Box to Monty Hall -- as “cognitive illusions,”
stating that they “demonstrate people’s
resistant deficiency in dealing with uncertainty.”
They found that only 3% in the control group
solved the problem with mathematically correct
reasoning, and that a significant problem
was perspective. When participants were able
to think of the problem from the perspective
of Monty Hall instead of the game show contestant
-- or thinking as me, Warden Kevin, instead
of as the prisoner Orange Winkey -- “Hello”
-- their chances of choosing the right pathway
improved, vaulting them from simple non-Bayesian
thinking into more complex Bayesian analysis.
In the 1990s, it appeared that there was no
way to break the mathematical illusion of
Bertrand’s Box, The Three Prisoners, or
the Monty Hall Problem. Explaining the math
just didn’t seem to work. It turns out the
math isn’t the problem.
We are.
Uncertainty is hard for us. Changing perspectives
is harder. You’re watching this video because
you’re a smart, curious person -- and by
altering your perspective, you don’t just
dismiss a mathematical illusion that has perplexed
us for over a century because you’ve identified
its flaw… you don’t just SOLVE it… you
embrace it, you absorb it, you understand
it, and you ultimately use it to your advantage.
You KNOW it.
And I know that I have SO much pudding to
eat.
And as always -- OHH! -- thanks for watching.
“Pudding! I mean… surprise.”
You like thinking. Problem solving. Logic
and technology. But what if you want to create
technology, where do you start? Well, this
video is sponsored by Full Sail University,
which offers bachelor’s and master’s degrees
that focus on the evolving needs of the technology
industry. Through hands-on, accelerated degree
programs, you can familiarize yourself with
the same tools and tech used by industry professionals.
And with degrees like Computer Science, Information
Technology, Mobile Development, Simulation,
and Web Development, there are a variety of
degree programs offered to help you build
a very specific skill set. So to learn more
about Full Sail’s programs, as well as potential
scholarship opportunities, visit fullsail.edu/Vsauce2
Bye.
“Orange you glad I didn’t say banana?
I’m pickin’ up what you’re puddin’
down. Who put -- who put you up to this, Kevin?
No, Kevin! Stop! You’re stretching me like
Mrs. Incredible on a first date!”
