That explained nothing related to the question. The term "mansplaining" is a sexist term used by feminists to look down at men. However, even the feminists definition of the word don't even apply here.
A. J. West The comments shown in the video was made by the editor of the video. Not something she actually got. And also, your second statement about men dominate over woman is completely and utterly false. Almost all the cases we hear about, is men dominating women, but that's because those women are either more sensitive than men, or the cases with women dominating over men are seen as weak. I agree that men try to be more than they are, but that is because society forces that upon them. If men aren't strong, they wont be seen as equal.
A. J. West 1, Cause I have actually READ about it and seen the actual comments. 2, are you an idiot? You seriously think everyone are that stupid? Where is your proof what I said is false? Cause there is plenty of proofs what I said to be true.
A. J. West You think I keep a bank with all the links I've ever been on? NO! And did you just assume I talk over women all the time? How dumb can you get?! You keep making assumption without any valid bases. And you are slightly wrong there. Due to the way society works, if a man is socially weak, they are looked down upon. This results in them trying everything to gain status, and as a result, some end up talking down to women. There is nothing in our society that tells us we have to talk down to women, but as a byproduct of something else, we sometimes get that result. I won't deny some men talk down at women, but I also demand that you don't deny the opposite to be true as well. Some women abuse their own gender and abuse men, in such a way that society won't know. The reason mansplaining shouldn't be an accepted word, is because it tries to make women sound like they are abused more than men, which is not true.
"all of this is nonsense a car can't fit through a door..." Yes it can and they do it all the time. I saw this on the Science Channel, the car is simply stood up on it's ass end, given a quarter turn, then slid through the open door. It's no different than moving a Frigidaire 15.6 cubic foot freezer.
Wrong. G.O.A.T. is an acronym for Greatest Of All Time. "Goat" is just a ruminant mammal, usually of the genus Capra. Consider yourself mansplained in the usual fashion, namely with accuracy and correctly.
@@PeakyPounder12 Suggesting that someone who thinks "mansplaining" is a thing is greatest at anything other than twittishness is a joke, but not a funny one.
@@zh2266 where in Europe? I've never heard this phrase before. Europe spans from Iceland to Ukraine and as far south as Cyprus, (or according to Eurovision Australia 😂) Me, UK.
When men pointed out the correct solution they didn't get pushback. When a woman pointed out the correct solution she got thousands of letters personally attacking her. It is hard to not see the sexism at play. Mansplaining (as I understand it) usually refers to to a sexist presumption of women being less intelligent than men.
The solution is to bring a gun. When someone asks you if you want to switch doors, show them the gun. Tell them you'd just like the prize. This solution works 100% of the time. (But also gets you arrested nearly 100% of the time, so yeah, don't try this.)
***** 126 people disagree with you. Also, I believe that slur is hyphenated. Do try to use proper English. It'd be a shame if people took you less than seriously.
See? If you didn't care you wouldn't respond at all. Since you are responding, it means you do care about my opinion. And since you've responded so often, you must care quite a great deal about it. Why is that? Did you mother not love you enough? Or, possibly TOO much? It would make some sense with your preoccupation with others' sexual orientation. So what's the story, bro?
The best way I've heard of visualizing this is to imagine that you have 100 doors to choose from. 99 goats and 1 car. You choose door 47. Monty ignores you opens all doors except 47 and 62. What are the odds that your original guess, door 47, was right? Pretty low, obviously - that would be some guess. 1 in 100, to be exact. However, because Monty has to keep the car in the game, that means that 62 now has a 99% chance of being right. Apply the same logic to a 3 door problem, and you see it always makes more sense to switch. It's Monty's 'knowing things', and the futility of your random guesses, that makes it work.
The best way I've heard of visualizing this is actually instead of doors it's bees. And then Monty opens all the doors full off bees. And now the room is flooded by bees.
Even with this explanation I don’t understand why it’s not now 50/50 chance? Why does door 62 have a higher probability of being the right door. Just because you started out with a 1 in 100 chance doesn’t make door 62 less of a 1 in 100 chance from the beginning. So now you are still at 50/50.
@@wavez4224 so here is the context, there was a math problem, 1 group said the answer was A while the other said the answer was B. All Marilyn did was pick sides. She didn't come up with a new solution at all. I'm not saying that Marilyn wasn't a great person, but this channel is praising her for literally doing nothing because its all about feminism actually more appropriately man-hating.
@@sohamdambalkar1602 Of course she didn't come up with a solution, because literally there are two options, door b or door c. She explained her answer and that's the solution, I don't know why it's so hard to understand
@@samuelvanorshaegen The key is that Monty will NEVER open the door with the car, and MUST open one door. He's providing new information that is statistically significant.
Wait so if the doors was choosen at random and accidentally revealed that a goat was behind the door the probability wouldn't be affected by the reveal? I don't understand math. This seems unlikely to me. Can somebody explain to me why the probability of winning the car when switching the door you pick doesn't improve if the goat was revealed by chance instead of intentionally?
@@SamsonGuest I don't really understand the question but I probably wouldn't be able to answer it anyways. But here is a comment that I'm copying because I think this is a good explanation for the problem: The best way I've heard of visualizing this is to imagine that you have 100 doors to choose from. 99 goats and 1 car. You choose door 47. Monty ignores you opens all doors except 47 and 62. What are the odds that your original guess, door 47, was right? Pretty low, obviously - that would be some guess. 1 in 100, to be exact. However, because Monty has to keep the car in the game, that means that 62 now has a 99% chance of being right. Apply the same logic to a 3 door problem, and you see it always makes more sense to switch. It's Monty's 'knowing things', and the futility of your random guesses, that makes it work.
Well this topic very likely got added to the curriculum after this problem got popularized. The reason you are familiar with it and find it elementary is very likely a result of how polarising the question was
Brian Xu, Exactly! I was quite literally asking myself (as a mathematician) "Wait, I thought that basically every mathematician has known Bayes' Theorem for a while now?". It's been around for a while, and even if somehow a mathematician didn't know it, it's basically a requirement for mathematicians to be able to solve basic problems (and you could also just do trivial casework if you didn't want to derive the formula).
That was my immediate thought. There's taxation on prizes won on these games: You'll likely have to liquidate the car anyways, and get maybe 50% of its worth after taxes and sales costs. Maybe. A goat, on the other hand, has much lower taxes since its only a few hundred dollars- you can pay out of pocket. Then, you and your family have a reliable 1.) Source of milk - maybe cheese, if you know how. and 2.) Free lawnmower. The goat is the practical choice
(Know it’s a joke, just wanted to post this as a side note) Why is that people always seem to forget to account for the feed and health of animals? Like, that stuff is expensive.
+holzi It's not really clickbait. The video is hardly about the Monty Hall problem itself, rather, it's about a woman who got a buttload of sexist hatemail just for giving the correct solution. With that in mind, the title is pretty accurate to the content.
True, but how would they have gotten all this extra views without this click bait? I'm a huge conservative so I generally don't like to watch videos from Vox, but this title isn't factually incorrect, nor does it take away from what vox is trying to say. Something sexist happened.
Mansplaining isn't a thing. Men and women are both capable of being condescending jerks. The gendered insult was unhelpful, and does detract from the video in my opinion.
No one else cares except for you and you seemed to have missed the point of the video. Congrats you’re the same as those ten thousand responses mansplaining!
Chill out lmao the title was sexist and unnecessary.They could have just said it stumped a lot of people but they chose that title to try to get extra views and bring up a more controversial topic. I disagree with them using that title as well so they are not the only one.
Probably wasn't sexist to think she was wrong. Would be sexist to say she's wrong because she's a woman, but few people disagree based solely on another person's gender. Marilyn got more responses because she was famous. She got insulted because her answer was unintuitive.
Manthanks for the manlols, fellow male! Now I manshould go to the subway station and manspread on all the seats, like I always mando on every Thursdays!
3:52 Not entirely correct what you're stating there. It's 8% of RESPONDENTS that believed she was correct, not 8% of READERS. I would assume people are more inclined to respond if they disagree (just like I'm now responding because i disagree with what was stated in the video). You're not getting a fair representation of the population here. Edit: typo
@@ThePrashu31 Not sure whether you're serious or joking. If you're serious: It's important to paint a correct picture of the situation. Just because some people are pathetically disagreeing with a woman from a misogynistic point of view, it does not 'allow' Vox to (unintentionally) tell inaccuracies. Always be truthful. If you're joking: Okay.
@@labadaba5088 I know they tend to lean towards the progressive side, but I'd invoke Hanlon's razor here. I think they're sometimes just sloppy in their use of language.
I win a goat or a car, either way its a win win. You can ride either of them, both need a source of fuel, both can keep you warm from the cold, the list is endless.
Unfortunately for the people who disliked, that only proves their point. Men don't like being told they're wrong by women, even if the woman is right. Especially if the woman is right.
@@pxn0199 Absolutely, but my comment was directed at the people who disliked because they were triggered by a word as is clearly stated. If all men disliked this video is would have about 4 billion dislikes.
Dallas Van Winkle See, but dismissing men who disliked the video because of the word mansplaining in the title is very unfair to them. Generalizing all males who dislike the use of mansplaining as “triggered” implies that the are all one track minded, sharing a single reason for disliking the word’s use, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. The term “mansplaining” is sexist in and of itself because it attributes a non gender specific action (condescending equivocation) to a specific gender. Because I don’t want to advocate the usage of sexist terms, I disliked the video because of the hypocrisy of using a word like that. Many other people who I saw in the comment section had different reasons, one that I noted specifically that one didn’t like that Vox had changed the title from “mathematicians” to “mansplainers” in an attempt to get more views at the cost of being hypocritical. My point is, regardless of what gender you are, any kind of large generalization you make about any gender, is sexist. Using generalized, gender specific terms, is sexist. Also, it’s wrong to assume all the dislikers are men. Not saying the majority isn’t men, but obviously it isn’t 100%.
The video is still being misleading. It's not reasonable to assume that sexism was the root cause, when all the letters she got are more easily explained by the fact that she ran a high-profile column in a popular magazine, whereas the men who gave the same answers in earlier publications did so in scientific journals and the like, which have much lower readership. I'd even wager that the idea that "no one disagreed" to the earlier answers is unfounded.
watch the video and find out, people wrote sexist letters to marilyn vos savant claiming she was wrong because she was a woman, but when men published the right answers barely anyone disagreed
Desidium Some of the letters she got were sexist, yes. But the video presents no evidence that anyone assumed she was wrong BECAUSE she was a woman. Rather, it seems that FIRST people thought "this is wrong" and THEN attributed it to her gender. With the only other instances of this problem appearing in journals that are obscure to the general population, the problem's appearance in Parade was very likely to be many people's first exposure to it, thus why so many letters were received arguing the answer.
It's not flat-out wrong but it's misleading. The video implies that sexism was a root cause for dissent, but only gives evidence of sexism as a superficial issue that has nothing to do with the crux of the problem. My only guess is that they just wanted a nice buzzword to throw into the title so people would watch the video.
The video is not about the Monty Hall problem, it is about a social issue, discrimination against women in STEM, and the workplace generally. The issue of women not being taken seriously even when they are right, even when they are authorities, even when they are bosses, and men not facing those same difficulties. That's what the title promises and that's what was delivered.
@@scottharrison3454 idk about you, but when I'm dealing with a professional, man or woman, I take their word seriously. I don't care if it's a dude or a girl, I care as long as they know what they're doing.
You can't even criticize a woman's work anymore without being labeled as sexist even though you just genuinely think that there's something wrong with her work.
Scott Harrison the Monty Hall problem has an unintuitive answer, people will question those and they should. Population level sex differences in agreeableness will have a much larger proportion of men doing the questioning but that is hardly sexism.
Tape Eater while I mean they aren't wrong. Thousands of men who believed that women were dumb and men were smart told her she was wrong when she was right
That's not mansplaining. That's just thinking you are right and the other person is wrong. And if we want to get on the topic of mansplaining, using the term "mansplaining" is more sexist than ACTUALLY mansplaining.
No, not really. The climax of the video pointed out that, because she was a woman, her readers were astonishingly more apt to disagree with her, even though it had been proven many times over by mathematicians who were male. So, to say that this problem stumped mansplainers isn't far from the topic of the video at all.
It's interesting that whenever someone starts a maths related conversation, they are compelled to add the preamble "I hate math but..." I believe it is a cultural thing. It's tiring to hear it in general, but more so on a vox video.
personally i think that if more people took classes like statistics and economics, more people would realize that math can be fun. some people don't really have a passion for math for math's sake, but once it's math about a topic that interests them, they start to enjoy it.
ShredPenguins They spent like half the video talking about the actual math problem and the rest of the video talking about how people thought she was wrong just because she was a woman. They took a math problem and used it as an opportunity to tell me that I, as a man, suck. #mansplained Also 10,000 letters from AROUND THE WHOLE WORLD barely says sexist. 10,000 people is a drop in the ocean.
Apparently, she received more letters than the other (male) mathematicians. Even after it was already proven true multiple times. Plus, this was back in the 1990s before email was a well established communication tool. These were the people with the gall and effort to write in their criticism. Trust me, by today's standards, she would have been trolled in the millions of respondents if she had done this in 2015 (even though you would hope w/ google people would be able to see she was correct; then again, there are still Americans who believe Obama is a muslim...)
Bilal Jones He was born to a Muslim father I'm pretty sure, I know his father walked out but it is entirely possible that he was a member of the Islamic faith very early in his life... Of course whatever the case may be, he's not Muslim anymore
There's an easy way to realize you should switch every time. If you pick door 1 and without showing you any other doors Monty says to EVERY CONTESTANT no matter which door you picked: "Would you like to keep door number 1, or take the combination of both 2 and 3?", no one would think twice: you'd take both doors 2 and 3 because you have 2/3 chance of winning the car. Well that's precisely why you switch every time you are asked: he's showing you ONE of the two other doors and then asks you if you want the OTHER one of those two doors - or, as I said: "do you want your door, or the other two doors instead?"
I get what you're saying, but you could also look at it as choosing door 1, being given door 2 (you've got 2/3 of the doors now), then asked if you'd like to switch door 1 with door 3.
ItsAlleged You weren't given door 2 - you're being ASKED if you want door 2 and 3, and until you say "yes", you don't yet have door 2. So it's as I said: do you want door 1, which you picked, or would you rather have 2 and 3, one of which I've just shown you.
A better explanation that shows greater probability is...1000 doors. 999 of them hide goats, and 1 hides a car. You pick 1 door, hoping to pick the car. Monty then shows you 998 goats leaving 2 doors. Do you think you picked a car or a goat?
@@eugenelubbock5478 conservative? I'm an active progressive socialist. Not everyone who disagrees with vox's clickbaity business practices is some whining conservative; Perhaps it would be smart to use your head.
@@sebastyann123 derogatory means "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude". I'm not saying the term mansplainer is unjustified here, or claiming it's some kind of sexist term; but it is being used for inflammatory baiting of hate clicks.
The video would have been worthwhile without the bogus claim of "mansplaining." The columnist drew attention from those who disagreed simply because more people saw the column.
***** "i'm not using a red herring. " Of course you are. Whether any men have invented words to shame women is not relevant to the topic of whether "mansplaining" is a term invented in order to shame men. It can, therefore, only be a red herring. "Mansplaining is a valid term because men feel the need to do it all the time." Well feminists claim that. But feminists lie. In actual practice, feminists will claim that anything they don't want to hear (if coming from a man) is "mansplaining." It is a term used to shame and silence, nothing more. It used to be a lot more effective. But now more people see it for what it is.
***** If you don't care, perhaps you should not have written to begin with. To claim that "mansplaining" is somehow a legitimate term is to invite criticism.
There are hundreds of other videos on UA-cam that explain the Monty Hall Problem better that don't have a sexist or clickbait title. Don't bother watching this.
The video isn't about the monty hall problem or explaining it, that's a side not. They could have not given the answer at all This is a video about society, it's easy to tell.
Since there is one winning and two losing doors, when picking a door there is one chance of winning and two of losing. Or 1/3 winning and 2/3 losing. Switch door chances: 1) you pick the right door (car), you switch and lose 2) you pick the wrong door (goat 1), Monty opens the goat 2 door, you switch and win 3) you pick the wrong door (goat 2), Monty opens the goat 1 door, you switch and win So, by switching, you have 2 chances of winning and 1 of losing (or 2/3 winning and 1/3 losing). Keep door chances: 1) you pick the right door (car), you keep and win 2) you pick the wrong door (goat 1), Monty opens the goat 2 door, you keep and lose 3) you pick the wrong door (goat 2), Monty opens the goat 1 door, you keep and lose So, by keeping, you have 1 chance of winning and 2 of losing (or 1/3 winning and 2/3 losing).
So tell me 1) you pick the right door (car), you switch and lose there's two scenarios with switching to goat 1 and losing and switching to goat 2 and losing 1) you pick the right door (car), you keep and win there's two scenarios with picking car and host reveals goat 1 picking car and host reveals goat 2
@@MrLuffy9131 Let's say you roll a dice. If you get 1 or 2, you win. If you get 3 or 4, you lose. If you get 5 or 6, you roll again, any number = you win. What is your winning chance? M: Here are all the possible scenarios. M: 1 win M: 2 win M: 3 lose M: 4 lose M: 5 - 1 win M: 5 - 2 win M: 5 - 3 win M: 5 - 4 win M: 5 - 5 win M: 5 - 6 win M: 6 - 1 win M: 6 - 2 win M: 6 - 3 win M: 6 - 4 win M: 6 - 5 win M: 6 - 6 win M: There are 14 scenarios that I win so my winning chance is 14/16 = 87.5%. M: But since I will always win if my first roll is 1 2 5 or 6 and lose if it is 3 or 4, my winning chance is also 2/3 = 66.67%. M: I just proved that 87.5 = 66.7 M: I am a genius. Hoooraaay!!! M's parents: Hoooraaay!!!
Rodentsnipe They kinda want to, though. UA-cam doesn't reward positive like-bandwagon content as it used to. Now it favours "engaging" content. And engagement is easily obtained by controversy and a disparity of likes and dislikes. So I'd say insulting 50% of the population is indeed a viable to cash in.
You think Parade Magazine has the same readership as a statistical journal? And more over you only know that no one said that they had been argued against in those early works (if there was an equally simple way to even do so). So much click bait just to be sexist.
Because of the thousands of mansplaining letters (including hundreds of sexist/insulting ones) she received from a bunch of idiots who would not have (and had not) tried to explain something incorrectly to an intelligent man on this particular issue when it had come up dozens of times before. I think it was a mix of the media's "marvel" that a woman had the highest IQ, and blatant sexism, along with deep-seated psychological sexism (of which many scientific/statistically sound studies have been published).
+joyCrazy "Vox was hacked, I watched this 5 months ago and the title was originally "The math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians"" except that it had been solved each decade in publications by males and only got push back once a female solved it
That's just biases playing into it though. After 998 doors are opened there's still 2 doors. 1 has a car 1 has a goat. That should be a 50/50 situation. I will never understand this problem lol
@@Jomskylark it's rather about the initial conditions. If there's initially 99 doors with goats behind them and 1 with a car, then you're likely to pick a goat-door 99% of the time. after monty hall open the rest of the doors, you're still 99% likely to have picked a goat from the initial probabilities. If let's say monty halls open the doors before you pick one of the doors, so you have 2 doors 1 with a goat and the other with a car, choosing at that set of conditions make it a 50/50 situation. If you still feel like you don't understand it, I'd recommend reading about the bayesian philosophy and probability, julia galef has a nice video on that.
2/3 options are goats in the first round. 1/2 options are goats in the second round. If you stick with your choice from the first round you have a 66% chance of selecting a goat because when you made your choice originally that was the odds. If you switch in the second round you have increased your odds of selecting the car because there are less options and more information available. Think of it as increasing your 1/3 chance up to a 1/2 chance and suddenly it makes more sense to switch. Your original choice was more likely to be wrong than making a second choice.
Making language more precise? Ridiculous. Why do we need the words 'frosty,' 'chilly,' or 'icy,' when they all essentially mean 'cold.' Less language would be double good.
+Jack Hooper The Orwell reference isn't lost on me, but I don't think it's appropriate in this context. I see this word as a tool being used to create the illusion of an issue that doesn't exist.
Summary is what you chose is probably wrong, plus the fact the host will always reveal another wrong one, further confirming your wrong initial choice, so the remaining is most probably the right one so always switch to that to maximize winning. Best non visual breakdown & explaining further, you only have 1/3 chance of choosing the car door, so switching has a bigger winning rate of 2/3. the host will ALWAYS remove a goat door which gives the change of choice (switching) an additional 1/3 (total of 2/3) compared to your initial choice of 1/3. this solution only works if the host ALWAYS removes a goat door. if the host doesn't open any doors then this will truly be a 1/3 chance of winning regardless if the host asks you to change your choice or not.
I always try to explain the problem by extending it. Instead of assuming three doors with two goats and one car, assume a hundred doors with 99 goats and one car. After picking a door (one chance of one hundred of picking the right one) the show host would open a further 98 doors revealing 98 goats. And now ask if the participant wish to switch door. It's much easier to get an intuitive feel for the odds this way as compared to using just three doors, this despite the question being the same.
No Dias it is not. Marilyn's explanation addressed the exact problem where there are three doors. The thing is, when there are only three doors, the correct answer is somewhat counter-intuitive for many people. If you restructure the problem so it is identical except there are 100 doors, the correct solution becomes intuitively obvious.
+ddebenedictis did you actually *read* Marilyn's explanation in the magazine? it's right on the screen at 2:16 if you pause the video. "Here's a good way to visualize what happened. Suppose there are million doors, and you pick door No.1 ... "
FEMINISM: They want men to be allies. Boyfriends. Or date them in the first place. They can't understand why that doesn't happen... Erm perhaps they should pay attention to reality of how men are demonised by feminism? Oh sorry this is modern feminism Haber isn't it? Reality isn't it's strong suit.
The idiots are the ones who didn’t do their research, right up to 1991 when 7/10 finally agreed. VOX putting “mansplaining” in the title is simple clickbait and sexism in the form of womansplaining.
@@Movies2049 If Vox are so keen to use this gender related click bait and believe in EQUALITY I dare them to do a title and video connecting cancer in women increasing due to womansplaining since most of the victims of the nasty disease are female? You know because they're so WOKE (woke a new form of detaching your brain and getting paid for it).
‘The math problem that stumped thousands of mansplainers’ It’s a video about ‘The math problem’ This particular math problem has more social significance than a lot of math problems because of the backlash Savant received. Personally I think she got such a critical backlash in comparison to the explanations in science/math journals because her response was received by mostly average people. Usually people reading science/math journals are pretty sharp so they read the material, understand it, and move on.
Because despite being correct, and not the first person to come up with the accepted and correct answer, 92% of the responses she received told her she was wrong and stupid, often in sexist ways. This phenomenon wasn't experienced by others who explained the solution, who were all men.
how is it hard for people to understand that ? did they even watch the video till the end ? thanks for your clear answer, i hope a lot of people see it
While we're on the subject of conditional probability, who's more likely to write in, someone who thinks she's wrong, or someone who thinks she's right?
You have a similar issue with Amazon reviews, in that you often find a really polarised set of reviews. The people who loved the product and felt compelled to write a review vs. the people who had a problem and want to be heard. While the majority of people who are somewhere in the middle don't really see the need to write a review or couldn't be bothered.
So you're proving that the title is actually well chosen. However many men that agreed with her and/or but didn't send anything are, by definition, not mansplainers. Especially since she was not even the first, and probably could have pointed to the other men who came to the same conclusion.
CrArbon the video is fine, you clearly had this video in your recommended and came to leave a comment about the title, without watching even a second of the actual video.
well they should at least change the title. whether the video is fine or not (its not as good as other monty hall videos). It doesn't mean the title can be clickbait
This Potato I mean yeah, but the problem had been solved plenty of tomes before. The answer wasn't some mystery they and they alone were uncovering. It was that every answer before hers was accepted, but then she got mail saying that she had to be wrong because she was a woman.
Whenever you go against accepted theory you will get resistance. This is how things are supposed to work. If my accepted theory is wrong you have to prove that you are right for your theory to be accepted. This is the same whether you are a man or a woman. The only difference is that men tend to be less agreeable than women.
Rich She got much more opposition than males before her who had solved this problem. It's a video about how people were slow to accept her cause she was a woman. I don't get what people saying it would happen like this for men and women. They show examples of men being treated diff. with the same answer, and they even show quotes from letters she got that cite her being a woman as the reason she 'must have been wrong'.
So what? People in entrenched positions will use all manner of personal attacks and the approach that you choose to take when trying to convince them of your position will determine the success that you have especially with academics. I'm sure that there was some resistence because she is a woman, but that is only one of thousands of invalid reasons thrown at you when defending a position, especially when going against theories that are universally accepted in academia. I'm not saying that the defensiveness of these people is right, or even productive, but it is predictable and everyone who tries to disprove accepted theories runs into similar issues.
Rich We're in more agreement than I thought, and I'm not saying people don't face opposition regardless of gender. I'm just stating that this problem was solved before on multiple occasions by men, so the answer was known prior to her saying it. She wasn't reinventing the wheel. She was restating fact basically, yet got plenty of gender-based opposition. To simplify my point, I see it as if she said 2+2=4 and people said "No, wrong. You're a women." That's a vast oversimplification and a much more understandable math problem, but this is more or less what I'm seeing.
I'm assuming you also don't understand the Monty Hall problem, huh? Haha, the video was about sexism in math, not the actual problem. Maybe go back to college? Take an English class and learn how to dissect a video title before contributing to more sexism. Funny thing is, this is Vox's video; they can do what they want with it. None of the information was wrong, you just have an issue with what you believe should be relevant, so you whine.
It didn't have anything to do with mansplaining. It was more about pure and simple sexism, where people give more credit to male mathematicians and quickly trust/accept their answers more readily; whereas, female mathematicians are more often criticized and discredited - even if they are correct. See 3:16 for a common sexist statement.
It isn't "dip shits" like Sage that are so easily "triggered", it is feminists that have to use gender specific terms for words that existed before this word "mansplaining". My questions is why are there dipshits still believe feminism is about equality when clearly actions of the movement do not mirror the dictionary definition. Case in point.. Vox
Monty Hall has a 2/3 chance of winning because he "owns" two doors. You only have one door and a 1/3 chance of winning. He opens one of his doors but he still has the same 2/3 chance of winning while you still have your lower 1/3 chance. Better to give Monty your door and the 1/3 odds while you get Monty's 2/3 odds of winning. Now, if Monty had scrambled the items behind the two doors left after the third door was opened, then you would have a 1/2 half of winning.
we do not say 'i'm a woman so i have it bad'. men go through different difficulties than women , women go through different difficulties than men. men have it bad, women have it bad, let's change that by spreading positivity and doing something about issues all genders face
Condescending or patronizing reply to a silly, stupid or unexpected question posed by a female, most often largely attributed to a combination of tone and dumbing down the answer.
The title is 100% on point. If you dont know what mansplaning have to do with the video, you either didnt watch it, or you dont know what mansplaning means.
Victor Lundgren mansplaining is technically sexist against men seeing as how that word groups all men into interrupting women and overpowering them in conversation.
"a bit" Looks like it just showed up in a bunch of people's recommended vids, too (like mine and probably yours), so... thanks, UA-cam. Numberphile has a much better video on the Monty Hall problem.
CHKDSK Depends. If I were to explain why this video isn't sexist, would you actually read and consider what I had to say or call me Presicuck of the Trigger Happy SJW Society?
Hotel July The guy wasn't saying that the video was sexist (though mansplaining is a term than means men interrupting women, which in itself is not sexist, but it's use as almost derogatory is), at the very least the title is
About two weeks ago, this video absolutely exploded, must have gone viral through certain communities. It went from about 20k likes and 20k dislikes to now about 23k and 52k respectively. There have been more comments in the last two weeks than probably the last year before that, and lots of heated debate (or mostly just smug namecalling).
Probably because the video triggered an alt-right snowflake who felt emasculated by the possibility of a woman being smarter than him and started crying about it to his sexually frustrated fap-cave of a following.
The video says that there was "a bit of sexism" at play from the letters received by Marilyn. Nothing more. They did not claim that they were using condescending language because she was a woman, the video TITLE only implies that. If I had not read the title I would have assumed that the main reason there was so much hate, was because of how popular magazine and math problem. And maybe due to the conviction of the writers. Vox just didn't go into much depth about the whole topic of "mansplaining", and focused more o the actual maths problem. It is merely Vox's opinion that these letter writers are "mainsplainers" and personally I didn't feel that that was relevant to the content of the video. I would have preferred something like "a woman with the highest IQ" in the title rather than "mansplainers". It's a little like false advertising (hence the clickbait). That's just how I felt.
You see, Vox is straight up making a couple things up. There was, in fact some sexism at play, yet Vox says that all 10000 letters that they don'y have are all from men.
aConcernedCitizen How about you give statistics on number of men? Also the other two articles with no to little critisism were in math journals, not a damn magazine. Along with that, upset respondents are many times more likely to respond versus those that are satisfied.
the video never says that the thousands of letters were from men, it was probably a mix of women and men, and probably a very very small amount were sexist, especially because Marilyn probably published her article about the problem on a much larger platform compared to the other people
No. It is mathematics, which is short is math. Either you take the first few letters to make an abbreviation, or you take letters from through out the word. You don't take the first four letters and just randomly add the last letter. It isn't like mathematics is plural, it is a word from a foreign language that happens to end in S.
... *_Mr Leotamer5_* In the USA they say *_Math_* in the UK it's *_Maths_* Each is short for Mathematics... Try to make allowance for different cultures - we all know what each of the three versions refers to... late 16th century: plural of obsolete mathematic ‘mathematics’, from Old French mathematique, from Latin (ars) mathematica ‘mathematical (art)’, from Greek mathēmatikē (tekhnē), from the base of manthanein ‘learn’. These days it refers to the study and practise of Numbers. And the MHP is pure and very simple Maths - nothing whatsoever to do with Probability. Here's the simple equation... *_Three 1/3 chances minus the 1/3 chance of the surrendered door equals Two 1/3 chances_* 3 - 1 = 2 - It could not be any simpler...
... of course you're right *_Mr Leotamer5_* Some people will complain about anything - sadly I think that I may be a pedantic complainer too - I should get a life...
+Chris Tully Lol that's because it is stupid. It's just like "totes" or "manspreading" or all the other post-20th century terms that militant feminists created to make our society dumber and our men more effeminate.
It’s simple if you choose a goat first (which is 2/3 of the time) and switch you will always win, if you choose the car (1/3 of the time) and switch you will loose
2/3 of the options given does not conforms with "always wining" statistically. If you do as given, choose a goat first and then switch, then there is a total off only 66.6 % chance of you wining.. (dont forget, there could a car behind the first which is yet unrevealed)
@@mannixneff9108 switching in this game ALWAYS has the effect of giving you the opposite of your first choice. So if your first choice is 2/3's probably goat, then switching is 2/3's probably car.
Here's another way I like to explain the Monty Hall Problem. Let's say you can STAY and keep your door, or you can SWITCH and you win for the other 2 doors. Obviously you'd want to SWITCH for a 2/3 win probability. The fact the host opens a door showing a goat has no effect on the probability--one of the other 2 doors will always have a goat anyway.
+MindYourDecisions _"Let';s say you can STAY and keep your door, or you can SWITCH and you win for _*_the other 2 doors_*_";_ Since the most important aspect of the MHP is that Monty knows where the car is, that statement makes his knowledge irrelevant since you'd still have a 2/3 chance even if Monty didn't know.
+MindYourDecisions Or just put it like this: If your strategy is to STAY, you win if you initially pick the car (1/3 chance), but if your strategy is to SWITCH, you win if you initially pick a goat (2/3 chance).
+MindYourDecisions this problem is very complicated because of how it's described, I've solved various problems and my initial reaction to this one is of course changing doesn't help, and I would be right if it weren't for a key factor, your door CAN'T be opened, you're choosing what door to protect from being opened, believe it or not if the scenario was pick a door and then we're removing a RANDOM door(not a door that the host knows is a goat and also isn't your door) then changing later would be no use. this is more a word problem, a riddle to get you going on the wrong logical path than it is a pure logic/math problem.
Maybe it has less to do with her being a woman, and more to do with the fact that way more people were exposed to her reply in that article than any of the previous publications. Correlation does not imply causation. Stop trying to spin everything to fit your political agenda. Not everything is politics.
Except you can't prove the opposite, -her forebears did not receive much controversy and I don't think any of them were famous for having the world highest IQ -Plenty of the responses were explicitly sexist and not just under the surface because she was a woman you damned apologist!
wait merlin was famous for having the world highest-IQ? in any case you are the one who should prove that not us, you made the claim that she had the world highest-IQ so prove it. (You as in anyone who claimed so) nobody thought she was wrong because she was a woman, they thought she was wrong and USED the fact she was a woman to insult her.
+Jaded Catz - I assume that Johannes was being sarcastic. But sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. After all, Galileo is the more prominent victim of politics in science. +BushidoBrownSama - Actually, their claims were controversial, but received less complaints because they published less well-known publications about them, which clearly were not read by the respondents. Marilyn Vos Savant, on the other hand, was famous, and her assertion has resulted in the Monty Hall problem *remaining* famous.
Yea your right it was a totally different title,I don’t remember the original one but the comments say it was :”the math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians “
@@tiktokstars3646 So, I went on the Wayback Machine because of this comment to December 14, 2015. And to my surprise it does say mansplaining. Weird thing is that so many people remember it saying mathematicians. That is weird.
Maybe vox where one of the first to use that term, or maybe its just been so long ago we forgot how long ago that word was popular, if thats the case man time flys
Strange. I remember when this video first came out with the title: The math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians
Yeah I remember that title too, why'd they change it?
@@systemerror6047 feminists.
Yeah, I feel like the title ruins the video
They changed it to get more clicks. A more controversial title is more interesting to people than stumped mathematicians, sadly.
Mandela effect anybody? - Although I remember that way too
What does this have to do with "mansplaining?"
It's Vox. Gawker-style clickbait trash.
That explained nothing related to the question.
The term "mansplaining" is a sexist term used by feminists to look down at men. However, even the feminists definition of the word don't even apply here.
A. J. West The comments shown in the video was made by the editor of the video. Not something she actually got.
And also, your second statement about men dominate over woman is completely and utterly false. Almost all the cases we hear about, is men dominating women, but that's because those women are either more sensitive than men, or the cases with women dominating over men are seen as weak. I agree that men try to be more than they are, but that is because society forces that upon them. If men aren't strong, they wont be seen as equal.
A. J. West 1, Cause I have actually READ about it and seen the actual comments.
2, are you an idiot? You seriously think everyone are that stupid? Where is your proof what I said is false? Cause there is plenty of proofs what I said to be true.
A. J. West You think I keep a bank with all the links I've ever been on? NO!
And did you just assume I talk over women all the time? How dumb can you get?! You keep making assumption without any valid bases.
And you are slightly wrong there. Due to the way society works, if a man is socially weak, they are looked down upon. This results in them trying everything to gain status, and as a result, some end up talking down to women.
There is nothing in our society that tells us we have to talk down to women, but as a byproduct of something else, we sometimes get that result. I won't deny some men talk down at women, but I also demand that you don't deny the opposite to be true as well. Some women abuse their own gender and abuse men, in such a way that society won't know.
The reason mansplaining shouldn't be an accepted word, is because it tries to make women sound like they are abused more than men, which is not true.
I didn't know vox was buzzfeed.
The simple answer is they are also are Polygon another feminist boondoggle.
sad indeed
Almost worse.. Everything is sexist!
same. we've been tricked
Same... just unsubbed
You should change to the opened door, because thats where the goat is.
Username checks out
Love it!
I agree
Loved it! Hahaahah
Pfp checks out
all of this is nonsense a car can't fit through a door...
"all of this is nonsense a car can't fit through a door..."
Yes it can and they do it all the time. I saw this on the Science Channel, the car is simply stood up on it's ass end, given a quarter turn, then slid through the open door. It's no different than moving a Frigidaire 15.6 cubic foot freezer.
you're just not going fast enough
Wait, your never saw a Car Garage with a Car Door and a people door? I am pretty sure I saw one like that in Scream 1, was used in that Garage Murder.
Well, maybe if it's a Garage Door...
Disassemble the car, bring the parts through the door, reassemble the car...
The person that said she was a goat probably doesn't realize that goat means Greatest Of All Time
now thats G.o.a.t
Wrong. G.O.A.T. is an acronym for Greatest Of All Time. "Goat" is just a ruminant mammal, usually of the genus Capra. Consider yourself mansplained in the usual fashion, namely with accuracy and correctly.
@@gandydancer637 Always that guy that take's the joke way to seriously 😂
@@PeakyPounder12 Suggesting that someone who thinks "mansplaining" is a thing is greatest at anything other than twittishness is a joke, but not a funny one.
Gandydancer r/woosh
I’m not gonna lie I thought the title said “mathsplainers”
That would've been much funnier and less needlessly provocative.
It would’ve made more sense.
It's a better title than "mansplainers".
It doesn’t?
Update: huh...I’m confused now
Oooh. It totally should have said mathsplainers.
and nowadays "You are the GOAT" is recognized as a compliment.
Thanks
Hasn’t it always been? Michael Jordan, Jerry Rice and Gretzky have been called the “GOAT” for a while now
Only in North America. Although Jumped the Shark became international.
I live in Europe and I find it funny when people are calling each other goats. Basketball is not that popular here so it sounds silly
@@zh2266 where in Europe? I've never heard this phrase before. Europe spans from Iceland to Ukraine and as far south as Cyprus, (or according to Eurovision Australia 😂) Me, UK.
3:07 an insult in 2016, a compliment in 2019
not in 2016
@@Thekazekeza lol
You are the goat!
Greatest Of All Time...
Got you :D
>insult in 2016
spotted the newfag
numberphile did a video on this that WASN'T politically oriented
It was also spoken about in the movie "21"
Numberphile is the best math channel on UA-cam
That's because numberphile isn't a bag of every type of cancer
Whats your point?
True. Gamer-kids on youtube on the other hand..
but i want the goat
Sell the car and use the funds to get multiple goats
@@hwoolfe1792 you, sir, are a genius
Hahahahaha
@@Kittysuit Your pfp is a dog...........I don't trust you with a goat
@@randomdude9135 im not a furry if that's what you are implying, im an actual doge. educate yourself bro.
Vox, do you mind explaining the “mansplainers” part
When men pointed out the correct solution they didn't get pushback. When a woman pointed out the correct solution she got thousands of letters personally attacking her. It is hard to not see the sexism at play. Mansplaining (as I understand it) usually refers to to a sexist presumption of women being less intelligent than men.
@@joachimschoder wat
Yaria Samavan Carlan are you mansplaining mansplaining?
Yaria Samavan Carlan what a hoot
@shimmy comment turned to dust
The solution is to bring a gun. When someone asks you if you want to switch doors, show them the gun. Tell them you'd just like the prize. This solution works 100% of the time.
(But also gets you arrested nearly 100% of the time, so yeah, don't try this.)
Well, you could give them goats since that is also a prize
But that may get you shot.
***** 126 people disagree with you. Also, I believe that slur is hyphenated. Do try to use proper English. It'd be a shame if people took you less than seriously.
See? If you didn't care you wouldn't respond at all. Since you are responding, it means you do care about my opinion. And since you've responded so often, you must care quite a great deal about it.
Why is that? Did you mother not love you enough? Or, possibly TOO much? It would make some sense with your preoccupation with others' sexual orientation.
So what's the story, bro?
***** Sorry, I'll keep it shorter this time.
u mad, bro?
The best way I've heard of visualizing this is to imagine that you have 100 doors to choose from. 99 goats and 1 car. You choose door 47. Monty ignores you opens all doors except 47 and 62. What are the odds that your original guess, door 47, was right? Pretty low, obviously - that would be some guess. 1 in 100, to be exact. However, because Monty has to keep the car in the game, that means that 62 now has a 99% chance of being right. Apply the same logic to a 3 door problem, and you see it always makes more sense to switch. It's Monty's 'knowing things', and the futility of your random guesses, that makes it work.
That makes more sense!
The best way I've heard of visualizing this is actually instead of doors it's bees. And then Monty opens all the doors full off bees. And now the room is flooded by bees.
This is so good, thank you!
That is exactly the way my father explained it to me when I was eight years old in 1990 and we read that column in Parade magazine.
Even with this explanation I don’t understand why it’s not now 50/50 chance? Why does door 62 have a higher probability of being the right door. Just because you started out with a 1 in 100 chance doesn’t make door 62 less of a 1 in 100 chance from the beginning. So now you are still at 50/50.
Can we talk about the title? I feel like we need to talk about the title.
Yeah, it’s, interesting for sure
@@sohamdambalkar1602 is it about sexism or the popularity of the problem at the time. It’s not sexist to doubt something you don’t believe
@@wavez4224 so here is the context, there was a math problem, 1 group said the answer was A while the other said the answer was B. All Marilyn did was pick sides. She didn't come up with a new solution at all. I'm not saying that Marilyn wasn't a great person, but this channel is praising her for literally doing nothing because its all about feminism actually more appropriately man-hating.
@@sohamdambalkar1602 they changed it to get clicks
@@sohamdambalkar1602 Of course she didn't come up with a solution, because literally there are two options, door b or door c. She explained her answer and that's the solution, I don't know why it's so hard to understand
The key to understanding the Monty Hall problem: the revealed door is not random...
But maybe it is, because if you happened to choose the door with the car first, then there are 2 doors left, so a random door opens right?
@@samuelvanorshaegen The key is that Monty will NEVER open the door with the car, and MUST open one door. He's providing new information that is statistically significant.
This ☝️
Wait so if the doors was choosen at random and accidentally revealed that a goat was behind the door the probability wouldn't be affected by the reveal?
I don't understand math. This seems unlikely to me.
Can somebody explain to me why the probability of winning the car when switching the door you pick doesn't improve if the goat was revealed by chance instead of intentionally?
@@SamsonGuest I don't really understand the question but I probably wouldn't be able to answer it anyways. But here is a comment that I'm copying because I think this is a good explanation for the problem:
The best way I've heard of visualizing this is to imagine that you have 100 doors to choose from. 99 goats and 1 car. You choose door 47. Monty ignores you opens all doors except 47 and 62. What are the odds that your original guess, door 47, was right? Pretty low, obviously - that would be some guess. 1 in 100, to be exact. However, because Monty has to keep the car in the game, that means that 62 now has a 99% chance of being right. Apply the same logic to a 3 door problem, and you see it always makes more sense to switch. It's Monty's 'knowing things', and the futility of your random guesses, that makes it work.
Wait this is literally just conditional probability, there’s no way this stumped professors...
Well this topic very likely got added to the curriculum after this problem got popularized. The reason you are familiar with it and find it elementary is very likely a result of how polarising the question was
@@kenlinasobirionwu5776 Bayes theorem has been around since the 1700s
@@bsh0e yhea but how long has it been thought in schools?
@@kenlinasobirionwu5776 eh not sure, I probably won't be able to find the answer to that question
Brian Xu, Exactly! I was quite literally asking myself (as a mathematician) "Wait, I thought that basically every mathematician has known Bayes' Theorem for a while now?". It's been around for a while, and even if somehow a mathematician didn't know it, it's basically a requirement for mathematicians to be able to solve basic problems (and you could also just do trivial casework if you didn't want to derive the formula).
But ... What if the contestant WANTED a goat??
You sell the car for multiple goats
Woo free milk!
@theamazingbiff You switch to the door he opened of course c:
@@bakhtyarsayed GOATSSS
That was my immediate thought. There's taxation on prizes won on these games: You'll likely have to liquidate the car anyways, and get maybe 50% of its worth after taxes and sales costs. Maybe. A goat, on the other hand, has much lower taxes since its only a few hundred dollars- you can pay out of pocket. Then, you and your family have a reliable 1.) Source of milk - maybe cheese, if you know how. and 2.) Free lawnmower.
The goat is the practical choice
Why would you switch. Who wouldn't want a goat.
Mallets for dayz FREE CHEESE
It's all the same to me. I would prefer a goat, but a car would make a serviceable chicken shed.
you won the day man
Mallets for dayz Sellvthe car then buy the goats. You'll get more goats that way.
non muslims
Cars provide a steady source of bills. Goats provide a steady source of income.
Pick the open door and retire on the milk alone.
This guy > God
Amen
Thats real wisdom.
The time and money you spend on the goat aren't worth the low income of milk.
(Know it’s a joke, just wanted to post this as a side note) Why is that people always seem to forget to account for the feed and health of animals?
Like, that stuff is expensive.
what's with the clickbait title?
+holzi Reddit and other sites were just discussing this, so I think Vox wants to appeal to them.
+holzi You're a fucking idiot. Media has been "clickbait" since the fucking printing press was invented
+holzi *You butthurt bro?*
+holzi more like chick bait, feminism is such a widely support or burn at the stake idea
+holzi It's not really clickbait. The video is hardly about the Monty Hall problem itself, rather, it's about a woman who got a buttload of sexist hatemail just for giving the correct solution. With that in mind, the title is pretty accurate to the content.
Good video, but never use the word "mansplaining" again.
@@timlester337 oh yeah yeah
oh yeah yeah
"mansplaining" isn't even a word lol
@@KoruGo thanks for showing that infidel his error, PBUH.
Why not? That is exactly what happened to Vos.
Cool story, classic problem, could have done without the sexist title.
True, but how would they have gotten all this extra views without this click bait? I'm a huge conservative so I generally don't like to watch videos from Vox, but this title isn't factually incorrect, nor does it take away from what vox is trying to say. Something sexist happened.
Mansplaining isn't a thing. Men and women are both capable of being condescending jerks. The gendered insult was unhelpful, and does detract from the video in my opinion.
No one else cares except for you and you seemed to have missed the point of the video. Congrats you’re the same as those ten thousand responses mansplaining!
Chill out lmao the title was sexist and unnecessary.They could have just said it stumped a lot of people but they chose that title to try to get extra views and bring up a more controversial topic. I disagree with them using that title as well so they are not the only one.
Probably wasn't sexist to think she was wrong. Would be sexist to say she's wrong because she's a woman, but few people disagree based solely on another person's gender.
Marilyn got more responses because she was famous. She got insulted because her answer was unintuitive.
Bro just listen to which doors the goat sounds are coming from
Meeeeehhh!!!!!
I am not your bro.
@@johnbell3621 chill out bro
That's what I was thinking! How did they get this to work on the gameshow? They must have used pictures of goats and cars to represent what you'd win?
Now you’re speaking my language! 😂
Gee, I wonder if all the dislikes have anything to do with your title.
maybe
Akshay Singh Jamwal sexists get real mad when people point out sexism
Anka isn’t the word “mansplaining” a bit sexist itself?
Anka people get mad when you say sexist things yourself and xou call other people sexist
or maybe have something to do with the content? perhaps a mix out of the two
I manenjoyed manwatching your video. However, I had to manunlike it because of all the extra mantyping I now manhave to mando.
I laughed so hard while reading your post that I almost manured myself!
I manlaughing so much at this. MANLOL
Manthanks for the manlols, fellow male! Now I manshould go to the subway station and manspread on all the seats, like I always mando on every Thursdays!
Csak G does being a man also impede you from using correct grammar? Hm...
Mantastic
3:52 Not entirely correct what you're stating there. It's 8% of RESPONDENTS that believed she was correct, not 8% of READERS. I would assume people are more inclined to respond if they disagree (just like I'm now responding because i disagree with what was stated in the video). You're not getting a fair representation of the population here.
Edit: typo
Yup same thing happens with application ratings only dissatisfied people rate
Stop "mansplaining"!
@@ThePrashu31 Not sure whether you're serious or joking.
If you're serious: It's important to paint a correct picture of the situation. Just because some people are pathetically disagreeing with a woman from a misogynistic point of view, it does not 'allow' Vox to (unintentionally) tell inaccuracies. Always be truthful.
If you're joking: Okay.
@@labadaba5088 I know they tend to lean towards the progressive side, but I'd invoke Hanlon's razor here. I think they're sometimes just sloppy in their use of language.
same with reviews - someones more liekly to leave a bad review if something was wrong, than leave a good review if something was acceptable
Such an unneccesarily aggressive video title
I win a goat or a car, either way its a win win. You can ride either of them, both need a source of fuel, both can keep you warm from the cold, the list is endless.
why isn't this top comment. First funny comment I've seen
I lifted the suspension on my goat and couldn't be happier.
thorr18BEM I riced my goat out with a fart pipe and some stickers for extra goat power
Justin, you're a man. quit mansplaining.
Plus, when you're done, you can't eat a car.
Heres a maths problem:
Mansplaining + in the title = 1:2 dislike ratio
LMAOOOOOOO
Unfortunately for the people who disliked, that only proves their point. Men don't like being told they're wrong by women, even if the woman is right. Especially if the woman is right.
@@yugen isn't it sexist to make a generalization about all men?
@@pxn0199 Absolutely, but my comment was directed at the people who disliked because they were triggered by a word as is clearly stated. If all men disliked this video is would have about 4 billion dislikes.
Dallas Van Winkle See, but dismissing men who disliked the video because of the word mansplaining in the title is very unfair to them. Generalizing all males who dislike the use of mansplaining as “triggered” implies that the are all one track minded, sharing a single reason for disliking the word’s use, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. The term “mansplaining” is sexist in and of itself because it attributes a non gender specific action (condescending equivocation) to a specific gender. Because I don’t want to advocate the usage of sexist terms, I disliked the video because of the hypocrisy of using a word like that. Many other people who I saw in the comment section had different reasons, one that I noted specifically that one didn’t like that Vox had changed the title from “mathematicians” to “mansplainers” in an attempt to get more views at the cost of being hypocritical. My point is, regardless of what gender you are, any kind of large generalization you make about any gender, is sexist. Using generalized, gender specific terms, is sexist. Also, it’s wrong to assume all the dislikers are men. Not saying the majority isn’t men, but obviously it isn’t 100%.
why is mansplaining in the title
The video is still being misleading. It's not reasonable to assume that sexism was the root cause, when all the letters she got are more easily explained by the fact that she ran a high-profile column in a popular magazine, whereas the men who gave the same answers in earlier publications did so in scientific journals and the like, which have much lower readership. I'd even wager that the idea that "no one disagreed" to the earlier answers is unfounded.
watch the video and find out, people wrote sexist letters to marilyn vos savant claiming she was wrong because she was a woman, but when men published the right answers barely anyone disagreed
Desidium Some of the letters she got were sexist, yes. But the video presents no evidence that anyone assumed she was wrong BECAUSE she was a woman. Rather, it seems that FIRST people thought "this is wrong" and THEN attributed it to her gender. With the only other instances of this problem appearing in journals that are obscure to the general population, the problem's appearance in Parade was very likely to be many people's first exposure to it, thus why so many letters were received arguing the answer.
Simul doesn't matter, she received sexist letters, so the title is not wrong. QED
It's not flat-out wrong but it's misleading. The video implies that sexism was a root cause for dissent, but only gives evidence of sexism as a superficial issue that has nothing to do with the crux of the problem. My only guess is that they just wanted a nice buzzword to throw into the title so people would watch the video.
3:05 "You are the goat!"
Isn't that a compliment now?
G.O.A.T. Greatest Of All Time.... So yes.
goat has been used for a really long time
I've heard the term used since the 90's, so.
How does this have anything to do with mansplaining, it’s a math problem that people looked at the easy answer instead of actually thinking of it.
The video is not about the Monty Hall problem, it is about a social issue, discrimination against women in STEM, and the workplace generally. The issue of women not being taken seriously even when they are right, even when they are authorities, even when they are bosses, and men not facing those same difficulties. That's what the title promises and that's what was delivered.
@@scottharrison3454 idk about you, but when I'm dealing with a professional, man or woman, I take their word seriously. I don't care if it's a dude or a girl, I care as long as they know what they're doing.
You can't even criticize a woman's work anymore without being labeled as sexist even though you just genuinely think that there's something wrong with her work.
Scott Harrison the Monty Hall problem has an unintuitive answer, people will question those and they should. Population level sex differences in agreeableness will have a much larger proportion of men doing the questioning but that is hardly sexism.
Watch til the end
that like to dislike ratio tho
lerl person 2/3 are dislikes... maybe the people who liked got the car?
Maybe the people who disliked didn't want an amazing mathematical phenomenon to be used to push leftist agenda?
Tape Eater while I mean they aren't wrong. Thousands of men who believed that women were dumb and men were smart told her she was wrong when she was right
That's not mansplaining. That's just thinking you are right and the other person is wrong. And if we want to get on the topic of mansplaining, using the term "mansplaining" is more sexist than ACTUALLY mansplaining.
lerl person why do you think it’s like that?
wasn't the name of this video "The math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians" ?
So they changed it to mansplianers?
clickbait.
Yeah...
No, not really. The climax of the video pointed out that, because she was a woman, her readers were astonishingly more apt to disagree with her, even though it had been proven many times over by mathematicians who were male. So, to say that this problem stumped mansplainers isn't far from the topic of the video at all.
Raven Del Aguila - Vance Couldn't it just as well said sexist, or misogynistic? Instead of using a, quite frankly idiotic concept favored by SJWs.
It's interesting that whenever someone starts a maths related conversation, they are compelled to add the preamble "I hate math but..." I believe it is a cultural thing. It's tiring to hear it in general, but more so on a vox video.
personally i think that if more people took classes like statistics and economics, more people would realize that math can be fun. some people don't really have a passion for math for math's sake, but once it's math about a topic that interests them, they start to enjoy it.
Comes across like "I'm not one of those losers who likes maths"
Leave it to Vox to turn a math problem into a social justice issue great job guys keep up the great work.
Is this sarcasm? I hope it's sarcasm.
+ShredPenguins no of course he isn't being sarcastic! Math is sexist!
ShredPenguins They spent like half the video talking about the actual math problem and the rest of the video talking about how people thought she was wrong just because she was a woman. They took a math problem and used it as an opportunity to tell me that I, as a man, suck. #mansplained Also 10,000 letters from AROUND THE WHOLE WORLD barely says sexist. 10,000 people is a drop in the ocean.
Apparently, she received more letters than the other (male) mathematicians. Even after it was already proven true multiple times. Plus, this was back in the 1990s before email was a well established communication tool. These were the people with the gall and effort to write in their criticism. Trust me, by today's standards, she would have been trolled in the millions of respondents if she had done this in 2015 (even though you would hope w/ google people would be able to see she was correct; then again, there are still Americans who believe Obama is a muslim...)
Bilal Jones He was born to a Muslim father I'm pretty sure, I know his father walked out but it is entirely possible that he was a member of the Islamic faith very early in his life... Of course whatever the case may be, he's not Muslim anymore
There's an easy way to realize you should switch every time.
If you pick door 1 and without showing you any other doors Monty says to EVERY CONTESTANT no matter which door you picked: "Would you like to keep door number 1, or take the combination of both 2 and 3?", no one would think twice: you'd take both doors 2 and 3 because you have 2/3 chance of winning the car.
Well that's precisely why you switch every time you are asked: he's showing you ONE of the two other doors and then asks you if you want the OTHER one of those two doors - or, as I said: "do you want your door, or the other two doors instead?"
This is brilliant.
This is the most intuitive way of explaining it. Thanks!
I get what you're saying, but you could also look at it as choosing door 1, being given door 2 (you've got 2/3 of the doors now), then asked if you'd like to switch door 1 with door 3.
ItsAlleged You weren't given door 2 - you're being ASKED if you want door 2 and 3, and until you say "yes", you don't yet have door 2.
So it's as I said: do you want door 1, which you picked, or would you rather have 2 and 3, one of which I've just shown you.
A better explanation that shows greater probability is...1000 doors. 999 of them hide goats, and 1 hides a car. You pick 1 door, hoping to pick the car. Monty then shows you 998 goats leaving 2 doors. Do you think you picked a car or a goat?
Math problem:
1:2 dislike ratio
Adolf Hitler ok hitler
@DUNT if 1 in 3 people change their answer, what would the totals be?
@DUNT you said it backwards
are you one of those "neo nazis" that vox keeps rattling on about
You likely know, but it probably has a bad like:dislike ratio because it had the word mansplainers for no reason.
Alright, which genius at vox decided to silently change this title to be a bit more derogatory?
Fax
how is that derogatory? lol
Ooh. Look. Conservatives getting offended by little things. I thought you said only libs did that.
@@eugenelubbock5478 conservative? I'm an active progressive socialist. Not everyone who disagrees with vox's clickbaity business practices is some whining conservative; Perhaps it would be smart to use your head.
@@sebastyann123 derogatory means "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude". I'm not saying the term mansplainer is unjustified here, or claiming it's some kind of sexist term; but it is being used for inflammatory baiting of hate clicks.
The video would have been worthwhile without the bogus claim of "mansplaining." The columnist drew attention from those who disagreed simply because more people saw the column.
*****
No, a claim of "mansplaining" can never be the truth. It's a term feminists made up to shame men.
*****
I see you are using a red herring. The claim of "mansplaining" cannot be "bringing up the truth."
*****
"i'm not using a red herring. "
Of course you are. Whether any men have invented words to shame women is not relevant to the topic of whether "mansplaining" is a term invented in order to shame men. It can, therefore, only be a red herring.
"Mansplaining is a valid term because men feel the need to do it all the time."
Well feminists claim that. But feminists lie. In actual practice, feminists will claim that anything they don't want to hear (if coming from a man) is "mansplaining." It is a term used to shame and silence, nothing more. It used to be a lot more effective. But now more people see it for what it is.
+Musqiclover1234 "because men feel the need to do it all the time" couldn't you be more sexist?
*****
If you don't care, perhaps you should not have written to begin with. To claim that "mansplaining" is somehow a legitimate term is to invite criticism.
If they reveal the goat, can I change my pick to the revealed goat?
Lmao the only good comment in this section
😂😂😂
Omg nice pfp uwu
@@zzzfjord2688 never speak again
Joseph Fitz :(
There are hundreds of other videos on UA-cam that explain the Monty Hall Problem better that don't have a sexist or clickbait title. Don't bother watching this.
The video isn't about the monty hall problem or explaining it, that's a side not. They could have not given the answer at all This is a video about society, it's easy to tell.
@@scottharrison3454 so just propaganda and political agendas. Rubbish
Lul soyboy squad here crying because of one word.
Jesus Christ men are so whiny
@@hellomimibanana stfu
Since there is one winning and two losing doors, when picking a door there is one chance of winning and two of losing. Or 1/3 winning and 2/3 losing.
Switch door chances:
1) you pick the right door (car), you switch and lose
2) you pick the wrong door (goat 1), Monty opens the goat 2 door, you switch and win
3) you pick the wrong door (goat 2), Monty opens the goat 1 door, you switch and win
So, by switching, you have 2 chances of winning and 1 of losing (or 2/3 winning and 1/3 losing).
Keep door chances:
1) you pick the right door (car), you keep and win
2) you pick the wrong door (goat 1), Monty opens the goat 2 door, you keep and lose
3) you pick the wrong door (goat 2), Monty opens the goat 1 door, you keep and lose
So, by keeping, you have 1 chance of winning and 2 of losing (or 1/3 winning and 2/3 losing).
So tell me 1) you pick the right door (car), you switch and lose
there's two scenarios with switching to goat 1 and losing and switching to goat 2 and losing
1) you pick the right door (car), you keep and win
there's two scenarios with picking car and host reveals goat 1
picking car and host reveals goat 2
@@MrLuffy9131
Let's say you roll a dice.
If you get 1 or 2, you win.
If you get 3 or 4, you lose.
If you get 5 or 6, you roll again, any number = you win.
What is your winning chance?
M: Here are all the possible scenarios.
M: 1 win
M: 2 win
M: 3 lose
M: 4 lose
M: 5 - 1 win
M: 5 - 2 win
M: 5 - 3 win
M: 5 - 4 win
M: 5 - 5 win
M: 5 - 6 win
M: 6 - 1 win
M: 6 - 2 win
M: 6 - 3 win
M: 6 - 4 win
M: 6 - 5 win
M: 6 - 6 win
M: There are 14 scenarios that I win so my winning chance is 14/16 = 87.5%.
M: But since I will always win if my first roll is 1 2 5 or 6 and lose if it is 3 or 4, my winning chance is also 2/3 = 66.67%.
M: I just proved that 87.5 = 66.7
M: I am a genius. Hoooraaay!!!
M's parents: Hoooraaay!!!
@@Araqius nice
Schrodinger wants to know if the goat will be alive or dead?
I've been seeking for someone like you, ekhm sorry like me
Hahahahaha
thinking bout it... this is awfully close to Schrodingers cat
Half dead half alive you know
@@anonymous-vg7kc not half, *both* dead and alive
Nice, BuzzFeed 2
Woman explains Mansplaining
Is she Womansplaining?
We have a word for womansplaining, nagging.
Yes.
yes
@@sonacphotos my mom says the same
@@sonacphotos *whispering* I think you're already there.
If you remove mansplaining from the title you will have way more positive ratings.
But way fewer clicks.
Another Made Up Internet Subculture
best user name ever.
+Another Made Up Internet Subculture
People who want good ratings :^)
Rodentsnipe good ratings are not profitable now.
Rodentsnipe They kinda want to, though. UA-cam doesn't reward positive like-bandwagon content as it used to. Now it favours "engaging" content. And engagement is easily obtained by controversy and a disparity of likes and dislikes. So I'd say insulting 50% of the population is indeed a viable to cash in.
You have a 2/3 chance of choosing a goat at first. If you do, Monty shows you the other goat, so by switching, you get the car.
-sees like to dislike ratio
*_10 Greatest Backfires in History_*
Appeal to authority. Also, video was about sexism in STEM NOT maths.
It supposed to be ironic, since it's a 1/3 to 2/3 ratio
ShotgunLlama vox is thanking them for increasing engagement with their comments and clicks 😸
I think that loads of dislikes are not because of the video, but because of the sexism in the story.
ShotgunLlama If you think this is bad look at UA-cam Rewind 2018
If I can still bring home the goat I selected, I've already won regardless of choice.
In Pakistan, it's reversed; two cars, one goat.
Ye man, it's like havin a not too ugly daughter, kinda like a lottery win eh? Too funny
That has nothing to do with maths
exactly!
You think Parade Magazine has the same readership as a statistical journal? And more over you only know that no one said that they had been argued against in those early works (if there was an equally simple way to even do so). So much click bait just to be sexist.
Oh come on this is everywhere. How does this stump “mansplainers” more than anyone else?
Because of the thousands of mansplaining letters (including hundreds of sexist/insulting ones) she received from a bunch of idiots who would not have (and had not) tried to explain something incorrectly to an intelligent man on this particular issue when it had come up dozens of times before. I think it was a mix of the media's "marvel" that a woman had the highest IQ, and blatant sexism, along with deep-seated psychological sexism (of which many scientific/statistically sound studies have been published).
Vox was hacked, I watched this 5 months ago and the title was originally "The math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians"
There is a comment from 1 years ago saying "wtf is a mansplainer", stop lying JoyCrazy...
the problem is that mansplainers had it explained to them and *REFUSED* to accept the explanation for years because it came from a woman
+joyCrazy "Vox was hacked, I watched this 5 months ago and the title was originally "The math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians""
except that it had been solved each decade in publications by males and only got push back once a female solved it
It's quite intuitive if you think of it being 100 doors, you pick one and monty hall opens 98 doors. Then most people would switch.
That's just biases playing into it though. After 998 doors are opened there's still 2 doors. 1 has a car 1 has a goat. That should be a 50/50 situation. I will never understand this problem lol
@@Jomskylark it's rather about the initial conditions. If there's initially 99 doors with goats behind them and 1 with a car, then you're likely to pick a goat-door 99% of the time. after monty hall open the rest of the doors, you're still 99% likely to have picked a goat from the initial probabilities.
If let's say monty halls open the doors before you pick one of the doors, so you have 2 doors 1 with a goat and the other with a car, choosing at that set of conditions make it a 50/50 situation.
If you still feel like you don't understand it, I'd recommend reading about the bayesian philosophy and probability, julia galef has a nice video on that.
@@safouenelejmi3650 that actually explained it really well, thank you !
2/3 options are goats in the first round.
1/2 options are goats in the second round.
If you stick with your choice from the first round you have a 66% chance of selecting a goat because when you made your choice originally that was the odds. If you switch in the second round you have increased your odds of selecting the car because there are less options and more information available.
Think of it as increasing your 1/3 chance up to a 1/2 chance and suddenly it makes more sense to switch. Your original choice was more likely to be wrong than making a second choice.
Good explanation. I want to play that version so I can be almost certain I will get a free car.
Pretty sure ¨You are the goat" is a compliment
lmao
actually could have been
G reatest
O f
A ll
T ime
Nah, LL's album dropped in the year 2000
lmfao
Mansplainers? Come on, you aren't buzzfeed.
yes they are
Sam M Buzzfeed's older sister.
Then unsubscribed they are.
+Just a Tiger thing triggered?
Mansplaining...? We already have a word for this: condecension. There is no reason to replace this with something gender-specific.
+Kristopher Tope WOW! that really is sexist.... i gotta go to my safe space now.....
+Kristopher Tope Well, it's a special, particular kind of condescension. There is nothing wrong about making language more precise.
Making language more precise? Ridiculous.
Why do we need the words 'frosty,' 'chilly,' or 'icy,' when they all essentially mean 'cold.'
Less language would be double good.
+Jack Hooper The Orwell reference isn't lost on me, but I don't think it's appropriate in this context. I see this word as a tool being used to create the illusion of an issue that doesn't exist.
Kristopher Tope An issue that doesn't exist for *you*. Look beyond your own limited horizon and develop some empathy.
Summary is what you chose is probably wrong, plus the fact the host will always reveal another wrong one, further confirming your wrong initial choice, so the remaining is most probably the right one so always switch to that to maximize winning.
Best non visual breakdown & explaining further, you only have 1/3 chance of choosing the car door, so switching has a bigger winning rate of 2/3. the host will ALWAYS remove a goat door which gives the change of choice (switching) an additional 1/3 (total of 2/3) compared to your initial choice of 1/3. this solution only works if the host ALWAYS removes a goat door. if the host doesn't open any doors then this will truly be a 1/3 chance of winning regardless if the host asks you to change your choice or not.
I always try to explain the problem by extending it. Instead of assuming three doors with two goats and one car, assume a hundred doors with 99 goats and one car. After picking a door (one chance of one hundred of picking the right one) the show host would open a further 98 doors revealing 98 goats. And now ask if the participant wish to switch door. It's much easier to get an intuitive feel for the odds this way as compared to using just three doors, this despite the question being the same.
there is no spoon
Good point. "Extreme case" is often the best way to envision a solution to problems.
and this exactly how Marilyn explained it in the magazine. look at 2:15
No Dias it is not. Marilyn's explanation addressed the exact problem where there are three doors. The thing is, when there are only three doors, the correct answer is somewhat counter-intuitive for many people. If you restructure the problem so it is identical except there are 100 doors, the correct solution becomes intuitively obvious.
+ddebenedictis did you actually *read* Marilyn's explanation in the magazine? it's right on the screen at 2:16 if you pause the video.
"Here's a good way to visualize what happened. Suppose there are million doors, and you pick door No.1 ... "
Mansplaining? Math problem? Whaaat?
Well the video isn't about math. It's about a kind of discrimination. Which you should have been able to tell from the title of the video.......
FEMINISM: They want men to be allies. Boyfriends. Or date them in the first place.
They can't understand why that doesn't happen... Erm perhaps they should pay attention to reality of how men are demonised by feminism?
Oh sorry this is modern feminism Haber isn't it? Reality isn't it's strong suit.
@@davidaston5773 a wild incel has appeared!
The idiots are the ones who didn’t do their research, right up to 1991 when 7/10 finally agreed. VOX putting “mansplaining” in the title is simple clickbait and sexism in the form of womansplaining.
@@Movies2049 If Vox are so keen to use this gender related click bait and believe in EQUALITY I dare them to do a title and video connecting cancer in women increasing due to womansplaining since most of the victims of the nasty disease are female?
You know because they're so WOKE (woke a new form of detaching your brain and getting paid for it).
It's just basic probability analysis. Wtf does this have to do with mansplaining?
John Ming nothing it was clickbait
John Ming Half of the video is about the results of the problem and not the problem
‘The math problem that stumped thousands of mansplainers’
It’s a video about ‘The math problem’
This particular math problem has more social significance than a lot of math problems because of the backlash Savant received.
Personally I think she got such a critical backlash in comparison to the explanations in science/math journals because her response was received by mostly average people. Usually people reading science/math journals are pretty sharp so they read the material, understand it, and move on.
Because despite being correct, and not the first person to come up with the accepted and correct answer, 92% of the responses she received told her she was wrong and stupid, often in sexist ways. This phenomenon wasn't experienced by others who explained the solution, who were all men.
how is it hard for people to understand that ? did they even watch the video till the end ? thanks for your clear answer, i hope a lot of people see it
Seriously, the anger over the title and the deslikes... funny how much it bothers you
obviously since it needs a certain level of logical capacity that you can't because of your hormonal fluctuations
There’s a reason it’s a 1:2 dislike ratio
Sure is! I'd wager we wouldn't agree on that reason, though 😉
The reason is that so many male snowflakes got triggered by this video. Some men just need to stay in their safe spaces.
@@Degan1000 yeah "snowflakes". Whatever buddy
@@Degan1000 exactly, so stay in your safe place 😁
I think that loads of dislikes are not because of the video, but because of the sexism in the story.
While we're on the subject of conditional probability, who's more likely to write in, someone who thinks she's wrong, or someone who thinks she's right?
AWWW SNAP
Good point
You have a similar issue with Amazon reviews, in that you often find a really polarised set of reviews. The people who loved the product and felt compelled to write a review vs. the people who had a problem and want to be heard. While the majority of people who are somewhere in the middle don't really see the need to write a review or couldn't be bothered.
So you're proving that the title is actually well chosen. However many men that agreed with her and/or but didn't send anything are, by definition, not mansplainers. Especially since she was not even the first, and probably could have pointed to the other men who came to the same conclusion.
It's absolutely not that people wrote in, it's only the certain men who wrote in saying "women's logic" and "women can't do math".
Fighting sexism with sexism, great idea Vox.
CrArbon the video is fine, you clearly had this video in your recommended and came to leave a comment about the title, without watching even a second of the actual video.
what's sexist about this video?
well they should at least change the title. whether the video is fine or not (its not as good as other monty hall videos). It doesn't mean the title can be clickbait
+JackFou The fact that they use "stumped thousands of mansplainers" in the title? That's both sexist and clickbait
Modus
obvious troll is obvious
unless you are serious
then i honestly feel bad for you
Now this title is something else.
Putting 'Mansplainers' in the title gets more views from angry people and feminists...Sneaky Vox. Very sneaky...
i was just questioning that clickbait title
The like/dislike ratio shows otherwise
J D Wrong. They’re just very retarded.
I like how they gave us what we came for, the answer, then made the video a women's rights issue
This Potato I mean yeah, but the problem had been solved plenty of tomes before. The answer wasn't some mystery they and they alone were uncovering. It was that every answer before hers was accepted, but then she got mail saying that she had to be wrong because she was a woman.
Whenever you go against accepted theory you will get resistance. This is how things are supposed to work. If my accepted theory is wrong you have to prove that you are right for your theory to be accepted. This is the same whether you are a man or a woman. The only difference is that men tend to be less agreeable than women.
Rich She got much more opposition than males before her who had solved this problem. It's a video about how people were slow to accept her cause she was a woman. I don't get what people saying it would happen like this for men and women. They show examples of men being treated diff. with the same answer, and they even show quotes from letters she got that cite her being a woman as the reason she 'must have been wrong'.
So what? People in entrenched positions will use all manner of personal attacks and the approach that you choose to take when trying to convince them of your position will determine the success that you have especially with academics. I'm sure that there was some resistence because she is a woman, but that is only one of thousands of invalid reasons thrown at you when defending a position, especially when going against theories that are universally accepted in academia. I'm not saying that the defensiveness of these people is right, or even productive, but it is predictable and everyone who tries to disprove accepted theories runs into similar issues.
Rich We're in more agreement than I thought, and I'm not saying people don't face opposition regardless of gender. I'm just stating that this problem was solved before on multiple occasions by men, so the answer was known prior to her saying it. She wasn't reinventing the wheel. She was restating fact basically, yet got plenty of gender-based opposition. To simplify my point, I see it as if she said 2+2=4 and people said "No, wrong. You're a women." That's a vast oversimplification and a much more understandable math problem, but this is more or less what I'm seeing.
finally something on vox I knew from before
I guesses what it would be from looking at the title..... AND I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!!
no sorry, it was mythbusters did an episode on it. lol
I did this in maths in year 7
Same
Just saw the title. Moving to a different video.
Jokes on you, I’ll take the Goat rather than the car
ikr, you can feed and breed them then sell them for more
bakojj_ lol bruh!!!!!!
I had a goat for 1 month and for God's sake it's an actual nigjtmare
Car take you to point A to Point B
@@malikfaisal416 lets be honest with ourselves, you play minecraft
"thousands of mansplainers" why was mansplainers necessary this is a math problem
Who says there's real sexism in the math field? Pay attention.
did you watch the video? it was mainly about the condescending sexist letters she got from men, these letters are shown in the video at about 3:19
did you watch the video
I'm assuming you also don't understand the Monty Hall problem, huh? Haha, the video was about sexism in math, not the actual problem. Maybe go back to college? Take an English class and learn how to dissect a video title before contributing to more sexism. Funny thing is, this is Vox's video; they can do what they want with it. None of the information was wrong, you just have an issue with what you believe should be relevant, so you whine.
It's just clickbait. That's why it is in the title.
what did this have to do with mansplaining?
absolutely nothing.
Vox are leftists so there trying to prove a point but it’s just stupid
The bit about them not saying anything when men said it
It didn't have anything to do with mansplaining. It was more about pure and simple sexism, where people give more credit to male mathematicians and quickly trust/accept their answers more readily; whereas, female mathematicians are more often criticized and discredited - even if they are correct. See 3:16 for a common sexist statement.
then why add "mansplainers" in the title
im 13 years old and the second the problem was presented i got the correct answer
Most likely because you understand that the common denominator is and REMAINS three.
lmao the clickbait
Why is mansplaining in the title
why not? you want a spanish word instead?
Cuz clicks
3:11 that's why.
Jeez, these women and their endless womansplaining :D
Because of the different attitudes towards her vs towards the man who posed the same solution.
did you just womansplain maths to me?
this should be the top comment!!!!
So true
they tend to ovary-act
Sage Maneja why are dipshits like took so easily triggered
It isn't "dip shits" like Sage that are so easily "triggered", it is feminists that have to use gender specific terms for words that existed before this word "mansplaining".
My questions is why are there dipshits still believe feminism is about equality when clearly actions of the movement do not mirror the dictionary definition.
Case in point.. Vox
Monty Hall has a 2/3 chance of winning because he "owns" two doors. You only have one door and a 1/3 chance of winning. He opens one of his doors but he still has the same 2/3 chance of winning while you still have your lower 1/3 chance. Better to give Monty your door and the 1/3 odds while you get Monty's 2/3 odds of winning. Now, if Monty had scrambled the items behind the two doors left after the third door was opened, then you would have a 1/2 half of winning.
That problem was so hard! I had to ask my wife’s boyfriend
XD
Wat
Oh. What did he tell?
Yep same with my wife's son
*wait*
So... Criticizing a woman is mansplaining?
To a feminist, everything is mansplaining.
Don't you know the default is "I'm a woman so I have it bad"?
we do not say 'i'm a woman so i have it bad'. men go through different difficulties than women , women go through different difficulties than men. men have it bad, women have it bad, let's change that by spreading positivity and doing something about issues all genders face
Then why call it *F E M I N I S M*
void* it's called feminism because we are simply trying to raise women to the same level as men so we are equal
Mauatua Naomi you are already equal.
wtf is a mansplainer
Condescending or patronizing reply to a silly, stupid or unexpected question posed by a female, most often largely attributed to a combination of tone and dumbing down the answer.
AvangionQ man oh man this society is going crazy..
jake dean talking to me?
TheBlackJacksItalia No, to AvangionQ
jake dean Wasn't expecting trolling over defining a term. This isn't even worthy of a reply, except to say post muted ...
The title is 100% on point.
If you dont know what mansplaning have to do with the video, you either didnt watch it, or you dont know what mansplaning means.
Great video but reallyyyyy had to put mansplaining in the title?????
yes
Maybe. I don't know
Can you repeat the question?
Pingu 1986 fuc u
Victor Lundgren mansplaining is technically sexist against men seeing as how that word groups all men into interrupting women and overpowering them in conversation.
To get you to click. An angry view gives them the same add revenue as happy.
Who thinks the title is a bit sexist?
EDIT: wow thanks for the likes i feel special for once in my life....
"a bit" Looks like it just showed up in a bunch of people's recommended vids, too (like mine and probably yours), so... thanks, UA-cam. Numberphile has a much better video on the Monty Hall problem.
Dortax just you and a few other delicate flowers on here I think
Hotel July can't tell if you're a libtard or baiting
CHKDSK Depends. If I were to explain why this video isn't sexist, would you actually read and consider what I had to say or call me Presicuck of the Trigger Happy SJW Society?
Hotel July The guy wasn't saying that the video was sexist (though mansplaining is a term than means men interrupting women, which in itself is not sexist, but it's use as almost derogatory is), at the very least the title is
Why are so many top comments from 2-3 days ago when this video is almost 2 years old?
About two weeks ago, this video absolutely exploded, must have gone viral through certain communities. It went from about 20k likes and 20k dislikes to now about 23k and 52k respectively. There have been more comments in the last two weeks than probably the last year before that, and lots of heated debate (or mostly just smug namecalling).
FactHub, It popped up in my recommended just like how I'm sure it did in yours too
FactHub It's the UA-cam algo's ..no one knows why the algo's do what they do, but to me, it seems the algo's want a sex-war!
Probably because the video triggered an alt-right snowflake who felt emasculated by the possibility of a woman being smarter than him and started crying about it to his sexually frustrated fap-cave of a following.
NotYowBusiness becouse only mainplainers get stumped by this... wait
Vox is turning into buzzfeed
Either vox is over estimating the definition of "mansplaining" or this is clickbait...
Niamh O'SS their clickbait turned out poorly for them. the dislike to like ratio is around 2:1, and rightly so
The video says that there was "a bit of sexism" at play from the letters received by Marilyn. Nothing more. They did not claim that they were using condescending language because she was a woman, the video TITLE only implies that. If I had not read the title I would have assumed that the main reason there was so much hate, was because of how popular magazine and math problem. And maybe due to the conviction of the writers. Vox just didn't go into much depth about the whole topic of "mansplaining", and focused more o the actual maths problem. It is merely Vox's opinion that these letter writers are "mainsplainers" and personally I didn't feel that that was relevant to the content of the video. I would have preferred something like "a woman with the highest IQ" in the title rather than "mansplainers". It's a little like false advertising (hence the clickbait). That's just how I felt.
they tried to change it to a gender issue
You see, Vox is straight up making a couple things up. There was, in fact some sexism at play, yet Vox says that all 10000 letters that they don'y have are all from men.
aConcernedCitizen How about you give statistics on number of men? Also the other two articles with no to little critisism were in math journals, not a damn magazine. Along with that, upset respondents are many times more likely to respond versus those that are satisfied.
What do mansplainers have to do with this????
Vox is feminist, they hate men.. so they use "mansplaining" to prove it.
I'm curious ... why do you think feminists hate men?
the video never says that the thousands of letters were from men, it was probably a mix of women and men, and probably a very very small amount were sexist, especially because Marilyn probably published her article about the problem on a much larger platform compared to the other people
why is the word mansplainers in the video title, does it mean something else? is it just clickbait then?
maybe they just thought she was wrong because it happens to stump everyone
It didn't spare captain holt and Kevin too😂😂😂
Came for this comment
@@JohnnoNonno me too ahahahah
Tell me why
Tell me why
@@kmshadowboy125 ain't nothing but a heart ache !
Wait a minute. This video had a different name back then.
There isn't any reason to have mansplaining in the title
except for accuracy
Nice click bait title.
how are you this disappointed that it wasn't more sexist?
jesus christ why the title... its maths...
And very simple maths too...
3 - 1 = 2
Not difficult...
Three doors - less the rejected door - equals two doors - each with a 1/3 chance...
No. It is mathematics, which is short is math. Either you take the first few letters to make an abbreviation, or you take letters from through out the word. You don't take the first four letters and just randomly add the last letter. It isn't like mathematics is plural, it is a word from a foreign language that happens to end in S.
... *_Mr Leotamer5_* In the USA they say *_Math_* in the UK it's *_Maths_*
Each is short for Mathematics... Try to make allowance for different cultures - we all know what each of the three versions refers to...
late 16th century: plural of obsolete mathematic ‘mathematics’, from Old French mathematique, from Latin (ars) mathematica ‘mathematical (art)’, from Greek mathēmatikē (tekhnē), from the base of manthanein ‘learn’.
These days it refers to the study and practise of Numbers.
And the MHP is pure and very simple Maths - nothing whatsoever to do with Probability.
Here's the simple equation...
*_Three 1/3 chances minus the 1/3 chance of the surrendered door equals Two 1/3 chances_*
3 - 1 = 2 - It could not be any simpler...
He was being a cultural elitist, so I was explaining why he is objectively wrong.
... of course you're right *_Mr Leotamer5_*
Some people will complain about anything - sadly I think that I may be a pedantic complainer too - I should get a life...
This is the best explanation of the game I've heard... 'forced to reveal a goat' is way better than most people's 'opens a door to reveal a goat'
*_I M S O R R Y I H A V E A P A I R O F B A L L S._*
Stop manapologising.
_Ionastic_ you're forgiven.
A L L G A M ER S A R E L O S E R S
How did you get that bold font into the comment section?
Instead of apologizing for nothing, how about admit that you're often overconfident in your own abilities?
What's a mansplainer
+Chris Tully
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mansplaining
+Chris Tully A feminist word for "pig-headed, stupid man".
EE It feels stupid coming off my tongue
+Chris Tully Lol that's because it is stupid. It's just like "totes" or "manspreading" or all the other post-20th century terms that militant feminists created to make our society dumber and our men more effeminate.
+Chris Tully ...it's a term used to describe male behaviour, but aimed at shaming them for being men.
It’s simple if you choose a goat first (which is 2/3 of the time) and switch you will always win, if you choose the car (1/3 of the time) and switch you will loose
Lauren Campbell- Smith yeah, it’s quite easy, weird how people didn’t get it
2/3 of the options given does not conforms with "always wining" statistically. If you do as given, choose a goat first and then switch, then there is a total off only 66.6 % chance of you wining.. (dont forget, there could a car behind the first which is yet unrevealed)
makes a lot more sense explained this way
Mannix Neff because you pick your original choice before it becomes 50/50.
@@mannixneff9108 switching in this game ALWAYS has the effect of giving you the opposite of your first choice. So if your first choice is 2/3's probably goat, then switching is 2/3's probably car.
Nice title change to appeal to a wider demographic
Here's another way I like to explain the Monty Hall Problem. Let's say you can STAY and keep your door, or you can SWITCH and you win for the other 2 doors. Obviously you'd want to SWITCH for a 2/3 win probability.
The fact the host opens a door showing a goat has no effect on the probability--one of the other 2 doors will always have a goat anyway.
yeah but your initial chance still differs
+MindYourDecisions
_"Let';s say you can STAY and keep your door, or you can SWITCH and you win for _*_the other 2 doors_*_";_
Since the most important aspect of the MHP is that Monty knows where the car is, that statement makes his knowledge irrelevant since you'd still have a 2/3 chance even if Monty didn't know.
+MindYourDecisions Or just put it like this: If your strategy is to STAY, you win if you initially pick the car (1/3 chance), but if your strategy is to SWITCH, you win if you initially pick a goat (2/3 chance).
Exactly. The old odds are no longer relevant.
+MindYourDecisions this problem is very complicated because of how it's described, I've solved various problems and my initial reaction to this one is of course changing doesn't help, and I would be right if it weren't for a key factor, your door CAN'T be opened, you're choosing what door to protect from being opened, believe it or not if the scenario was pick a door and then we're removing a RANDOM door(not a door that the host knows is a goat and also isn't your door) then changing later would be no use.
this is more a word problem, a riddle to get you going on the wrong logical path than it is a pure logic/math problem.
Maybe it has less to do with her being a woman, and more to do with the fact that way more people were exposed to her reply in that article than any of the previous publications. Correlation does not imply causation. Stop trying to spin everything to fit your political agenda. Not everything is politics.
Except you can't prove the opposite,
-her forebears did not receive much controversy and I don't think any of them were famous for having the world highest IQ
-Plenty of the responses were explicitly sexist and not just under the surface because she was a woman
you damned apologist!
Yea cause previous male scientists never had to deal with any kind of rejection or discrimination...
wait merlin was famous for having the world highest-IQ?
in any case you are the one who should prove that not us, you made the claim that she had the world highest-IQ so prove it. (You as in anyone who claimed so)
nobody thought she was wrong because she was a woman, they thought she was wrong and USED the fact she was a woman to insult her.
yo jonhannes
uuhh heard of Ignaz Semmelweis
+Jaded Catz - I assume that Johannes was being sarcastic. But sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. After all, Galileo is the more prominent victim of politics in science.
+BushidoBrownSama - Actually, their claims were controversial, but received less complaints because they published less well-known publications about them, which clearly were not read by the respondents. Marilyn Vos Savant, on the other hand, was famous, and her assertion has resulted in the Monty Hall problem *remaining* famous.
Didn't the title never mention mansplaining, I think It didn't originally.
Yea your right it was a totally different title,I don’t remember the original one but the comments say it was :”the math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians “
There was a comment made 4 years ago asking what this had to do with mansplainers
@@tiktokstars3646 So, I went on the Wayback Machine because of this comment to December 14, 2015. And to my surprise it does say mansplaining. Weird thing is that so many people remember it saying mathematicians. That is weird.
Maybe vox where one of the first to use that term, or maybe its just been so long ago we forgot how long ago that word was popular, if thats the case man time flys
@@tiktokstars3646 could be, or the mandela effect which may or may not be real.
What’s missing from the statistics about who believed her is percentages of men vs women.