Hacker News Reader

Comment by masswerk | Hacker News Reader

This is actually a good example for a problem where simulation does exceedingly help in gaining insight. I once did a webpage [1] comprising both logic and simulation to sort out a dispute. (The debating parties each had a PHD in philosophy, implying some courses in logic absolved – which apparently didn't help much with the specific problem.)

[1] https://www.masswerk.at/misc/montyhall/

View on HN

The key aspect, I think, is in writing the simulation oneself. At one point, I was attempting to explain the Monty Hall problem, and wrote a simulation out of frustration. It failed to convince the other person, who accused me of subverting the simulation such that it would give the answer that I wanted.

I'm wondering if gambling would be a good way to go about it. Start with $10 each, and alternate who plays the "host" of Monty Hall. One person is only allowed to switch, and another is only allowed to stay. For each correct answer, take $1 from the other person.

Hmm, maybe to sweeten the deal, the person who switches gets $2 for a win, but the person who stays gets $3. That way, it would show that even with 50% better payout, it doesn't overcome the 2x difference in odds.

That is true, if is only convincing for people who can understand the code.

I don't think I'm a sociopath, but often I use monte-carlo or agent based simulations to help me understand what happens, because writing and running the code is simpler (for me) than closed form analytic solutions. IF I then need to convince others, I guess I can do the closed-form solution (based on the prior intuition), but since I don't really care whether anyone agrees with me or not (I go develop 'engines' in my corner of "the system"), I guess their opinion is immaterial to my/group/company progress?

Do you think that agent-based computational simulations (say of micro-economics bubbling into creating emergent macro-economics) are ever used in debates?

Don't sweeten the deal. With the regular odds, after 12 games you will only be ahead ~61% of the time. You have to play a larger number of games to be relatively sure you win and the other accepts they must be wrong. The number of games increases by quite a bit if you sweeten the deal.

This is certainly true, if you're able to do the simulation on your own, you may also play with parameters, remodel the problem, etc.

Another problem which is best explained by simulation is the random distribution of wealth [1]. (I played a bit with this one, introducing further parameters like liminal damage, debt, asymmetric amounts depending on investors trust, etc, to see how basic economic assumptions would reshape the model. Answer: only to the worse.)

[1] http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2017/06/19/counterintuiti...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com