> They key difference here is that I don't consider it as a "puzzle", whatever that means. I consider it to be a math problem. Problems of this kind are often encountered in both Game Theory and Probability Theory. It's perfectly fine to reason about your opponents strategies and either try to beat them all or find an equilibrium: this is still math and not psychology.
This was quite obviously a puzzle, of the "math problem" kind. It admits a pretty straightforward -- but counterintuitive -- solution, which made some admittedly smart people upset.
Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
> this is still math and not psychology.
If you read the responses to vos Savant's column, they are quite emotional. There was quite obviously an emotional response to it, of the "stubborn" and/or "must attack vos Savant's credentials" kind, too.
This was quite obviously a puzzle, of the "math problem" kind. It admits a pretty straightforward -- but counterintuitive -- solution, which made some admittedly smart people upset.
Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
> this is still math and not psychology.
If you read the responses to vos Savant's column, they are quite emotional. There was quite obviously an emotional response to it, of the "stubborn" and/or "must attack vos Savant's credentials" kind, too.