Reference "The Exchange Paradox" on wiki. Or just google it.
In a nutshell, the paradox is as follows:
There are two envelopes. You know that each contains an amount of money, and that one contains twice the amount of the other.
- You pick an envelope at random.
- You open the envelope and see an amount of money, A.
- If you got the envelope with more money, then the other envelope has A/2 in it.
- If you got the envelope with less money, then the other envelop has 2A in it.
- The expectation value of the amount of money in the other envelope must be
because choosing the other envelope will either halve or double your money.
- 5/4A is > A, therefore you should choose the other envelope.
- Except the exact same argument could be made if you chose the other envelope first and there are only two choices, that neither envelope is to be preferred over the other.
We know that the choice of envelope is random, and "choosing the other envelope" should make no difference at all. So what is the problem with the reasoning above?
Here's a quick and easy answer
Here's a more complicated answer
Here's an even more complicated answer
One can google for even more complicated answers/explanations. Or read the talk/argument sections of the wiki.
My question to the forum is this:
Which explanation (of any that you find from any source) satisfies you the best?
My purpose in asking is that I look at this problem, and my instant reaction is the first, simple explanation. As far as I'm concerned, I've answered the question fully and succinctly, and any explanation beyond that is either misunderstanding that simple explanation or expressing the same point with much more detail. I believe that is due to my instinctive Ni approach, and that Ti types would want a more methodical approach: Ni cares about "meaning", while Ti cares about "proving". That's my hypothesis at any rate.
I am interested in anyone's replies, no matter type, though I am especially interested in replies from those who theoretically use both Ni and Ti (INFJ, ISTP, etc.).
The issue isn't about any sort of "right answer". It's obvious to all parties that something is askew. The question is what degree of explanation of the paradox satisfies oneself.