The Game Show Host Paradox

by Ali-Asad

Paradoxes trick people. But no problem has deceived as many Phds, scientists, mathematicians and regular smart people; it’s called the game show host problem (or the Monty Hall paradox, named after the game show host from which this problem was derived). So, what’s the paradox? I’ll let Kevin Spacey take you through it; this is a clip from ’21-the movie’, about a bunch of MIT students trained to count cards in order to win big in Vegas.







So, what’s the deal? Shouldn’t you have an even 50-50 chance of picking the car? Right? I mean the host opened a door with a goat, so there are only two doors left and 1 has the car and the other a goat. 50-50.

No!

Why?

Think about the first door you picked. There could have been either a car behind it or a goat. Now, the host reveals another door with a goat, so:
1) if your first choice was the car, then switching to the other door gets you a goat.

2) if your first choice was a goat, then switching to the other door gets you a car!

Now, what’s the probability that your first pick, at the beginning, was the car? 1/3

And the probability it was a goat? 2/3!

There you go – look above you: By switching you have a 2/3 chance of picking a car cause there was a 2/3 chance you had initially picked a goat. If you picked a goat, switching gives you a car.

And that's jus' the tip.

Get it? No? Got something to say about it?

Comment below.

Where's the community in that?

by Maryam Al-Zoubi

Today, I took my eight-year-old sister Aishah to the Apple store for Apple Camp. As I waited in the mall, I bought Starbuck’s new Banana Chocolate Blend, which is actually really good. Armed with what seemed to be a milkshake with shots of espresso, I picked up the New York Times and entered the realm of the ‘Liberal Elite.’ The strangest part was not that I had, what some might say, succumbed to a cigar-puffing circle. but that I was fine with it.

Some years ago I had decided to boycott Starbucks because they funded the State of Israel. While my original conviction to boycotting Starbucks was strong, it faded the more I learned about the dynamics of the international economy, globalization and the simple realities of pure politics. But living in my beloved liberal town of Chapel Hill, and being a frequent customer in the more liberal bordering town of Carrboro, boycotting corporations meant more than opposing the occupation of the Palestinian territories. I was fighting the man and I had to resist him at every corner.

But goodness, not only is maintaining that kind of rebellious reputation hard, but it also became less and less true. The more I advanced in my education at the great liberal arts college of UNC, the more of a realist I became. Boycotting Starbucks made less and less sense. But the idea of ending my boycott became more personally daunting to me than fighting the good fight. I shuddered when I thought of what my rallying peers would think of me when they saw that delicious cold mocha in hand.

Wait. Wasn’t I against following the crowd? But what if I wanted to follow the crowd out of conviction and not peer pressure? And what if the peer pressure I was facing was not to be in the crowd? Wasn’t I still a rebel?

Hmmm.

Well, the bottom of the front of the times read, “Eating That Locally Grown Organic Diet with Fuss but No Muss". The article discussed the new concept of ‘locavores,’ i.e. those who only eat locally. Apparently the New Oxford American Dictionary picked the word as the word of the year last year, but my version of Microsoft Word keeps underling it as a misspelling.

A growing trend among urban dwellers is to hire someone to buy produce from the local Farmer’s Market, or grow and harvest your own garden for you. Cities seem to be full of what the article has dubbed as “lazy locavores.” They are “city dwellers who insist on eating food grown close to home but have no inclination to get their hands dirty.” I hope I am not the only one who read that and thought, ‘well, they live in a city, how deep and dirty in the soil can their hands get?’

Citizens who have easy access to locally grown produce by living in small towns like Carrboro, make all those who live in the big city, well, look bad. It’s basically become a shouting contest of ‘Look at us! We’re more hardcore than you!’ As the article points out, city dwellers are caught between not having the means to grow a garden and not having the time. Small town dwellers may pride themselves on only eating delicious local grown food, but they are not putting in the hard, long hours of growing that local produce. Basically, it makes me want to throw a ‘don’t judge’ exclamation.

The article makes a jab at what may be the most crucial point of this issue. It asks, “Are you in the mood for a meal that reeks of community but does not necessitate communal activity?”

My dad grows this AMAZING garden in the backyard of our house in Raleigh, NC: tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, figs, peaches, apples, thyme and some other vegetables whose name I only know in Arabic (Githa anyone?). Why am I mentioning this? Here is the catch: I have never helped with that garden, except for occasionally walking through and in my pure awe of its beauty, plucking a tomato so ripe I can actually taste red. Living on campus limits my participation in communal family activity.

In Chapel Hill, I sometimes buy local produce and eat from the mouth-watering Weaver Street (Your Community-Owned Grocery) breakfast buffet that only uses local fruit, vegetables and dairy. While I’d rather have community, reaping the benefits of others may be the only communal activity I have access to in my daily life.

And that's jus' the tip.

Any thoughts? Comment below.

* Maryam Al-Zoubi is an aspiring poet who also specializes in international politics and the Middle East.

Recapturing the Heart of Capitalism

by Ali-Asad

Today, the shareholders of an oil drilling company rejected a management-sponsored merger proposal with an oil well equipment company. This event strengthens the arguments in favor of capitalism. Why? Because this oil drilling company had been approached by a Canadian oil drilling and services company to create a more diversified energy services company. This deal seemed far superior to the deal on offer from the management. And here’s the key: the owners (shareholders) rejected the inferior deal in spite of their own management’s insistence – owners are starting to take back control of the companies they own.

Owners exercising their ownership might sound like the obvious thing to do, especially if you’re not really interested or aware about business/economics. But over the years, this is where capitalism has failed. John Bogle, former CEO of the Vanguard investment group, writes about these issues with capitalism. In The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism, Bogle explains how power was initially held by owners and then slowly shifted towards the management. This shift occurred because companies became so large that owners relied more and more on management to carry out their wishes. Also, decades ago, most companies were owned by many single individuals. But nowadays, investment companies, mutual funds, pension funds all hold significant stakes in companies – but these funds look out more for their interests than the interest of the company or the investors of the fund.

The story today about Grey Wolf oil drilling gives me heart. It shows that capitalism doesn’t have to be heartless and , so is not synonymous with corporatism. All it takes is active and knowledgeable shareholders along with funds that look out truly for their clients interests. It’s so much easier to sit on the sidelines and bitch. But the system works if you let it.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Any thoughts? Comment below.

How is Wes Clark Wrong?

by Ali-Asad

Is it just me, or did Wes Clark make a perfectly reasonable and logical statement when he said:

“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President”

Clark makes a valid point; McCain doesn’t really have any executive experience to be President. In McCain’s defense, neither does Obama. But if experience in national security is your core qualification, Clark has every right to question the nature of that experience. Wes Clark has all the experience; he’s a 4-star General (ret) and was Supreme Commander of Europe for NATO – in charge when NATO liberated Kosovo from the Serbian President and war criminal Slobadan Milosevic. Critics of Clark contend that he was dishonoring McCain’s military service. They obviously didn’t listen to the full interview when Clark said:

“I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war.”

Now, I’m not a Republican or a Democrat…so what gives? McCain’s people have decried Clark’s ‘attack on McCain’s war hero service’. McCain’s reply needed to be: yes, serving in the military doesn’t by itself qualify you to be President, but it helps that I understand military matters from the inside. Also, I served in the Congress for over a quarter of a century where I’ve become a leading authority in dealing with national security issues. McCain seems to be taking valid points as if they were ad hominem arguments, and then attacking back with ad hominem arguments. This country deserves a better debate over issues rather than each candidate tripping over the other to show how macho and patriotic they are. Neither Abraham Lincoln nor FDR ever served in the military thus proving that serving in the military doesn’t necessarily qualify you to be President. But it doesn’t hurt either.

And that’s jus’ the tip

Any thoughts? Comment below.


Subscribe to this blog

Five Love Languages: A Must Read

by Ali-Asad

We all have five major ways of expressing love. Unfortunately, most of us aren’t able to understand or speak all five love languages. This inability creates tensions in our relationships that really should be filled with love and compassion. In his book, The Five Love Languages, Gary Chapman describes the five major love languages:

1. Quality Time
2. Words of Affirmation
3. Physical Touch
4. Acts of Service
5. Gifts

Trained as a marriage counselor, Gary Chapman demonstrates how most rocky relationships are the result of one person not understanding or speaking the love language of the other. The author demonstrates that relationships can be improved by 1) identifying a person’s love language, and then 2) making a conscious effort to speak that language. For example, I used to not care that much about giving gifts. Why? I would always be concerned with the practical aspect of a potential gift; would person X really benefit from this gift? But Gary Chapman demonstrates, and all you gift givers will know, its emotion embodied in the gift that counts a lot more than the actual gift. So, my problem was that I didn’t know how to speak the love language of gifts. I probably didn’t know how to understand that language when it was spoken to me either; I remember the countless birthday parties when I didn’t really feel that excited because I didn’t see the practical benefit of the event.

The author demonstrates how people behave when they can’t speak a particular language by describing the experiences he had as a counselor with people who weren’t speaking the right love language. These experiences allow the reader to understand the kinds of miscommunication that can take place. And then the book shows you what questions you need to ask of yourself and how to start making a conscious effort to speak a certain love language. At the end of the book, a quick quiz is provided so that you can determine your own primary love language. Dr. Chapman states that a person usually has one well defined primary love language with the others at different degrees of development. A must read.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Subscribe to this blog