The math problem that stumped thousands of mansplainers

[@benjames5423]

Strange. I remember when this video first came out with the title: The math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians

[@systemerror6047]

Yeah I remember that title too, why'd they change it?

[@wowbruh2511]

@@systemerror6047 feminists.

[@lasergamer88-84]

Yeah, I feel like the title ruins the video

[@bobwithwaffles2109]

They changed it to get more clicks. A more controversial title is more interesting to people than stumped mathematicians, sadly.

[@jamesyan12]

Mandela effect anybody? - Although I remember that way too

[@bradleyruest6863]

What does this have to do with "mansplaining?"

[@Guncriminal]

It's Vox. Gawker-style clickbait trash.

[@GamingHole]

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.

[@GamingHole]

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.

[@GamingHole]

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.

[@GamingHole]

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.

[@senortapatio6216]

all of this is nonsense a car can't fit through a door...

[@klaus7443]

"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.

[@xXEpicMehXx]

you're just not going fast enough

[@christopherg2347]

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.

[@camwoodstock]

Well, maybe if it's a Garage Door...

[@4deathfishvalleystar411]

Disassemble the car, bring the parts through the door, reassemble the car...

[@goat6354]

You should change to the opened door, because thats where the goat is.

[@SpelingMisteks]

Username checks out

[@emilymcplugger]

Love it!

[@_viansshelldress.4272]

I agree

[@rod.lustosa]

Loved it! Hahaahah

[@chrono-glitchwaterlily8776]

Pfp checks out

[@Qancir]

The person that said she was a goat probably doesn't realize that goat means Greatest Of All Time

[@pugparty3520]

now thats G.o.a.t

[@gandydancer637]

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]

@@gandydancer637 Always that guy that take's the joke way to seriously 😂

[@gandydancer637]

@@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.

[@caramelc0rn]

Gandydancer r/woosh

[@E--Drop]

I didn't know vox was buzzfeed.

[@mick7sp]

The simple answer is they are also are Polygon another feminist boondoggle.

[@randomguy-wz5ud]

sad indeed

[@fededevi1985]

Almost worse.. Everything is sexist!

[@warriorcreme9429]

same. we've been tricked

[@SweFr33]

Same... just unsubbed

[@SlimThrull]

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.)

[@jackanderson6759]

Well, you could give them goats since that is also a prize

[@JacobBecomesIsrael]

But that may get you shot.

[@SlimThrull]

***** 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.

[@SlimThrull]

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?

[@SlimThrull]

***** Sorry, I'll keep it shorter this time. u mad, bro?

[@backbencherbro7095]

and nowadays "You are the GOAT" is recognized as a compliment.

[@goat6354]

Thanks

[@sto1238]

Hasn’t it always been? Michael Jordan, Jerry Rice and Gretzky have been called the “GOAT” for a while now

[@bradavon]

Only in North America. Although Jumped the Shark became international.

[@zh2266]

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

[@bradavon]

@@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.

[@bruhlanson5497]

3:07 an insult in 2016, a compliment in 2019

[@Thekazekeza]

not in 2016

[@flowified1303]

@@Thekazekeza lol

[@skylerricketts7392]

You are the goat!

[@florianplack2973]

Greatest Of All Time... Got you :D

[@diamond_miner_8670]

>insult in 2016 spotted the newfag

[@stephenswenson3604]

I’m not gonna lie I thought the title said “mathsplainers”

[@iAmTheSquidThing]

That would've been much funnier and less needlessly provocative.

[@florenomorence1492]

It would’ve made more sense.

[@lovelydolltime8006]

It's a better title than "mansplainers".

[@chickpeasandeggs1486]

It doesn’t? Update: huh...I’m confused now

[@eklectiktoni]

Oooh. It totally should have said mathsplainers.

[@collinprice5320]

numberphile did a video on this that WASN'T politically oriented

[@Somanylightyearz]

It was also spoken about in the movie "21"

[@rushthezeppelin]

Numberphile is the best math channel on KZbin

[@The_world_is_not_worthy_of_Him]

That's because numberphile isn't a bag of every type of cancer

[@barneskirenj]

Whats your point?

[@barneskirenj]

True. Gamer-kids on youtube on the other hand..

[@bojo5330]

Cars provide a steady source of bills. Goats provide a steady source of income. Pick the open door and retire on the milk alone.

[@maxt5283]

This guy > God

[@DanDAlittleMan]

Amen

[@ondank]

Thats real wisdom.

[@gamerduck1003]

The time and money you spend on the goat aren't worth the low income of milk.

[@llamaglitter]

(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.

[@nth7273]

I manenjoyed manwatching your video. However, I had to manunlike it because of all the extra mantyping I now manhave to mando.

[@klaus7443]

I laughed so hard while reading your post that I almost manured myself!

[@siraniks]

I manlaughing so much at this. MANLOL

[@GVideosGregh]

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!

[@xesolor]

Csak G does being a man also impede you from using correct grammar? Hm...

[@FireMusicWorldwide]

Mantastic

[@Kittysuit]

but i want the goat

[@hwoolfe1792]

Sell the car and use the funds to get multiple goats

[@Kittysuit]

@@hwoolfe1792 you, sir, are a genius

[@aricarou4333]

Hahahahaha

[@randomdude9135]

@@Kittysuit Your pfp is a dog...........I don't trust you with a goat

[@Kittysuit]

@@randomdude9135 im not a furry if that's what you are implying, im an actual doge. educate yourself bro.

[@Spatzna]

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.

[@gideone9802]

That makes more sense!

[@christianhuang9673]

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.

[@pufelmulticolorido]

This is so good, thank you!

[@deviousnate7238]

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.

[@annie.hi.]

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.

[@c97f]

The key to understanding the Monty Hall problem: the revealed door is not random...

[@samuelvanorshaegen]

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?

[@travis1240]

​@@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.

[@poodleeye]

This ☝️

[@SamsonGuest]

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?

[@samuelvanorshaegen]

@@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.

[@gavinspreher1125]

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.

[@scottharrison3454]

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.

[@Onxide]

@@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.

[@Nothing_serious]

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.

[@MalikEmmanuel]

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.

[@eden7010]

Watch til the end

[@EpicMind500]

Why would you switch. Who wouldn't want a goat.

[@jleake4]

Mallets for dayz FREE CHEESE

[@Ubu987]

It's all the same to me. I would prefer a goat, but a car would make a serviceable chicken shed.

[@ivan_valerian]

you won the day man

[@danielzhang5842]

Mallets for dayz Sellvthe car then buy the goats. You'll get more goats that way.

[@correctionguy7632]

non muslims

[@bsh0e]

Wait this is literally just conditional probability, there’s no way this stumped professors...

[@kenlinasobirionwu5776]

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

[@bsh0e]

@@kenlinasobirionwu5776 Bayes theorem has been around since the 1700s

[@kenlinasobirionwu5776]

@@bsh0e yhea but how long has it been thought in schools?

[@bsh0e]

@@kenlinasobirionwu5776 eh not sure, I probably won't be able to find the answer to that question

[@user-tn2dk2pg2p]

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).

[@koichihirose1185]

Vox, do you mind explaining the “mansplainers” part

[@joachimschoder]

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.

[@cloudedarctrooper]

@@joachimschoder wat

[@andrewwade785]

Yaria Samavan Carlan are you mansplaining mansplaining?

[@andrewwade785]

Yaria Samavan Carlan what a hoot

[@ThatNerdAlbert]

@shimmy comment turned to dust

[@theamazingbiff]

But ... What if the contestant WANTED a goat??

[@bakhtyarsayed]

You sell the car for multiple goats

[@SomeoneWhoWasNot]

Woo free milk!

[@albertboy2774]

@theamazingbiff You switch to the door he opened of course c:

[@bleh1569]

@@bakhtyarsayed GOATSSS

[@avradio0b]

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

[@Juppah4u]

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.

[@pufflepuff8961]

why isn't this top comment. First funny comment I've seen

[@thorr18BEM]

I lifted the suspension on my goat and couldn't be happier.

[@leweee]

thorr18BEM I riced my goat out with a fart pipe and some stickers for extra goat power

[@iamthefirsttosecond]

Justin, you're a man. quit mansplaining.

[@GeldarionTFS]

Plus, when you're done, you can't eat a car.

[@letstalk.2020]

Can we talk about the title? I feel like we need to talk about the title.

[@platos1336]

Yeah, it’s, interesting for sure

[@wavez4224]

@@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

[@sohamdambalkar1602]

@@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.

[@Htiy]

@@sohamdambalkar1602 they changed it to get clicks

[@Fan_Girl-xd8wy]

@@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

[@staticvizn]

Bro just listen to which doors the goat sounds are coming from

[@ruranrin2197]

Meeeeehhh!!!!!

[@johnbell3621]

I am not your bro.

[@staticvizn]

@@johnbell3621 chill out bro

[@jp9707]

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?

[@R3BBiT]

Now you’re speaking my language! 😂

[@shipit7616]

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

[@hamadyalghanim]

Yup same thing happens with application ratings only dissatisfied people rate

[@ThePrashu31]

Stop "mansplaining"!

[@shipit7616]

@@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.

[@shipit7616]

@@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.

[@tdp2612]

same with reviews - someones more liekly to leave a bad review if something was wrong, than leave a good review if something was acceptable

[@georgerussell2947]

Heres a maths problem: Mansplaining + in the title = 1:2 dislike ratio

[@cholica5497]

LMAOOOOOOO

[@yugen]

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]

@@yugen isn't it sexist to make a generalization about all men?

[@yugen]

@@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.

[@pxn0199]

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%.

[@brian.mp3924]

Good video, but never use the word "mansplaining" again.

[@brian.mp3924]

@@timlester337 oh yeah yeah

[@KoruGo]

oh yeah yeah

[@sillyronin6027]

"mansplaining" isn't even a word lol

[@becksaunders8204]

@@KoruGo thanks for showing that infidel his error, PBUH.

[@Amethyst_Friend]

Why not? That is exactly what happened to Vos.

[@MsBored35]

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.

[@skrittle555]

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.

[@sie4431]

Comes across like "I'm not one of those losers who likes maths"

[@AkshaySinghJamwal]

Gee, I wonder if all the dislikes have anything to do with your title.

[@rancidraw]

maybe

[@Nessa-939]

Akshay Singh Jamwal sexists get real mad when people point out sexism

[@desertoasis8120]

Anka isn’t the word “mansplaining” a bit sexist itself?

[@robertmilak5425]

Anka people get mad when you say sexist things yourself and xou call other people sexist

[@correctionguy7632]

or maybe have something to do with the content? perhaps a mix out of the two

[@plannedstupidity8331]

why is mansplaining in the title

[@Simul]

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.

[@Chewy427]

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

[@Simul]

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.

[@Chewy427]

Simul doesn't matter, she received sexist letters, so the title is not wrong. QED

[@Simul]

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.

[@ForumLight]

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?"

[@heywardhollis1160]

This is brilliant.

[@SmallLab129]

This is the most intuitive way of explaining it. Thanks!

[@ItsAlleged]

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.

[@ForumLight]

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.

[@amosdotl6892]

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?

[@beau7925]

Alright, which genius at vox decided to silently change this title to be a bit more derogatory?

[@usui4016]

Fax

[@sebastyann123]

how is that derogatory? lol

[@eugenelubbock5478]

Ooh. Look. Conservatives getting offended by little things. I thought you said only libs did that.

[@beau7925]

@@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.

[@beau7925]

@@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.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

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.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

***** No, a claim of "mansplaining" can never be the truth. It's a term feminists made up to shame men.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

***** I see you are using a red herring. The claim of "mansplaining" cannot be "bringing up the truth."

[@PvblivsAelivs]

***** "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.

[@eduardodomingues193]

+Musqiclover1234 "because men feel the need to do it all the time" couldn't you be more sexist?

[@PvblivsAelivs]

***** 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.

[@Holzider]

what's with the clickbait title?

[@LandOfPhilosophy]

+holzi Reddit and other sites were just discussing this, so I think Vox wants to appeal to them.

[@ZettaFan]

+holzi You're a fucking idiot. Media has been "clickbait" since the fucking printing press was invented

[@bobrolander4344]

+holzi *You butthurt bro?*

[@Inv4derxXx]

+holzi more like chick bait, feminism is such a widely support or burn at the stake idea

[@puppable]

+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.

[@matthew1550]

that like to dislike ratio tho

[@sqweed653]

lerl person 2/3 are dislikes... maybe the people who liked got the car?

[@tapeeater1553]

Maybe the people who disliked didn't want an amazing mathematical phenomenon to be used to push leftist agenda?

[@sdawef56]

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

[@tapeeater1553]

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.

[@loganderb]

lerl person why do you think it’s like that?

[@maxlen234]

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.

[@Jomskylark]

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

[@safouenelejmi3650]

@@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.

[@mismis3153]

@@safouenelejmi3650 that actually explained it really well, thank you !

[@baboonaiih]

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.

[@kaylabrand7403]

Good explanation. I want to play that version so I can be almost certain I will get a free car.

[@enigmanemo9352]

Schrodinger wants to know if the goat will be alive or dead?

[@paryudisaditya8845]

I've been seeking for someone like you, ekhm sorry like me

[@aricarou4333]

Hahahahaha

[@Xx_Oleander_xX]

thinking bout it... this is awfully close to Schrodingers cat

[@anonymous-vg7kc]

Half dead half alive you know

[@Wojtackic]

@@anonymous-vg7kc not half, *both* dead and alive

[@451asians]

wasn't the name of this video "The math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians" ?

[@dead_kennedys7870]

So they changed it to mansplianers?

[@AlbertBalbastreMorte]

clickbait.

[@defski]

Yeah...

[@motherofpax]

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.

[@dead_kennedys7870]

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.

[@benzski44]

Math problem: 1:2 dislike ratio

[@KaKa-hz3du]

Adolf Hitler ok hitler

[@MrCHINBAG]

@DUNT if 1 in 3 people change their answer, what would the totals be?

[@TheFlash9333]

@DUNT you said it backwards

[@eblu_]

are you one of those "neo nazis" that vox keeps rattling on about

[@IlllllIllllIIlllIlllIIIIIIlllI]

You likely know, but it probably has a bad like:dislike ratio because it had the word mansplainers for no reason.

[@eyuelzero]

3:05 "You are the goat!" Isn't that a compliment now?

[@robertt9342]

G.O.A.T. Greatest Of All Time.... So yes.

[@ek5160]

goat has been used for a really long time

[@CatfishBradley]

I've heard the term used since the 90's, so.

[@최조남-e3k]

There are hundreds of other videos on KZbin that explain the Monty Hall Problem better that don't have a sexist or clickbait title. Don't bother watching this.

[@scottharrison3454]

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.

[@Onxide]

@@scottharrison3454 so just propaganda and political agendas. Rubbish

[@jeffb8217]

Lul soyboy squad here crying because of one word.

[@hellomimibanana]

Jesus Christ men are so whiny

[@jwatsss453]

@@hellomimibanana stfu

[@lightdarkequivalent7143]

Nice, BuzzFeed 2 Woman explains Mansplaining Is she Womansplaining?

[@prodbymorii2058]

We have a word for womansplaining, nagging.

[@jaxw2628]

Yes.

[@jaysworld7871]

yes

[@Desugan69]

@@sonacphotos my mom says the same

[@BCsJonathanTM]

@@sonacphotos *whispering* I think you're already there.

[@BradleyWhistance]

Cool story, classic problem, could have done without the sexist title.

[@Debonair_Lex]

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.

[@BradleyWhistance]

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.

[@kittyloverandcat66]

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!

[@HughMongousPC]

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.

[@wigglespeedturbo6324]

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.

[@barryjamesmusicPH]

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.

[@XxJERICHOHOLICxX13]

Leave it to Vox to turn a math problem into a social justice issue great job guys keep up the great work.

[@ShredPenguins]

Is this sarcasm? I hope it's sarcasm.

[@snurffff]

+ShredPenguins no of course he isn't being sarcastic! Math is sexist!

[@XxJERICHOHOLICxX13]

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.

[@bilaljones3635]

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...)

[@XxJERICHOHOLICxX13]

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

[@SweBeach2023]

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.

[@assbalonkerful]

there is no spoon

[@ddebenedictis]

Good point. "Extreme case" is often the best way to envision a solution to problems.

[@DA-bm2mj]

and this exactly how Marilyn explained it in the magazine. look at 2:15

[@ddebenedictis]

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.

[@DA-bm2mj]

+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 ... "

[@photoslicethis9157]

If you remove mansplaining from the title you will have way more positive ratings.

[@AlbertBalbastreMorte]

But way fewer clicks.

[@AlbertBalbastreMorte]

Another Made Up Internet Subculture best user name ever.

[@Rodentsnipe]

+Another Made Up Internet Subculture People who want good ratings :^)

[@AlbertBalbastreMorte]

Rodentsnipe good ratings are not profitable now.

[@AlbertBalbastreMorte]

Rodentsnipe They kinda want to, though. KZbin 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.

[@DonPedroTheDude]

Such an unneccesarily aggressive video title

[@snacksy7754]

finally something on vox I knew from before

[@bookseatkitty4000]

I guesses what it would be from looking at the title..... AND I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!!

[@snacksy7754]

no sorry, it was mythbusters did an episode on it. lol

[@charlottemead8338]

I did this in maths in year 7

[@Fawnuss]

Same

[@bhoylhogro5093]

If I can still bring home the goat I selected, I've already won regardless of choice.

[@MBKill3rCat]

In Pakistan, it's reversed; two cars, one goat.

[@lzszl]

Ye man, it's like havin a not too ugly daughter, kinda like a lottery win eh? Too funny

[@tenacious645]

That has nothing to do with maths

[@alden5931]

exactly!

[@N0nc0mpusmentus]

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.

[@_topikk_]

Mansplaining...? We already have a word for this: condecension. There is no reason to replace this with something gender-specific.

[@punch_bowl_turd3005]

+Kristopher Tope WOW! that really is sexist.... i gotta go to my safe space now.....

[@RoonMian]

+Kristopher Tope Well, it's a special, particular kind of condescension. There is nothing wrong about making language more precise.

[@jackhooper2839]

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.

[@_topikk_]

+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.

[@RoonMian]

Kristopher Tope An issue that doesn't exist for *you*. Look beyond your own limited horizon and develop some empathy.

[@gppg6290]

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).

[@MrLuffy9131]

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

[@Araqius]

@@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!!!

[@christo46]

@@Araqius nice

[@sethpatterson4857]

If they reveal the goat, can I change my pick to the revealed goat?

[@AiiCii]

Lmao the only good comment in this section

[@sakurahimari3627]

😂😂😂

[@zzzfjord2688]

Omg nice pfp uwu

[@josephfitz1022]

@@zzzfjord2688 never speak again

[@zzzfjord2688]

Joseph Fitz :(

[@Slackow]

Oh come on this is everywhere. How does this stump “mansplainers” more than anyone else?

[@letsomethingshine]

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).

[@clayb5304]

Vox was hacked, I watched this 5 months ago and the title was originally "The math problem that stumped thousands of mathematicians"

[@MisterCraft24]

There is a comment from 1 years ago saying "wtf is a mansplainer", stop lying JoyCrazy...

[@BushidoBrownSama]

the problem is that mansplainers had it explained to them and *REFUSED* to accept the explanation for years because it came from a woman

[@BushidoBrownSama]

+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

[@Bigbossperson]

It's just basic probability analysis. Wtf does this have to do with mansplaining?

[@lukefrance9558]

John Ming nothing it was clickbait

[@osoaioi]

John Ming Half of the video is about the results of the problem and not the problem

[@jed71120]

‘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.

[@tykaelin2505]

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.

[@obsessedme5484]

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

[@mastod0n1]

The crucial part of the problem is that the host always knows where the car is. Their decision for which door to open is based entirely on that information. If the host was also in the dark about the car location then your odds wouldn't change, but there is also a chance that the door the host opens has the car behind it so you'd lose no matter what.

[@Quninn]

0:53 In the video it's explained that the host has to reveal the door with a goat behind it though? Am i missing something here?

[@ty2668]

​@@Quninn 10 months late, but here goes if you picked the goat first, and a door with a goat in it opens, then the remaining door has the car this is true, two out of every three times, because there are two goats. so, if you switch doors, you have a 2/3 chance of getting the car

[@shadyparadox]

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?

[@TedManney]

AWWW SNAP

[@beastollie3277]

Good point

[@Auriflamme]

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.

[@PanAndScanBuddy]

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.

[@freudianslippers6567]

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".

[@ShotgunLlama]

-sees like to dislike ratio *_10 Greatest Backfires in History_*

[@scottharrison3454]

Appeal to authority. Also, video was about sexism in STEM NOT maths.

[@warbler4954]

It supposed to be ironic, since it's a 1/3 to 2/3 ratio

[@bascal133]

ShotgunLlama vox is thanking them for increasing engagement with their comments and clicks 😸

[@EleazarOctavioRuizSpreafico]

I think that loads of dislikes are not because of the video, but because of the sexism in the story.

[@kedaariyer4887]

ShotgunLlama If you think this is bad look at KZbin Rewind 2018

[@thispotato563]

I like how they gave us what we came for, the answer, then made the video a women's rights issue

[@devynraymond5029]

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.

[@rich7447]

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.

[@devynraymond5029]

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'.

[@rich7447]

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.

[@devynraymond5029]

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.

[@someshdevkar5387]

This video is not about math as much as it is about sexism.

[@michaellee635]

There’s a reason it’s a 1:2 dislike ratio

[@user-sf4fy8bq1h]

Sure is! I'd wager we wouldn't agree on that reason, though 😉

[@Degan1000]

The reason is that so many male snowflakes got triggered by this video. Some men just need to stay in their safe spaces.

[@julianzuniga8905]

@@Degan1000 yeah "snowflakes". Whatever buddy

[@Onxide]

@@Degan1000 exactly, so stay in your safe place 😁

[@EleazarOctavioRuizSpreafico]

I think that loads of dislikes are not because of the video, but because of the sexism in the story.

[@jjt171]

Mansplainers? Come on, you aren't buzzfeed.

[@samb443]

yes they are

[@aaviskark]

Sam M Buzzfeed's older sister.

[@troubledsole9104]

Then unsubscribed they are.

[@BushidoBrownSama]

+Just a Tiger thing triggered?

[@hxber1]

Mansplaining? Math problem? Whaaat?

[@scottharrison3454]

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.......

[@davidaston5773]

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.

[@pepesilvia8118]

@@davidaston5773 a wild incel has appeared!

[@FloydRunner2049]

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.

[@davidaston5773]

​@@FloydRunner2049 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).

[@C_odysseus]

Ok so the term “mansplaining” is inherently sexist. Doesn’t that contradict the feminist movement of equality?

[@jepsteryan3908]

yes it does, though the action that is usually labelled as mansplaining is also sexist, so some would say that it isn't. i would say that both are sexist and both people using the word mansplaining and people using the actions which are labelled as mansplaining should be stopped. but yeah you are right when you say the term mansplaining is inherently sexist

[@Fan_Girl-xd8wy]

@@jepsteryan3908 How is it sexist? It's literally a term used to describe a form of sexism. Pointing out the sexism isn't sexist. It does not imply that all men do it and it means that some men tend to explain things that a woman already knows more of because that's her field or because she simply has the knowledge as any other human being, believing that she doesn't know what she is talking about because women's brains aren't as functional as men's brains. So of course, women can't mansplain other women because it implies that she isn't smart enough to do it.(sorry for my English, it's my second language)

[@jepsteryan3908]

@@Fan_Girl-xd8wy And by the way, your English is great

[@ThatGamerBanjo]

"thousands of mansplainers" why was mansplainers necessary this is a math problem

[@DanZhukovin]

Who says there's real sexism in the math field? Pay attention.

[@vinceb8041]

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

[@abird7823]

did you watch the video

[@terry535]

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.

[@TMan-uw5rb]

It's just clickbait. That's why it is in the title.

[@TheBlackJacksItalia]

wtf is a mansplainer

[@AvangionQ]

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.

[@TheBlackJacksItalia]

AvangionQ man oh man this society is going crazy..

[@TheBlackJacksItalia]

jake dean talking to me?

[@jakedean8284]

TheBlackJacksItalia No, to AvangionQ

[@AvangionQ]

jake dean Wasn't expecting trolling over defining a term. This isn't even worthy of a reply, except to say post muted ...

[@niamhoss4071]

Either vox is over estimating the definition of "mansplaining" or this is clickbait...

[@No-ps6bp]

Niamh O'SS their clickbait turned out poorly for them. the dislike to like ratio is around 2:1, and rightly so

[@niamhoss4071]

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.

[@henrymiller7162]

they tried to change it to a gender issue

[@raviohli1551]

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.

[@nathanielmathews2617]

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.

[@kashgarinn]

What’s missing from the statistics about who believed her is percentages of men vs women.

[@kevinricherson]

So... Criticizing a woman is mansplaining?

[@th3n3wk1dd]

To a feminist, everything is mansplaining. Don't you know the default is "I'm a woman so I have it bad"?

[@mauatua2746]

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

[@TheMrKeksLp]

Then why call it *F E M I N I S M*

[@mauatua2746]

void* it's called feminism because we are simply trying to raise women to the same level as men so we are equal

[@loltown7396]

Mauatua Naomi you are already equal.

[@addisonbates5711]

what did this have to do with mansplaining?

[@tylerdolph886]

absolutely nothing.

[@asapglacier]

Vox are leftists so there trying to prove a point but it’s just stupid

[@babbleoo3775]

The bit about them not saying anything when men said it

[@MH-rj3jf]

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.

[@williamazazelmiseria519]

then why add "mansplainers" in the title

[@kodexi2761]

Putting 'Mansplainers' in the title gets more views from angry people and feminists...Sneaky Vox. Very sneaky...

[@asrr62]

i was just questioning that clickbait title

[@joaovitordossantos9949]

The like/dislike ratio shows otherwise

[@Sammakko7]

J D Wrong. They’re just very retarded.

[@anaunaga5471]

I respect vox, but this ruins them, when did they change it to "mansplaining" This is a double standard considering They should be against sexism yet they use a term that is directed towards men...

[@f.k6920]

Having a word directed towards men dose not make it sexist.

[@Rich-je9fy]

Florence Katanha maybe not but it sure is annoying

[@RunaSunset]

They used a term that describes a sexist phenomenon. Its not sexist to use that term, its sexist to use that term incorrectly, which vox did here

[@nayan7398]

@@f.k6920 stop femsplaining.

[@dortax8647]

Who thinks the title is a bit sexist? EDIT: wow thanks for the likes i feel special for once in my life....

[@admthrawnuru]

"a bit" Looks like it just showed up in a bunch of people's recommended vids, too (like mine and probably yours), so... thanks, KZbin. Numberphile has a much better video on the Monty Hall problem.

[@chibi013]

Dortax just you and a few other delicate flowers on here I think

[@CHKDSKHasTheBigGay]

Hotel July can't tell if you're a libtard or baiting

[@chibi013]

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?

[@CHKDSKHasTheBigGay]

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

[@chunksfunks960]

Pretty sure ¨You are the goat" is a compliment

[@47tune24]

lmao

[@47tune24]

actually could have been

[@blackberry335]

G reatest O f A ll T ime

[@blackphillip63]

Nah, LL's album dropped in the year 2000

[@Mirroredsmoke]

lmfao

[@artoismta]

Why is mansplaining in the title

[@saggyt7473]

why not? you want a spanish word instead?

[@Rasul_583]

Cuz clicks

[@TSFboi]

3:11 that's why.

[@BVargas78]

Jeez, these women and their endless womansplaining :D

[@JuliaSimmonss]

Because of the different attitudes towards her vs towards the man who posed the same solution.

[@SOAD4ever47]

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.

[@ayysop1404]

Jokes on you, I’ll take the Goat rather than the car

[@malikfaisal416]

ikr, you can feed and breed them then sell them for more

[@genesssisss]

bakojj_ lol bruh!!!!!!

[@iDunnoMC]

I had a goat for 1 month and for God's sake it's an actual nigjtmare

[@toaster3715]

Car take you to point A to Point B

[@brislyboar]

@@malikfaisal416 lets be honest with ourselves, you play minecraft

[@SageManeja]

did you just womansplain maths to me?

[@Sanglierification]

this should be the top comment!!!!

[@darkfyy]

So true

[@exoendo]

they tend to ovary-act

[@chibi013]

Sage Maneja why are dipshits like took so easily triggered

[@th3n3wk1dd]

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

[@jherbranson]

Part of the problem is that the person is trying to find the car. It's much more intuitive if you look for a goat first. You have a 2/3 chance of finding a goat. If you randomly choose a door, and assume you got a goat (67% probability), then Monty will have to show you the other goat. At this point you know where the car is.....2 out of 3 times. If you are wrong (33% probability), then you will chose incorrectly...1 out of 3 times.

[@thriftyultra4057]

lmao the clickbait

[@DualFrodo]

What's a mansplainer

[@gales9969]

+Chris Tully en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mansplaining

[@EE-zm3tp]

+Chris Tully A feminist word for "pig-headed, stupid man".

[@DualFrodo]

EE It feels stupid coming off my tongue

[@EE-zm3tp]

+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.

[@jangyman]

+Chris Tully ...it's a term used to describe male behaviour, but aimed at shaming them for being men.

[@fro556]

That problem was so hard! I had to ask my wife’s boyfriend

[@RBMCubing]

XD

[@nikesh9157]

Wat

[@Rawhen_Rajew-aka-Rajubhai]

Oh. What did he tell?

[@Coolsomeone234]

Yep same with my wife's son

[@Htiy]

*wait*

[@tallbillbassman]

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.

[@laurencampbell5893]

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

[@UserAnonymus1995]

Lauren Campbell- Smith yeah, it’s quite easy, weird how people didn’t get it

[@rifshamir4869]

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)

[@noorwafai8413]

makes a lot more sense explained this way

[@mohit2584]

Mannix Neff because you pick your original choice before it becomes 50/50.

[@ewthmatth]

@@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.

[@TheRealBeatMaster]

I wish a man would've explained this

[@aidenmclean6981]

What do mansplainers have to do with this????

[@th3n3wk1dd]

Vox is feminist, they hate men.. so they use "mansplaining" to prove it.

[@mauatua2746]

I'm curious ... why do you think feminists hate men?

[@rorylidster4844]

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

[@d4rks1p3]

why is the word mansplainers in the video title, does it mean something else? is it just clickbait then?

[@exoendo]

maybe they just thought she was wrong because it happens to stump everyone

[@stevecarter8810]

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'

[@kcwidman]

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.

[@BushidoBrownSama]

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!

[@mousysaint9143]

Yea cause previous male scientists never had to deal with any kind of rejection or discrimination...

[@edgeisloveedgeislife5439]

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.

[@jadedcatz7067]

yo jonhannes uuhh heard of Ignaz Semmelweis

[@AusSP]

+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.

[@cricketknowall]

Here's a woman explaining to me something I know.... Hmmm, what would I call that?

[@m.farhana.rahman3372]

Womansplaining?

[@cricketknowall]

@@m.farhana.rahman3372 woah woah woah! I'm not getting myself killed out there using such politically incorrect terms!

[@BCsJonathanTM]

They don't know that you know it. It's a general-audience video essay so of course they introduce the math problem involved. But yes, you do get bonus points for being Very Smart. And the video isn't an explanation about the problem, it's a look at the problem *AND* the reaction to vos Savant's 1991 article about it.

[@yugen]

You knew that Marilyn received relentless criticism for saying the same thing many other men had already stated without receiving criticism?

[@ahmedrushdi4700]

@@yugen because unlike the other men, she just had a high iq while they had degrees to back up their work, which is why she got a bigger backlash?

[@FactHubREAL]

Why are so many top comments from 2-3 days ago when this video is almost 2 years old?

[@tedmanney3352]

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).

[@xxudonoxx]

FactHub, It popped up in my recommended just like how I'm sure it did in yours too

[@effigy6850]

FactHub It's the KZbin 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!

[@NotYowBusiness]

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.

[@Drakid13Re3kt]

NotYowBusiness becouse only mainplainers get stumped by this... wait

[@camilamardones4628]

Seriously, the anger over the title and the deslikes... funny how much it bothers you

[@user-en5cu4uc9n]

obviously since it needs a certain level of logical capacity that you can't because of your hormonal fluctuations

[@psyssi]

Hmmm, how can I work feminism into this... t.Vox

[@potatopatato8211]

You are not intelligent. That is all.

[@psyssi]

Start arguing any time.

[@silenceXinsomnia]

Right, but that was probably because her answer was published in a Magazine with about 50 million readers, while previous answers were published in the likes of "The American Statistician"... I highly doubt that they have the same readership. No one cared because no one knew so no one made a fuss about it. Her IQ was already proven at that point too. The problem wasn't with Savant being a woman, it was the people that didn't understand the answer.

[@solezest7134]

It's not that people didn't understand it's that her answer was wrong, it was based on a logical fallacy that this video is trying to help perpetuate.

[@silenceXinsomnia]

Nah, her answer is correct, many people forget about the host even though he is the most important part and it only works because of him. Having 3 doors with one correct answer mean you have 1/3 chance to win. The thing is the host always shows a wrong answer that is not a door that you have chosen. The host now has a 1/3 chance that he can not open one of the two remaining doors, because it is the right door. These 1/3 add up with the initial base chance of 1/3 making the door the host did not open a 2/3 chance.

[@dlaba2337]

Nice click bait title.

[@chathovic]

how are you this disappointed that it wasn't more sexist?

[@jacobl611]

There isn't any reason to have mansplaining in the title

[@BushidoBrownSama]

except for accuracy

[@EwemizDreamsRawks]

I've read and seen videos of this specific problem multiple times, but I don't think I've ever heard about Marilyn. I think the history of women in academia and science communication is so important, so glad I stumbled across this!

[@sparksfly5877]

Same. I liked this video.

[@EwemizDreamsRawks]

@Mark Goldsmith ?? My dude, I never claimed that Marilyn was obscure, or that women don't have a place in academia. I'm literally a woman aiming to get into academia. What I commented was this: I recognized that this was the first time I ever heard of her, noted that recognizing women's contributions to STEM is important, and expressed gratefulness that I found this video and learned about it.

[@jackd6269]

@@mark0032 dude... she didn't even call her obscure, she just said it was important

[@jackd6269]

@@mark0032 if you make these mistakes often you shouldn't be as abrasive, i had no way of knowing that and i would call anyone out for saying something like that unless i had a reason to believe they weren't well

[@MindYourDecisions]

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.

[@aufhebung_enjoyer]

yeah but your initial chance still differs

[@HumptyDumptyOakland]

+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.

[@andreasdrg]

+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).

[@adaminwonderland7149]

Exactly. The old odds are no longer relevant.

[@xXJeReMiAhXx99]

+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.

[@catalin-rares3179]

Interesting video, however I do not approve of the attempt of reinforcing the sexist term "mansplainers". It is a sexist term meant to silence men via gender shaming, by using it you are not just having a plain argument with the people that were wrong in those letters, you are also trying to shame them. As if no idea or answer was ever challenged or proven to be wrong, you seek to ridicule and shame those that were in the wrong and were slow to realize, even though most of them changed their opinion after a while. It just shows that on the long run people value truth over the gender of the one who says it. How many of the 10000 letters contained sexist and vulgar remarks? How many of them were from people that were trying to defend their standing in the academic world, or were having poor self esteem and were finding reasons to disagree? Notice how I said "people" and not immediately assumed they were all men, "mansplainers", because assuming only men can write such letters is sexist since we have this intelligent woman perfectly capable of solving math question that the majority of the population can´t, also notice the "population" and not "mansplainers" like you used. Overall it could have been a great video showing insight in the history of the math problem, but it ended up being weakened by an overall feeling of outrage and a subtle atack on the men that were on the wrong side of the fence, men that ended changing their view, but who the hell cares about that right? Hypotethically if I wrote an article on why women belong in the kitchen, and I get 10000 letters of criticism that attacked me for being wrong, and male etc, and I ended being proven right, could I then say that I stumped thousands of "womanplainers" ?(women+complaining) How would you react to that?

[@TedManney]

Not only that, there is plenty of evidence Vox decided to ignore which indicates that sexism did *not* play a significant role. Only one of the letters cited in the video even so much as mentioned vos Savant's gender. She was also the first person ever to publish the problem to a mainstream publication (Parade Magazine) rather than an academic journal like her predecessors. Even today, anyone who creates a KZbin video or other presentation of the problem (the majority of which are men) can expect a nonstop sea of rude, ignorant commenters using namecalling and hostility in place of reasoned arguments to disagree with the swapping advantage. This can currently be seen on virtually any Monty Hall problem video on the web.

[@carbaretta9924]

Costan Catalin-Rares tl:dr

[@antiMatterDynamit]

your comment could make so much sense if the video wasnt about the monty hall problem... which she somehow finds so hard to understand with her puny female brain that she needs to make sure people understand that there are those with puny male brain that also cant understand it and because males are generally superior to females in every way imaginable the fact that there was a female that understood it and a male that didn't is so amazingly remarkable that she had to make a video about it

[@shadowling77777]

Costan Catalin-Rares Very thought out and intelligent conveying of my same feelings, thanks for writing this.

[@rohentahir4696]

This needs more likes.

[@mildr7]

Fighting sexism with sexism, great idea Vox.

[@connorcriss]

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.

[@JackFou]

what's sexist about this video?

[@MegaScytheman]

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

[@katrinal353]

+JackFou The fact that they use "stumped thousands of mansplainers" in the title? That's both sexist and clickbait

[@jooot_6850]

Modus obvious troll is obvious unless you are serious then i honestly feel bad for you

[@anthonycardenas4994]

Why would you ignore the voices of all the women who no doubt also thought she was wrong? Ignoring women? Discounting there genuine opinions? You should be ashamed.

[@mahna_mahna]

"I have received a number of letters commenting on my "Letters to the Editor" in The American Statistician of February, 1975, entitled "A Problem in Probability." Several correspondents claim my answer is incorrect." -- Steve Selvin, after the original publication of the answer to the Monty Hall problem, about which this video claims that "no one argued with him." So yes, plenty of people argued with him. I suspect the 10k letters might have something to do with Parade having a *slightly* higher circulation than The American Statistician.

[@jaredgarbo3679]

Nice.

[@elpoodoo3099]

Noice

[@AdmiralSP]

There is a clear case of manipulation here. The following was my comment on the video, copy pasting here because it seems relevant. "Maybe Steve Sullivan and the others didn't get any replies disagreeing with them was because they published in science journals like The American Statistician and not in a magazine or a newspaper. I may be wrong, but seems like something that was missed on purpose. You know, to fit a narrative. Then again.. I might be wrong."

[@perperperpen]

Well i think its also the case that you will search for reasons to discount the possibility of sexism occuring, but if i asked you if sexism occured during this time period, surely you wouldnt deny it? People are so quick to dismiss the possibility of sexism, but is it genuinely so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, society was simply more sexist decades ago than it is now, and that sexism also played a role in this story?

[@mahna_mahna]

@@perperperpen There's no arguing that sexism existed (and exists now). This doesn't mean it's the default assumption without looking at the facts of the case. And the facts seem to contradict the hypothesis.