Santeria, that's a great explanation of the Monty Hall Paradox. I got a pretty good sense of it from the show and just from my own rusty knowledge of statistics, but you really helped clarify it.
What's sad is that
nobody in their sample changed their vote or even considered the statistics, instead just going with "gut instinct," which is meaningless in a random choice with no data to base it on. It's a sad illustration of how little understanding the American public has of probability and statistics, and how easy it therefore is to mislead and manipulate them.
A large sample size than 20 "contestants" probably would have gotten more people who'd opt to change their choice. There was also nothing and stake. There was no incentive for the "contestant" to change their choice as there was nothing to be gained or lost by opening the right or wrong door. In TV game shows there is, namely whatever the prize is.
That's a good counterargument. It would be worth retesting to see if there was a difference with a genuine incentive in play. Although one could argue that even with no material gain, there's a psychological reward to getting the right answer, or to getting applauded when you win a game even if you don't really gain anything. I mean, if you're playing Monopoly or Scrabble or tic-tac-toe, you don't achieve any material or practical gain by winning, but there's still a greater emotional reward to success than to failure. So that would provide an incentive on some level.
Their "mini test" they did with the two of them was probably a bit better in this regard of a)being somewhat random (how the interns placed the numbers on the sheet) and b) testing both the "chage doors"/"don't change doors" parts of the "myth."
But in the first part with the audience, they weren't testing the statistics, they were testing the psychological portion of the myth, the assertion that contestants were unlikely to switch. They didn't actually get any useful statistical data, as Jamie said, since nobody chose to switch. The shop rig was testing a wholly different part of the myth, so there's no "better" or "worse" there.
I suspect, however, an experienced shooter could shoot from the hip, "gangsta style" or with multiple guns with better accuracy. Doing it for the first time is hardly going to get the best results.
Maybe they could get better results that Adam and Jamie did, but would they get better results by shooting from the hip or with sideways guns than they would with the Weaver or straightarm stance? That's the key question -- not whether these methods can hit the target at all, but whether there's any particular advantage to using them instead of a more conventional stance. At best it would be more of a trick-shot thing, a way to show off, than a standard, optimal tactic. Which might be fine if you're in a shooting competition, but if you're fighting for your life, then if you have any sense and training at all you'd say "screw the trick shots" and stick with the reliable, basic stances.
I thought the same thing as the OP on the grenade myth. I'm not sure the "myth" as intended was to say someone would escape harm completely but would minimize their harm which, obviously, they would.
I don't know about that. It's not like shrapnel damage is cumulative. Basically each piece of shrapnel is a small bullet, and it only takes one in the right place to kill you. Your odds might be marginally better if you duck and cover, but that hardly makes it a safe zone.
I'd say that if you had no time to run to a safer distance, the best option would be to lie on your belly facing
away from the grenade, so that the shrapnel would be more likely to hit you in the legs than a vital area. Then again, if it hit your femoral artery, you'd be dead in moments.
And if someone was in some sort of armor or other military wear the small bit of shrapnel that did breach the "prone zone" probably would have little effect. Using buster, ballistics gel or something like both "naked" and in armor would have probably shown more results as far as survivability.
A good point. If you have a helmet and flak jacket, then diving onto your belly facing the grenade might help. But I don't think that's strictly what the myth was about. The question asked specifically about the shrapnel pattern, so that was the variable they tested independently of other considerations.
Hip-shooting is useless at any distance beyond arm's length - at which point you may as well bring the sights up to eye level and shoot the right way.
The one time hip-shooting is actually taught as practical is when you're physically scuffling with the bad guy. The proper method is to draw your firearm with your strongside hand, PUSH the bad guy away with your weak arm, HOLD that arm up to keep them away, then bring your gun up to your hip (actually a little higher, like rib-level), and shoot for center-of-mass.
Oh, that explains it. Given how badly it worked, I was wondering why it would even have been used in the movies at all. It does make sense for a close-range thing, like if you're going to clandestinely pull a gun on someone and force them to go with you, or just shoot them in the gut by surprise. So that makes sense in the context of '40s noir or gangster movies. It's a more intimate kind of threat, not something intended for ranged combat.
I wonder if the sideways grip was originally a short-range thing too. When I think about it, I get a mental image of someone holding a gun sideways with the barrel right up against a person's head, threatening them. It might even make it easier to look someone in the eye while holding the gun against their temple or something, because you wouldn't have to twist your wrist as much as you would if you were holding the gun upright in that position. So it might be an effective move for up-close threat and intimidation, for criminals who wanted to cow and terrify their victims by literally putting a gun to their head. As with the hip shot, maybe it's meant for point-blank range and fails when attempted at a distance.
