Originally Posted by qwerty
Why was there no discussion of the recent "Monty Hall" criticism
of these studies recently described in the New York Times
? Basically the criticism is saying that, in probabilistic terms, the first choice should tell you something about future choices, therefore there is no evidence of cognitive dissonance.
Well, she says herself in the article that the "Monty Hall" problem has been accounted for, and doesn't think that the critique applies to current research, so you can't really fault her for not bringing it up herself. I wish Joshua had brought it up, though, since the NYT article doesn't spell out just how the problem has been corrected for. I would like to have heard an explanation of that.
Not to pick nits, but I think the criticism isn't quite as you describe it, but rather that it's wrong to assume that the differently colored M&Ms are completely fungible to the monkeys.
Incidentally, I find it fascinating that non-Van Halen primates also have an aversion to brown M&Ms.