Changing Minds

Ten years ago in the USA 57% of the population opposed gay marriage, 35% were for it, and 8% were too dull/stupid to have an opinion.  Today it is pretty much neck and neck, at 46% vs 45%, with the dull rising to 9%.

I'd like to think that the swing is people changing their minds, but I suspect most of this change is simply bigots dying and being replaced in the polls by fresh young minds.

Politics is far too dominated by old twats set in their ways.  Democracy is fine for most things but on progressive issues of morality society has to wait for the young generation to grow up and become politicians before the 'right' policy is enacted.

I talked a bit about what the direction of law should be in my very first post, which TBH I'd like to get some comments on as it's an interesting topic!

I don't think I have a point, or a solution to this, so feel free to suggest one.

Looks

I read an article based on a paper recently that concluded you could tell if someone were criminal from how they look.  I was astounded at the bad science behind it - there was no attempt to mitigate for, or even mention, the possibility that it was hairstyle or someone generally looking like they have had a hard life that provided the (somewhat weak) correlation with criminality.  Personally I don't think this study can conclude anything - in which case why did they bother?

As an aside - there is evidence that better looks are correlated with higher IQ.  I know it is with me anyway ;)

The weakest correlation was with rapists - suggesting (to me) that men from all walks of life can be capable of rape, whereas someone who is in a gang, or trailer park, etc, is much more likely to commit and be caught for murder than some white collar dude.

Anyway, here are some of the pics used in the research.  I'll post the answers and link the paper in a few days' time to give you a chance to see how you do!

Who are the criminals? 

The 2 Envelope Problem

You are on a gameshow – a pilot episode, so you have no idea about the level of prizes likely to be offered.  You answer a couple of questions correctly and are told to chose one of two envelopes. Inside the envelope you chose is $300 and the host tells you that one of the two envelopes has twice the amount of money in it than the other one.  He asks you if you wish to swap for the other envelope – i.e. instead of $300 you could win $150 ($150 less than you currently have) or you could win $600 ($300 more than you currently have).  It would seem to be a 50:50 likelihood of either outcome.  50% chance of losing $150 and 50% chance of gaining $300 – anyone familiar with gambling, or mathematics, will tell you that on average you will make a profit if you take this gamble therefore you should swap to the other envelope.

The problem with this reasoning is that it would apply whichever envelope you picked – the odds of your picking the envelope with the higher amount in it is 50%. swapping envelopes should still give you 50% chance of getting the higher amount.  Is there any gain in swapping?

So far as I know, there is no consensus over a solution to this paradox.  The "Cover's Strategy" is obviously rubbish if given a little thought - of course it works as a strategy, but it does not explain the paradox.
If an explanation does not exist then which predicate is false?  This has troubled me for over 10 years.