Confusion about the Monte Hall problem isn't an issue with people not understanding probability, it's that the problem is usually presented in a way that's under-explained and with hidden assumptions:
The best way I've seen the monty hall problem explanation improved upon was by increasing the number of doors. The difference between a 1/2 and 1/3 chance is so subtle to a human. Change it to 1,000,000 doors and suddenly it becomes very obvious why your odds improve on swapping.
Tbh it was never very obvious to me why we reveal N-2 goats instead of just 1.
My own explanation is that if you are shown a goat door in advance, there is 50/50 of two remaining doors. But since without that you might have picked the door that was revealed, there’s a symmetry about it in which the swap is more lucky. Which is just a clumsy way of saying your chances were 2/3 lose vs 1/3 win and it doesn’t change after the reveal, so you must swap.
This actually helped. I always assumed that the goats/prize were randomly placed, Monty's Door selection was random, and the contestant chose a random door. In which case I could never fathom why you'd need to switch. Since as the author says, there's no new information about the remaining two doors, and switching or not switching remain random.
I still feel like I don't full grasp the actual problem/solution though. Even with this new understanding. I will read the linked article by Jeffrey S. Rosenthal though, and hopefully that will fill in the last of the blanks.
https://statisticsblog.com/2011/11/23/monte-hall-revisited/