Simple Logic Quiz

Desert Reign said:

...You read that into the problem. That is your real issue. You read the words but you heard different words...

Click to expand...

Thats more or less what I was trying to say.

Desert Reign said:

...Here is another puzzle that relies on exactly this same mental error of hearing different words to what you read.

I have two modern British coins. Together they total 30p. However, one of them isn't a 20p coin.
What are the two coins?

For the culturally uneducated: modern British coins: 1p, 2p, 5p, 10p, 20p, 50p, £1, £2. And many British people, unable to work out a solution with all modern coins, resort to older coins. In particular there was a 5 shilling piece called a crown, which would be worth 25p if it was still current. In other words, they don't listen to the plain words of the problem, which called for modern coins only.

Click to expand...

Its not exactly the same at all, in any way. False analogy. This two-coin riddle is like an optical illusion, only aurally. It shine's light on a limitation to our ability to understand each other, even when we superficially speak the same language.

Granting that they're are exception's to every rule, 1 of them certainly being a non-native-English speaker uttering something inadvertently crafty like this riddle is written, whenever something is written or said to intentionally exploit this limitation, by implying something that is known to be inferred without any work-checking by most people, this is intentionally dishonest. The reason it work's . . . the reason this limitation exist's . . . is because we usually naturally presume that when people are saying something to us, they are not trying to deceive us. This two-coin riddle is a perfect example of somebody being deceptive and intentionally misleading; exploiting the limitation of our ability to understand each other, even when we superficially speak the same language.

This is forked-tongue English, is what I'm saying. Its a distinct language. Far more complex than English. You've got to have a good memory.


DJ

Dan Emanuel said:

Thats more or less what I was trying to say.
Its not exactly the same at all, in any way. False analogy. This two-coin riddle is like an optical illusion, only aurally. It shine's light on a limitation to our ability to understand each other, even when we superficially speak the same language.

Granting that they're are exception's to every rule, 1 of them certainly being a non-native-English speaker uttering something inadvertently crafty like this riddle is written, whenever something is written or said to intentionally exploit this limitation, by implying something that is known to be inferred without any work-checking by most people, this is intentionally dishonest. The reason it work's . . . the reason this limitation exist's . . . is because we usually naturally presume that when people are saying something to us, they are not trying to deceive us. This two-coin riddle is a perfect example of somebody being deceptive and intentionally misleading; exploiting the limitation of our ability to understand each other, even when we superficially speak the same language.

This is forked-tongue English, is what I'm saying. Its a distinct language. Far more complex than English. You've got to have a good memory.


DJ

2.0
​

Click to expand...

I see your point but disagree. Most people read into the card problem because they see what they want to see. Whilst it is true that the coin problem was designed to exploit this same error, it is not deliberately deceptive. The people who do not solve it are self-deceived. People just get into bad mental habits and however widespread those habits might be, they are still errors of logic. What you are saying IMHO amounts to 'because bad mental habits are so widespread, those of us who have better mental habits should modify our methods of communication to cater for them.'

PureX said:

But that information is not there!....

Click to expand...

Gotcha. :thumb:

Your right.

But, as far as the actual O.P.'s challenge go's, your wrong. "Which two boxes would you choose to test this rule: If a box shows a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side." The question is Which two? The answer is the E box and the 7 box. Thats the answer. You're correct that you can't actually test the rule, and I was wrong to argue that the box's actually contained information, because they don't, but the actual question is Which two?


DJ

Desert Reign said:

I see your point but disagree. Most people read into the card problem because they see what they want to see. Whilst it is true that the coin problem was designed to exploit this same error, it is not deliberately deceptive. The people who do not solve it are self-deceived. People just get into bad mental habits and however widespread those habits might be, they are still errors of logic. What you are saying IMHO amounts to 'because bad mental habits are so widespread, those of us who have better mental habits should modify our methods of communication to cater for them.'

Click to expand...

Oh, come on! If we know that we can easily deceive somebody, and then we do, for our own advantage or for there own disadvantage, then thats, for lack of a better word, greasy. Its fork-tongued and duplicitous. Just because we can speak fork-tongued English doesn't mean that we should ever exploit that advantage in those who cannot speak it. We can't blame our sin on someone else because their too naive or innocent --their innocent! And to sin, and then to pass off the wage's for our own sin onto someone else, just because their too stupid or slow or whatever, to know better; thats sin. Thats bearing false witness against them.

Come on.

When somebody say's to me, "I have two modern British coins. Together they total 30p. However, one of them isn't a 20p coin," I automatically, because of my naivete --and innocence! --charitably presume --that what they meant was, even though its not what they said, that neither of them are 20p coin's --not that only 1 of them isn't!


DJ

Dan Emanuel said:

Oh, come on! If we know that we can easily deceive somebody, and then we do, for our own advantage or for there own disadvantage, then thats, for lack of a better word, greasy.

Click to expand...

There is no advantage in posing a problem. Any advantage is aimed at the solver, both for his amusement (kick-self) and for his benefit, helping him to understand his own deficiencies. If the problem were used to wheedle money out of someone, then yes I would agree.

When somebody say's to me, "I have two modern British coins. Together they total 30p. However, one of them isn't a 20p coin," I automatically, because of my naivete --and innocence! --charitably presume --that what they meant was, even though its not what they said, that neither of them are 20p coin's --not that only 1 of them isn't!

Click to expand...

And this exactly makes my point. Your mental error is so widespread that you regard it as 'automatic' and 'innocent'. You accept it as normal but I don't. It's sloppy logic. Pure and simple.

Desert Reign said:

...If the problem were used to wheedle money out of someone, then yes I would agree.

Click to expand...

Agreed.


DJ

Desert Reign said:

I have already answered this. Your mistake is your faulty understanding of the word 'test'. = To attempt to prove wrong. You should read my previous replies. It isn't true that any of the boxes can be used to test the rule. Only two of them can be used to test it. You have not been asked to prove the rule. You have not been asked to disprove the rule. You read that into the problem. That is your real issue. You read the words but you heard different words.

Here is another puzzle that relies on exactly this same mental error of hearing different words to what you read.

I have two modern British coins. Together they total 30p. However, one of them isn't a 20p coin.
What are the two coins?

For the culturally uneducated: modern British coins: 1p, 2p, 5p, 10p, 20p, 50p, £1, £2. And many British people, unable to work out a solution with all modern coins, resort to older coins. In particular there was a 5 shilling piece called a crown, which would be worth 25p if it was still current. In other words, they don't listen to the plain words of the problem, which called for modern coins only.

Click to expand...

None of your coins are worth anything, to me. :chuckle:

Any of the "boxes" could be used to test the rule because to make any of them useful, the boxes would have to be changed to contain information that they do not contain, now. And once we allow for that, any box can contain any information, and thus be used to prove or disprove the 'rule'. As the boxes are now being presented, however, none of them can be used to test the rule.

You're right about the error being that people are making assumptions. But the assumptions aren't mine, they're yours and others. You are assuming that the boxes must keep what information they have, and then have some new information placed or discovered in them, that can then reveal the accuracy or inaccuracy of the rule. But I am making no such assumptions. I am taking the boxes as they are, and I am pointing out that if these imaginary changes are going to occur, they could include changing the information already there, as well as adding new information to it. So that the logical answer to the question being posed is that none of the boxes are currently of any use in testing the rule. And if we allow that the boxes will be altered, then ANY of them could be used to test the rule (depending on the changes they undergo).

PureX said:

None of your coins are worth anything, to me. :chuckle:

Any of the "boxes" could be used to test the rule because to make any of them useful, the boxes would have to be changed to contain information that they do not contain, now. And once we allow for that, any box can contain any information, and thus be used to prove or disprove the 'rule'. As the boxes are now being presented, however, none of them can be used to test the rule.

You're right about the error being that people are making assumptions. But the assumptions aren't mine, they're yours and others. You are assuming that the boxes must keep what information they have, and then have some new information placed or discovered in them, that can then reveal the accuracy or inaccuracy of the rule. But I am making no such assumptions. I am taking the boxes as they are, and I am pointing out that if these imaginary changes are going to occur, they could include changing the information already there, as well as adding new information to it. So that the logical answer to the question being posed is that none of the boxes are currently of any use in testing the rule. And if we allow that the boxes will be altered, then ANY of them could be used to test the rule (depending on the changes they undergo).

Click to expand...

i understand, i think i came to some similar conclusions myself. the whole test was skewed from the start -

Dan Emanuel said:

Gotcha. :thumb:

Your right.

But, as far as the actual O.P.'s challenge go's, your wrong. "Which two boxes would you choose to test this rule: If a box shows a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side." The question is Which two?

Click to expand...

I understand. But the answer to the question is that the answer being sought is irrelevant. None of the boxes are any more or less useful than the others. They only appear that way if we imagine information manifesting in the boxes that is not there. And it would be illogical for us to do that.

patrick jane said:

i understand, i think i came to some similar conclusions myself. the whole test was skewed from the start -

Click to expand...

Yep. It was an "incoherent" question, because the answer being sought had already been eliminated by the question being asked.

It is interesting, though, how many of us immediately assumed that there must be a solution to the puzzle, and began imagining all sorts of possibilities to find that solution. It's one of those mental 'habits' that we all fall into, and that magicians use to play their tricks on us.

Desert Reign said:

...Your mental error is so widespread that you regard it as 'automatic' and 'innocent'. You accept it as normal but I don't. It's sloppy logic. Pure and simple.

Click to expand...

Thats dishonest. The word's of the riddle were chosen specifically to exploit a weakness in peoples' listening and understanding and interpreting procedure's. Specifically, procedure's that presume the honesty of the speaker/writer. When you trick someone, thats dishonesty. We are in agreement that it is fine that this sort of thing is useful to point out our limitation's, but its not right to judge it as sloppy. Its not sloppy to be trusting. And its not sloppy to neglect to improve our ability to spot dishonesty! Its not our sin, if somebody intentionally try's to deceive or mislead us. Its not our fault, they're is no flaw in us, if we are tricked by someone who is trying to trick us; thats on them; thats there sin; and there flaw.


DJ

PureX said:

I understand. But the answer to the question is that the answer being sought is irrelevant. None of the boxes are any more or less useful than the others. They only appear that way if we imagine information manifesting in the boxes that is not there. And it would be illogical for us to do that.

Click to expand...

But all your saying here, I.O.W., is that the O.P. is a riddle, or a quiz; that its contrived.

Yes! Its a "Simple Logic Quiz."




DJ

Dan Emanuel said:

But all your saying here, I.O.W., is that the O.P. is a riddle, or a quiz; that its contrived.

Yes! Its a "Simple Logic Quiz."

Click to expand...

That's true, it is a "simple logic quiz", as it says. It's just that the question is deliberately misleading, as it eliminates it's own "logical answer" by the way it's being asked.

I don't mind that, though, any more than I mind a magician playing a trick on me in the same way. It's kind of fun as long as it's harmless. And maybe even good for us to see how we often make presumptions, automatically, based on missing or manipulated information.

Dan Emanuel said:

Thats dishonest. The word's of the riddle were chosen specifically to exploit a weakness in peoples' listening and understanding and interpreting procedure's. Specifically, procedure's that presume the honesty of the speaker/writer. When you trick someone, thats dishonesty. We are in agreement that it is fine that this sort of thing is useful to point out our limitation's, but its not right to judge it as sloppy. Its not sloppy to be trusting. And its not sloppy to neglect to improve our ability to spot dishonesty! Its not our sin, if somebody intentionally try's to deceive or mislead us. Its not our fault, they're is no flaw in us, if we are tricked by someone who is trying to trick us; thats on them; thats there sin; and there flaw.

Click to expand...

There hasn't been any dishonesty here. Calling it so is projecting one's own failings onto the other person. That's the reason why people might see it as dishonest. Because they cannot see that they themselves were being illogical in the first place. The puzzle exploits a weakness; you seem to be avoiding acknowledging that weakness as the first cause of the failure. Again, there is no dishonesty here. An analogy: police set up traps to catch criminals. Is that dishonest of the police?

PureX said:

I don't mind that, though, any more than I mind a magician playing a trick on me in the same way. It's kind of fun as long as it's harmless. And maybe even good for us to see how we often make presumptions, automatically, based on missing or manipulated information.

Click to expand...

Yes. But it isn't dishonest.

Desert Reign said:

You read the words but you heard different words.

Here is another puzzle that relies on exactly this same mental error of hearing different words to what you read.

I have two modern British coins. Together they total 30p. However, one of them isn't a 20p coin.
What are the two coins?

Click to expand...

I am sure most of the people reading the words of this puzzle do not hear that one of the coins is not a 20p coin but instead hear that neither of the coins are a 20p coin.

Desert Reign said:

Yes. But it isn't dishonest.

Click to expand...

"Disingenuous" would probably be the more accurate word. But in these cases, it's also, "no harm, no foul". Who doesn't like a magic trick, or a trick question, so long as they are not being abused by them, in some way?

Desert Reign said:

There hasn't been any dishonesty here. Calling it so is projecting one's own failings onto the other person. That's the reason why people might see it as dishonest. Because they cannot see that they themselves were being illogical in the first place...

Click to expand...

I can see exactly how it happened, and it had nothing to do with me being illogical. It had to do with the riddle being worded in the way in which is was. If it were not worded in this particular way, it wouldn't even be a riddle!

Here is how its worded: "I have two modern British coins. Together they total 30p. However, one of them isn't a 20p coin."

Here is how it could have been worded, if the intention was not to deceive: "I have two modern British coins. Together they total 30p. [Only/And, but not However/But] one of them isn't a 20p coin."

No riddle to solve. No puzzle. Because, no attempt to deceive.

Desert Reign said:

...The puzzle exploits a weakness; you seem to be avoiding acknowledging that weakness as the first cause of the failure...

Click to expand...

Correct, because the "weakness" is naivete and innocence, not logical sloppiness. I read the word's and interpreted them as if they were not meant to deceive me. If I had to measure the word's that other's were saying to me all the time with the discrimination required to correctly answer this riddles query, I would avoid those people because life is already damned hard enough without having to treat what people say to me with extreme caution. I presume that their honest, and move on. If I find that they've tricked me, then I suppose I'm of the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" persuasion.

Desert Reign said:

...Again, there is no dishonesty here. An analogy: police set up traps to catch criminals. Is that dishonest of the police?

Click to expand...

Of course it is. But its OK because police are trying to catch dishonest people, not honest people. Police net's are designed to catch dishonest fish. And police aren't bearing false witness against anybody in trapping criminal's; the opposite is true.

I note that we agree that the kind of wording in the two-coin riddle, if and only if used to defraud or otherwise take negative advantage of someone, is wrong.


DJ

Dan Emanuel said:

I note that we agree that the kind of wording in the two-coin riddle, if and only if used to defraud or otherwise take negative advantage of someone, is wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes. But the wrongness doesn't detract from the fact that the person deceived was deceived because of his poor logical awareness.

Nothing brings out the fun like a logic quiz. lain: