Test Of Psychopathy?
I.
Each of the cards has a color on one side, and an alphanumeric symbol on the other.
Rule: If it is blue on one side, then it is a 5 on the other side.
Which cards-- the fewest necessary-- do you need to flip to check the rule?
The answer is the blue card and the G card. We'll come back to this.
II.
Each of the colored sides describes whether or not a sweater is borrowed; the other side describes whether it was returned.
Here's the deal: If you borrow my sweater, you must return it.
Which cards-- the fewest necessary-- do you need to flip to check to see if someone broke the deal and has to face the wheel?III.
In formal logic, this is expressed:
(p then q) implies (not q then not p)
Go through it:
1.
if p then q.
p
therefore q.
2.
if p then q.
not q.
therefore not p.
Many people find formal logic difficult to understand because they read left to right and apply future to the right, past to the left. If/then statements, in language, become about what will happen:
If you shoot him, then he will have a bullet hole in his body (If p then q).
More generally, however, logic is operating in the other direction: what if there is not q?
He does NOT have a bullet hole in his body; therefore, you did NOT shoot him.
P then q also implies: without q existing first, p can never exist.
In any argument if p then q, the only two things you know for sure are: p, therefore q; and not q, therefore not p.
In the cards above, those are the only two cards you need to flip: p (the blue card); and not q (the G or the did not return my sweater). Flipping the 5, for example, is a waste of a flip, it tells you nothing: if it's blue on the other side, then it worked; if it is orange, did that really tell you anything?
IV.
"p then q" represents the form of a proposition, but it can be Englished any way you want:
Descriptions:
If he plays baseball professionally, then he takes steroids.
Precautions:
If you work with HIV patients, then you must wear gloves.
Contracts:
If you borrow my sweater, you must return it.
Don't get tripped up by the words: "hey, it isn't true that baseball players take steroids." "I could borrow the sweater and not return it." This is about the form. If the premise is accepted that "if you are a baseball players you take steroids," can it be true that someone who doesn't take steroids is still a baseball player? No.
IV.
Which brings us to human beings: we suck at formal logic, but, we are excellent at logic as applied to human interactions. Did you do better with the sweater than the numbers?
We instinctively feel the rules of borrowing and returning; and the logic of what happens if "you DON'T return my sweater" (therefore you won't be allowed to borrow more sweaters.) This doesn't mean we don't violate those rules, or cheat; but we understand the rules.
But impersonal descriptions, abstractions (cards, ps and qs) are naturally very difficult for us. Unless you have committed to memory modus ponens and modus tollens and force yourself to rewrite the question in that form, you won't score better than 20% (which is why it is a good idea to do so.)
So if you take a bunch of people who are psychopaths, and compare them to those who are not psychopaths but of equal intelligence:
From The Economist's summarization of this study:
[The] test suggests that analysing social contracts and analysing risk are what evolutionary psychologists call cognitive modules--bundles of mental adaptations that act like bodily organs in that they are specialised to a particular job. This new result suggests that in psychopaths these modules have been switched off.
That would be one explanation; and if it was the only one, this would hardly be worth reporting in the first place. But there's another explanation.
Part 2 soon.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
December 17, 2010 12:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, I totally failed the first test. I didn't realize every card had a character on one side and a color on the other!
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 1:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The answer is the blue card and the G card.
Wrong wrong wrong! You need to turn 3 cards. The blue card, to make sure there isn't a '5' on the back. The G card, to ensure the back isn't blue. And the purple card, to ensure that the other side isn't blue.
There's no rule that a card can't have solid colors on both sides.
Hat tip to Martin Gardner here.
Score: 33 (51 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 1:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The problem was supposed to the prefaced with "each card has a color on one side and a symbol on the other"
Score: 20 (20 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 1:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
i'm german, still failed the experiment.
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 1:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Are you good at logic? Of course not; you're American. "
I stopped reading after this post's second sentence. I am really getting sick of how much you bash Americans.
Why don't you relocate to Greenland? You might find yourself happier there.
Score: -40 (78 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 1:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The problem was supposed to the prefaced with "each card has a color on one side and a symbol on the other"
Who says? I like it better this way. It's far more difficult. Everyone assumes that cards have a symbol on one side and a plain backing on the other, out of daily experience. Yet such common-sense assumptions really can screw you up if you bring them into an axiomatic system that has no such equivalent!
The cards are a model of a set of logical statements. Assuming various things that you know about playing cards, as playing cards, makes them a worse model and not a better one.
You're trying to fix the situation. But there's a good lesson here, don't cover it up.
Score: 9 (17 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 1:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Wrong wrong wrong! You need to turn 3 cards. The blue card, to make sure there isn't a '5' on the back. The G card, to ensure the back isn't blue. And the purple card, to ensure that the other side isn't blue. "
I second this. Checking blue and G doesn't mean that 5 doesn't turn out to be blue on the other side.
Score: -4 (18 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 2:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
YOU might suck at logic, but I've known De Morgan's laws for years and use them every day (computer programmer).
Score: 4 (12 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 2:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The issue you're demonstrating is not "most people are bad at logic" (though they are), but "English is ambiguous".
You yourself have posted about the distinction between original/technical meaning and colloquial meaning ("decimate", anyone?). In everyday English, the word "if" can mean propositional logic's "if", or it can mean propositional logic's "if and only if". (Just as everyday English's "or" can mean either inclusive-or or exclusive-or.)
Most people, never having studied propositional logic, don't know the usage of "if" that you mean. If you present them with the statement "If you borrow my sweater, you must return it," they have to use context to determine whether you mean propositional-if or everyday-if (i.e. "if" or "iff").
In the statement "If you borrow my sweater, you must return it," an if-and-only-if makes a *lot* more contextual sense than propositional-if. Why would I return your sweater if I didn't borrow it?
Indeed, even to someone who *does* know propositional logic, your statement is ambiguous. If I walked around assuming everyone's usage of if was propositional-if and not everyday-if (i.e. if or iff), I'd end up very confused indeed. Are you telling us you've never used "if" to mean "if and only if"?
Score: 14 (20 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 2:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think that is kind of splitting hairs...
Let's say you turn over the blue card, and there is no 5 on the back...you know the premise is wrong and you can stop. But if there IS a 5 on the back, then you turn over the G card. If the back isn't blue, the premise has been verified twice. Do you really need to keep going? If there were 25 more cards with the remaining letters of the alphabet, would you have to check them ALL to verify the premise? At what point can you safely stop and say, 'ok, it's checking out...'?
As another commenter mentioned, the question itself is flawed.
I see what you are saying that you would have to check all three of those cards to *guarantee* the premise, but I think you could make a safe *assumption* about the premise based on just turning over two. Like I said, splitting hairs a bit.
Score: -2 (16 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 2:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Could this be an outline of Part 2?:
The psychopaths score lower on the social contracts and precautions because there is something "wrong" with their minds concerning their relations with other people.
However, the normal people score as low as the psychopaths on the descriptive questions because the questions are not directed at their personal responses. Could this be an indicator of narcissism?
Descriptions:
If he plays baseball professionally, then he takes steroids.
Precautions:If you work with HIV patients, then you must wear gloves.
If you borrow my sweater, you must return it.
Contracts:
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 3:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The if/iff distinction is completely irrelevant to TLP's puzzle and discussion.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 3:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The whole point of the puzzle is to verify WITH CERTAINTY that the rules are being followed.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 3:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So then persons where modules have been switched off are not necessarily psychopaths? So then who are the people with switches off that follow social contracts? And the people with switches on that don't?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 3:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
item one: you need to flip the purple card also, you said you don't because you assume that a color (blue) could not be on the back of the purple card.
nice try being snarky with your post. get your own examples right.
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 9:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is there anywhere I can read the (apparently NIH funded) study without paying $35? And I mean, from my computer without going into a university library, because it's almost 2011 FFS
My question is, how did they determine who was a psychopath in the first place - what test was used? What is the definition of psychopath? What theory of mind is it based in, how far down do the turtles go? Lacking any real theory for what the mind is or how it works, how do we avoid just talking in circles about the arbitrary words and lines we've used to classify people?
If you pick the test of who goes in which group, is the second test perhaps not just showing the same difference the first test selected for?
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 9:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Or a new Wason selection task:
If we have an existing test that can distinguish psychopaths from non-psychopaths, then psychopaths are people who lack reasoning about social precautions and risks
-------
Which cards do you flip over?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 17, 2010 9:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From what I can tell, the question is "how many cards must you flip over to prove the statement true," and that would be all but the "5" card. If the first card has a five on the back, true...but if any of the other cards (except the 3rd card) are blue, then the statement is wrong. So the answer is 3.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 12:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Ok, wild guess on part two: the psychopaths were identified using the Hare test, which is based on two factors one of which correlates with antisocial PD, which will turn out to be prevalent with the nonpsychopaths, and the other of which correlates with narcissism, one trait of which is manipulative dishonesty, and the subjects, being of average intelligence, figure out the purpose of the test and manipulatively underperform on it on purpose to support a hypothesis which minimizes their responsibility.
Am I close?
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 12:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Rule: If TLP says there will be a part 2, there will be a part 2.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 1:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Except in III when the tautology is given
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 1:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm betting they used the PCL-R. It's a semi-structured interview that would be rather difficult to fake since it usually takes several hours and isn't looking for specific answers. You also back it up with case histories (mostly for scoring anti-social elements).
Regardless, the more I've read and heard, psychopathy seems to be a problem of attentional control. If you have a test that looks at gambling, psychopaths can focus on positive outcomes, but can't focus on punishment (unless they are just avoiding punishment). Whereas everyone else can pay attention to both reward and punishment.
Ultimately it really depends on how you are defining psychopathy. Cleckley's original description isn't necessarily the same as the current definition.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 1:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I would expect that having the modules switched off is a necessary prerequisite for psychopathy (meaning there are no psychopaths who have the modules switched on)... however, I don't think this is the exclusive determining factor (meaning psychopathy is a broken social/risk assessment brain, PLUS "something else/other things"). Perhaps a combination of personality factors (impulsivity? aggression?) and early life experiences (deprivation? neglect? poverty?)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 1:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Is it normal to get depressed for no reason at all.
I am so easily crushed by my biology. It's like being totally powerless. It's like being a slave.
Sometimes i wonder if we all have this burden and others simply cope better.
I'm tired of the struggle to get out of bed and the crushing pull of stagnant time, nothingness now and forever, total hopelessness... nerve shock alertness impulses that melt into complacent submissive sadness, originating from inside my chest. It feels like the sort one feels when recently traumatized before they can psychologically incorporate it.
Isolated and encapsulated in a bubble.
The idea I have to put up with this over and over and over again until I die makes me just want to jump. Even if / when I feel better again, I know it will always come back. And I always have to worry if this will be one of those soul sucking trips that leaves me broken.
If other people have to deal with this, how do they. I would expect more people would just jump.
Just let go of this fucking life, it's all so pointless. I keep running around only to come back to this.
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 5:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
That's why they call it autistic psychopathy.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 7:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Unless the article is about killing the cognitive kill switch. In that case, there is no part 2 and if there ever will be, it will be delayed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 12:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think this is why I'm so bad at formulas: I cannot get over the fact that my options have been limited to A or B. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REST OF THE LETTERS?!
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 1:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here you are:
For future reference you can find most widely-cited academic articles by googling the title in quotations. If you're getting back a lot of unrelated crap, you can refine it to a pdf-only search in the advanced tab.
I thought it was just the blue card. I didn't know that I was allowed to make assumptions one way or another about the others. Similarly, I didn't assume that I had to return the sweater, because maybe the other side was that I just found it on the street. :(
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 2:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Many people formal logic difficult..."
And many people basic grammar difficult as well!
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 2:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That was painful to read. Using a pronoun like "it" creates all kinds of problems in logic when the meaning is ambiguous and leads to hundreds of years of debate from Aristotle to Kant to Bertrand Russell to Saul Kripke. I could even imagine a scenario where "it" is nothing in the image, why must the image be connected to the pronoun? Do you see the problem? I understand what you were trying to get at, and logic should be studied far more in this country, but be careful about names and ambiguity in logic problems.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 3:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You do not assume anything in logic outside of the rules that are rigorously laid down. Think of Euclid. You cannot do things outside the original 23 definitions (might be off a couple there) and 5 POSTULATES. That is the entire foundation that classic geometry is built on. I assume Alone is referring to classical logic, which is very very similar in that you have definitions and some postulates/axioms and different theorems, just like math. No assumptions are made outside the original axioms/postulates.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 3:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Im pretty sure you are confusing an "if then" statement with an "if and only if" statement. Not uncommon unless you study math. The point being if and only ifs can go both ways. One is known as sufficient reason, the other necessary reason. An example being if something is colored then it is red, that is sufficient and an "if then". However to say "something is red if and only if it is colored" is different, here it is necessary for something to be colored if it is red or blue or white or etc. Can you see the difference? The example in ALones post is actually pretty terrible partly for this reason.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 7:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
this is why I sometimes hate the comments on this site. On one side of the card there is a color, and on the other a letter or a number. It's really not that hard to understand.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 9:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can see why you'd be frustrated, but you do know your own explanation misses the point right? is "it" a card, or is "it" the entire pattern, suggesting that since there's a blue card on the left side then on the other side of the whole pattern and on the other side of the G card is the number five. I'm sure this post just makes it worse but I don't have much to do tonight besides read and this makes for a nice break.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 9:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Useful Alone, or in company.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 18, 2010 11:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
regarding Part 2,
With Personal Contracts and Precautions, the "p, then q" relationship involves a q that is very specific, reflecting a close and precise relationship to q (like the economist says mental adaptations that act like bodily organs, somewhat like our autonomic nervous system which functions almost without conscious knowledge.
However, p, then q has q Descriptives that are very subjective, vague, and numerous. emphasis on high numbers of Descriptives make the brain work much harder and be more prone to error.
Could the Part B explanation be that non-psychopaths and psychopaths have "correct" Descriptive assessments that are equal, relatively incorrect, and are the default positions for ALL people?
Thus, Psychopaths' "poor" performance at Social Contracts and Precautions may not be due to those "modules being shut off".
Perhaps, only non-psychopaths have those same essential modules SWITCHED ON [by some default mechanism] during development, thereby surpassing psychopaths in percent of correct Contracts and Precautions assessments.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 19, 2010 11:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anonymous, I think you just proved his point.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 21, 2010 2:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think TLP is right; only G and the Blue are required. The sweater is an analogy but works the same as the abstract cards. You don't need to check "returned his sweater" b/c the fact she returned his sweater implied she borrowed it in the first place.
The rule is "if it is blue on one side THEN it is a 5 on the other". Nothing forbids a purple card from ALSO being a 5 on the other side. Therefore, the 5 flip is not required to verify the rule.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 21, 2010 9:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
nice concise explanation. Want to bet if the discussion will continue anyway?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 21, 2010 6:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
With a name like "Trollumination", it's really obvious he was just making an ass of himself.
Anyway, from all I remember of my old logic courses, I think he's right. The premise of a logic puzzle in formal logic is taken at face value as indisputably true; a little like the legal system, you /have/ to go through a processes even if you know the guy did it. ;)
That said, p->q implies that Q cannot have happened /without/ p, so while that card may in actuality be red on the back, for the purposes of the formal logic puzzle, it is impossible for it to be any colour except blue, because if it weren't, there could not be a 5 on the other side.
That said... I appear to have tested positive for psychopathy. Oops?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 21, 2010 11:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Indeed only the blue card needs to be checked. As the rule is phrased, we only care about whether a blue card has a 5 on the other side.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 23, 2010 12:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't say I know what you should do to stop feeling the way you do, but try this: go find somebody to help. It may be the only way you can get outside of yourself. Find some people, anybody, who needs help, and help them. Try a hospital, or a homeless shelter, or a hospice or nursing home. Don't expect gratitude, or to be treated like a hero. Expect nothing. Just be there and help, and do it over and over and over. Don't stop and think about it, just do it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 24, 2010 2:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
On the subject of how to feel about market price quotations for your long-term holdings, I defer to Ben Graham, who said it better than anyone. "The market is a voting machine in the short term and a weighing machine in the long term."
http://www.gotoorder.com
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 25, 2010 10:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Um...its actually stated in the second sentence that "Each of the cards has a color on one side, and an alphanumeric symbol on the other."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 27, 2010 10:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
> But impersonal descriptions, abstractions (cards, ps and qs) are naturally very difficult for us.
No they're not. They're only difficult for YOU, for about half of the human population who are incapable of abstract analysis. The other half of the population (capable of abstract analysis) has no problem whatsoever with them. Moreover, there is a simply test of the reliability of long term memory which predicts and explains this phenomenon with great accuracy.
http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2008/12/fundamental-cognitive-traits.html
The fact you find logic so difficult and that you HAD TO memorize it like basic arithmetic, rather than finding it entirely natural, is one of the reasons why you're mentally inferior to me. And as far as I'm concerned, mentally handicapped.
You might want to go through my blog entries tagged 'psychology' and 'magical thinkers'. Especially the blog on magic vs logic. Logic is what *I* do, magic is what YOU do.
All that crap about time is just that ... TOTAL FUCKING CRAP. And entirely illogical to boot. This guy has a hole in him and I didn't shoot him - possible or impossible? Possible!
The truth is that you magical thinkers use association in place of implication. And association is symmetric whereas implication is asymmetric. It's nothing more complicated than that. None of that "time" shit.
The fact you transposed the problem from spatial to temporal for no reason whatsoever and you DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE you get no gain from it, but instead claim it's some kind of magical "explanation" is just another example of your inferior magical brain at work.
I don't expect you to learn much from my blog entries because ultimately you ARE a magical thinker. And my blog entries are aimed at people capable of logic and spontaneous creativity. People such as myself.
I'm pointing out my blog entries as a moral obligation, not because I think you're capable of understanding them one whit.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
December 27, 2010 10:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Note that ability to do analysis and synthesis are tested in the MBTI, but the MBTI was created by people (psychologists) incapable of either analysis OR synthesis. In other words, they are incapable of comprehending what they're testing for or measuring. It's why the questionnaires are so rambling and full of nonsensical bullshit, and why even after all that rambling, the results are so fucking unreliable.
N means capable of abstract synthesis, S means incapable. I'm an N, you're an S.
T means capable of abstract analysis, F means incapable. I'm a T, you're an F. F stands for FAIL by the way. Ts are the people who have no problem with logic.
J vs P mean nothing because the way they're defined makes no sense. What they are SUPPOSED to mean is not which trait (analysis or synthesis) a person is best in, but which they have more TRUST in. I know at least one person incapable of synthesis who trusts the creativity of others more than he trusts his own logic. He was quite upset to learn that by his own standards he is mentally ... broken.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 27, 2010 6:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
hi, the thing with the formal logic, that is not completely correct. actually there are several readings for if (like for and, or...), so you would have to specify. in mathematics, your "if" is the "if and only if" (iff. in shorthand), which indicates a two sided implication.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 11, 2011 5:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
NBA is a magic word that associates with numerous dreams. As millions of people are going after NBA matches and NBA stars, they are going after what they wear. It is always said that when you love someone, you'll love his or her dog. It is the same with the case. And NBA jerseys won't let you down in the summer for they will make you feel the existence of your favorite NBA star all the time.
http://www.lovejerseys.com/nba-jersey-c-66.html/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 23, 2011 8:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I stopped at the first sentence - you give logicians a bad name.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 23, 2011 7:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The fact you 1) care more about your feelings than the truth, and that 2) you think I'm a logician or some kind of specialist in logic rather than merely a run of the mill person with the innate CAPACITY for logic, EACH SEPARATELY prove that 3) you are not worth my time. And so good riddance to you.
Furthermore, The fact you seriously think that in a world where there's poverty, starvation, stagnation, oppression, warfare and other abominations, YOUR FEELINGS matter MORE than that ... proves you're one of the stupidest people on Earth. Apropos of this I've posted two blog entries Why Earth Sucks and You Are All Evil.
I'll leave it as an exercise to you all to figure out what truth and logic have to do with solving the world's problems. Anyone capable of answering this ought to be able to figure out the rightful place of "having my feelings hurt".
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 23, 2011 7:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The fact you 1) care more about your feelings than the truth, and that 2) you think I'm a logician or some kind of specialist in logic rather than merely a run of the mill person with the innate CAPACITY for logic, EACH SEPARATELY prove that 3) you are not worth my time. And so good riddance to you.
Furthermore, The fact you seriously think that in a world where there's poverty, starvation, stagnation, oppression, warfare and other abominations, YOUR FEELINGS matter MORE than that ... proves you're one of the stupidest people on Earth. Apropos of this I've posted two blog entries Why Earth Sucks and You Are All Evil.
I'll leave it as an exercise to you all to figure out what truth and logic have to do with solving the world's problems. Anyone capable of answering this ought to be able to figure out the rightful place of "having my feelings hurt".
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 11:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are the first member of this discussion, including the original author, who seems to have gotten the first logical statement right. Nik clearly states the underlying logic, but didn't go to the next step and declare the result of his/her analysis.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 1:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see why you have to check G now - I was wrong, and too hasty. And apparently not a psychopath, I suppose. Interestingly, my haste was because the sweater version implied seeming impossibilities that did not require a test, while the refueling version in the Economist article didn't... "Jen returned the sweater Mary borrowed."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 21, 2011 2:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What always gets me about this kind of question (the one with the cards) is the (missing but implied) statement "These four are the all the cards there is."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 15, 2011 10:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hi!
Maybe I'm just being dumb in the morning, but where is the link to part II ?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 15, 2011 12:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Language and assumptions...
I remember once on some kind of IQ test I was stumped by a question about letters. Something like, consider the set of letters A, O, H, I, M. Which of the following letters belong in the set: W, P, R, N?
I generally do very well on IQ test, but I couldn't get this one, because I was thinking of the letters as abstract entities. The trick is to look at their representation. Assuming you're viewing this in the same font I'm using, the letters in the set are all symmetric about a vertical axis. So the answer is "W". Kind of pissed me off when I was told the answer.
I do well on the Wason test. Maybe I'm a psychopath?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2012 4:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Getting to the bottom of unknown telephone numbers, particularly wireless phone numbers, is not a hard thing to do - you just need to get in touch with a good cell phone directory.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2012 6:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think TLP is right; only G and the Blue are required. The sweater is an analogy but works the same as the abstract cards. You don't need to check "returned his sweater" b/c the fact she returned his sweater implied she borrowed it in the first place.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2012 6:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Good basis of materials close to this topic men would have, at the writing jobs service. comparateur forfait mobile
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 26, 2012 11:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Explore 200+ Auto Repair Tools. Deals on Launch X431 Scan Tool! 100Z
Ford VCM
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 12, 2012 4:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hey
Test Of Psychopathy?
Your website is incredible, thank you in your effort!
Do you have more great articles like this one
Thank you!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 22, 2012 3:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Parfois, je voudrais croire que les gens d'aujourd'hui serait tout simplement obtenir un mode de vie et de réaliser combien stupide qu'ils apparaissent. Je suppose, pourquoi êtes-vous actuellement le spamming, est-il un moyen de piratage ou de quelque chose. Juste cesser, s'il vous plaît, je préfère étudier d'autres personnes opinions trop tu sais. en tout cas, excellente publication. simplement se débarrasser en le spam s'il vous plaît. merci.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 17, 2012 8:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Congratulations for your site and your articles very successful;)
Murielle
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 21, 2012 3:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Your blog is very well done, and your relevant articles.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2012 8:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Really nice post, great blog.
Gwendoline
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 5, 2012 1:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Blue and G is correct. All Blue cards have 5 on the back, but that doesn't mean that all 5 cards have Blue on the back. Flipping the 5 or Purple is irrelevant; you just need to confirm that the Blue colour corresponds to the 5, and that the G does not correspond to Blue.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 28, 2012 7:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually, he says that each card has a colour on one side and a symbol on the other, so turning the purple card is useless because there won't be a colour on the other side anyway.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 8:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I was really excited to go over every lines of your review. Superb work! Can't wait to read more of your blogs. Keep it up!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2013 2:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
hello,we are wonderful,a largest supplier of car DVD in china.We are committed to provide you with the highest quality products and the best service, contact us immediately it
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2013 6:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
That is genuinely helpful. I would like to ask if it would be Okay if I mentioned some of that on my own blog. Of course, I would credit you, and link back here also.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Comments