This is a brilliant way of looking at at, thank you! By stating the rules using an idea people already know you're you're making it easier to grasp to scope of the rule.
Just wanted to check if RUclips still notifies you about this reply on your comment 8 years later. the rule is, for me to know, you should be the one to tell me, because if YT does in fact notify you and you don't communicate it, I won't know. thank you
I always automatically start reframing the rules for relevance to other categories than initially stated. "All blue cards must be even" becomes "only red cards may be odd" becomes "all odd cards must be red". Then checking the 3 is as obvious as checking the blue.
What if the red card, by virtue of a production error, has a blue back and not, as we might reasonably expect, an odd or even number? Therefore, we also need to turn over the red card.
+Luke Stocking Not necessarily by production error. Bicycle (the cards used in the video) does, in fact, officially produce red-to-blue double backed playing cards for use by stage magicians (or, perhaps, for more tricksy video puzzle setters than our present hosts). Cheers ;)
I looked at it in terms of formal logic: "If blue, then even". What follows from that is "If not even, then not blue" (the contrapositive). So you don't have to check the evens or the not-blues because they can't violate either rule, but you do have to check the blues and the not-evens.
Simple and clever. It really seemed a lot easier with the alcohol case than with the card case, although you showed the card one first and I knew for certain what I was looking for.
@@ben1147 Comment threads in their current form were not a thing back then. He was most likely replying to someone, but now it just seems like he's patting himself on the back, lol
I also picked the blue and the "8" instinctively... took me about thirty seconds of thinking about it to realise that it doesn't matter what's behind the "8", it's what's behind the "3" that proves or disproves the rule. This reminds me of the old gameshow puzzle of the three doors, two goats and a car, which makes much the same point... numbers and probabilities are so un-intuitive! There's also a mental "trick" whereby people tend to look for confirmation of their pre-conceived ideas...
That was my first reaction as well. The obvious thing, if you're used to puzzles like this, is to look for the "trap"; and the obvious trap is "the condition says nothing about red cards!" I worked it out simply by imagining "wait, it can't be that obvious" and thinking it through more thoroughly - and it still took me a while to twig that it's the 3 you need to turn over, not the 8.
Cool, but I suspect it is not sociological the reason for the improvement in performance but because it is being restated in terms that are more easily mapped to everyday concepts. Suits, card backs and the rules need careful specification to encode all of the information but restating the problem with ages and drinks means more information is encoded in the pre-established environment....oh yeah...then I guess that is sociological. Cool.
I thought there was a trick to it, when you said most people don't get it. It's such a straight forward logic problem, I don't understand NOT getting it.
I had problems with the verbal part of the equation. Somehow, I just connected the rule that blue cards has to have an even number... and I turned it into including that red cards has to have an uneven number. After I was finished processing the verbal message into a logical problem, it was too late allready. I would probably not be confused if I was to read the circumstances in mathmatical terms or have them conveyed to me in a way that made me understand. Edit: In fact, I still cant understand it... even after he explained it. How can he know that the numer 8 has a blue back? It is not okay if it's a red card (as he said). He said that the rule was that if a card has a blue back, then it has to have an even number on the other side. This means that a card with an even number has to have a blue back, or else it breaks the rule... so he has to check #8. Edit2: After wrapping my head around it, it seems that what has been portrayed in language does not apply to mathematics. The language of mathematics says that when something equals another thing, then that other thing also has to equal the something... but this is not the case here. You have to pick it apart and actually decode what he is saying. The reason why I have troubles understanding it is simply because, in my mind, if you flipped all four cards, you could ask the same question.
+z0uLess I think you are mistaking an implication with an equality. The statement says that IF a card is blue THEN it is an even number, but this says nothing about the other way around. It is like saying if it is raining then the ground is wet. The fact that it is raining implies the ground is wet, but the ground being wet doesn't imply that it is raining. It could have stopped raining, or someone could have watered the lawn or whatever other reason the ground could be wet. So the card being blue implies that it is an even card, but a card being even does not imply that it is blue. This is why the odd numbered card is checked, if it is odd and blue then the statement must be false.
***** yes, that is exactly what I did. the fact that this is explained verbally makes it hard for me to decode the message. PS! This puzzle was mentioned in one of David McRaney books (I think it was "You are not so smart"), and I believe it said that only 1 out of 10 people were able to solve it.
z0uLess That seems like a bit of an exaggeration (1 in 10, I mean). HOWEVER! I now understand how someone could miss it. It makes sense now (and has nothing to do with intelligence, as much as perception and assumptions). Thanks. :)
Many people intuitively check the cards for which a rule was mentioned. There was something about blue cards and something about even cards. So they choose those two. This is especially true for people not trained in logic. This is a fairly easy puzzle if you are used to working with logic, but quite hard if you are not and rely on your intuition. I could easily tell which cards had to be turned over, but I also knew which ones most people would pick. As for the language used: I can relate. Many logic puzzles are like this, though. You have to be careful not to invent any rules and listen closely.
"If a card has got a blue back, then it has to have an even number on the other side." "If it's a banana, then it has to be a fruit." But just because it's a fruit, doesn't necessarily mean it's a banana ^_^
Those who found it quickly asked themselves what it would take to prove the rule wrong which I did not do. Like for a lot of people it was obvious that I need to turn over the blue card but for the 8 and the 3, I did kinda want to see if the back of the 8 was blue, then I thought that wouldn't change anything and then it was clear that it was the 3 and the blue card to turn over. It's not like it took very long to figure out but it was significantly longer than with the age and drinks example.
Just an FYI, in the UK the minimum age for consuming alcohol in a pub is 16, as long as it's not a spirit, is purchased by an adult, and is consumed with a meal. This isn't well known, check it out for yourself.
Aha, very neat! Strange how you automatically dissociate from things when they're pure numbers or rules! I'll admit, I didn't get it, simply because I didn't pick up on the fact that there just wasn't a rule for red! My head made the connection that red must have the opposite rule to the blue, so that threw me off! I could blame me being tired, but I probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway!
I think the answer is one. did I misunderstand something? Isn't the rule just a logic "->" operation. "if blue then even", not otherwise and also rules for red and for any number
I remember a past lecturer of mine using the example of a chessboard puzzle. Can a chessboard with two diagonally opposite corners removed be tiled with 2 by 1 tiles? The answer is no but working it out brute force is hard. However, when the problem is restated as "The weddings of 32 couples commences tomorrow but two grooms have killed each other, can all the weddings go ahead as planned?" the answer is obviously "no". Same problem but the salient issue of pairing B&W, M&F is made concrete.
In the social context people lay out the rules for different situations. From the rule "18+ are allowed to drink alcohol" follow multiple other rules: "17- can not drink alcohol" "Alcohol can not be drunk by 17-" "Alcohol can be drunk by 18+" My guess is people memorize these as well when first confronted with the rule. But people, stories and situations are more memorable than abstract rules, so they don't try finding these other statements in the abstract situation. So they just think: These 2 were mentioned. I need to control them. In the social way, in each case you have a rule.
I watched this video many many years ago, probably when it was posted, and I had no clue how to answer the puzzle back then. I rewatched it now and had a sense of intuition about it because I did not jump to conclutions about what the rule was saying in the same way as I did back in 2013. Does this make me more clever or is this a conventionalized way of thinking that makes me able to jump to conclusions quicker? There is a book called "The Master And His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist that talks about how the brain categorize and the thesis of that book is that much of the logic of western science is left brain dominant. I see this line of thinking as interesting and it may be of help to deepen our understanding of what being "clever" really is. Either way, I think that my experience of not knowing and knowing, and the difference between them, is what wisdom is. PS! I dont think its confirmation bias, its more about how the brain looks for patterns to solve a problem.
What if I just check the back of the 3 of spades first? Wouldn't that forego the need to check the back of the eight if the 3 is blue? Breaking the rule in that case first implies the need to check other right? I think I may just be too lazy at this.
I consider myself fairly adept at puzzles like this, but for whatever reason I fell into the trap of picking the blue and the "8" cards. I think that while I avoided making the mistake of assuming that red had to be odd if blue was even, I did not avoid the mistake of assuming that while blue cards need to be even, even cards do not need to be blue. It's strange because it's the same logic, yet my brain allowed the one assumption, while consciously blocking the other assumption...
The minimum number of cards that you need to turn over is 0. You simply slide the card away from the wood thing that you're holding, and you can see the card fronts/backs without turning them over whatsoever [and there was no stipulation made prohibiting that].
only the blue and the 3 i predict, you have to check for the blue, if its odd, then the conclusion is false,wethere the red is odd or false dosent change the conclusion, wether the 8 is blue or red dosent change. you also need to check the 3 so if it has a blue back it means the conclusion is false
for some reason when i was thinking about the blue cards and which ones needed to be turned over in my mind i was the ruler of the land and i wanted to make sure my people was obeying the rules and the red cards was people from another Land i didn't care about so the first thing i wanted to check was the blue back card then i saw the red back card so i passed it and then i saw the even 8 card i didn't know if it was blue or red but i didn't care because it was already even then i saw the odd 3 and i didn't knew if it was blue or red so i needed to check it
I figured out the answer straight away. But because I knew it was a puzzle I looked for a better answer, thinking that my answer was too simple. So of course I then thought it would be something like "None! You just slide the blue card and the 3 to the side to check!", but thought that the tone of the video was too serious for it to be a joke. I then considered the possibility of hidden cards, and that the answer would be greater than 2 because of them, but as you stated there was only 4, and the tone of the video was serious, I discounted that idea. I then decided that as you state it's a puzzle, and not a trick, I was confident I was right in the first place. (or that the answer would be really cool) I would really like to see statistics on how many people actually do say the blue and 8, it would be interesting. I'm not sure that I would say it's confirmation bias that causes people to check the 8. I think it would be more to do with people misinterpreting the rule, thinking that all even cards had to be blue, and even potentially going as far as to say that all red cards are odd and all odd cards are red. "All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs" comes to mind. I felt like this puzzle was really easy, and that I didn't have to change my thinking in anyway to solve it. But I have studied Puzzle Based Learning, Science, Engineering, and Computer Science, so I guess good testing methodology is now fairly well ingrained into my logic. As said before, familiarity is likely the reason the second test is easier for people to solve. Practising a task almost always makes you better at it. Anyway, interesting video, thanks! Now I'll have to go and test all my friends and see what they do.
Interesting, I got it right without any real thought (I even paused and wrote it down!) but I normally suck at "riddles" and the like. But I have done a fair bit of programming, so maybe the intrinsic logic has become second nature to me.
Last time I checked that wasn't technically true, under the age of 18 you are allowed to drink alcohol under supervision but they're not allowed to sell it to you.
I got it wrong, because I assumed that red cards could not bear an even number as well... :-( Very cool! It is a logic puzzle, but I feel like I've been tricked by language.
I did the same. We jumped to conclusions. Rule blue back = even number. we weren't fooled or tricked by language, but we did the mistake of jumping to a conclusion. A logical fallacy by us.
You weren't tricked by language, as proven by the drinking age problem. If somebody had said the rule is, "If you are drinking alcohol, you must be over 18", you would never think that means that over-18s *must* drink alcohol.
...500 characters not enough... :( Anyway, this "buys into" that whole idea, I think. The "natural" thing is to look for evidence that you're right, which is exactly the wrong thing to do: to prove a hypothesis, you have to eliminate all alternatives to that hypothesis. Finding evidence that the hypothesis works in some circumstances means absolutely nothing; finding evidence that it DOESN'T work, in any circumstance, conclusively proves the hypothesis is wrong.
Old video, probably at least 20 correct answers in the comments below, no matter, I'll try anyway. You need to turn the 3 to check it's not blue, and then turn to blue card to check it's even. That's all that matters since there's no rule red about red cards nor is there a rule that all even cards must be blue, just that all blues must be even Edit: and apparently the answer was explained in the video as well. Should've realized that from the 3 minute running time... oh well
ergo: I am in the set of "most people", not the set of your intelligent viewers. I'm kicking myself about being confident of the wrong answer. All men are mortal, Socrates is mortal, therefore Socrates is a man.... Trying to be kind to myself, I don't know of any card games that depend on a rule like this, so it may be analogous to under-age drinking "logically", but it isn't psychologically. Which, I guess, is the point. Thank you and goodnight, I'll have the fish for tea.
Wonder what would happen if the question/puzzle was phrased EXPLICITLY to say there was no rules for red cards, only blue. Would the number of successful guesses go up or stay the same? In the social context, most people would implicitly know that 18 y/o+ are allowed to drink alcohol and 15 y/o are NOT.
Actually in the social context people lay out the rules for different situations. From the rule "18+ are allowed to drink alcohol" follow multiple other rules: "17- can not drink alcohol" "Alcohol can not be drunk by 17-" "Alcohol can be drunk by 18+" My guess is people memorize these as well when first confronted with the rule. But people, stories and situations are more memorable than abstract rules, so they don't try finding these other statements in the abstract situation. So they just think: These 2 were mentioned. I need to control them. In the social way, in each case you have a rule.
This is a brilliant way of looking at at, thank you! By stating the rules using an idea people already know you're you're making it easier to grasp to scope of the rule.
Wait.
Just wanted to check if RUclips still notifies you about this reply on your comment 8 years later. the rule is, for me to know, you should be the one to tell me, because if YT does in fact notify you and you don't communicate it, I won't know. thank you
I always automatically start reframing the rules for relevance to other categories than initially stated.
"All blue cards must be even" becomes "only red cards may be odd" becomes "all odd cards must be red". Then checking the 3 is as obvious as checking the blue.
Clever explanation with the drinking age.
What if the red card, by virtue of a production error, has a blue back and not, as we might reasonably expect, an odd or even number? Therefore, we also need to turn over the red card.
I love this answer. Thanks Luke!
+Luke Stocking
Not necessarily by production error. Bicycle (the cards used in the video) does, in fact, officially produce red-to-blue double backed playing cards for use by stage magicians (or, perhaps, for more tricksy video puzzle setters than our present hosts).
Cheers ;)
This would not work, as then the definition of 'back' would be in question.
You could say that a double-backed has a value of zero (which is even), so it is both red- and blue-backed, as well as even.
it’s not a production error😂
I looked at it in terms of formal logic: "If blue, then even". What follows from that is "If not even, then not blue" (the contrapositive). So you don't have to check the evens or the not-blues because they can't violate either rule, but you do have to check the blues and the not-evens.
I just made a video. The 4 card puzzle. Let me know if you get it right. ruclips.net/video/Hpwd_ns2Wjs/видео.html
Simple and clever. It really seemed a lot easier with the alcohol case than with the card case, although you showed the card one first and I knew for certain what I was looking for.
That's a nice way to put it!
Steve Mould was this comment a joke? If so I’m the only one who saw it lol
@@ben1147 Comment threads in their current form were not a thing back then. He was most likely replying to someone, but now it just seems like he's patting himself on the back, lol
I also picked the blue and the "8" instinctively... took me about thirty seconds of thinking about it to realise that it doesn't matter what's behind the "8", it's what's behind the "3" that proves or disproves the rule. This reminds me of the old gameshow puzzle of the three doors, two goats and a car, which makes much the same point... numbers and probabilities are so un-intuitive!
There's also a mental "trick" whereby people tend to look for confirmation of their pre-conceived ideas...
That was my first reaction as well. The obvious thing, if you're used to puzzles like this, is to look for the "trap"; and the obvious trap is "the condition says nothing about red cards!" I worked it out simply by imagining "wait, it can't be that obvious" and thinking it through more thoroughly - and it still took me a while to twig that it's the 3 you need to turn over, not the 8.
Cool, but I suspect it is not sociological the reason for the improvement in performance but because it is being restated in terms that are more easily mapped to everyday concepts. Suits, card backs and the rules need careful specification to encode all of the information but restating the problem with ages and drinks means more information is encoded in the pre-established environment....oh yeah...then I guess that is sociological. Cool.
I thought there was a trick to it, when you said most people don't get it. It's such a straight forward logic problem, I don't understand NOT getting it.
I had problems with the verbal part of the equation. Somehow, I just connected the rule that blue cards has to have an even number... and I turned it into including that red cards has to have an uneven number. After I was finished processing the verbal message into a logical problem, it was too late allready. I would probably not be confused if I was to read the circumstances in mathmatical terms or have them conveyed to me in a way that made me understand.
Edit: In fact, I still cant understand it... even after he explained it. How can he know that the numer 8 has a blue back? It is not okay if it's a red card (as he said). He said that the rule was that if a card has a blue back, then it has to have an even number on the other side. This means that a card with an even number has to have a blue back, or else it breaks the rule... so he has to check #8.
Edit2: After wrapping my head around it, it seems that what has been portrayed in language does not apply to mathematics. The language of mathematics says that when something equals another thing, then that other thing also has to equal the something... but this is not the case here. You have to pick it apart and actually decode what he is saying. The reason why I have troubles understanding it is simply because, in my mind, if you flipped all four cards, you could ask the same question.
+z0uLess I think you are mistaking an implication with an equality. The statement says that IF a card is blue THEN it is an even number, but this says nothing about the other way around. It is like saying if it is raining then the ground is wet. The fact that it is raining implies the ground is wet, but the ground being wet doesn't imply that it is raining. It could have stopped raining, or someone could have watered the lawn or whatever other reason the ground could be wet.
So the card being blue implies that it is an even card, but a card being even does not imply that it is blue. This is why the odd numbered card is checked, if it is odd and blue then the statement must be false.
***** yes, that is exactly what I did. the fact that this is explained verbally makes it hard for me to decode the message.
PS! This puzzle was mentioned in one of David McRaney books (I think it was "You are not so smart"), and I believe it said that only 1 out of 10 people were able to solve it.
z0uLess That seems like a bit of an exaggeration (1 in 10, I mean). HOWEVER! I now understand how someone could miss it. It makes sense now (and has nothing to do with intelligence, as much as perception and assumptions). Thanks. :)
Many people intuitively check the cards for which a rule was mentioned.
There was something about blue cards and something about even cards. So they choose those two.
This is especially true for people not trained in logic. This is a fairly easy puzzle if you are used to working with logic, but quite hard if you are not and rely on your intuition.
I could easily tell which cards had to be turned over, but I also knew which ones most people would pick.
As for the language used: I can relate. Many logic puzzles are like this, though. You have to be careful not to invent any rules and listen closely.
"If a card has got a blue back, then it has to have an even number on the other side."
"If it's a banana, then it has to be a fruit."
But just because it's a fruit, doesn't necessarily mean it's a banana ^_^
Those who found it quickly asked themselves what it would take to prove the rule wrong which I did not do. Like for a lot of people it was obvious that I need to turn over the blue card but for the 8 and the 3, I did kinda want to see if the back of the 8 was blue, then I thought that wouldn't change anything and then it was clear that it was the 3 and the blue card to turn over.
It's not like it took very long to figure out but it was significantly longer than with the age and drinks example.
Just an FYI, in the UK the minimum age for consuming alcohol in a pub is 16, as long as it's not a spirit, is purchased by an adult, and is consumed with a meal. This isn't well known, check it out for yourself.
Aha, very neat! Strange how you automatically dissociate from things when they're pure numbers or rules!
I'll admit, I didn't get it, simply because I didn't pick up on the fact that there just wasn't a rule for red! My head made the connection that red must have the opposite rule to the blue, so that threw me off!
I could blame me being tired, but I probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway!
I think the answer is one. did I misunderstand something? Isn't the rule just a logic "->" operation. "if blue then even", not otherwise and also rules for red and for any number
I remember a past lecturer of mine using the example of a chessboard puzzle. Can a chessboard with two diagonally opposite corners removed be tiled with 2 by 1 tiles? The answer is no but working it out brute force is hard. However, when the problem is restated as "The weddings of 32 couples commences tomorrow but two grooms have killed each other, can all the weddings go ahead as planned?" the answer is obviously "no". Same problem but the salient issue of pairing B&W, M&F is made concrete.
I am actually most fascinated with why our rule sense works so much better for social rules than mathematical ones. Hmmm.
In the social context people lay out the rules for different situations.
From the rule
"18+ are allowed to drink alcohol"
follow multiple other rules:
"17- can not drink alcohol"
"Alcohol can not be drunk by 17-"
"Alcohol can be drunk by 18+"
My guess is people memorize these as well when first confronted with the rule. But people, stories and situations are more memorable than abstract rules, so they don't try finding these other statements in the abstract situation.
So they just think: These 2 were mentioned. I need to control them.
In the social way, in each case you have a rule.
I watched this video many many years ago, probably when it was posted, and I had no clue how to answer the puzzle back then. I rewatched it now and had a sense of intuition about it because I did not jump to conclutions about what the rule was saying in the same way as I did back in 2013. Does this make me more clever or is this a conventionalized way of thinking that makes me able to jump to conclusions quicker? There is a book called "The Master And His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist that talks about how the brain categorize and the thesis of that book is that much of the logic of western science is left brain dominant. I see this line of thinking as interesting and it may be of help to deepen our understanding of what being "clever" really is. Either way, I think that my experience of not knowing and knowing, and the difference between them, is what wisdom is.
PS! I dont think its confirmation bias, its more about how the brain looks for patterns to solve a problem.
What if I just check the back of the 3 of spades first? Wouldn't that forego the need to check the back of the eight if the 3 is blue? Breaking the rule in that case first implies the need to check other right? I think I may just be too lazy at this.
I consider myself fairly adept at puzzles like this, but for whatever reason I fell into the trap of picking the blue and the "8" cards. I think that while I avoided making the mistake of assuming that red had to be odd if blue was even, I did not avoid the mistake of assuming that while blue cards need to be even, even cards do not need to be blue. It's strange because it's the same logic, yet my brain allowed the one assumption, while consciously blocking the other assumption...
The minimum number of cards that you need to turn over is 0. You simply slide the card away from the wood thing that you're holding, and you can see the card fronts/backs without turning them over whatsoever [and there was no stipulation made prohibiting that].
The Fable Intro made my day :)
only the blue and the 3 i predict, you have to check for the blue, if its odd, then the conclusion is false,wethere the red is odd or false dosent change the conclusion, wether the 8 is blue or red dosent change. you also need to check the 3 so if it has a blue back it means the conclusion is false
for some reason when i was thinking about the blue cards and which ones needed to be turned over in my mind i was the ruler of the land and i wanted to make sure my people was obeying the rules and the red cards was people from another Land i didn't care about so the first thing i wanted to check was the blue back card then i saw the red back card so i passed it and then i saw the even 8 card i didn't know if it was blue or red but i didn't care because it was already even then i saw the odd 3 and i didn't knew if it was blue or red so i needed to check it
+Omar Mix nice!
good dictator right there
It’s sad how proud I got of myself for getting it right 😂
Same. 😂
I figured out the answer straight away. But because I knew it was a puzzle I looked for a better answer, thinking that my answer was too simple.
So of course I then thought it would be something like "None! You just slide the blue card and the 3 to the side to check!", but thought that the tone of the video was too serious for it to be a joke.
I then considered the possibility of hidden cards, and that the answer would be greater than 2 because of them, but as you stated there was only 4, and the tone of the video was serious, I discounted that idea.
I then decided that as you state it's a puzzle, and not a trick, I was confident I was right in the first place. (or that the answer would be really cool)
I would really like to see statistics on how many people actually do say the blue and 8, it would be interesting.
I'm not sure that I would say it's confirmation bias that causes people to check the 8. I think it would be more to do with people misinterpreting the rule, thinking that all even cards had to be blue, and even potentially going as far as to say that all red cards are odd and all odd cards are red.
"All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs" comes to mind.
I felt like this puzzle was really easy, and that I didn't have to change my thinking in anyway to solve it. But I have studied Puzzle Based Learning, Science, Engineering, and Computer Science, so I guess good testing methodology is now fairly well ingrained into my logic.
As said before, familiarity is likely the reason the second test is easier for people to solve. Practising a task almost always makes you better at it.
Anyway, interesting video, thanks!
Now I'll have to go and test all my friends and see what they do.
FYI, this is called Wason Selection Task.
Interesting, I got it right without any real thought (I even paused and wrote it down!) but I normally suck at "riddles" and the like. But I have done a fair bit of programming, so maybe the intrinsic logic has become second nature to me.
Last time I checked that wasn't technically true, under the age of 18 you are allowed to drink alcohol under supervision but they're not allowed to sell it to you.
Words...
WonderWhy made a video about this recently!
Lol. I venture to say that you were losing non boredom points, but the bar equivalent was both informative and funny.
The red one
Why was I worse at the social situation than the card puzzle?
but if the 3 of spades was red on the back you would still need to check the blue card... the minimum is still two.
I don't want to be that one guy, but technically bananas aren't a fruit.
Seems pretty obvious to me, though I've studied discrete mathematics and do computer programming all day at work.
Blue and 3
I got it wrong, because I assumed that red cards could not bear an even number as well... :-( Very cool! It is a logic puzzle, but I feel like I've been tricked by language.
I did the same.
We jumped to conclusions.
Rule
blue back = even number.
we weren't fooled or tricked by language, but we did the mistake of jumping to a conclusion.
A logical fallacy by us.
You weren't tricked by language, as proven by the drinking age problem. If somebody had said the rule is, "If you are drinking alcohol, you must be over 18", you would never think that means that over-18s *must* drink alcohol.
Now can you explain it with uncles and pastors analogy
I got it straight away
...500 characters not enough... :( Anyway, this "buys into" that whole idea, I think. The "natural" thing is to look for evidence that you're right, which is exactly the wrong thing to do: to prove a hypothesis, you have to eliminate all alternatives to that hypothesis. Finding evidence that the hypothesis works in some circumstances means absolutely nothing; finding evidence that it DOESN'T work, in any circumstance, conclusively proves the hypothesis is wrong.
alguem tem um video sobre a seleção de cartas de Wason em portugues! Por favor ajudem!
This puzzle was easy
Well don't I feel dumb
Old video, probably at least 20 correct answers in the comments below, no matter, I'll try anyway.
You need to turn the 3 to check it's not blue, and then turn to blue card to check it's even. That's all that matters since there's no rule red about red cards nor is there a rule that all even cards must be blue, just that all blues must be even
Edit: and apparently the answer was explained in the video as well. Should've realized that from the 3 minute running time... oh well
Except they don't have to be over 18. Pedantic but they are allowed to be 18. Lol
Yes I got it right !!
I knew it was two, because they had the same type of puzzle on singing banana.
you may have confused some americans with this video
i got it right #trolledbymould
ergo: I am in the set of "most people", not the set of your intelligent viewers. I'm kicking myself about being confident of the wrong answer. All men are mortal, Socrates is mortal, therefore Socrates is a man.... Trying to be kind to myself, I don't know of any card games that depend on a rule like this, so it may be analogous to under-age drinking "logically", but it isn't psychologically. Which, I guess, is the point. Thank you and goodnight, I'll have the fish for tea.
Wonder what would happen if the question/puzzle was phrased EXPLICITLY to say there was no rules for red cards, only blue. Would the number of successful guesses go up or stay the same?
In the social context, most people would implicitly know that 18 y/o+ are allowed to drink alcohol and 15 y/o are NOT.
Actually in the social context people lay out the rules for different situations.
From the rule
"18+ are allowed to drink alcohol"
follow multiple other rules:
"17- can not drink alcohol"
"Alcohol can not be drunk by 17-"
"Alcohol can be drunk by 18+"
My guess is people memorize these as well when first confronted with the rule. But people, stories and situations are more memorable than abstract rules, so they don't try finding these other statements in the abstract situation.
So they just think: These 2 were mentioned. I need to control them.
In the social way, in each case you have a rule.
ugh, I'm an idiot! I thought I had to turn over the 8, but of course I don't! Grrr. Arg.
I got it right. Seemed intuitively obvious to me. I am, however, a freak of nature.
you need to turn over 3, the red card could have a blue backside.
Then perhaps its value is zero (which is even) and is red- and blue-backed at the same time. I'd say it's still following the rules and allowable.
pretty easy puzzle... took me few seconds to solve.
He's hot.