+Wisdom Erwin Ah! I see now. I didn't read into the word "must". I took it for granted, read right over it. Thanks for the Wisdom, Erwin. You just made me a bit more smarter. :)
I definitely said "tiger" way too many times in this video... It took me ages to finally decide on "All tigers have stripes" as my example. I have seen a few news articles of a "tiger with no stripes" and if you type that into Google Images you will get some results... but if you actually look at the pictures, none of them are genuinely stripe-less. They either have stripes on their face or tail. But anyway, even if it turned out there were a tiger (or even a species of tiger) with no stripes... that kind of just goes with what I was saying, that we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. That being said... just because the possibility exists that something is wrong, is no reason to reject scientific research. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's ever going to happen. It's possible that Vladimir Putin himself could come to your door and say that he wants to watch How I Met Your Mother on Netflix with you. It's possible, it's just never going to happen. All I'm saying is... just because the possibility of something happening exists, doesn't mean it ever will. Just because there is the possibility that any given scientific research is wrong, doesn't mean it's even remotely likely.
WonderWhy All jaguars have spots & all panthers have spots even if they're slightly darker than the rest of their coat, so thumbs up all those that agree with me that all panthers are jaguars!?!
Let's first assert that you can never, under any circumstance, say "Tiger" too many times ;-). Science these days is based entirely on the process you described. Science doesn't state a theory is true, science states a theory is true until it is falsified, after which it has to be either improved or rejected. That is the principal beauty of science: it can (theoretically) reject everything it's ever claimed to be true, and it's not a bother for science. The process just goes on. Might be a nice subject for a followup video on this, logical positivism and falsification theories in science.
More like: "At this point, there are so few [striped tigers that we know of]...". Yet how do we know there isn't an undiscovered non-striped tiger species that exists? *If* there is, then we can't really count them *all* .
Amazon Basin is having more than 3 million species inhabiting it and a new unknown species is discovered once in two days in the Amazon Basin. Who knows if there is an undiscovered tiger species which doesn't have stripes exists in the Amazon basin or not?
It's just stating that if there is a vowel then that card must have an even number on its other side. To prove this, all you have to do is flip over A to make sure the rule is true or false, not the stupid way the guy did it on the video.
the one problem i had was that he didn't mention that the cards had 2 sides, so when he said opposite side, I incorrectly inductively reasoned that he meant the opposite placement of the card until he a little bit later mentioned flippingg, and i correctly deduced the answer based on the new premise lol
Does anyone know if this is how the test is preformed normally? If it is then I feel like its designed to confuse rather than to test logic. However if its worded differently I think it would be easier to get a grasp of. Personally I went for the Q -> P so P -> Q. With that in mind I was like "but I have to turn them all over to see that everything is in order"
+Darth Reflectz in the question it says on the other side and you have to turn over the card. so you conclude that there is something on the other side of the card.
i'm pretty sure he meant that the question with the leters and numbers was really poorly worded, that's why it's confusing, especially for a non native english speaker, like me.
Anti Master it's not poorly worded that's how logic works you give minimal info as possible and use logic to figure it out. That's how many questions in our math tests were worded.
+Bryan Bergh. Then you must first learn to listen. 0:25 "This classic selection task features cards with letters on one side and numbers on the other side."
true though.. because there are four cards that are shown, we can conclude that the sides he was referring to might be the right side where 2&7 are placed and the left side which were the letters A and K.. he never even said that they were back to back.. it could have been more logical if he said that those cards are back to back...
max santander. They literally said "cards have letters on one side and numbers on the other side." They didn't say "cards have cards with letters on them to one side and cards with numbers on them to the other side." They clearly said 'on the side' not 'to the side'. And said that it was the _letters_ and _numbers_ themselves that were on the sides of the card, not that it was other cards.
+JNCressey No he was being ambiguous, at 0:25 he says "cards with letters on one side and numbers on the other side" while showing cards with letters on the left SIDE of the screen and with numbers on the right SIDE. The visual didn't help and creates confusing, he could have just shown what he meant by running the animation of the flipping card which he used later in the video.
+George W. Kush I totally agree with you.. not everyone has the same perception as others.. he could have made it clear for us to comprehend about what the cards was all about.. it was really confusing
It does put him in the 4% because the people in the 4% could've guessed as well. Actually, with all guesses there would be 25% so it is possible that at least one person guessed correctly in that group.
I got this one right, too - but the wording is still confusing, as it is vague. The explanation given at the end even has an obvious contradiction in it. "The rule goes only one way"; Which means it is perfectly okay for there to be a vowel on the other side of the 7, as the rule always begins with the vowel. The explanation did confuse me more than the question itself, though. I'd like to know wether there are distinctive front and backsides of the card.
+secretman33 But that's not the same rule. The rule is that if the card has a vowel then the other side must be an even number. The rule doesn't care about which side of the card is facing up.
I didnt realize that they meant actually flipping the entire fucking card over. I didnt even know there was anything on the other side of the card. The second one was so easy because i understood how the game worked.
Sami Nadjib No matter what he says about Israel and Palestine, if he made a complete video about them, the comments and like bar would be a warzone. Also, when geography and history RU-vid channels try to tackle that, they tend to kiss one of the country's (or states) ass. Same thing with Serbia and Kosovo, also China and Tibet, just to a less extreme level. Kurdistan I'd like to see though. There'd only be a few nationalistic Turks or ISIS supporters (maybe) complaining really.
***** What about South azerbaijan? what about Khorasan and ghazni Majority turks? What about Uighur turks in China? what about Irish people in Northern Ireland? What about Hungarian majorities in Romania? What about Germanic (Prussian) Majorities in Poland coasts? etc.
1. It's called Nagoro-Karabakh 2. East Turkestan isn't really as prominant as the others. 3. Technically Northern Ireland at any point can hold a referendum to join Ireland without asking London. 4. The majorities in other countries aren't usually calling for independence or to join their ethnic homeland.
At this point, it's 5.2k :D Your phrasing of the sentence reminds me of the eternal "How do you know the Bible is true? - Beause it's the word of god. How do you know it's the word of god? - It's written in the Bible." Circular "logic" of religion.... kind of almost proves that irrationality and religion have something in common! xD
You never distinguished that "one side" is ONLY the side shown and "other side" is ONLY the one hidden. That is why people slip up. And it's cheap because it's a simply lack of information.
+oscar sahlen Well it should have been specified as "on the other side of the card". I assumed it was about the other side of the array (I thought it was split in hapf, left were always letters, right always numbers), so I falsely concluded only A has to be turned around...
only a vowel card "must" have an even number on the flip side. so, an odd number cannot have a vowel on the other side, and an even or odd can have a consonant on the other side.
Everything in the video is worded wrong, the rule should be: "If the card has a vowel on the side showed to you, it must have an even number on the other side" Worded as it is in the video EVERY card should logically turned over to confirm that the poorly worded rule is not broken. I don't care how "logic" one is if they can't even understand the importance of the clarity when explaining the rules of a game.
Not really. You turn the 'A' because it MUST have an even number. You don't turn the 'K' because it's irrelevant. You don't turn the 2, because it COULD have a consonant on the other side, therefore is irrelevant. You turn the '7' because it MUST have a consonant.
Mingetease I have seen the video thanks, the point is that it was worded poorly, so it could have been interpreted very differently. Without stating that the rule counts only for the front side a logic person should make sure that the K didn't have an even number on the other side because it would break the badly interpreted rule. Same with the 2. That is why the rule should specify better.
you a 4%er? you think you're better than Rich piano? GODDAMNIT! this test belongs in THE GARBAGE. the test should have been how many times can you kill Mac Truck without ending on an odd number while SHOOP AAAHing right Babe?
I hate this test. It is fundamentally flawed. The correct answer is A, K, & 7. A & 7 are explained in this video. K must be turned over because it could have a vowel on the other side. ...but wait, we established that all cards have numbers on one side and letters on the other, right? No, they asserted that all cards have numbers on one side and letters on the other. In order to confirm that, we must turn over the K. If it has a vowel on the other side, the rule has been falsified. This may seem like a trivial critique, but this failure in logic is at the heart of most invalid scientific experiments. People make assumptions about which variables matter, and suddenly their "control" group is invalid because they haven't accounted for a variable (usually several variables) because of their innate biased assumptions.
+Rob Bates They asked "which cards must be turned over in order to confirm the rule", by 'the rule', they mean the rule that was shown on the screen. The previous statement 'each card has letters on one side and numbers on the other' can be considered an axiom. He didn't ask to check if the axiom is correct or not, because it is *fundamentally* correct. Not only that, but afterwards, he explained how deductive reasoning can also be wrong if following a wrong premise. So, no, technically, it is not flawed in any way.
+flashdrive I disagree. @0:30 sets up what you claim to be an axiom. Given the text @0:46, I assert that this is a flawed assumption. While it is possible to phrase the test in such a way to make it clear that you are not evaluating the premise, this test was not set up that way. "If a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side" "Which card(s) must be turned over to determine whether or not the rule has been followed" It doesn't matter whether or not the video addresses following wrong premises, because it has already demonstrated by example the willingness to succumb to barely-authoritative text. K must be turned over to confirm or disprove *THE* rule presented.
+Rob Bates the easiest way to change the rule to make A & 7 the only correct answers is thusly: "If a card has a vowel on one side, any number on the opposite side must be even." In that scenario, K need not be turned over, because vowels do not necessitate any number on the opposite side, but merely that if there is a number opposite the vowel, that number must be even.
+TheDoubleAgent ...yes, you do have to flip 7 over. You say it is given, and not questioned. Read the text @0:46. It does not matter that it was "given," because the task is to verify the rule. The rule overlaps the given premise, therefore drawing the given assumption into question. It is exactly these sorts of restrictions on real-world experimentation that invalidate results.
+Rob Bates the most obvious example is DNA sequencing. We look for genes that cause certain diseases. Once you have the entire genome sequenced, string matching between genomes is relatively trivial. Unfortunately, many diseases showed no genomic correlation at first, leading researchers to conclude that the diseases were not genetic in nature, but were environmental. This was accepted science for years, until other researchers questioned the premise of genetic diseases, and looked for additional variables other than just the genomic sequence. This led to the discovery of 3 mechanisms of gene regulation (disabling or enabling a gene that is present in the sequence). Had they accepted the "given" information that all genetic information is encoded purely in the DNA sequence, they would have continued to falsely assume that certain ailments were environmental.
Pete Isler Really? Man, I don't even play KSP but we get our music from the same place (the wonderful Kevin MacLeod at incompetech.com) and obviously I have the same taste in music as KSP...
I know! When it said "Which cards should be flipped over to find out if this rule has been followed" I was shocked that none of the participants said "All of them" cause that was my first reaction.
The "all of them" was probably in the remaining 10% that said other. The question wasn't "which cards should be flipped over," it was "which cards must be flipped over."
Some of the vowels were on the underside. Honestly if you didn't understand it, and you knew you didn't understand it then you should have rethought the wording. Also you should have known that you didn't understand it based on the fact that you were asked to flip cards over.
What card is confusing you rex? Vowels require even numbers but even number do not require vowels. Whether or not a vowel is facing up is irrelevant and does not change the solution whatsoever.
I instantly came to two possible conclusions, settling on turning over the A and 7 cards, as it followed the rule best. I didn't pause it either. My major question is, "How was it only 4% who answeresd correctly? Did the time (1970) have something to do with it, ie limits in testing, or are most people really that lacking in logical intelligence?" (Specific intelligences are not less than any other, just better at performing certain actions, so just to clarify, I am not calling most people dumb.)
+GameAHolic As will a lot of logical people because the video is designed to be misleading from the start. If it was a true test of simple logic you would have been presented with one card to demonstrate letter on the front, number on the back and given the one statement to solve the problem. As it's presented here, you are shown multiple cards laid out in a similar pattern of fronts and backs. Like most people, you would likely ASSUME a number of untruths: an 'A' is always on the back of a '2', an 'X' is always on the back of a '1', etc. Also, given the structure of the set up statement, you would assume odd numbers are always on the backs of consonants, which is not the case. This is what magicians do when setting up a trick to get you to think a particular way before they trick you.
The first one was worded wrong I think - Instead of "one side" and "other side" it should be "THIS side" and "other side". That confirms that the rule only applies to THIS side. "One" side could mean EITHER side!!! At least in the form of English I speak...
Well, but EITHER is true. If it only mattered if THIS side had a vowel, then there's no need to turn over the 2, becuase it's not got a vowel on THIS side. I do agree the rules weren't given well.
I think he said somewhere in the video though that the reason you DON'T need to turn over 2 is because the rule only applies to this specific side and doesn't work the other way round. So confusing!
Kyle Harmieson but then if it applies to both then why don't you turn over the 2 as well to check for a vowel? Sorry, I just can't wrap my brain around this!
Funny how immediately obvious it became with the real world example, yet I utterly failed to comprehend the first version. I would've said all cards. I think an inherent problem with puzzles like this is, especially when worded as "How Logical Are You?", is that they put people on the spot. What goes through their heads is "if I don't get this right, I'm dumb." It creates pressure and makes people lock up, kind of like someone having to perform a piece for an audience or holding a presentation. Therefore, they might not be able to think clearly.
Matthew Allison yes most countries...you must be thinking that murica is the only country in the world...beside US, japan, indonesia and India in the other countries the legal age of drinking is 18 years old. Ah you also have middle east countries where you supposedly are not allowed to drink at all
+Your Annoying Little Sister Yes, but then you answered incorrectly, because it only asked for the cards you NEED to flip to prove that it follows the rule.
I chose that at first but he said "were looking to falsify the statement, not confirm it" and there for if we flipped them all it would confirm it. he didnt say it in the set up though and it wasn't pointed out that it was an if-then statement. your thinking makes sence but by the was he set it up it would not be correct.
You are wrong. The two cards in the middle did not have to be turned in order for the rule to be followed. The two cards could have had pictures of Donald Trump fucking a squirrel and the rule would still have been followed. They could have had nothing at all on the other side and still the rule would have been followed (although the initial premise "the cards have a letter on one side and a number on the other" would not have been followed, the rule would still work).
No.. You guys just arent in the 4% that arent normal human beings.. You dont want to be in that 4% trust me. The world dosent work around those who think differently and life its self is a frustrating struggle every day. Embrace your normality as its a blessing in disguise.
Well at lest someone understands the questions those of us with disabilities have to suffer through when tested. We are subjected to these questions on a daily basis.
I just found out that kerbal is on console as of 7-12-2016! I don't know if I'm going to like playing it on console though. Seems better suited for my PC
bull. the only way to test is to turn ALL FOUR. You start with the premise that the "rule" could possibly be violated. What if the backside of the K has an "E"? Then it violates the rule of "vowel one side, must be even number on other side" . Now, if you had BOTHERED to actually list ALL the rules that apply at the same time, then you might have a case. But you state an INCOMPLETE problem, then get on your high horse and pretend that you know what is going on?
maher elzaher actually it does because he stated that this was video was bull because the cards could have letters on both sides and the video didn't explain all the rules. That was one of the rules explained...
Except it does, as it is said that rules can be broken. You don't have to test the rule about cards having a letter on one side and a number on the other (rule that was exceptionally badly expressed by the way, as I interpreted as many others apparently the wording of the rule to be tested to mean left and right, and not front and back, leaving me thoroughly confused), so the only card to always be correct following the rule to be testes is an even number. All the others could be wrong. In any way, the wording makes the test completely worthless.
***** No not really, i didn't have any issues understanding what they meant. Looking through the comments it seems most people saying they didn't understand the wording are using it as an excuse.
Here's a very simple way of explaining this test. The point is to put aside the tiles which are IRRELEVANT to the rule. As in, it matters NOT what is on the other side, because either way it will not break the rule. K is put aside because K is a consonant, and there is no mention of consonants in the rule. 2 is put aside because the rule states "If the letter is a vowel, the other side must be an even number" yet it does NOT state that an even number must necessarily have a vowel on it's flip-side. A and 7 are the correct choices because what lies on the other side of those tiles can, in fact, determine whether the given rule is upheld or it is not.
4% ignore semantic ambiguity, and correctly answer through arbitrary paranoid suspicion. The cards have two sides. Both sides are the other side to one side and so some referencing to original orientation would clear the semantic ambiguity ignored by 4%
What is the semantic ambiguity to which you refer? Why do you believe that those who have answered correctly have done so arbitrarily, or that they are exhibiting paranoid suspicion? And about what do you believe they are suspicious? Your observation that the cards have two sides is a given in the question, and the assumption that if a card has one side it must necessarily have another is trivial. And what on Earth are you talking about when you state, "some referencing to original orientation would clear the semantic ambiguity ignored by 4%"?I can't help feeling you have perhaps failed to grasp the simplicity of the logic required to deduce a correct response to the task.
What do you mean original orientation? The rule defines a property of the cards themselves, that cards with a vowel on one side must have an even number on the other side.
+occamrules suspicious that the question is a trick question, and therefore the obvious answer must be avoided. Substitute obvious for most popular for contextual insight in lieu of verbal limitations.
+Kerry Brennan arbitrary as in there are only so many other options aside from the popular/obvious/obviously-wrong-because-it's-a-trick-question answer. None of them seem satisfactory, and the supposed correct answer requires a suspension of analogous reasoning or critical thinking in my opinion. Hence the choice of alternatives seems arbitrary.
Kerry Brennan No. The 4% who answered correctly clearly did not suspect it was a trick question; they treated the task as a logic puzzle with sufficiently informative and explicit information in the set-up for it to be solved. It is not the 4% who were exhibiting 'arbitrary paranoid suspicion'. On the other hand, if you reject the logically consistent and demonstrably correct solution because you fear it is a trick, then it is you who appears to be arbitrarily paranoid. And you seem to think that the more one limits the possibilities in a solution field the more arbitrary ones choice of answer will be. Again, quite wrong. It is the essence of solving a logic puzzle that, by logical deduction, one increasingly narrows the solution field making one's choice of answer less and less arbitrary until there remains only one solution and, therefore, an entirely non-arbitrary answer. Finally, you suggest that the "supposedly correct answer" (did you not understand the logic in the solution explained in the rest of the video?) can only be derived by "suspending analogous reasoning or critical thinking". 'Analogous reasoning'? That would be reasoning analogous to what, exactly? And please could you explain what you meant by, "contextual insight in lieu of verbal limitations"? It doesn't really make sense in English: it resembles, perhaps, a mistranslation by computer software.
This video shows 3 types of people: 1. people who got the question right 2. people who got the question wrong 3. people who blame the question and video uploader
"If a card has a vowel on ONE side" made me think I had to flip 2 to check if there was a vowel or not. I thought ONE counted for both sides of the card. Therefor A, 2 and 7. It could have been worded better. Like "If a card has a vowel facing up" etc
I though the same as you, then I continued watching the video and I was able to understand: Every vowel has an even number in the other side, but not every even number has a bowel in the other side.
My first thought was: turn over all 4, to check if they've all followed the rule. Changed my mind to: turn over A and 2, since only vowels and even numbers matter. Thought about the wording of the question some more. Decided that A is the starting point, but it does not actually say it could go the other way around. Changed my answer to: turn over A and 7. I changed my mind so many times I thought I must have them all wrong😆
well no because it didnt say u can only turn ver 2 in the question and when i saw this i thought oh i could work it out logically but that will take a minute or so, so what is a quicker way, turn over every card because i walk the line between good and bad
+Pure Oceanic _"Which card(s) _*_must_*_ be turned over_" More people may have understood, if the question stated: _"What is the _*_minimum number_*_ of cards that must be turned over"_ My university lecturer did the same problem. The first thing I did was write it down and then re-arrange the question to how I wanted. Then I asked the lecturer if she meant minimum number of cards that must be turned over. She said yes and therefore I got it right (A & 7). I'm pretty sure if the question was reworded several different times (even with the same cards), people would have understood it better (looking at the youtube comments, it seems many also felt the same way). Not everybody's first language is English and even if it is, people will struggle to understand what exactly is being asked. Hence multiple questions helps assert a single interpretation of the question to avoid misinterpretation.
well the only reason we may have messed up was because you didn't explain that the cards were double sided. i for one believed that the problem asked how many cards you would have HAD to flip over to figure out the question from a point in which you could not tell which cards were which.
+Donald Lv +jsc You both are wrong. At 0:25secs he states "This classic selection task features cards with letters on one side and numbers on the other." Plainly says they are double sided.
+Taurine Ganz nope, it didnt.. it can also be interpreted as cards that are on the left and cards that are on the right.. sides is a word with not only one definition..
+Taurine Ganz nope, it didnt.. it can also be interpreted as cards that are on the left and cards that are on the right.. sides is a word with not only one definition..
How am I supposed to reason correctly if I don't even understand the question? The question is very poorly phrased/unclear in my opinion (there's way too many possible interpretations of it), and I'm not surprised so many people got it "wrong" if it was phrased like that. Could someone please rephrase the question clearly?
+Flumpanor I'm not sure how to make it clearer, but I'll try: You are presented with 4 cards. Each card has a letter on one side and number on the other. A letter can be a vowel (a/e/i/o/u) or a consonant (any other) A number can be even (divisible by 2, without a remainder) or odd (any other) For each card you are presented with, you know what is on one side. You are now supposed to select which cards you need to turn over, to determine whether every card that has a vowel on one side, has an even number on the other. Written as in implication: Vowel on one side → Number on the other side
Yndostrui Thanks, that made picking the correct choice easy :) I picked A because it has satisfied the "condition of the implication", that is to say that it is a vowel, K is irrelevant since it isn't a vowel, 2 is irrelevant since the implication is one-way and 7 is needed since if the other side is an even number it would prove the rule to be false.
Yes it was worded in an awkward and ambiguous manner. Many false assumptions are not ruled out. I.e.: the A & K are on the left side while the 2 & 7 are on the right... They don't explain that the cards are double-sided.
We can also invert both rules, but both statements must be negated, so the inverted first rule could be “If there isn't an even number on one side, there mustn't be a vowel on the opposite side”. The real life example's rule can be inverted into “If a person isn't older than 18 years, they mustn't be drinking alcohol”.
The rules do not state, If a card has an odd number on one side, it must have a consonant on the other side, or vice-versa either. So flipping the 7 does not verify anything. Same with the K or the 2. The rule is "vowel", "must have", "even number" and does not state even number must have a vowel, consonant must have odd number or odd number must have consonant. Only the "A" can verify the rule is being followed. Are you explaining it wrong? Were there more rules that you failed to show us?
+David Schroeder The reason the 7 is necessary is because of how the rule is written - "if VOWEL then EVEN". If you turn over the 7 and find a vowel, then you know that the rule isn't being followed. That is why the 7 is just as important as the A in testing the rule.
+TJonLongIsland He states in the beginning that the rule is not switchable. The rule only goes one way. Meaning the vowel must have an even not the other way around and it doesnt state the rule for odds or consonants so the "7" would follow the same rules, or lack there of, as the "K" and the "2".
+David Schroeder If you turn the 7 around and you find a vowel, it would break the rule. Why? Because if a card has a vowel, the other side must have an even number. 7 is not an even number. Thus it breaks the rule. What you are saying is not the same as 2 or K. 2 doesn't need to have a vowel. If the 2 has a R, it doesn't break the rule. If 2 has O, it doesn't break it either, it follows it perfectly. Same with K, it can have either one without breaking the rule. 7 is different. If 7 has R, it's okay. But if it has a vowel like O, it does. Because IF VOWEL -> EVEN NUMBER. O is a vowel, but 7 is not an even number. That is not switching the rule. Switching he rule would be IF EVEN NUMBER -> VOWEL. That's not happening in case of the 7.
+David Schroeder It does make sense though. "If VOWEL then must be EVEN" means that "If ODD then must be CONSONANT" has to be true because being "ODD and VOWEL" directly contradicts the only rule we've been given.
That is not a rule. That is an assumption. There was only one rule. If you wrote a computer program that would generate an even number every time a you typed a vowel and the only rule was the one he stated. Then pushing a consonant, odd or even number would be an invalid entry.
The comments are full of people who haven't accepted they got it wrong and are instead coming up with excuses for why their 'logical' brains didn't figure it out.
Anyone who ever did even middle school level logic or programming couldn't possibly fail this. The only "trick" is that some people automatically assume "if any only if"(↔) from "if"(→). If you break down if into not(A and notB) you can't fail.
That was more like not paying attention and overlooking something than being illogical. You can't pass the test if you weren't aware that the cards had two sides.
i see it but it's still a system of time rules set up by someone. and if you dont follow this line of reasoning that doesn't necessarily mean that you are illogical.
The rules are not arbitrary. We literally cannot deny the validity of logic without being self-refuting, doubting it is utterly meaningless. If you don't follow logical inference rules correctly when trying to justify a belief then you are by definition illogical.
Or rather "being" illogical in that moment for believing that conclusion or applying inference rules incorrectly. But that doesn't really reflect on the entirety of one's character. :)
+Aidan C yeah i get all that. but it doesn't change everyday life. people dont become more logical by following a set formula. and at the end he basically admits that. plus he admitted that one can be "correct" by following inductive reasoning and for the most part in life that's what we use. pointing all of that out is a great intellectual exercise but it's nothing more than that.
Not exactly, you need to follow the rules which were given. There was only one logical way of reasoning the puzzle. It was explained in the video that there are only two variations that can break the system.
If the rule only goes one way, wouldn't the 7 have the same problem as the 2? The seven would not supply valuable information if it has to be a vowel flipped to an even number. The number 7 obviously isn't a vowel or letter at all so wouldn't it just have the same problem as the 2 and the K and not give any information?
The rule of the question was a vowel had to correspond to an even number. As the video said, any vowel had to be even, so if a vowel was on the flip side of an odd number, the rule was broken.
If a = b then b = a ( True) If a -> b then b -> a(False) Where ( = ) is equal to and ( -> ) results in/causes Easier explanation for the people that didn't get it If round =(is) circle , then circle =(is) round (True) if Toxic Gas ->(causes) Suffocation ; then Suffocation ->(causes) Toxic Gas is obviously False In the question above we are given that a card with a vowel causes an even number on the other side of the same card Or you can tell me that I am wrong and that all stripes have tigers .....
My teacher asked us a question similar to this in my computer science course to explain to us computer logic. She had a hard time explaining and I had hard time understanding but you made it very clear and easy to understand. Really good real world examples too. Thank you! :D
can everyone stop saying the wording was bad. sure it wasn't perfect but you can understand it. Also, it doesn't matter. it literally makes no difference and the fact that you are getting angry because you are normal makes you salty and unable to accept that you were wrong. he is not calling you stupid, he is explaining something extremely well. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't hate, there's no point.
Heh heh. I am Canadian. My GF is Chinese. We had been walking around Toronto for some time when she turned to me and asked "What is wa choo?" It's "Watch out!" in Canadian. Then I had to teach her some Canadian phrases. Such as "Wencha gwan?" A possible answer is "Kwor puss." This means "When are you going?" The answer is "Quarter past (the hour)." Accents, eh?
I am going to inductively guess that you are using inductive reasoning. The question isn't flawed, nor incomplete. Nor is it a trick question. It is what it says it is; a logic question.
lol I misunderstood the question in a different way. I thought that when it said "vowel on one side" and "even number on the other side" of a card they were referring to the card to the left and right of a particular card in question.
This problem is worded horridly. It's true that "P gives Q" does not imply that "Q gives P," but on a two sided object, this is normally the case. The problem MUST also specify that "P gives Q" only in this setup. If it does not, then the physical nature of cards as an object IS a logical conclusion, which is why I thought we'd need to flip "A","2", and "7." If the problem had specified that this rule wasn't global, and only in this setup's instance, then I wouldn't have chosen 2.
Well, I chose K as well, to check that it didn't have an even number. I agree that a two sided card like this presents a major problem for the question as initially posed. But then it wouldn't be as much fun to say "aren't I clever" after the asker presents all the caveats and additional rules, footnotes and special conditions surrounding the question.
Nathan Klassen No. It isn't always the case and not how it was worded. If it was worded Vowels must be opposite even numbers, then you could make a case, but that would also require you to flip the K. The cards you need to flip are eitehr A and 7, or A, K, 2 &7.
The video shows cards on two sides. The left side pile with letters and the right side pile with numbers. Pause the video. Okay. Then he LATER explains that he is talking about the front and back side of the cards--not the left and right sides of two piles. This does not follow from his instructions. Making the assumption that there are numbers or letters on the back side of the card is not logical based on his instructions.
I agree, his explanation really doesn't make much sense for a video about logic. You make logical points based on what information is provided, not what information is missing. To assume there are cards beneath the shown ones, or that the cards have print on both sides is not basing the out come on fact, but on a guess or assumption at best.
Actually the wording of the first question ISN'T incorrect. I thought that at first too, but after thinking about it for a while I realised it was not the case. All the rule said was that vowels had to have even numbers on the other side. It never said that consonants had to have odd numbers. It didn't say anything about the consonants. Therefore, if you see a 2 and you turn it over to find a B, that isn't necessarily breaking the rule because the rule never said that the consonants couldn't have even numbers as well. However, if you turned over the 7 and found an E that would break the rule because, as a vowel, the E must have an even number on the other side. That's why it's the 7 not the 2 and that's why the wording actually isn't incorrect at all. It has nothing to do with which side is facing up or down.
ur rules werent framed properly imho, u said if there is vowel on one side there has to be a even number on the other side, u didnt say that if there is a vowel on the "face up" of a card, there has to be even number on the other side.
If we didn't flip the 2 over because the rule doesn't work backwards, then why flip the 7 because it can be odd or even and it doesn't break the rule. It doesn't say "If a card has an odd number on one side, it must have a consonant on the other side." The 2 and the 7 card are basically one and the same as far as the rule goes.
If you say "but the picture..." or "the second example..." A, change the picture of the leopard with the picture of the zebra and think again. B, depends on context. You will find in life not everything is black and white like this is making it out to be, everything depends on context. That is why in math, teachers tend to teach a certain way (p > q), if you make other assumptions, you make a risk of getting it wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by "because it can be odd or even..." 7 is an odd number. Each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other side. If the seven has a vowel on the other side, then the rule has indeed been broken.
+Guy Shuford He said that we dont flip over the 2 because the rule only goes from vowel to even number and not even number to vowel. If this is true, then we cant falsify the statement using any number, as the rule doesnt work that way, and we cant pick 7.
In the original test it specifies that the card has a "Side-A, and a side-B" Which is so important in understanding that the rule doesn't go both ways. The way you explained it rendered the entire test completely illogical and redundant.
So, the first test is annoying. I got it right, oddly enough, but only after I thought about it. Then I furthered my thought to why my initial answer was wrong and then realized that it's a trick question. You have to be attentive to the detail that it never stated that the letter "K" cannot have an even number. It's either intended to fool you or they, the researchers who came up with it, need to work on their ability to convey their thoughts.
+Rafael Dracofuchs It's a fairly common thing to know that just because you have x implies y that y does not imply x. "All ice cream is cold" does not imply that "all cold things are ice cream". If you don't know that/can't reason that out then you have fulfilled the test's purpose of trying to find people who use faulty reasoning and logic. People forget that when researchers make tests like this they /are/ trying to "catch people out" aka test their hypothesis that when presented with a simple logic problem people will fail. A test is not "wrong" people you have to pay attention to what the question is asking you. It's kind of the number one rule when taking a test - read the question carefully and understand what it wants you to answer.
+Loulybob the second one was easier because the problem was described in components we have an association with, drinking age and alcohol. The first test had 4% of the tested that were able to circumvene this way of how the brain usually operates, which is quite interesting. To add: if people really didn't have the logic capabilities, then they wouldn't have made the 2nd test better.
AwoudeX The second test shows that humans are usually better at reasoning things out when given a real world example rather than abstract concepts. The logic stays the same. You could interpret the results of the two tests as people are usually unable to /parse/ logical problems correctly unless given a real world example as, as you rightly pointed out, most people can figure out the logic when given the second problem. The difficulty is parsing the meaning of the more abstract presentation. The tests still show meaningful results as probably the closer to common knowledge or to a specific person's specialised knowledge a problem is the more logically they will solve it but if a problem is something slightly out of field from what a person is used to then their ability to correctly judge and parse the situation decreases. This has real world impacts on decision making and all that jazz. I think the real lesson to take away from this video is to read things carefully and take your time figuring out all the components of the puzzle before trying to solve it :)
+LibertySounds And what if that card followed the rule, but the card with 7 didn't? The rule would have been broken, but you wouldn't know based on your selection.
+Jason Schuler I believe he meant that, semantically, because of the way the question is phrased, you only have to turn one card to satisfy the prompt.
+ledzeppeman "Which card(s) must be turned over to determine whether or not the rule has been followed." If you only turn over the card with A on it and there's an even number on the other side you have not determined whether or not the rule has been followed. There's nothing wrong with the way it's phrased.
They're asking you to determine whether or not the rule has been followed, not to falsify it. If you only turn over the A, 50% of the time you can't determine if the rule has been followed or not.
***** it was, and the way i deduced it was strange. i came up with the answer instinctively, and couldnt really explain myself well but i didnt just guess. i had to pause the video for like a minute too. oh well, 4% hek hek
You're question: "which of the 4 cards must be turned over" is ambiguous and therefore invalid. You could, as I did, interpret this to mean that you can only turn over 1 card to determine whether the rules are being followed.
Jacob Becomes Israel The word 'which' does not imply either a singular or plural number of answers, so one should not assume any fixed number of answers,
You failed to mention that every card must has a letter on one side and a number on the other side. If one was trying to falsify the rule, he'd check the second card too since one discovered the possibility of the K card having a vowel on the other side. Which is impossible in your example.
Tom Butler, very few people out of that 4% got it right the first time. Most have seen it before or have a background in logic or critical thinking. That's why they got it right. I know that's the case for me. I got it wrong the very first time I did it. Years later i can get it right without thinking. I'm sure you will learn too.
I say the 1 way rule is bull. It didn't say the SHOWN side. It said if it has a vowel on one side, then the other is even. That means if the other side, hidden side (which is one side) is a constanant, and the shown side (which is also the other side when compared to the hidden side(which is one side)) is an even number, the rule is incorrect, meaning you need to check all cards to make sure the rule is true, as the cards are not linked in any way, shape, or form and the rule doesn't allow you to not check a card (even if it is not a number or character, because you don't know what's on the other side, unless ofc, both sides are shown). In my brain, cards are 2d, 2 sides. If one side is a vowel, then other side is an even number. I picture a vowel being on one side, and an even being on the other. The rule says this, meaning you can flip the card and say that the even is on the shown side, then a vowel must be on the hidden side. Since it didn't say which side is "one side", this is all true. Meaning the answer is all cards. Plus I don't see why converse and inverse don't work, while contrapositive does.
I too am a bit annoyed that the instructions weren't explained as clearly as possible, because now i'll never know if I got the answer right or not on this very important historical test.
Since I thought that "on either side" meant that K and 2 had to correspond the same way A and 7 did, I guessed all 4 cards would need to be flipped over. So I guessed incorrectly because of a misunderstanding. I guess I'll never know if I'm a logical thinker it not.
Technically you're correct, it was ambiguously worded so could have meant that. Hell, your way is actually MORE correct since the question specifically says if there is a vowel on ONE SIDE not "if there is a vowel on the side we are currently observing"
I cannot beleive this video has 4k dislikes. That's four-thousand people who, even after having this explained to them in detail, still exhibit the cognitive incompetence as to not understand this fairly simple concept. I think this video is amazing. It genuinely changed my way of thinking. I chose "A" and "2" my first time through. My mind illogically inferred the "Q → P" situation. This revolution is staggering. I can genuinely apply this new knowledge to my life. For example, there is a video that talks about the "Logical Paradox" that is created by inductive reasoning. But, I feel that they have broken a rule by calling it a paradox. If your premise is "All questions derived from a situation without any perceivable answer are a paradox."... then the rules apply. Where 'P' is "Question with no perceivable answer" and 'Q' is "Paradox". Saying "It contains a question that has no answer, ergo, it must be a paradox"... would technically be valid. It feels wrong to me. Perhaps their premise is wrong? What do you guys think?
Jyrik Gauldurson same here, had a think, then a thought struck me, and I realized hey maybe I should be trying to disprove the rule and see if there are counterexamples.
Lots of people saying the question wasn't phrased very well. The question is perfectly fine, all the information you need is there. 'If Vowel, then Even', it can't be simpler. It makes no rules for consonants or odd numbers and so none should be assumed. For some reason, people need that to be explicitly stated in the question, well that's where your logic should come in.
In the first card problem, how should (or could) I have known the rule (even one side vowel other side) only works one way? This is quite essential information. It is first introduced with the answer at 2:34. WonderWhy
Vernes Krslak Because that was the rule. It stated that all vowels must have an even number on the other side. It didn't state all even numbers must have a vowel on the other side, nor did it say "and vice versa". Additionally, this was used to show how people skip that essential information replacing it with assumptions. Rather than take the rule as stated (that a vowel needs an even number on the other side) some people will put in the assumption that it is 2 way, that as well as that even numbers need a vowel on the other side.
Skeletonxf The rule states a card with a vowel must have an even number on the other side. This is effectively the same as saying someone drinking alcohol must be over 18. That doesn't mean someone over 18 must be drinking alcohol just like it doesn't mean a card with an even number must have a vowel on the other side. The rule is one way. How does it indicate it works both ways?
Jeffrey Black The problem lies not in: "someone who is over 18 must be drinking", this is logical. Over 18 implies a direction on which one can differentiate. Everybody knows that under 18 and over 18 are completely different things. The cards' "The other side" misses such differentiation. What is the one side of a card, and what the 'other' side? When you don't differentiate between the sides one cannot distinguish between one and the other side, thus implying a bi-directionality of the used cards. Following this logic I do not think the cases of the cards and the alcohol are comparable, because the above mentioned distinguishing property is not similar in both examples. It would be more fair if the cards would be: side a (the shown side/the side that is up etc.) has a vowel while side b has a number.
This video's only error is confusing inductive reasoning with invalid deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning isn't "invalid." It is neither valid nor invalid. To say it is either is a category error, because validity/invalidity is a property of deductive arguments. If the conclusion must be true when all the premises are true, a deductive argument is valid. If the conclusion could still be false if all the premises are true, a deductive argument is invalid. With inductive arguments, the truth of the premises never guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but only provide support for them. If they provide strong support so that believing in the conclusion based on the premises would be rational, then the argument is cogent. If the premises provide weak or no support for the conclusion, the argument is not cogent. For example, if you randomly pick a single marble from a bag of 999 blue marbles and one red marble without looking at it, it would be rational to reason inductively that you've picked a blue marble, even though such is not guaranteed, as you could have picked the one red marble. If you assume that all redheads are carpenters because you know three red-haired carpenters, that would not be a cogent argument, because the small portion of all redheads who exist that you happened to meet don't provide a lot of support for a claim about all redheads in the world.
For the people whining about the question, that "double sides were not mentioned!" - Yeah, if you want intelligence above average, you should've been able to figure it out on your own.
Because the rule states ONLY that a vowel must have an even number on the other side. Nowhere in the rules does it state that an even number cannot have a consonant on the opposite side. Therefore, a card with an even number on one side can have both a vowel or a consonant on the other side.
On the other side of the vowel there is either an even number, that is OK, or an odd number, that is not OK, so you have to check. On a cards with an even number on one side it is either an vowel, that is OK, or a consonant, and that is also OK, so you don't have to check.
For a card not to follow the rule it must have a vowel on one side and an odd number on the other, so you only have to check cards that show a vowel (to make sure the other side doesn't have an odd number) or that show an odd number (to make sure the other side doesn't have a vowel). A card with an even number isn't even a candidate because it can't violate the rule.
By the way, the premise that ''deductive reasoning is always correct'' always annoyed me in Sherlock Holmes. Because deductive reasoning CAN lead to incorrect results. Thanks for clarifying this point in the video.
Deductive reasoning is always correct if the set of premises being used lead exactly to the conclusion that follows. Otherwise, it's either wrong or there must be a hidden premise.
You end the video by saying "when it comes to reasoning it's not just about logic but also about common sense and rationality". I slightly disagree with the common sense part since common sense can also lead us to the wrong conclusion. In stead i think it is best to say it is important to know how likely something is to be true based on the data and obsevations made so far. So even though it is impossible to know some things whith 100% certainty we can know the probability of them being true. You did speak about the likelyness of things but you left out the more mathematical side of probability that is very impotant in science. (i think. just an opinion)
***** Fair enough, I possibly could have phrased it slightly better. What I meant was that according to logic in its strictest form it's impossible to know anything. However, common sense tells us it's ridiculous to just reject overwhelming evidence and data. There definitely is a lot more I could have said about this topic (with regards to maths etc.) but I really didn't want the video to be too long.
WonderWhy Exactly... Trying to see the world that surround us simply by using logic and nothing else but logic, is like trying to use the exact number of Pi in order to draw circles and make other mathematical calculus, and unless you're using the exact number of Pi, you can't. Basically, there's a point where you have to stop and just understand the world with the information we have so far, it's really good to use logic and be precise in what we say, but we need to stop ourselves at some point. Thank you so much for this video, i honestly think your channel should have more people subscribed to you, and this video should be viewed by more people as well... anyway, thanks! :D
WonderWhy I am sorry, i don't have a better example right now but... Enough people supported Hitler to where he could fake an > 90% approval rating. People used their "common sense" and stood up for their fuhrer because being left out would be really bad for them. It didn't matter what Hitler thought, what he did, what happened... Before the end... People supported the status quo because not doing so was, literally, a life threatening undertaking. Today, not following with the flow means you are ridiculed by the majority. Yet, for something to be scientific it REQUIRES that someone oppose the accepted answer or it isn't science. Even if everything points to one answer, like 2+2 = 4 (or is it 11, it's a matter of definition), it doesn't mean you HAVE to accept it wholeheartedly and you must question it. Sure, the "intelligent" bunch out there... those that actually DO have the facts because they DID the research on their own over many many years, confirming their findings ON THEIR OWN... they will argue that they have the true answer. But look... A lot of intelligent people have said a lot of stupid things in the past. And they are not the only ones to blame for their ignorance. zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/stoopid.lis
It might be better to say that we need to start by assuming certain premises are true and then use the rules of logic from there. We have to make assumptions like "The world we observe actually exists and we're not just living in something like The Matrix" or "The instruments I am using to take my measurements are reasonably accurate". We can never be 100% certain about either of those assumptions, but unless we have fairly strong evidence to the contrary, we need to assume they are true in order to get anywhere. In order to do any sort of mathematics, we need to either assume or define certain things to be true in order to have a place to start from and then figure out the consequences from there.
