I took advantage of the fact, that these are dots, not points, and just made the straight line start at the bottom of the dot of one side through the top of the other, and kind of zig zagged my way through... teacher wasn't satisfied
Glorious! Thank you, Edward! Despite of knowing the essence of your message, I receive always an uplifted when I perceive it from others. Your performance - the examples, the words, the heartful tone of your voice (not preaching nor lecturing, but SHARING) gets straight into tbe mind and the soul. God bless you! Thanks so much!
Yes, it is true that when problems are approached in an unexpected way, they can be solved in a quite easier way, as compared to the usual methods like Trial or Error. The video gives a good hint about the out-of-the-box thinking approach as well. This approach is very important to solve tricky questions. It makes tricky questions look very simple for the one who uses this approach. Also, reading the questions carefully is important for getting a solution. 😀
I really liked the concept as to how a simple change in perspective can lead to numerous problem solving techniques including using of hints, thinking outside the box and also seeing what’s not present as a positive attribute. It was a really thoughtful video. I enjoyed it very much, please keep making such videos :)
Beautiful explanation. *It's all about expanding the perspective.* Defining the problem from different angles can provide an unexpected solution. Combination of solutions can also create a new solution.
That's a very good way to put it. I remember that the fellow who solved Fermat's Enigma, proved his final unproven theory, did it by combining two methods which before everyone had thought were opposed!
extremely interesting video! those who complain about it show that they have completely missed the point. there isnt necessarily one solution to any problem , in fact the more the better. and some people view a "problem" as something bad. it can easily be a new design or product or even an easier way of doing something. undertake solutions as an interesting challenge and not as a "problem". and thinking outside the box is just looking for solutions with less limitations. of course there are always some limitations in life but if we place too many unnecessary limitations then one can never find a solution. and lastly, we must use everything at our disposal like experiences, imagination, education, advice from others etc. not to "box" oneself into a problem but to open up to use any and all resources at our disposal. thanks.
Thank You Edward Oneill for this video ...if nothing else it may get people thinking a bit more about how problems are solved, which is always a good thing. My undergrad degree was in Psychological sciences and I was introduced to these and many other types of test used in the field of Psychology. There is something to learn from these experiments and there is some truth about the facts that we tend to get stuck in a certain views and have difficulty shifting to more novel approaches ... However ... many of us are aware that the real life experiences of problem solving are NOT well represented by these test, (yes they are still used by some who cling to what little validity are afforded them.) In real life when we encounter a problem the entire problem is immediately seen or considered THAT which stops us from doing whatever it is we are doing (or slows us or causes us to us hesitate). That I will call the "1stP". We have an up close, in person and intimate, relationship with the "1stP". We also have built in motivation to solve "1stP" (IF we want to continue doing what we were doing). I will call this factor "1stM" Motivation, as many studies show, is a huge factor in problem solving and yet in these types of test the only motivation is a ..."lets pretend for the sake of discovery we have a problem here" ... our minds will not resolve these problems in the same way we solve real life problems ... even though there are some shared factors involved. At each step of problem solving in real life we may or may not have the motivation to continue to resolve the "1stP" and may walk away from it. With test such as these lack of feeling motivation may just lead us to not really put forth the same sort of effort. Really people who do really well on these test do not demonstrate extraordinary real life problem solving abilities ... well actually they do solve certain types of problems better ... but the thing is here ... we all have certain problems we tend to solve better than others so really nothing grand here. Here is a Real problem .... many people have been lead to think there are people who are better at resolving problems. This thinking causes some people to instead of figuring out how to resolve a problem themselves they seek out a person who they believe will resolve that problem more quickly and better than they might. (They are often given titles such as specialist or Masters). Now don't get me wrong if your problem is medical there are people trained in medical techniques that know how to attend to your medical problem. That does not make them better at solving problems it shows they learn well and practice what they have learned. This is where the problem becomes a problem ... we confuse smart and well trained people who can do their job well with people who can solve problems well. The best person to solve a problem is the person who the problem effects first hand (they are encountering "1stP" and they will feel "1stM" and are most likely to stay around and take the time required to do whatever is required to solve the problem. They may ask for help but it is essential they remain part of the process because they will know if the problem is totally solved or not once they begin to do what they were doing again and they will know if the "fix" might have caused other problems and they will know over time if the "fix" just temporarily helped or if the fix lasted. Problems are something no one wants to happen while they are busy doing whatever it is they are doing ... no one likes problems (many people like solving puzzles for pleasure but a Real problems is never "welcomed". We always want the problem to go away as quickly as is possible but fact is ... some problems will take lots of time just to figure out what the real problem is and then even more time to figure out an effective way to solve it and then even more time to implement the solution and then time to find out if that solution works ... solving a problem requires intimate knowledge of All factors involved in "1stP" and it requires motivation that does not go away. We have formed job positions that do not allow us to take the time required to solve problems because we have to "get back to work" in some other fashion while someone else steps in to solve the problem. Society has formed a whole network of hiring others to resolve problems they know little to nothing about ... and it has lead to many other problems as well as important problems not getting resolved. I know that most people will not take the time to read all that I say here ... and it only begins to speak about how we might better solve problems. Remember I'm not suggesting we don't train people to specialize in certain actions ... but we need to remember they need the person with the problem to help them if the problem is going to have a better chance of getting solved well. There has to be clear communication about what, is "1stP" and there has to be the ability to not confuse "1stP" with "2ndP" or "2ndP" once removed etc ... Resolving complex problems requires resolve to do what is required. The problem of poverty for instance requires poor people to be at the table and they are not. I need to end this due to the problem of long comments not being posted at times. : ) Love & Peace to All
No it wouldn't. The candle would be sticking out directly from the wall like so __I__ and you can put more thumbtacks in there to better secure the area but also have the metal thumbtacks act as shields from the fire. So it's absolutely fine, no box necesasry.
the problem also never says to not damage the wall all you have to do is use the tacks to carve out a candle sized hole in the wall, then put the candle in it facing outward.
Tim Morgan melt the candle to a thumbtack and stick it in the wall use the rest of the thumbtacks to build a metal shield up the wall so you won't burn the house down.
Solving these sorts of problems for me is never usually a (ahem) problem, although I enjoy solving problems and have a lot of practice at doing so. What amazes me is the simple genius it takes to come up with them in the first place. Or maybe the fuel is extreme boredom
Another solution for the pins is that you would use 2 or three of the pins to stick another pin upside down. The candle is stuck on the point of the upside down pin. Either way though, when the candle burns down it may still catch the board on fire, either by burning through the pins or by burning the box.
"Seeing the problem a certain way, prevents us from seeing the solution." This makes sense. That's why you might solve a problem after taking a nap or a break, because you start all over again with a fresh mindset.
Taking a candle poking it with a pin after breaking that candle and surrounding it with the other parts of the candle forming a square with that main candle with the candle at a rotated angle and this line above shows that the candle will be put in a box after being broken and the other two parts of the candle will be packed to reduce the air supply but before that the candle's cotton will be rubbed harshly in an attempt/effort to reduce its power to burn with the pins surrounding the box from all sides both inside and with an 4 corners of that box to potentially prenvent that box from burning even if the candle may have lesser chance of burning by itself in fire-power. (R.W.,2024). As the pins maybe/might be fire-proof. (The Psychology of Problem Solving,Personal Communication,2017).
Or, how about clearly defining the problem and parameters of the solution. It is not some genius leap in problem solving to "cheat" and think outside of the prescribed parameters. For instance, I immediately caught on to your lack of description to the 9 dots puzzle in that you didn't require a contiguous line, but the problem becomes much harder with that parameter. Doesn't mean I am some genius in problem solving, it means I didn't have all the information needed, and would have been disqualified. But the problem wasn't mine, it was yours, YOU failed to properly delineate the problem, rules, and solution parameters. And omittance is as much a sin as deception. (For a solution without a contiguous line, just draw through the three separate rows and then connect the columns with a fourth line.) Also, your errant solution to the candle problem states, according to your rules, "attach the candle to the wall", not attach the candle to the match box and the match box to the wall - your solution would be invalid by those rules. Also, the parameter was to not burn the house down, so either the candle has that ability or not - therefore either any solution would work (candle can't burn the house down), or your solution would also burn the house down - do you really think the match box won't catch on fire? The candle can start the house on fire but the burning match box can't? Is the matchbox inflammable? The glasses were just a math problem, similar to the classic "how do you cross the river" puzzle. As an example of what I am criticizing in your video, and these types of problems, how do we decrease the cost of space travel, and improve survivability with our current space flight technology? Transparent aluminum. Oh, wait, we don't use transparent aluminum in our current space flight technology, but that doesn't matter because I thought outside the box.
Nope, I fully agree with him. It is an issue that is constantly overglossed. To make an easy example, the candle issue. The instructions are to attach the candle to the wall without burning down the house. At no point did it state that the tacks or anything given are the only things to be used. (Don't believe me listen for yourself @ 0:45 ) So there is nothing stopping you from mounting a chandelier to a wall and attaching the candle to it. But if you were to do that, you are suddenly not understanding the exact problem they wanted to exploit. They are chasing their own results not actual data. So if you can use a match box you can use a chandelier.
bdoeden64 In a sense you are saying that if the description of the problem does not already suggest the solution, that is cheating. But in the real world, people have a problem, and no one yet knows the solution, and therefore the description of the problem of course does not say anything about the solution. The story of Paul McCready and the Kremer prize is a classic example: uxmag.com/articles/you-are-solving-the-wrong-problem
This is the issue exactly. If anything, the link you shared is a bad example. This 'the problem was the question' "Revelation" is overglossing what actually happened. His solution was not the solution to the initial problem. His solution was the answer to an issue he had while building. He didn't change the initial problem, he thought up a faster way to test different types of planes in less time. Clearly everyone understood the plane needed to be lighter, but noone decided to make an easy to build plane. That was his genius. But that isn't thinking outside the box. He was still doing the exact thing everyone else was doing, only he did it alot faster. The major difference between this video and the link is that, the link is open to all options. There was no: "I lock you in this room with the plane, now make it fly only on human power." So anyone could do and use whatever they could imagine. In the video, the people doing the testing limits the possibilities, because they expect a certain answer. If not then there would be no limit to solutions to the problems (Except the last one).
First you take duck across the river. Then you go back and grab the corn. You drop off the corn and bring the duck back across the river with you and pickup the dog and leave the duck behind. After you drop the dog off with the corn, you go back one last time for the duck. Congratulations, you have now successfully transported the food chain without it self-executing! However, interrupting the natural order of things is not without consequences. Human over-population is threatening extinction of the Human, Dog, Duck, & Corn. It would seem that solving one small and simple problem allows a much larger and more complex problem to emerge. Thus is the nature of the universe, no?
Ashique Desai You're absolutely correct and anybody who disagrees with you is unfortunately suffering from a disease known as "being a complete dumbass".
Ashique Desai I thought that would be boring: focusing on one problem for too long. Also, that would make comparisons amongst the experiments less apparent. Finally, if you look at the history of cinema, movies only really started to get interesting when filmmakers started to use cross-cutting. To make a video without cross-cutting is a little bit like deciding to write a sentence that has no adjectives. So that was my reasoning.
Edward Oneill, True cross cutting makes a video interesting but it applies to entertainment based video, your video wants your viewers to solve a problem...I think it should follow the pedagogy of an educational video or text...rather than the editing style of a movie...just my opinion...you might be right as well...but while watching your video I was completely lost and overwhelmed by the multiple problems.
I did the glass one a different, simpler way: Fill 3oz glass from 8oz = 5oz + 3oz. Transfer the 3oz into the 5oz. Refill 3oz glass = 2oz + 3oz + 3oz. Top up remaining 2oz space in 5oz glass from the 3oz glass. Now = 2oz + 5oz + 1oz. Tip 5oz back into the 8oz glass. Now = 7oz + 1 oz. Transfer the 1oz into the 5oz glass. Refill 3oz glass = 4oz + 1oz + 3oz. Combine 3oz and 1oz in 5oz glass. Final set = 4oz + 4oz.
1 . Perspective how to see 2 . Think outside the box 3 . What's not there 4. Hints are helpful 5. Doing things in a different way a lot to look for a better solution.
Two tacks method: 1. Press tack into wall leaving enough space to place head of second tack inverted...press first tack to secure second tack. 2. Press candle on protruding point of second tack and light One tack method: 1. Stick candle to tack 2. Knock wall down making it horizontal 3. Place candle and tack on wall
You can answer the second puzzle by Thinking Outside the Box. But by REALLY thinking outside the box, you can actually solve this with 3 lines. Draw the top and bottom line parallel. Because they are dots and not points, we can draw the middle line at 1 degree. The lines can be infinite, so will join to make a very wide Z. QED
There are not just technicalities involved, but also the lack of requirements declared, or real reasons to "waste time" on the solution. For example: Three glasses problem: I will try to solve this in 3-4 moves and if it doesn't work I lose nothing, I can just give up. If you already know the solution (and won't accept my possibly different one), then apply it yourself, I've got nothing to prove. Nine dots problem: trying to find a solution that will work on any piece of paper. This particular piece here is big enough, but what if someone draws these same dots on a napkin, without enough room around it? Candle problem: Is it allowed to use the match box? Will it be considered "cheating"? I must not reveal my inclination to think that way. The majority of us don't like cheating, we are looking for "legitimate" (allowed) solutions. Or: this match box is used elsewhere later, so ruining it just for this is out of the question. (Value of the box is higher than the value of the solution.) As we can see, problems have external factors (factors outside of the box) that I didn't see the researchers here are taking into consideration.
The person who gave you the problem already knows the solution. So I don't think they will give you a piece of paper too small on the 9 dots problems, for exemple. "Oh, but should I use the match box or not?" is a kind of prejudice or insecurity, which are some of the factors to be analyzed in these psychological tests. The way you think, your fears, etc... are all taken in consideration by the psychologist or the person leading the experiment.
@@josenildoferreiraassuncao8963 but he made a good point with the box of matches unless they told the participants otherwise that they could use the matchbox
Interesting how people try to transfer their problems to someone/something else (in this case, the parameters or rules) when they are strugling to solve it. If you are really concerned on solving the problem you don't try to justify your incapability, you are just too focused on solving the problem that you don't have time for it. Robots don't ramble about their work, so why do humans do?
What the psychology has to tell us about problem solving? Clearly hints are helpful. Thanks, never thought about that, very insightful, I don't even know how I'm going to sleep tonight with my mind blown that way.
You never told us at the start how much empty space was in each glass. And there was no markings on any of the glasses to signify 3oz, 5oz or 8oz measures. We were told not to eyeball the measurements and yet that is how you solved the problem. Molre informartion at the start would have been a big help.
I have assumed that a certain level in the glass is "full." There is no measurement in the video based on visual assumptions. The only assumption is that the glasses are "full" at the start, and that "full" is a point where the 'ribs' of the glasses end. I could have filled the glasses to the brim, but it would have been even messier. There is no eyeballing, because subtraction allows one to know that when five ounces are removed from an eight-ounce glass, three ounces are left.
Exactly. The ambiguities in the cups were part of the problem. As far as the candle problem goes, it's odd that the narrator implies there was one and only one correct solution, yet the readers here thought of _several_ other ones that are LESS likely to burn the house down than the supposed correct one.
Be mindful of your surroundings and any resources present (resourcefulness- match problem). Focus on the outcome- it is all that matters. This means there is no limit to how it can be solved (imagination- dot problem). Keep on it, even juggling on all possibilities (logic- glass). You need to engage and accept no limitations in order to solve problems. This is so relaxing. Thanks for posting. Glass 8,0,0 (start) 5,0,3 (1) 0,5,3 (2) 3,5,0 (3) 3,2,3 (4) 6,2,0 (5) 6,0,2 (6) 1,5,2 (7) 1,4,3 (8) 4,4,0 (9) Enjoy!
The solution to the matchbox problem does not meet the criterion that the candle must be affixed to the wall. by putting it in the matchbox, it was not fixed to the wall.
Really? most things that we consider being attached to the wall are actually indirectly attached, as in this solution. For example, for most human beings doors are considered attached to the walls, however, hinges are the ones that are attaching them to the wall. Even more, and if you want to be a real purist, only the screws are generating an attachment interaction with the wall, but we don't consider screws the only things attached to a wall right?. The basis of the problem is that if the candle is directly interacting with the wall the house will burn, so it is clear that an indirect attachment is needed. Thus, the solution is as valid as it is evident.
I solved all of the three questions differently and way easier than what this video has showed me. I think the phrase “think outside of the box” is literally inside the box!
It also shows which area you are stronger and which area weaker. For me glasses problem was very easy and then candle . But I have to admit I dint solve dots problem until saw the clues. Now I can analyse why was thinking this way and find ways to improve my weaker side of problem solving.
I didn't read all the posts below, but you can do it in one line, even one THIN line, by taping the opposite sides of the paper together slightly skewed in such a way that as your marker goes in a STRAIGHT line around the paper tube, it crosses all nine dots. You may require a large piece of paper as the line will go slightly at an angle through the dots. But there's an even better way. You can do it in ZERO lines. Just get a marker that's big enough to cover all nine dots. Touch the page, let go before you've drawn the first line, and voila.
It's like a lot of things like using Rubik's cube, pat your head and rub your stomach, say the alphabet backwards, putting a pen in a glass coke bottle - how do you get the pen put? Fill it with it water. The fox, the goose and the bag of beans riddle...we are all a possibility of what we can become.🧠
I think that you could pin the candle to the white rubbery stuff in a brick wall. Nobody specified the wall's material. Or put it in a crevasse in a stone cliff face. Or do it to a wall that isn't inside the house. At least one of those would work.
Actually a bigger candle does make a difference. I can soften the end of a small candle and put a thumbtack on it, then use other thumbtacks to hold it in place without burning the wall. The metal from the thumbtacks will probably insulate as well. With a bigger candle this is not possible. The glass problem was neat; figured it out in a couple minutes. The 9 dot problem I heard before, so lol.
Anyone else notice how the 8 oz glass clearly contained more than the 5 oz glass after he’d “solved” the problem and spilled Red Bull all over the table?
We bring a lot of assumptions to problem solving, and that in itself is a problem. I may be off topic here, but almost all educated Americans assume that appropriate grade-level testing reveals the progress that a student makes year to year; and that this testing can guide instruction going forward. As a teacher I can tell you that I often wonder what would happen if all we did with out students is teach, read, learn and have fun each and every day until the kid reaches the end of Jr. High. The biggest drop-out grade is 8th grade. Instead of just pouring a liquid between glasses to solve a problem, you'd think by now we'd have a community where kids are never discouraged from both success AND failure, and not be labeled a failure. I'm pretty sure that was Abraham Lincoln's experience; it worked pretty well for him. Off topic for sure. Thanks for the post btw....great puzzles.
@@edwardroneill Groups of educators get together every single day and try to solve the problem of students dropping out of school. And we keep coming up with the same answers that don't work. I saw an analogy with staying in the box. Sorry if it bothered you.
when ever I saw you talking about sticking the candle onto the wall I immediately thought of using the match box as well. didn't have any idea about the others tho
if the candle problem is properly described: use everything here to attach a candle to the wall so it doesn't burn the wall, you mentally include the box. If you properly describe the juice in glasses problem, you WILL be 'eyeballing' the levels. If you are told NOT to 'eyeball' it, then the glasses should have markers, right? The 9-dots, that gets me every time, and i'm glad to see it solved.
Ah, I had figured out the glass problem a different way. 1) Start with 8 oz cup full. 2) Fill 3 oz cup from 8 oz cup. 3) Pour all from 3 oz cup to 5 oz cup. 4) Fill 3 oz cup from 8 oz cup again. 5) Use 3 oz cup to fill 5 oz cup again. This fills the 5 oz cup, and leaves the 3 oz cup containing 1 oz. 6) Empty the 5 oz cup into the 8 oz. 7) Put the remaining 1 oz from the 3 oz cup into the 5 oz cup. 8) Fill the 3 oz cup from the 8 oz cup. 9) Pour the 3 oz cup into the 5 oz cup. 3+1 = Making 4 oz in the 5 oz cup.
This is what I got as well. But he didn't specify that we also had the pitcher to pour from--and back into. If there were no pitcher, he'd have needed to state that we started with the 8oz cup full. I really hate when people present problems or puzzles who clearly don't understand them well enough to define them.
This video has brought me face to face with my stupidly closed mind ! Sadly , knowing all this now will do little to change the way I approach problems ... as the 'traditionally ingrained ' methods of reasoning are very hard to break .
For the 9-dot line i easily solved it, you had to utilize the position of the center dot, the center dot can connect 2 dots with one line when struck through it(and itself of course) , they are eight dots excluding the center dot, 8/2 = 4, so 4 lines can be used to connect the excluding 8 and the center dot while striking through the middle...so 2 diagonal lines, 1 vertical and an horizontal . As for the Glass question, the first thing tht came to my mind was to write out equations. for eg(all the possible equations): 8-3 = 5;(if i pour 8 oz into 3 oz, we get 5 left in 8 oz glass) 8-5 = 3;(if i pour 8 oz into 5 oz we get 3 oz left in 8 oz glass) 5-3 = 2(if i pour 5 oz into 3 oz we get 2 oz left in 5 oz glass) these are all the positive possibilities(N.B. - we cant possible utilize negative numbers in real-life scenarios) thus, the 5-3 =2, method had to be utilized to its maximum potential)(since out of the positive equations it is a factor of 4) so i drafted numerous formulas (max,min)G- the meaning at the start we have (8,8,)G + (5,0)G + (3,0)G then (8,3)G + (5,5)G + (3,0)G then (8,3)G + (5,2)G + (3,3)G then (8,6)G + (3,0)G + (3,2)G then (8,1)G + (5,5)G + (3,2)G then(Key part) (8,1)G + (5,4)G + (3,3)G then (8,4)G + (5,4)G + (3,0)G DONE this is probably not the most efficient way but yeah thx for reading if you did. Btw: I didnt do the box one cz it looked weird xD
i didn't solve the glass problem the way it's done in the video. my thought was this: to put 4 water into the 5glass i need to first put 1 in it then use the 3glass to make it 4water. to do this i need to somehow end up with one water into the glass5. which can be done by first puting 3 into the 3 then empty the 3 into 5glass refill the 3glass with the 8glass then use 3glass to fill the 5glass leaving 1 water into the 3glass. the process of solving was slightly tedious but no really challenging my perspective. i just did a bit of trial and error and the problem was solved as soon as i had a grasp on how i could use the 3glass and 5glass to produce smaller value than 3. i first tried to obtain 2 but that wasn't working because i needed 2 glasses with 2 water at some point.
@@edwardroneill Yeah I know but I'm an engineer so I want the problem solved fast and cheaply. Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways... (Sorry couldn't resist! That's a quote from Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars: A New Hope)
The assignment of the 9 dot problem is: connect all the dots using only three lines. Depending on your definition of "connect" the three line solution is not valid.
Edward Oneill "is to connect nine dots, arranged in a square, by four straight lines drawn without lifting the pen from the paper and without retracing any lines". I only see 1 solution: the one with the triangle. That is the only solution that uses 4 lines to connect the nine dots. It doesn't say 4 lines or less. Tbh I 've seen this test and solution multiple times, but I fail even to remember the solution. I am definitly in the 95% group that doesn't see a solution.
You didn't state "contiguous" or "without retracing". Those are essential parameters to narrow down to a single solution. Same with the liquid and 8/5/3 cups--we either start with a pither we can pour from and back into, or we start with 8oz total. Either way, we don't just have 3 glasses, and which of the two we have determines our outcome.
The first step is to recognize that there is no problem; only a present circumstance. Problems don’t exist, only your perspective and judgment does. You can change something more to your liking, but it’s still not a problem. One’s solution is someone else’s problem. It’s all perspective.
Edward Oneill somewhat correct. Problems are just a negative connotation people give a situation, when everything is always just as it’s supposed to be. There are no mistakes in the universe.
*Don't think so* it is NOT a muscle! i think it is more like the muscles on and around your eyes: the more you strain them,the quicker they say fyou,i'll take a rest; this is a fact,DO NOT strain your eyes,NOR your brain!!!!
I have different solutions for every puzzle. For the candle problem I'd stick 4 tacks to the wall and the candle set inbetween the tacks and light it that way. Why I wouldn't stick it to the box is because it's not "touching" the wall and thus isn't attached to the wall. However, if the case were to make the candle connect to the wall either directly or indirectly then the box would be relevant. For the nine dot problem I just did a right angle then went super far and made diagonal lines with a slope so steep it passes through three dots so technically I could've connected 9 dots in 3 lines rather than 4 lines. For the Three Glass problem fill up the 8 oz cup until full because filling the 3 oz cup twice results in 6 oz while filling the 5 oz once results in 5 oz. This means you can find out how much 1 oz is via the 3 oz cup because 6 oz - 5 oz = 1 oz. Mark that spot with your thumb or finger and fill them up 1 oz at a time is what I'd do.
@@Kotikjeff It seems like some people are upset that the glasses don't have markers for what is "full." I used an arbitrary level on the glasses, but I didn't mark it. Another confusion arises as to whether me pouring liquid around the glasses is truly arriving at four actual ounces. Those glassed DO hold the amounts given when filled to where the glass stops being smooth and becomes 'faceted.' But to me the pouring is an illustration of the math. I never thought to 'prove' I had four ounces in a glass.
Edward Oneill We need to make measures of exactly four ounces. Your words. Did you achieve this? If not, then I think it is best if you leave the problem solving to others and just watch how problems are really solved instead of trying to mislead people through your lack of understanding.
As my name implies I am a cabinet maker which means I always have very sharp blades with me and I'm always cutting wood products. I had a job with a company installing their European cabinets and as an icebreaker they gave me the 9 dot Problem. Cocky as hell I told them I could solve the nine dot Problem with just one line. My boss told me go ahead and try. I folded the paper in such a way that all the lines lined up pulled out a sharp chisel and cut through all of the folds paper with one line. When I unfolded the paper all the Dot's had a line through them. I got fired that same day.
"Attach the candle to a wall..." FAIL. In the purported solution, the candle is NOT attached to a wall, just as the chandelier hanging in in the middle of a room is not attached to the patio or the floor.
I used the tacks to affix the box to the board, and a tack through the bottom of the box INTO the bottom of the candle (like a candle-holder) keeping it upright.
This was really informative. At the end I was thinking that the same applies to music. The pause between notes is equally as important as the notes themselves.
@@mareksajner8567 Hadn't seen it before, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call myself 'very smart', but it seemed immediately obvious that if you were to fill the 5-glass and pour it into the 3-glass, you'd be left with 2 units, which is a convenient factor of 4, and from then on the problem solves itself pretty much.
@@MBKill3rCat Maybe it was because of how he described the problem, because I suspect this is generally asked with higher numbers, but I knew all the problems anyway, so I can't judge. I know it took me several minutes for the first time, although I understand stuff easily. (I think I got 10, 8 and 6 units)
When I saw the nine dots float in to view during the intro , I got excited and knew it was the puzzle I figured out . lol man I love that one . I toyed with it secretly (about 22 y/o) on and off for about a month until an idea flew into my head that I should fly between the dots to make connections , and poof there it was
1 - Melt the plastic from thumbtacks with matches, then apply the hot plastic to the wall and stick the candle. Light the candle. 2 - Wrap the paper in such a way that you can connect, by going horizontally - relative to the paper - all 3 group of 3 points by one single line. Try it yourself, it takes some time to figure it out. 3 - How can you even know how much did you put into one glass if you cannot measure ? "Measurement is the assignment of a number to a characteristic of an object or event, which can be compared with other objects or events." .. If you cannot assign a number to a some characteristic you cannot do this problem. The problem is the presentation of the problem.
No tacks needed ! Melt the end of the candle from with a match and stick the candle to the wall. Light the candle ! Then put a pot or something under the lightened candle to catch the dripping wax - and don't leave the house ! 😊
I think the presenter here is assuming that most of viewers already know the answers to the problem hence rushing through the solution to focus on the thinking process. I think the right way to do this is to first present problem, ask people to pause and solve. then give solution. Then explain the out of box concept. and only then move to the next problem. Dancing between problems and solutions and thinking process just muddles the brain :-).....so much for psychology :-D
The title of the video is "The Psychology of Problem-Solving." Not: Can You Solve These Three Puzzles? The subtitle is: "A short educational video about what psychology tells us about how people solve problems." It's not a brain-teaser. It's summarizing psychological research.
