Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

My reasoning is more than yours


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
22 replies to this topic

#1 Zethariel   Members   -  Reputation: 310

Posted 23 June 2011 - 06:12 AM

Recently I did this short quiz, found in the status update of one of the gamedev society memebers

http://www.funnywebs...m/reasoning.php

Please take it in order to fully undrstand the incoming rant.














Question 1.
I admit that one got me. I did not take into consideration how big a refrigerator can get. I'll let that one slide.

Question 2.
Given question one, there are no details as to the size of the refrigerator, thus an elephant and girafee could fit in there. If that does not convince you, read the question once again -- how do you fit an elephant into A refrigerator? The "a" suggests it is a generic, girafee free refrigerator that has no connection to the one from question 2.

Question 3.
This one I got correct. Still, no one claimed that the refrigerator was locked shut. The elephant could freelly move out of it and attempt the conference. There are no technology issues with opening a door by such a large animal.

Quetion 4.
No one mentioned where the meeting would take place. There is a plausibility that it was in the lake or it's vicinity, in which case crossing would be impossible. Also, according to some, humans are in fact animals, so I would not be allowed to cross the river as I would be attending the conference.
Unless that one animal that did not participate in the event was me, waiting by that stupid river.


What is your take on these questions? Care to throw in some more elaborate and/or wacky explanations as to why the test is wrong? :)
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise

Homepage (Under Construction)

Check my profile for funny D&D/WH FRP quotes :)

Sponsor:

#2 __sprite   Members   -  Reputation: 461

Posted 23 June 2011 - 06:47 AM

It's not an actual reasoning test, it's a joke of the:

Questioner: "Obvious question with not enough information so based on standard preconceptions?"
Answerer: "Obvious answer based on standard preconceptions!"
Questioner: "No, you're wrong, because wordplay / silliness / added information!"

kind.


At best it provides some coincidental insight into how people grow to have preconceptions about refrigerators.

Also, the elephant is at the conference, since it's being held in the refrigerator.

#3 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:02 AM

This made me feel very dark as I immediately jumped to cutting both the giraffe and elephant into pieces before putting them in the fridge. Maybe I just grew up around a lot of hunters so having whole dead animals in the fridge wasn't uncommon? :-/

with that in mind I got question 3 correct as both the giraffe and elephant are dead.

#4 Zethariel   Members   -  Reputation: 310

Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:02 AM

I know it's a joke :) But it's funny (at least for me) to come up with reasonable (yeah right) explanations to unreasonable situations. All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

@way2lazy2care: I too did cut up the girafee. But according to you, since both animals have been cut up, 2 cannot participate instead of one.
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise

Homepage (Under Construction)

Check my profile for funny D&D/WH FRP quotes :)

#5 Tachikoma   Members   -  Reputation: 552

Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:15 AM

I find the usage of Comic Sans on that site more perturbing.
Latest project: Sideways Racing on the iPad

#6 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:20 AM

@way2lazy2care: I too did cut up the girafee. But according to you, since both animals have been cut up, 2 cannot participate instead of one.


My answer was something along the lines of both animals not being there so I guess I would be wrong for that one, but I guess maybe they could have served giraffe for lunch?

#7 Zethariel   Members   -  Reputation: 310

Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:27 AM


@way2lazy2care: I too did cut up the girafee. But according to you, since both animals have been cut up, 2 cannot participate instead of one.


My answer was something along the lines of both animals not being there so I guess I would be wrong for that one, but I guess maybe they could have served giraffe for lunch?


Depends on what was the conference about. If it was about the recent murder of the giraffe, then indeed only the cut up elephant could not participate.
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise

Homepage (Under Construction)

Check my profile for funny D&D/WH FRP quotes :)

#8 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 23 June 2011 - 08:08 AM

Depends on what was the conference about. If it was about the recent murder of the giraffe, then indeed only the cut up elephant could not participate.


The real answer though, is Mufasa. Goodnight sweet prince :(

#9 ChurchSkiz   Members   -  Reputation: 449

Posted 23 June 2011 - 08:31 AM

This made me feel very dark as I immediately jumped to cutting both the giraffe and elephant into pieces before putting them in the fridge. Maybe I just grew up around a lot of hunters so having whole dead animals in the fridge wasn't uncommon? :-/

with that in mind I got question 3 correct as both the giraffe and elephant are dead.


LOL I did the same thing for #1 and #2. The quiz also presupposes that there is only ONE way to do anything. It doesn't say, "provide a very specific way to put a giraffe in a refrigerador", it just says how do YOU do it? Well, if I am going to put a giraffe in a refrigerador, I'm going to hack it to pieces first.

What if the giraffe isn't cooperative with the refrigerador thing? How would you do it then? The quiz doesn't supply for any alternative other than "just put it in the refrigerador." It doesn't mention that you may need a cattle prod or tranquilizer gun or cable and winch.

Here's my quiz: What's in your pocket? (scroll down for answer)






Answer: Air. If you said anything else you're wrong. Even if you don't have pockets.

#10 Hedos   Members   -  Reputation: 674

Posted 23 June 2011 - 01:46 PM

For Question 1, I thought of cutting a giraffe into pieces at first, but then I realized that the better idea is just to find a large enough refrigerator and put the giraffe in. My answer for question 2 was the same, which I stand is correct, because the question asks "How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?". The assumption that you have to put the elephant in the same refrigerator as the giraffe is just arbitrary and plain wrong! I got question 3 right, I thought this was pretty obvious given the provided answers to the two previous questions... For question 4 though, I have to admit I completely missed the point, but my idea was if there is a bridge, just cross it, and otherwise ask the locals how they do it.

Edit: Yes I do realize the quiz is silly :P

#11 Prefect   Members   -  Reputation: 373

Posted 23 June 2011 - 02:32 PM

Don't take something like this too seriously. Trying to come up with all sorts of way out there answers can be fun, pretending to have correct answers is just stupid because the questions are way too underspecified. Not to mention that the supposedly "correct answers" in this case are internally inconsistent anyway. Nobody should accept to or have to accept to play a game where the counterpart simply changes the rules at will.
Widelands - laid back, free software strategy

#12 kseh   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2076

Posted 23 June 2011 - 04:23 PM

Explanation: This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an over-complicated way.


If you didn't get the question the first time, explaining your answer here will only further the argument that you do simple things in an over-complicated way.

#13 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1718

Posted 23 June 2011 - 04:45 PM


Explanation: This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an over-complicated way.


If you didn't get the question the first time, explaining your answer here will only further the argument that you do simple things in an over-complicated way.


I believe cutting up a giraffe is much more simple than trying to find a refrigerator large enough to hold one.

#14 rip-off   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8223

Posted 23 June 2011 - 04:49 PM

And more practical. What use is a cold, live giraffe? Meanwhile giraffe steak is delicious, and keeping it until you need it is just good planning.

#15 JoeCooper   Members   -  Reputation: 338

Posted 23 June 2011 - 11:24 PM

I thought "make a bigger refrigerator".

This is relevant to game design - as well as many artistic endeavors - because this is about establishing an internal reality.

Basically, you make assumptions about the "rules". The "refrigerator" is assumed to be a consumer grade kitchen fridge.

The second question plays on the fact that you're likely to treat the questions as isolated entities, and the correct answer also adds details about the fridge (it can only fit one large animal apparently). You likely learned to treat them as isolated because that's how school tests usually work. The author knows that and is intentionally using your prior knowledge.

Minding assumptions and cultivating an understanding of rules is done a lot, usually for the consumer's benefit. This does the same, to troll.

Some examples of what I mean. One is if you're writing, there are rules. For example, you might frequently switch perspectives or plan to later, or you might stick the main character's point of view strictly, or whatever. There's many ways to do it, as long as the work is internally consistent. But...

How does the reader know what the rule is in your work? Do you put a label on the front, "3rd person limited with character X only"?

No. Well not usually. You try to characterize the work early. If you plan to switch person perspective a lot, you might make sure there is one switch early on. If you plan to switch between more than two characters, you might make sure there's three perspectives show within the first portion of the book.

Chord progressions in music are often used to the same effect, to establish what the scale is.

Video games, meanwhile, are often arted up with things from real life like people and sky and ground so you can intuit what the rules are. You know that when Mario "jumps" he'll go down, and which way down is, because there's earth and sky in the picture and you're familiar with that.

This is equivalent to if Mario jumped, he went straight up into the ceiling where there's spikes, and the game said "geez you're a moron", and you couldn't play again.

#16 Zethariel   Members   -  Reputation: 310

Posted 24 June 2011 - 01:46 AM

Now that you mention it, this test is trully a good one for designers. Some will just give up and say it's stupid or meant for fun (which it is), but some will pick up the challenge and redesign it.

What I mean is, when there is an idea you have, can you defend it.... Or rather expand it so it makes sense to a reader? Game design is all about convincing the player that the world he sees is true, that he can submerge himself in it. If the players raise questions about the integrity of the idea/structure (as said with the Mario-floaring-up-to-deadly-spikes example), they will be at the very least suprised and struck out of immersion. Then it is a personal matter of either saying the game is stupid or trying to beat it regardless, as a form of challenge.

Same happens in dreams. We dream the most absurd things in our sleep (holy cow was my dream a bloody massacre today O.o), and in the dream, what we see is reality. I know it has something to do with my brain switching off reasoning for some... reason? But the fact is, dreaming is the most absolute form of immersion. Still, there are dreams we are aware of that are dreams -- these either fade away fast (they break apart, like a badly designed game breaks apart a fragile experience) or we have fun with in our own way (the world is known to us and it no longer generates random content, it's not the same as it was before).

Never thought this topic could have a value besides thinking up stupid answers for equally stupid questions xD
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise

Homepage (Under Construction)

Check my profile for funny D&D/WH FRP quotes :)

#17 JoeCooper   Members   -  Reputation: 338

Posted 24 June 2011 - 02:23 AM

You can totally break things intentionally too and it be a positive experience. Winterbells, for example, actually does have you just keep going up. Sorta. Note how the rule is established by letting you test your prior knowledge (rabbits jump), surprise you with a subversion (bells make you go up whut?) and makes you fail immediately (you likely don't already know hitting the ground ends it).

By using a little tact (careful word choice and presentation tactics I won't go into) and letting you try again and achieve total understanding of the rules, it gives a polar opposite experience to the reasoning test.

(Also note how the "How To Play" instruction at the open is super careful not to mention the flight or end condition.)

#18 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 24 June 2011 - 07:52 AM

You can totally break things intentionally too and it be a positive experience. Winterbells, for example, actually does have you just keep going up. Sorta. Note how the rule is established by letting you test your prior knowledge (rabbits jump), surprise you with a subversion (bells make you go up whut?) and makes you fail immediately (you likely don't already know hitting the ground ends it).

By using a little tact (careful word choice and presentation tactics I won't go into) and letting you try again and achieve total understanding of the rules, it gives a polar opposite experience to the reasoning test.

(Also note how the "How To Play" instruction at the open is super careful not to mention the flight or end condition.)


There's one flash game that I can't remember the name of that was the same level over and over and all it did was change the ruleset every time to crazy stuff (gravity pulls up and you jump down, spikes are good, etc). I remember having a great time with that game just because each level was like a riddle where you had to reevaluate your preconceived notions about the game.

#19 JoeCooper   Members   -  Reputation: 338

Posted 24 June 2011 - 08:24 AM

That sounds brilliant. Winterbells is a super light example, that one sounds more like the reasoning test (except for the trolling).

#20 cowsarenotevil   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2045

Posted 24 June 2011 - 08:38 AM

Speaking of changing the rules partway through.
-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS