EPTPsychological Riddle - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
MFaulk28
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
Abang_Zealot
Indonesia866 Posts
oh well, good reading cheers :D | ||
|
mech
Kyrgyz Republic31 Posts
| ||
|
mech
Kyrgyz Republic31 Posts
a) The man who shot himself was too unlikely to have a gun at all as he was blind b) Soup cooked at the restaurant and at the island SHOULD taste different c) Although flashback21 mentioned that the soup at the restaurant was real albatross soup, the man could not know it. By tasting only two samples, he could only suppose that one of them wasn't real albatross. Either one could be with equal probability. d) Anyway, this is absolutely illogical conclusion: Taste of soup -> I have eaten such soup on the island -> Soup tastes different -> It's not an albatross soup I've eaten -> Oh that must be soup from my wife -> BANG The man leaving elevator on fifth floor could a) have some heart disease so he walked up 5 floors to have an exercise for his heart. 10 was just too much for him. b) just not reach the button, as it was said c) have claustrophobia so he couldn's stand being in an elevator longer than it took it to reach 5th floor  d) anything else But could anyone, flashback21 in particular, tell me what all this nonsense have to do with psychology? | ||
|
Resonate
United Kingdom8402 Posts
| ||
|
Nevera
Finland677 Posts
a) The gun was irrelevant. And what's too unlikely? Maybe he was taking his buddys X gun to his buddys home because for some odd reason his buddy X forgot it at the fisherman? Maybe he was about to go and sell his old gun from the days he was not blind, and it was just with him? I can see how you can make up a lot of shit trying to smash this riddle, yet you can't make any situation in your mind that would make him have the gun. If you can think of something as unlikely as this for the other test exapmle, "have claustrophobia so he couldn's stand being in an elevator longer than it took it to reach 5th floor" and even "anything else", surely you can give a blind guy a gun? It's easy. However, for weak minded people sake maybe the test should say "he killed himself" and declare everything conserning the way he did it as irrelevant. b) And? So now we can't trust the mans judgement? I can recognise A LOT of foods no matter where it's made. I.e salmon is salmon no matter where it's made or what you put on it. I think he could know if he ate the same thing or something else. c) The man believed the soup was albatross soup at the restaurant. That's all he needed. Oh and that equal probability is no way true. Prove it. Why would the cook lie? Something unusual again? What is more likely that I'm a comp AI or a real person? Are they both possible? If so, is it 50 % / 50 %? No. d) Why? All we need is, the man believes he ate real albatross soup at the restaurant. He then concludes that the thing he ate earlier is not albatross, and can only figure it's his wife. Note, it is the mans judgement at work, not ours. Then the man figured about what were the possibilities of food on the island, maybe it was really small island with absolutely nothing on it, maybe the wife and the friend first established that there is no way anything to be eaten on the island and told the man and he believed it. When he ate his wife the friend "somehow catched a bird". I mean a fisherman knew it wasn't from the sea. Maybe he doubted his friend even then, maybe not, whatever? Maybe he had buried the memory deep, it was a flashback afterall. Conclusion, you can fill in the blanks rationally the way that the riddle works, if you are not prejudiced... "But could anyone, flashback21 in particular, tell me what all this nonsense have to do with psychology?" Well I'm interested too, but probably it's to do with more about what we answer, not the riddle itself? Us trying to find out? I don't know. | ||
|
Tricky
China752 Posts
| ||
|
Nevera
Finland677 Posts
| ||
|
mech
Kyrgyz Republic31 Posts
The gun thing was kind of a joke, just to show that this whole story is far-fetched. That's not the point. The point is (Terminator style): - Soup tastes not as that soup on island, although both were made of albatross - Obvious conclusion: the two soups were made of differend kind of meat. Possible reasons: (1) the soup on island is not albatross (2) the soup in restaurant is not albatross (3) neither soup is albatross In case of (1) FOR ME conclusion would be (pretty much considering PSYCHOLOGICAL factors, such as I would never think of my close friend being able to kill my wife, eat her and also feed her to me - it would be a totally fuc*ed up psycho - cannibalizm/ murder of friends' wife... if that's common for you, I'll just STFU and go take a walk. Not only that, but I wouldn't even think of him to trick me for some reason, I would assume he was mistaken) : - Friend mistook some bird for albatross. In case of (2) - I can think of some reasons it could happen, like there was no albatross in stores and cook just made soup from some other meat not to get screwed by boss. Possibility of your being AI is very close to zero because there is no known existent AIs. Possibility of cook for some reason or by mistake making wrong soup is much much higher. And its *psychologically* a lot higher than probability of eating your own wife. Case of (3) would mean either conclusion relating to case (1) or to case (2). | ||
Mynock
4492 Posts
"But could anyone, flashback21 in particular, tell me what all this nonsense have to do with psychology?" Well I'm interested too, but probably it's to do with more about what we answer, not the riddle itself? Us trying to find out? I don't know. It would, but not like flashback did it. He just hasn't got any damn clue about what psychology is about, else he would have administered the flow of the riddle properly. If only he had taken the time to realise as to WHY I asked those questions instead of just foolishly assuming my intentions judging off of his own infantile self, he MIGHT have realised that those 2 simple phrases are a work of fucking genious. I'm sorry, I can't put it otherwise, but I pressed like tons more meaning into those words than this whole riddle contains by itself. They are friggin' perls with at least 3 different levels of interpretation, and all this dumb american ignoramus managed to assume was that I wanted to destroy his precious thread. Fuck you. -Mynock | ||
|
flashback21
United States406 Posts
i didnt read the post from the flamers since i clearly, just dont care :[ | ||
|
flashback21
United States406 Posts
| ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
On October 07 2003 16:37 mech wrote: 2Nevera: The gun thing was kind of a joke, just to show that this whole story is far-fetched. That's not the point. The point is (Terminator style): - Soup tastes not as that soup on island, although both were made of albatross - Obvious conclusion: the two soups were made of differend kind of meat. Possible reasons: (1) the soup on island is not albatross (2) the soup in restaurant is not albatross (3) neither soup is albatross In case of (1) FOR ME conclusion would be (pretty much considering PSYCHOLOGICAL factors, such as I would never think of my close friend being able to kill my wife, eat her and also feed her to me - it would be a totally fuc*ed up psycho - cannibalizm/ murder of friends' wife... if that's common for you, I'll just STFU and go take a walk. Not only that, but I wouldn't even think of him to trick me for some reason, I would assume he was mistaken) : - Friend mistook some bird for albatross. In case of (2) - I can think of some reasons it could happen, like there was no albatross in stores and cook just made soup from some other meat not to get screwed by boss. Possibility of your being AI is very close to zero because there is no known existent AIs. Possibility of cook for some reason or by mistake making wrong soup is much much higher. And its *psychologically* a lot higher than probability of eating your own wife. Case of (3) would mean either conclusion relating to case (1) or to case (2). Maybe the psychological moral of the riddle is that people with disabilities develop realllly warped psyches? | ||
|
mech
Kyrgyz Republic31 Posts
| ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
On October 07 2003 16:37 mech wrote: 2Nevera: The gun thing was kind of a joke, just to show that this whole story is far-fetched. That's not the point. The point is (Terminator style): - Soup tastes not as that soup on island, although both were made of albatross - Obvious conclusion: the two soups were made of differend kind of meat. Possible reasons: (1) the soup on island is not albatross (2) the soup in restaurant is not albatross (3) neither soup is albatross In case of (1) FOR ME conclusion would be (pretty much considering PSYCHOLOGICAL factors, such as I would never think of my close friend being able to kill my wife, eat her and also feed her to me - it would be a totally fuc*ed up psycho - cannibalizm/ murder of friends' wife... if that's common for you, I'll just STFU and go take a walk. Not only that, but I wouldn't even think of him to trick me for some reason, I would assume he was mistaken) : - Friend mistook some bird for albatross. In case of (2) - I can think of some reasons it could happen, like there was no albatross in stores and cook just made soup from some other meat not to get screwed by boss. Possibility of your being AI is very close to zero because there is no known existent AIs. Possibility of cook for some reason or by mistake making wrong soup is much much higher. And its *psychologically* a lot higher than probability of eating your own wife. Case of (3) would mean either conclusion relating to case (1) or to case (2). Why, exactly. You see, and all this to only ONE way of the riddle. All the other possible and also viable solutions would have lots of different ways to contain all other kinds of different information. The problem here is that flashback just used PRECISELY the same information base he received from his previous riddler, who on the other hand may or may have not used it to his own liking, passing the riddles check-points according to the questions he received. Since at some point in the story the details become absolutely succumbed to the speculation of the questioner there is NO point to get glued to the one and only solution you have heard elsewhere. -Mynock | ||
|
After)Eight(
Germany502 Posts
not because i know it from the other questions, but i know this one... i know somme more riddles like this one... want some? | ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
On October 07 2003 16:53 mech wrote: flashback, the people who show such brain processes should be visiting psychiatrist, not psychologist. Also correct. While flashback u might practice your most powerful attribute to date (your deaf and blind ignorance) as much as you wish, the facts are still there, and you are only depriving yourself from maybe understanding something that you don't. Not that I see much hope in you, it's just that you COULD. -Mynock | ||
|
flashback21
United States406 Posts
| ||
|
flashback21
United States406 Posts
btw- Who are you in the BW community? Do you even play BW? Do you just go to random forums and annoy people claiming how you are better? I didn't write this riddle and stay on answer the questions.. I did it for people who had interest in the riddle. I seriously don't understand how you are not banned. If I >KNEW< I wouldn't get banned for personally flaming you, instead of a educational debate, I would go all out. But if you can debate about psychology and the relations to this riddle, go for it. I know it might be hard since it is an _educational_ riddle, but try ur best. annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd I just wasted a lot of time writing this im out~ | ||
|
flashback21
United States406 Posts
On October 07 2003 16:53 mech wrote: flashback, the people who show such brain processes should be visiting psychiatrist, not psychologist. ... I don't think you guys understand. The riddle being it, has nothing to do with psychology. It is the questions asked. | ||
| ||
