EPTNah, what the hell, this isn't going anywhere. Learn to communicate on a human level first, then, maybe, talk.
-Mynock
Psychological Riddle - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Mynock
4492 Posts
Nah, what the hell, this isn't going anywhere. Learn to communicate on a human level first, then, maybe, talk. -Mynock | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10304 Posts
| ||
|
flashback21
United States406 Posts
| ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
Ooops? Cretin. No, seriously, I'm out. -Mynock | ||
|
flashback21
United States406 Posts
On October 07 2003 17:22 BlackJack wrote: The funny thing is he ate his wife and liked it enough to go into a restaurant and order some more rofl nice D:~ | ||
|
Nevera
Finland677 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). OK so first of, the point what I was trying to make is this: If you can make up ANY sequence of events that will make the riddle rational, you should give it benefit of a doubt. Just find out that one set you believe in and then, after then you have absolutely no need to question the riddle, it makes all the events that lead to illogical riddle useless. So, in my point of view, your (1) (2) (3) don't mean much, because I think the man convinced himself of that the soup he ate at the restaurant is infact albatross soup, he also gets obviously very emotional, has flashback, sees earlier events in a different light, concludes the facts or his fears or his emotions and then kills himself. I still don't see that the man _should_ be stupid or irrational to think this way, I think he just might had had enough evidence now. He just finds out the truth, maybe he didn't want to confront it before or didn't remember at all, who knows. We don't know: How the friend told the man about the bird, was the whole story "fishy". Maybe they both knew damn well what kind of bird is albatross. How fucked up the man was when he was starving, after that and so on, and none of other unknown situations that were going on in his life. And a lot of other stuff too. I don't think the mans friend has to be evil either, desperate is desperate. The riddle can be filled in so that it works just perfectly, and done right it doesn't need any very unusual stuff. Yes, me being comp AI is not impossible, but very unlikely. The point was precisely that, I have 0 incidents where my chef has lied to me. The probability for that is higher than me being comp AI, but still not too likely. The cook may have been pathological liar, and just lied out of his ass, but all I need is the riddle that works, in my version (if I tell this to my friends maybe), the cook will be honest, and the man will trust the cook should they ask it. One last thing, "I would never think of my close friend being able to kill my wife, eat her and also feed her to me". How many times and which friends of yours you have been in a situation like that? It's called conflict of interests, he want's to live but it comes with a price. It's easy to give and not take when you are rich and well. I might not do it, but I don't think it takes a devil to do such a thing. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10304 Posts
| ||
|
Nevera
Finland677 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10304 Posts
| ||
|
Nevera
Finland677 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10304 Posts
The simple fact that the two soups taste different is not enough to conclude that he ate his wife. Any conclusion that he formed may have been right (depending on author) but it was still irrational thinking. | ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
Its a story that we are supposed to find the answer to by asking questions. Obviously flashback is not a psychologist (althougth he may be taking a class), nor is he going to psycho analyze us because of the questions he is asking. He just provided a stupid game for us to play that he found fun. Who cares if there is no psychology involved. Who really gives a shit if he ignored your question because it had to do with psychology. It was a fun game to play, and thats that. Obviously there can be multiple interpretations to what happened, but there is a story and we are supposed to figure out what happened by asking questions. WHO CARES IF ITS NOT EVEN FUCKING PROBABLE. AND WHO CARES IF ITS NOT EVEN FUCKING RELATED TO PSYCHOLOGY. IT WAS FUN, it induced 335+ posts and it was the best thread on the site since the korean dream team one. so end the mindless bickering. All i see is mynock flaming flashback because he ignored the psychological aspects of the game. Well, if this were psychology class, and he were our teacher, you could take this before the tenure committee and try to get him fired, but thats not the case here. the fact that he ignored your questions was more rude than ignorant....bringing in psychology with a forum of 120 active users at a time is difficult, especially for someone who is just taking the class. chill guys, its just fun. | ||
|
baal
10533 Posts
| ||
|
Nevera
Finland677 Posts
On October 07 2003 18:12 BlackJack wrote: ... The simple fact that the two soups taste different is not enough to conclude that he ate his wife. Any conclusion that he formed may have been right (depending on author) but it was still irrational thinking. So then it's not _just_ the simple fact now is it? Now you're using your brains (maybe)? Also now suddendly it was not about him being blind? You still don't know why it's irrational, you just like to think so. Oh well... gl hf  | ||
|
Parvus
Netherlands180 Posts
 my english sux a bit sorry :-) | ||
|
mmm.beer
Canada412 Posts
Err I think if I was the husband I'd know that my fucking wife got to shore and was alive. I mean she did make some swimming noises or something. Or did buddy there kill her right at the boating accident thinking ahead that the island had no food source and drag her dead carcass back to shore....afterwards telling him she died. Yeah right. This makes no sense. Am I totally off? wtf? | ||
|
TanGo
Sweden1019 Posts
| ||
|
RuGbUg
United States2347 Posts
| ||
|
Nimed
Portugal82 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10304 Posts
On October 07 2003 18:46 Nevera wrote: So then it's not _just_ the simple fact now is it? Now you're using your brains (maybe)? Also now suddendly it was not about him being blind? You still don't know why it's irrational, you just like to think so. Oh well... gl hf Wtf are you talking about? Read all of the posts that tell you why it is irrational if you still don't understand because I don't fell like repearing it | ||
| ||
