How Logical Are You? (Psychology of Reasoning)
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- So just how logical are you? This 4-card selection task developed by Peter Wason in 1963 will help you find out! All you need to do is assess which of the 4 cards must be turned over in order to determine whether the rule has been followed.
Music: "Brittle Rille" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Music licensed under Creative Commons (creativecommons.org/licenses/b...)
Sunrise footage by Beachfront B-Roll (www.beachfrontbroll.com/)
( / beachfrontprod )
I said to turn over all of them. But I have trust issues.
Me too. But it did say "card(s)" so why wouldn't you turn them all over...
*****
"assess which of the 4 cards must be turned over in order to determine..."
How is turning over all of them not following this instruction?
+ᏙᎠ ᎠᎰᏚᏟᎾᎡᎠᏙᏁᎢᎰᏙ ᏚᏤᏚᎢᎬᎷᏙ ᏁᎾᏚ ᏚᏙᏞᎢᏙᎢᎾᏒᎰᏴᏌᏚ "Must be turned over to prove..." the K and 2 were in no way a must to turn over.
+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.
:)
Rigo R.M LOL!
Anybody else come here because it was recommended to you, even though it was posted a year ago?
lol
Foreal
Yep
ya
Lol yes
"How do we know that all tigers have stripes?" At this point, there's so few, we could just check them all.
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?
This was so good! I got caught by the A2 trap and now all I wanna do is learn how to think logically
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.
grrr
SAY LION INSTEAD!!!
Grant Anderson Lions don't have stripes...or do they? We can't know for sure.
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.
This video is all about expaining logic, yet it's confusing as fuck
Means your logic is off this is basic algebra/geometry.
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.
TBH from the start the video was poorly worded. In logic tests the statements must be clear not ambiguous.
@Entropy3ko - He's using common core standards.....
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.
I'm in the 4% but I used the wag system, wild assed guess.
Thanks
I don't think that puts you in the 4% though, because you didn't use your logic to come to that conclusion.
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.
Chuck Pope so that's what I've been going by
I didn't understand why I got Wason wrong until I saw this. Now it makes sense. I still think the wording of Wason is confusing though as I thought you were looking for a fault in the card printing machine..
Hi
Well maybe if people could understand the question, we'd be able to answer correctly.
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.
maybe for you but as proven by Michael comment its not explained in a way all can understand it.
Not at all. He's given us 4 cards and hasn't properly explained that each has 2 faces - he uses the word "sides" instead; he could be talking about the right and left side, that's how I took it at first. Then he asks us to "determine whether or not the rule has been followed" when he really means "determine whether or not the rule has been broken" - there is a huge difference in logic. We can't really determine if the rule is being followed, or if it's just a random occurrence, without an infinite amount of cards.
I got the answer correct, but only because I've seen the problem presented in a much more clear way before. This video was pretty terrible.
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"
I was so confused about the cards until you showed they were double-sided.
+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
My logic is correct, this test must be false. therefore, if this test is false, then my logic is correct.
4.6k people must have been thought that.
circular reasoning logical fallacy I see.
@@starbeard6333 i see that lol
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
i thought AK27 was supposed to be AK47
Sameee but I didn’t understand what he saying that much since am from Asia soo nvm
Who else read it as ak47??
I know that I did
I thought I was the only one who did
lol, me2!
me ...
me
I must have missed the part when the cards had shit on the opposite side. The information and instructions werent clear. Had nothing to do with "logic," but how you explained it.
0:29 "Cards have letters on one side... and numbers on the other side"
They shouldn't show two piles of cards to begin with while trying to represent the "other" side. Poorly displayed.
Ohhhh, someones salty that they got it wrong.
+Magnus thank you 👏
What exactly did you not understand? That there is another letter/number on the other side, even though he clearly says so in the video?
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."
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.
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.
Im here because of Kerbal Space Program music.
+Will Carter i came here just after having steam open and had to check and see if I accidentally opened KSP.
+360mibs Same but I'm at work and don't have it here hahaha. I haven't played in months but now I really want to.
This video is amazing. I don't see why people are blaming the question. Have some humility and realize there are tons of things to learn in this world including how to think. On the same token, people who got the question, get off your high horses and instead of scoffing at people for not understanding, help them to learn what went on with the question.
I srly think I'm correct and the question is wrong, I'm not salty. Here's my reasoning:
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.
@@Username-ct9fe but even if you consider that it doesn't say the shown side, there's no need in turning the card with the consonant as consonants are not mentioned in the rule. So anything that is on the other side of the consonant is consistent to the rule. Same with the even number. If there's a consonant on the other side, it doesn't matter as the rule says that the vowel is the reason for the card to have an even number on the other side. But an even number is not the reason to have a vowel on the other side. Shown or not. So what you are looking for is a card which has on one side a vowel and on the other an odd number as this is the only card that breaks the rule. And there are two cards to consider. The one with the vowel and the one with the odd number. As the only thing to look for is whether or not the a vowel or odd number is on the other side. Neither a consonant nor an even number matter here.
Username #0516 no you are incorrect, it doesn’t matter what is on the other side of the constant or even number as the only thing the question asked you to do is verify if the rule has been followed. no matter what was on the other side of the ‘K’ and the ‘2’ the rule still can be followed. however if on the other side of the ‘A’ is not a even number the rule has not been followed and if there is not a vowel on the other side of the ‘7’ the rule also has not been followed. therefore they are the only two cards needing to be turned over
It's because of two factors: people aren't really taught HOW to think, they're taught to apply what they've learned and believe to various situations. Few people actually understand how logical reasoning works and how it impacts our lives. That's why you've got people here that obviously don't get how to solve the riddles posed in their purest logical form. But, as the video says, we do MUCH better when given real-world scenarios to work with. That's partially why you see people arguing over the first riddle, but not the second.
I got this wrong, but I was happy to learn why and understood what he explained. That is how you get smart, by learning and accepting mistakes.
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.
What a pretentious way to re-explain what has already been thoroughly explained in the video
@@sweetgirl070707 Apparently some 5.2k people didn't understand the thorough explanation in the video. :v
@@sweetgirl070707lol was looking for this comment
This first example was just worded badly, not illogical reasoning, just extremely poor wording that encourages wrong answers.
He explains it after the answer is given. I didn't understand the question and I'm a little salty, so take this grain of salt.
Dominus Felis Had you understood the question would you have gotten the answer right?
Patrick Dukemajian Probably.
Dominus Felis Doubtful, If you couldn't even understand the question.
It's like asking you spell this word and you say "F-I-S-H" and then they say NO! It's "T-H-I-S W-O-R-D" stupid!
This isn't "how logical are you?" it's more like "Choose 2 out of 4, solution"
+TheEndHorizon Who cares.
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.
You're an idiot. Your argument is invalid.
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."
+I comment on videos Calling someone an idiot is not an argument.
I actually got it right? Cool.
I really enjoy these kind of elimination-oriented logical puzzles. Please post more! 👍
More videos like this please. This is more academically useful than trivial videos about flags or calendars.
You should do a videos about the situations in Tibet, Kurdistan, and Kosovo.
What about Palestine Borma ....
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 CZcams 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.
***** Taiwan is a much more valid video material, the situation in Tibet is mostly just fabrication by Western media.
Yay, I belong to the 4 percent! I now demand special tax breaks!
Because I am logical!
*****
I think I found it hidden under the 7. It had long blonde hair.
*****
My, you are truly a sophistircatered fellow
*****
Oh, I am so sure of that ^^
That is the most civilised CZcams conversation I have ever read.
Where was this video when I was failing my logic class during the fall semester 😩 you made it so much simpler
I feel as though half of these comments belong on r/iamverysmart
Donald Trump *420
Oh man, Kerbal Space Program music. I can't concentrate xD
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...
WonderWhy You should try it out I think you would enjoy it.
First thing that came to mind
MUST ADD BOOSTERS
I eventually just ignored everything and imagined me building a rocket in the VAB.
Am I really part of the %4? I hit my shoulder on the corners in my own house. It's hard to believe that I'm on the positive side of anything logical.
Nevermind, I got it right by completely misunderstanding the test... What does that make me if I got it right for the wrong reason? >.>
+Shiki “SA” Aura Lucky
"I'd rather be lucky than good" - some famous saying.
At least I'm not just screwed, like I thought.
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 can hear music that's in KSP in the background of this and I was just playing it.
Great video! The question of the survey was bad though. There were multiple times when I thought I understood the rule and realized I actually didn't before the tiger explanation.
I got it wrong because instructions were not clear
Exactly
same
LOL
Me too
+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 question was explained perfectly you just need to pay close attention.
He said vowel on one side, not on the side facing up, that was a bad explanation.
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.)
Josiah Klein I'm curious too. I think anybody familiar with the fact that A implying B does *NOT* mean B implies A would get this instantly..
Thanks, I learned something new that I enjoyed learning.
4% correct because the wording of the question absolutely sucks. The fault is the test itself.
I agree the wording of the test is abysmal. At no point do they say the cards are double sided, if they did the answer would be obvious.
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.
True.
+Inlaricron The wording was poor. It's needlessly obscure when talking about "the other side"
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!
Dulcet Tones. *facepalm* I meant 7. Sorry about that.
But the rule *doesn't* only apply to one side. That's why you turn the 7 over.
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!
I got it right, but not using reasoning. I guessed randomly
Yay!
:)
I don't see how the question was frased badly. I didn't get it first, but know it's completely clear: All other combinations follow the rule, except vowel on the other side and odd number on the other (or vice versa). First you check that there is no odd number behind the A and then that there is no vowel behind the 7.
Well some of we thinked that by sides was meaning other thing, as a not english native speaker, i didn't even know that the faces of a card are called sides in english before this
Good video, currently studying discrete mathematics and faced some issue and this video can relate to it somehow haha.. hope to see more of it.
kerbal space program
+the4armedmonk I thought I had left mine open and was looking for it XD
+Morgan Mitchell not only you :D "didn't i close the game an hour ago?"
+the4armedmonk You're right. The background music sounds like "This Video Is About To Be Taken Down" by Squad.
Edit: Wait it is copyrighted music right?
+MMedic
It's copyright protected music, but published under a Creative Commons license, which is why Squad used it for Kerbal Space program; they don't have to pay the composer.
McDucky Oh I didn't know that. I always thought it was made *for* the game. Thanks!
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.
Wow great video!
I learned something today! And the topic was actually interesting and I understood it!
Go learning! ....unlike in school
instructions were pretty clear... lolz
The induction problem in the end was also explained by David Hume. I'm not the right person to talk about it, since i haven't studied his work deeply, but it basically was that just because something has happened before, it doesn't mean it will happen for certain in the future. Thanks for the video, very interesting :)
why do I wanna play KSP
Haha thought the same thing. 😂
Because he's playing the fucking soundtrack, that manipulative bastard
it was instantaneous as soon as I heard the music lmao
Yeah KSP soundtrack,when i hear that i shut down,i didn't eaven watch the video,just listened to the soundtrack and stared at the screen.
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
Big fan of your videos with their outstanding production quality. Keep up the great work.
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”.
Ayyyee I remember watching this in Geometry class :D It took me quite a while to get all this logic stuff
Whenever I do these, it's not that the wording makes my mind think the wrong answer, it's that I can't understand the damn question xD
"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
You clearly did not understand the explanation. There is nothing with the wording.
+chatzivasilis Yeah, maybe it's just my english failing me :/ not going to argue
welcome to logic my friend.
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.
+ismael mc
correct but wouldn't it be logical reasoning to assume there is a vowel behind the even number ?
I thought the vowel card think meant vowel on one side (A) and the opposite side(7) the opposite side of the row.
Excellent video; I was completely wrong on the card answer, lol.
What does it mean if I chose to open all the cards? xD
I wonder how many people chose that option?
I did that
+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 none
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).
Oops! Looks like Peter Wason did not get his statement worded correctly.
What's wrong with the wording?
Yes he did, if it were worded to only be the shown side having to follow the rule, the only card you need to prove it is the A card
looks like you didn't think about it enough before making your comment.
Yeah it's worded correctly. IF a card has a vowel THEN it must have an even number. No vowel means an odd or even number is still within the rule.
+Tanki Divide The 7 card can still disprove it if it has a vowel on the other side.
I was taught this at the beginning of the school year by my 10th grade geometry teacher, interestingly enough, for the entire year every lesson he gave was created using only If x then y statements, and the inverse, the converse etc.
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😆
Is this music from Kerbal Space Program?
dustichux867 Kevin Macleod
dustichux867 It is, yes.
David n Who made it for KSP. Therefore it's from KSP.
TheSuperCanuck No. That's not how logic works.
David n
It is now, cyka xaxaxaxxaxaxaxxa
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
This was really fascinating, I got the first question wrong saying A and 2 but as soon as I saw the beer water 25 16 version I instantly got it
Well what is the resultnif you undrrstand the task as there is only a letter or a number on one side and the other is blank ?
surely the best answer would be to turn over all the cards
+maximus but you fail the test xd
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
+maximus you fail because you didnt pick the mininum number of cards
+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.
645akz i was just correcting, but yeah you are completely right
After 3 minutes of listening, I finally get the rules. I was looking at the cards as being two different stacks, and "If a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side" as being *left* or *right* of the (unknown) card in the middle. So I assumed all the cards would be turned over (showing a similar card backing) and it was the order of the cards that needed to be checked.
Poor wording of the rules, in my opinion.
i agree its poor wording, unless its a logic riddle meant to keep it from being too easy to answer correctly.
i mean if you tell someone how to solve a simple puzzle then you cannot know if they can solve it right?
because at that point they dont have to figure it out themselves using any logic at all.
PS i got the first one wrong and the second one right for the wrong reason, they should have reordered the cards.
The wording seemed to be set up to intentionally make people fail by being ambiguous. I thought the same thing as nychold at first because "side" wasn't defined. Eventually I just chose "A" because it wasn't clear whether they meant "if front then back" or "if one side then the other side".
With the second test I'd expect a lot better than 75 percent correct. My guess is that most of that 25 percent that failed just didn't know what rules were being followed again.
+htomerif no. it says if a card has a vowel "on one side" it must have an even number "on the other". it's not ambiguous at all and it gives you every aspect of the problem in those two sentences, the whole "front side back side" doesn't even really make sense anyway, because you'd still be dealing with what's on the other side of the card, it doesn't matter what the "front" of the card is
Dave Martino "it says if a card has a vowel "on one side" it must have an even number "on the other". it's not ambiguous at all..."
Except that in the example, it shows four cards A K 2 7, where the K has a vowel "on one side" and an even number "on the other." It is highly ambiguous because "side", to most people, means left or right, not front and back.
Dave Martino and nychold All they had to do is change the wording to "There cannot be both a vowel and an odd number on the same card"
Exact same rules. You would get totally different results because all of those ambiguities in *what the rules are actually saying* would have been cleared up.
The rules as they stand read more like a cheap "gotcha" kind of pub trick than an actual study in people's ability to think logically.
Brilliant! Thanks for this interesting and eye-opening video.
.
@@jose000 1415
Good video, explained the topic really well
The legal age of alcohol drinking is 18? What country are you filming this from?
Kevin Ammann The UK. Also 18 is the drinking age in many, many countries.
Kevin Ammann Most countries.. where are you from?
***** Kenny here demonstrating inductive reasoning.
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
***** its 21 in all states.
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
0:20
8 0:40 0:42
0:48
superb video. double like
So before I go any further in the video, I turned all cards except the 2 over and put the 2 on top of the A?
i got it wrong because the question was phrased badly. i didnt know if it was mirror sided or not. mirror sided being a and 7 and it not being a and 2
also because you didnt explain it very well
yes i had no idea what he was on about
funny. I got it correct. and the exact wording is important.
Sam Tooch good job for you as someone who can be told something and is able to actually figure it out with little to no context
I said, a, k and 7. I still don't get how you are able to tell the k doesn't have a vowel on the other side of it. I guess the actual test probably said each card has to have a number on one side and a letter on the other, but I didn't hear that in this video because the instructions are such trash they are hard to keep up with.
Oh, I guess it was stated sort of clearly when I rewatched. I guess I took "Subjects are then presented with four cards and a rule" as meaning the numbers on one side and letters on the other was just an example of a generic rule with other cards.
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.
I just didn't understand what the "the other side" meant, I was thinking left to right. I probably am dumb/illogical, but I personally was confused.
You are not dumb. That's the exact same thing I was thinking. I didn't even know the cards had a back side because of how it was explained.
Same
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.
Just that extremely few middle schools or even high schools teach any sort of logic
Can someone please explain me i seriously didnt get it i am very bad in logic i am trying to improve my logic but i didnt understand from where those 2 numbers came from and what we have to follow
Anyone notice it's the Kerbal space program music playing in the background??
Lol. Well played
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.
+Aidan C And definitions are ALWAYS arbitrary. Take care.
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.
All hentai is anime but not all anime is hentai. Am I doing this right?
totally, have my fake internet points
Some hentai are manga's. Manga's are not anime.
Merlyn White-Aldworth Manga can mean either are Japanease comic or a Japanease animation and anime means Japanease animation, so they thechniclly are.
AsianSensation Studios Hentai is Japanese for pervert/perverted and thus not so much.
All squares are rectangles
Not all rectangles are squares
All doctor who's came companions
Not all companions came with doctors ( that's what she said!! )
All Gabens are fat
Not all fat ppl are Gaben
SOMEONE CALL MORPHEOUS!!
As a point of interest, thirty years of research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that participants typically perform poorly on abstract versions of the Wason selection task, whereas they perform well on deontic versions of the task. This finding is quite robust.
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.
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.
This is how I interpreted the rule also. It's explained in a really weird way.
+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..
Taurine Ganz our bad, bro
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.
+Silvester Humaj They did say the cards are double sided. The guy is just difficult to understand, becaouse of his accent.
+MMOplayeerr It does say it in text as well at 0:28
Got it right. I almost said A 7 and 2. Had to re-read the question and it dawned on me.
that's an amazing explanation!
This is a really informative video on how logic works! Thanks!
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.
I was one of the people who got the "sides" thing mixed up. I didn't pay attention in the slightest to what he was saying and only read the question. A K 2 7, when i read "pick which cards should be turned over" I thought the question was asking me "which card(s) do you need to flip over to make sure the set of 4 are following the rule". I thought to myself "if I flip 7 it might be an even number" then you would work with the 2 on the inside k, and 2. so you would flip k and it might be a vowel. Then I read some comments and found out that was not what the question was asking me. To say that sides can't be misunderstood and that the instructions were perfectly clear, well I highly disagree. However, I don't blame question maker, the question does have information to solve it correctly. If I blame anything, it would be the English language. Once that is clarified I have no problem with the test. I also disagree with people saying that assumptions are not logical. The statement may be correct but I think people are confusing assumption with "Hypothesis". Another flaw with language.
The scientific method is as such:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a "Hypothesis"
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Hypothesis - a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Supposition - an uncertain belief
To say that making a hypothesis is not logical is saying that all scientist are not logical.
Fein video mate, cheers from the other seid of the pond
I'm a computer scientist so this type of logic is my life
I like tigers.
I like trains
+Batman The Superman Killer asdf!
+Batman The Superman Killer Ha Ha of course you do.
🚶🏼🚅💨
uh oh
2:30 I think I need someone to explain this too me. Surely when working with a 2 sided card, if a vowel is on one side and an even number the other, then checking the even number works because it is implied the rule works based on what is on either side not specifically the top side we can see. So how does it not disprove the rule to find a consonant paired with a even number when that directly brakes the rules wording?
"If there is a vowel on one side, there must be an even number on the other side."
So if we have a card that has an even number and a consonant, there is not a vowel anywhere, and the rule doesn't apply to card at all because it only applies to cards with vowels on one side.
The only trouble i had with this question was that I never thought of all the different outcomes and how the rule can apply like it was stated but can also work in other ways with the method later shown in the video.
I'm so stupid I didn't even understand the question
Kerbal Space Program background music.
props m8
brilliant video
if we share the same understanding of the work "card" then it is safe to assume that if we flip a card twice we will see the same num/let again.
with the assumption A and 2 are to check because the others dont matter.
that would add another relation: "P --> Q" stands here for Q is backside from P.
with the assumption above:
P --> Q Q --> P
the moment it hit 4:00 my brain was f***ed
by the end I understood
funny how I completely misunderstood the problem yet got the answer right. By letter on one side, number on the other, I thought you meant letters on the left, numbers on the right, and the other side of each card was blank, so when presented with the problem, I concluded, in the order the cards were presented, that the rule clearly wasn't being followed; A being a vowel and 7 being an odd number, so make the rule be followed, I'd have to turn or move A or 7 :P
This helped me understand why I was wrong with my A, 2 answer: Only a card with a vowel on one side and and an odd number on the other invalidates the rule. The rule only applies to cards with vowels on them. Consonants can have either odd or even numbers on the other side... no vowels
You're describing something other than the question given
If a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side.
AK27
One must flip A and 2 to see if those cards are vowel and even number. K and 7 can't be a vowel and number.
The presenter also answered a different question than he asked. He was wrong about the question he asked.
Defining "side" would help. Front side and back side for instance. There is also left side and right side. I assumed the later and that required me flipping over the seven making it A K 2 which has a vowel on the left side, and an even number on the right side.
Who else thought
A-K-4-7
✋🏼
ME
I understand the 7, but the rule states that if a card has a vowel, it *must* have an even number on the other side. So essentially all even-numbered cards with vowels on the other side would satisfy the rule. It isn't illogical at all. And I also don't get how 7 follows the rule, when it's just checking to confirm the opposite.
+Stephen Pamphile It is because all of the even numbered cards satisfy the rule that we don't have to turn it over. It'll be valid no matter what
I love when people say "Nahh unclear those are two sided cards.".
I'm curious to know how they interpreted: "it must have on the other side" and "turned over" at the end ...
"it" may refer to the subject, and there is only one here: "a card", thus "it" means this particular card, making it pretty clear that cards have two sides.
Ok, lets pretend there is another way to interpret this (even though I don't know which one), when you now read "turned over" this means that something (I'll pretend I still don't know what) have two sides. Now, what is the subject of this sentence, ohhh, it's "card(s)" hmm, maybe we need to turn over card(s), which would mean they (all) have two sides.
Nice bit at the end about just because we can't be absolutely certain about something doesn't mean that it should be open for debate. Just because I can't prove that every single tiger has stripes doesn't mean that tigers don't have stripes, it's up to the other person to prove that they don't. Likewise it's up to people to prove that dinosaurs, evolution and climate change aren't real, which they can't