On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:35:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/
> 
> There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on
> knowing technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the
> question that was asked rather than what it sounds like.
> 
> What color was George Washington's white horse?  Grey. (Technically,
> it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to breeders.)
> 
> Where is Grant buried?  Not in Grant's Tomb. (Grant is entombed there.)
> 
> Who was born on Washington's Birthday?  Not Washington. (The calendar
> changed between his birth and his death.)

Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.  
I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still 
have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through anyways) 
and see what the answer was.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:44:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> True, but at the same time, some people have *very* good instincts.  I
>> seem to be one of those kinds of people - because I have an instinct
>> that something's going to be OK or work out for the best, and I find
>> that better than 90% of the time, I'm right.  That's far better than
>> the luck of averages.
>> 
> Everyone thinks that they make good instinctive decisions 90% of the
> time, save for those people that are totally disfunctional and hide in
> their houses, unwilling to make *any* decisions. Its our nature to
> forget the cases where we screwed up, or at least marginalize them, in
> favor of a self perception of being right most of the time. We couldn't
> function effectively if we second guessed every action, based on a
> recognition that we get it close enough to right only half the time to
> call it "good instinct".

Except that my view is confirmed by people who are in a position to 
evaluate objectively and without bias or anything to gain.  For example, 
in one circumstance I had evaluated the potential for deceit in a 
situation that involved lawyers, and the lawyers initially thought that I 
might have a point, but that they needed something concrete other than a 
"gut feeling" (which in my mind was backed up by a thoughtful analysis of 
the person and the items in question).  The person then admitted to the 
deceit, proving my instinct correct.

The lawyer involved who I had expressed my suspicion of the evidence 
provided was not swayed from his stance of "we have to take it at face 
value" until the OP had admitted the deceit, at which point the lawyer 
complimented me on my instincts and insight into the items in question.

> Its also a tested psychological factor that the true twits in society
> have a coping mechanism, by which they "exaggerate" their own
> competence.

Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that in 
general it's human nature to do so?  I try to be objective about myself, 
and yes, it is hard to do, especially if one doesn't make a conscious 
decision to be objective in self-evaluation.  I think most people are 
prone to exaggeration about their own abilities and skills.  That's 
confirmed, in part, by an adjustment that is made in standard course 
evaluations from Knowledge Advisors - there are questions that ask about 
the % of increase in productivity (I'd have to look at the questions 
again for the exact verbiage) as a result of training, and it's a 
situation where the individual answers have no meaning at all, but the 
aggregate answer does provide useful information, but only after an 
adjustment downward of the average answer of something like 30% (again 
would have to look at my notes to see what the specific value in the 
adjustment is).

>> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability
>> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good
>> - I have an extremely good track record and picking out attempts at
>> deception.  Part of that I attribute to the fact that I tend not to
>> trust very easily because I know that people will generally try to get
>> away with whatever they can.
>> 
> I would, with some caveats, tend to allow for their perceptions to be
> less flawed than yours. The caveats being, for starters, that their
> perception of "why" you seem to have good instincts may be due to their
> own flawed views of who a good candidate for deception are, and the
> like, due to personal bias, than to actual skill in the matter. Good
> example of this sort of fun thing:

Well, I'd refer back to the above example involving the lawyers.  It's 
not the only example, but one of the more notable.  The advantage there 
was that the lawyer in question was more inclined to dismiss my idea 
because he had to make a totally objective decision about what the best 
course of action would be - least costly, least likely to cause 
litigation, etc.  And he's got a great deal of experience in making those 
determinations and has a very good track record himself.

> Now, if everyone that was telling you that you are good at detecting
> deceit where one of those who claimed to trust priests, farmers and
> prostitutes, before scientists, what would your reaction be to their
> certainty of how good you are?

Admittedly not that good.  That's why I don't look to those kinds of 
people (or people actually in those professions) to help me adjust my 
personal self-perception bias.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2009 20:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:35:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/
>> There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on
>> knowing technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the
>> question that was asked rather than what it sounds like.
>>
>> What color was George Washington's white horse?  Grey. (Technically,
>> it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to breeders.)
>>
>> Where is Grant buried?  Not in Grant's Tomb. (Grant is entombed there.)
>>
>> Who was born on Washington's Birthday?  Not Washington. (The calendar
>> changed between his birth and his death.)
> 
> Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.  
> I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still 
> have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through anyways) 
> and see what the answer was.

I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as 
a president of america before the independence war or something like that.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2009 19:35, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/
> 
> There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on 
> knowing technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the 
> question that was asked rather than what it sounds like.
> 
> What color was George Washington's white horse?  Grey.
> (Technically, it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to 
> breeders.)

They are born with a color and 'prematurely' grey, so grey or white is 
not their natural color, but you knew that of course.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as 
> a president of america before the independence war or something like that.

Technically, since there wasn't a USA before the independence war, they'd 
have to word the question very oddly. If they say "First American President" 
and mean "First president on the north american continent", then it quite 
possibly would be a native american or some such, etc.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> They are born with a color and 'prematurely' grey, so grey or white is 
> not their natural color, but you knew that of course.

Yeah. The point is that when you register the horse for racing or breeding 
or something, writing the color as "white" means it's albino. If the 
*hooves* are brown, it's a grey horse (or brown horse or whatever). The 
trickiness of the question is based entirely on the arbitrary rules by the 
people who set up the registries.

All horses are born January 1, also. Same sort of silliness.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that in 
> general it's human nature to do so? 

It's a survival trait, actually. You forget the times you were wrong but 
mostly unharmed, because that's less important to survival than guessing 
right. You rarely forget to look both ways before crossing the street if 
you've actually been run down before, tho. That's where the whole concept of 
"grudge" and "stereotype" sort of thinking comes from.

Just like it's natural to overestimate danger of rare events. If guessing 
wrong once in 100 times that the rustling isn't a tiger in the grass, you 
get eaten. So naturally every rustle seems like a dangerous predator even if 
it almost never is. Hence the wild overreaction to things like a mother 
letting the kids walk home from the store, even tho only something like 20 
kids a year get kidnapped in the whole country by someone other than their 
own relatives.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:01:50 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.
>> I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still
>> have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through
>> anyways) and see what the answer was.
> 
> I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as
> a president of america before the independence war or something like
> that.

This seems to cover it, I think:

http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=32722

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:20:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> All horses are born January 1,

It's only after they reach 3 that they are given their "real" name. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:25:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that
>> in general it's human nature to do so?
> 
> It's a survival trait, actually. You forget the times you were wrong but
> mostly unharmed, because that's less important to survival than guessing
> right. You rarely forget to look both ways before crossing the street if
> you've actually been run down before, tho. That's where the whole
> concept of "grudge" and "stereotype" sort of thinking comes from.
> 
> Just like it's natural to overestimate danger of rare events. If
> guessing wrong once in 100 times that the rustling isn't a tiger in the
> grass, you get eaten. So naturally every rustle seems like a dangerous
> predator even if it almost never is. Hence the wild overreaction to
> things like a mother letting the kids walk home from the store, even tho
> only something like 20 kids a year get kidnapped in the whole country by
> someone other than their own relatives.

Makes sense to me. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message