These 2 riddles are the same. So why is one harder?

[@EarlWilburANogra]

the first one was harder due to the wording of the rule.

[@Radical_Dreamer]

totally agree.

[@bestpseudonym1693]

the wording feels worse because your subconscious is rationalising, as both the first and second rule are functionally identical. Remember that the first statement is the general form for conditional statements and actually should be easier if your a computer.

[@EarlWilburANogra]

xpseudonym pseudonym exactly it takes a bit of more stress to emphasize that ONLY even numbers need to follow through with the rule. unlike the second one where it's made clear that ONLY below 18 year olds can't drink alcohol :)

[@pekuja]

I agree. It makes me wonder if people would get the first one right more if it said "If the number on the card's face is even, the card's back must not be blue." I think they would.

[@Ruminations09]

+Earl Wilbur A. Nogra "it takes a bit of more stress to emphasize that ONLY even numbers need to follow through with the rule. unlike the second one where it's made clear that ONLY below 18 year olds can't drink alcohol" - That's not true. Here is, word for word, both rules: "If a card is even, it must be red" "No alcohol under 18" Now lets switch these wordings to show that they convey EXACTLY the same information: "If a person is drinking alcohol, they must be over 18" "No even numbers if the card is blue" - Nothing is made more clear in the second statement, you just have a better intuative understanding of it since you are familiar with drinking laws.

[@mitos95176]

The text of the second riddle was easier to comprehend. It would be more difficult if it stated that people under 18 must drink juice.

[@DDzeal]

this

[@questicletesticle2243]

Yeah, the extra step added by the phrasing screws it up. If they said "Even numbers must not be blue" I think most would get

[@Xartab]

+Mateja Petrovic only it would be wrong then. People under 18 could drink water, or milk, or not drink. The _true_ rule was the one he said, "people under 18 are not allowed to drink alcohol". Also I didn't find the second version simpler, but then maybe I'm an outlier.

[@nGUNNARp]

This is 100% correct, the first example will only trick some people because of wordplay, the second example doesn't use the word play so less people will get tripped up on it (also because the first example was already explained and they are primed now)....the explanation in the video is less of a factor than this comment.

[@rodrigo_t9]

The video is made based on psychological studies, I'd imagine they didn't ask both questions to the same people, or the alcohol one only after explaining the first, there...

[@tiemen596]

You mentioned in the first problem that "one card breaks this rule, which card(s) must you flip to find out?" Your answer is: "The 8 and the blue". The thing is, by turning over the 8 and seeing it is red, I know that the blue card breaks it. If I turn over the blue and find an odd, I know the 8 breaks it. So the right answer should have been: Either the 8, or the blue.

[@michaelgorbunov8267]

Aleksy Limb it never said that any of the cards break the rule

[@MichaelccPalmer]

Yep: "one of these cards breaks this rule. It's your job to fish it out."

[@boogienightsmarkwahlberg6011]

I hate these logic videos that cant even follow their own rules. Happens more often than you would think.

[@PDionneGosselin]

Yeah exactly

[@ashmeera4058]

yeah this made me confused by the question.. if there's only one mistake, then why do we need to turn more than one card.

[@The97gtrs]

So I solved both pretty quickly, but it seems pointless to flip two cards in both cases. The riddle mentions that ONE card breaks the rule. That means that if we flip over the eight, and only the eight, and find out it follows the rule, the blue card, the only one that can break a rule now that we checked the eight HAS to be the odd one out.

[@john_paul_r]

Ayy, not bad. I've seen this problem many times and never realized that. Good work!

[@Ruminations09]

The point is that there are 2 cards you could flip, not that you had to flip both cards.

[@WaffleAbuser]

Well the point is to deduce which cards are possible offenders, the part where you flip is a triviality.

[@Schindlabua]

True! I've seen this riddle before and I don't think they mentioned that a card must break the rule, so probably a logic error on OP's part :P

[@tj12711]

So you're assuming that one of the cards MUST break a rule? But the game rules never state that. You're reasoning is wrong

[@Hi1337CS]

The second one was easier beacuse we then knew how the game worked.

[@Ruminations09]

The point is that even in blind experiments where the perticpant has never seen any variation of the riddle before, a much, MUCH higher percentage of people get the second one correct.

[@maimonguy123]

+Noscoping egg yeah cause he explained the rules very poorly.

[@tkhm]

For the first one you only need to flip either the 8 or blue. because only 1 card breaks the rule according to the video, if you flipped the bad card, you know the other one is good, and vice versa. No need to flip both 8 and blue.

[@ArshiyaR]

Yeah because we already knew it would need the same logic

[@sanankanwar6372]

the real reason why its easier is because we don't have to care about if an older man drinks alcohol or whoever drinks the juice

[@redtaileddolphin1875]

Wtf I call BS, that's an orange not an apple, entire video ruined

[@luckygreen9061]

lol, I thought the same

[@tj12711]

For most of the history of language, all fruits were called "Apples"

[@jamessartorius7662]

+tj12711 that's not true

[@HerrFenchel]

+tj12711 "apple" has indogermanic origin and describes only this one particular fruit.

[@tj12711]

James Sartorius It's true for the history of English

[@jonesjohnson6301]

The answer you get for the first riddle in this video is absolutely wrong. 1. If a card is even, it must be red. 2. One card breaks the rule. 3. Your job is to fish it out. 4. If you turn a card that didn't have to be turned, it'll count as a fail. Answer: You don't need to turn both cards to know which of them breaks the rule. If you turn the 8 and it is red, it must mean the blue card has an even number on its backside. And because of 4 the answer you get in this video would be a failure.

[@mondere]

You're technically correct, the best kind of correct.

[@MaxLohMusic]

This is incorrect. The blue card carries equal weight. Your idea assumes you can turn them over in some sort of order (instead of having to make all your decisions before flipping any over), and even then, it only has a 50% chance of being true. If you're still unconvinced, notice I could've said the exact same thing as you did, but swap the blue card with the 8 card.

[@mondere]

Max Loh He is not incorrect. You're assuming that the rule breaking card needs to be flipped to determine that it is the rule breaking card, which is not the case. You only need determine it by process of elimination. given n cards that could be breaking the rule, you only need to flip n-1 cards to determine 100% of the time which card is the rule breaker. if one of the n-1 cards you flipped breaks the rule, you know it's that card. If none of the n-1 cards flipped break the rule, you know it can only be the last card you didn't flip that breaks the rule. This works in both scenarios of decision making; It doesn't matter if you have to choose all the cards ahead of time, or you have to flip them in a certain order.

[@MaxLohMusic]

mondere Yes, you are right; my original comment is incorrect. I guess the video maker should not have included the "exactly one card breaks the rule" constraint when trying to illustrate this phenomenon. Then everything would've been dandy.

[@Supermario0727]

You cannot infer what is on the other side of the blue card. You are correct, in that only one card needs to be selected; but that's not because the other card can automatically be deduced to break the rule. It's because the rules clearly state that only one card card is incorrect.'

[@Supervideo1491]

To my knowledge - in abstract logic, the problem is essentially like this: If A, then B However, our intuition has the tendency to tell that the logic can be vice-versa (it becomes "if B, then A"), when in fact it can't. The fallacy is called "affirming the consequent"

[@BetterThanYesterday]

I don't think the first problem was explained properly. The second one made more sense.

[@vasy4321]

Yeah , because you , me and everybody else knows the statement to the 2nd problem since we were 5.

[@juhotuho10]

in the first problem the question makes you assume that only even numbers must be red and uneven numbers must be blue, if you would add something like "uneven numbers can be blue or red" it would be more understandable and thus easier

[@TheRMeerkerk]

"in the first problem the question makes you assume that only even numbers can be red and uneven numbers must be blue" Which question created this assumption? The only question he asked was: "Which card(s) should be turned over?"

[@TheRMeerkerk]

I thought it was explained properly. I was even able to solve it faster, because of the use of colors instead of black/white pictures.

[@tj12711]

+juhotuho10 How come he didn't have to state that people over 18 could still drink non-alcoholic beverages then? There's nothing wrong with the first question, you're just bad at logic. The "If" statement is very different from "if and only if" (usually abbreviated to "iff"). It doesn't help that in English we don't have a single word for "iff", and oftentimes "if" and "iff are used interchangeably because we are lazy speakers. If we did have two separate words, our social decisions would be less prone to fallacies.

[@ZaluzLP]

I put a ruler under my bed to measure how much time I slept.

[@ItsaJuraff]

I prefer a Chronograph. It measures the depth of sleep as well as the temperature of my breath three inches away from my left nostril.

[@Nazgul100]

dont you mean for how long you slept?

[@friesketchup9519]

your a genuis Einstein envy you

[@SelfishNeuron]

"Domain knowledge matters most" could be another formulation of the conclusion drawn from this. The psychological experiment regarding argumentative theories of reasoning is one thing, but there is an interesting second perspective on questions like this. It is a kinda funny perspective on job interviews. Thomas Fig used the same example to make a point about hiring people for Jobs. Often HR people ask general questions to gauge possible employees like "why are manhole covers round?" and the response should NOT be trying to answer the question but to leave the interview and wishing the HR person good luck in finding a good company to work for in the future, being thankful that they have shown you how awful it would be to work there. If someone asks you such a question he better be a psychologist doing an experiment, NOT a HR person. Such questions have only one real value in job interviews, namely to tell you that the management is crazy and never gets into the background of any project and only asks arbitrary and stupid questions, AND these questions in the interview is just there to filter out the sane candidates (who will leave soon again) from the insane ones (who might take this for a longer time). ;)

[@BiteSizePsych]

Lovely example. In fact, from memory, Google (who have been infamous for this) have scraped these types of questions because it's useless.

[@detailed8962]

SelfishNeuron i really really love this channel

[@BiteSizePsych]

I know some of you will probably get both but did you feel like the drinking riddle was much more intuitive to get than the even number/colour riddle? Anyway, the next video will be about transfer and education in general. Feel free to share any thoughts you have on education as I'm sure you've had your experience. Also lastly, because I've decided to switch to more in depth videos for a while, I'm going to do small riddle videos on the side in the meantime (like this one), just so you guys have something more frequent to look forward too. Quick shout out to Psych2Go, another psychology channel kzbin.info And see you soon.

[@Hack_Life.Everyday]

Nice riddle and I hope you keep them coming :) but...Mister Spock tells me that your logic is flawed : I would only turn one card. I'll explain : - first the rule is : "if a card is even, it must be red" (then only 2 out of 4 card matter) - 0:17 you say that "one of these card breaks the rule"

[@BiteSizePsych]

Ahhhhh nice thinking. That is correct. I reworded the original question which just said "which card should you flip to determine whether the cards follow the rule". My mistake but thank you for picking that up

[@tedtalens788]

I thought exactly that. Your comment should be seen by all. You only need to turn one card. Turning the second card needlessly would result in a fail.

[@SadButter]

I thought the number/colour riddle was more intuitive because I didn't even know what was the question for the second one. I was only given the information "No alcohol if you're under 18", but I had no idea what I had to do with it, so I went out of my way to pick the orange juice card and 41 card because I thought I assumed the drink and age to myself by picking said cards (so I wouldn't break the alcohol restriction rule). If you would've just added a directive like "Bust the people who aren't drinking legally" after the rule I guess it would've been more intuitive, but I think it's just confusing as it is in the video lol EDIT: Actually nevermind, I just didn't realize the second riddle had the same principle regarding one card breaking the rule and me having to figure out which card it is. I'll let you decide whether it was your fault for not repeating it for the second riddle or just my stupidity.

[@vasy4321]

I think the 2nd one is easier is because we don't have to think about the drinking rule because it's well known . I actually paused the video at 0:14 and tested each card to see if it can break the rule. I did it because the "even => red" rule was new for me, but for the 2nd one there was no need because "everyone" knows it. I am 99% sure that to someone who doesn't know about the minimum drinking age , the riddles have the same difficulty.

[@VeryStupidChannel]

Wow! I got it right! I must be so special! Harvard here I come!!!

[@Mica_T]

lol

[@Whydoesthisusername]

chill fam

[@user-rj8pp6br8e]

Very Stupid Channel do you have space for me??

[@VeryStupidChannel]

yes ofc

[@GabrielSouza-sr6jr]

awwww yeaah I did it right too! Let's go together

[@ashleycarvell7221]

I'm sorry to say that you would have failed. Turning over the 8 was unnecessary. Turn over the blue card and it's even, then you win. Turn over the blue card and it's odd, then you know that the 8 card must be the one that breaks the rule (as the question specifies that only one card breaks the rule). Equally, you could turn over the 8 card only, and achieve the same result.

[@excelelmira]

Exactly! I don't understand why nobody else is arguing about this in the comment section.

[@owentsai175]

Ashley Carvell It's because of the way he explained it. There was another video I saw of the same type of riddle but it was just explained better.

[@Tastypieinyourmouth]

10 points for Gryffindor

[@OriginalPhil]

This is what I was about to ask, thank you! I was wondering why the blue card AND the 8 both had to be turned over.

[@grantbaker86]

I think he phrased the question wrong. Typically you have to provide a solution that proves or disproves the rule and always works with no guess and check. this version requires both cards to be flipped

[@xcy7]

You kinda blew it by showing the answer before introducing the second variant, because now I don't know if I got the right answer because I knew the logic from the previous example or was it because of the nature of the second variant.

[@TheGamer583]

Another reason the drinking riddle is easier is due to how the rule is structured. In mathematical logic, events or facts can be represented by letters, and relations between these events as symbols. For example: if it rains, then the road will be wet. The events "it rains" and "the road will be wet" can be represented as the letters P and Q, respectively, and the relation "if... then" can be represented by an arrow: P --> Q. Another symbol is the ~, which expresses the negative of an event; therefore, "it doesnt rain" can be represented as ~P. The first riddle involves the events "the number is even" and "the card is red", in a direct relation P -->Q. The second riddle involves the events "the person is under 16" and "be allowed to drink alcohol". But the relation is actually a negative: P --> ~Q. And the negative is easier to identify is turning the vodka card, or the blue card (which is just ~red).

[@austinhernandez2716]

I got it right because Harambe helped me.

[@Fblthp]

You should probably move on from Harambe memes. I mean, you wouldn't want to look like an idiot.

[@DD-qe6uk]

lier hes fukin ded

[@austinhernandez2716]

Djsj shhe Jesus is dead too...

[@gertjanvanbiesen4930]

the joke is over stop it pls

[@mosjosb]

pasta monsterrrr

[@user-tx2ql7yv5o]

you could have flipped over all the cards

[@EpiCuber7]

He said that if you turned over any cards you didn't need to, it was a failure.

[@84Joooli]

mike garcia But you still failed following the instructions. Let's say the rules were: if you turn over more cards than necessary all your loved ones would be killed. So by turning over all the cards, sure you would solve the riddle in good time but hey, all your loved ones would be dead. Worth it? Well the killing part perhaps's a bit harsh =/ But point is, there will be times in your life where using your brain instead of taking the shortcut will be necessary. So instead of coming up with some bullshit excuse why you failed this riddle, apply yourself harder next time.

[@Incursoe]

If that's the case, he made a mistake too. Only 1 card was necessary to flip over.

[@84Joooli]

mike garcia You are totally right. Sorry for the lashout =/

[@Supermario0727]

Bu then you would fail the challenge.

[@CamiloSantana]

false equivalency, "these two puzzles are exactly the same." their logical sum is the same but the statements are not. one is, "if this then that." the other is, "not this if that."

[@CamiloSantana]

or phrase it the same, "all even cards must be red." and the puzzle is trivial ... or go ahead and match identically, "you can't be blue if you're even,"

[@COD8player4life]

The statements are different, but resolve with the same logic. The logic from riddle 2 is perfectly applicable in riddle 1, but we don't apply it because we don't recognize the same logic in a different context. Phrasing riddle 1 identically lets us transfer the logic over because we recognize the context, so yes the puzzle becomes trivial.

[@Daonitre]

This goes into assumptions created by the statement itself. Logic is dropped by the listener in favor of a quicker solution - when the statements are different you will get differing quick answers. That's what I believe Camilo was pointing out (and you're both correct) ... when you have 4 items and 2 are named directly, the average person will focus on those 2 even if it brings an illogical conclusion. Hence "bite size psych" and not "bite size logic".

[@johnaldis9832]

Yeah, logical equivalence is not the same as "same puzzle." Logically "tell me the largest prime less than one hundred" is equivalent to "say the words 'ninety-seven'" but most people will find the first riddle easier.

[@TosiakiS]

Logical equivalence does make it the same if the gap between the logic (that is to say, the number of logical steps needed to go from one statement to the other) is few. It takes a lot of logical steps to conclude "largest prime less than one hundred" is the same as "97," but it is only a single step to go from an "if statement" to its contrapositive. I think what's illustrative of this is that people don't have an intuitive sense of the idea of "if."

[@Greynerd]

rather confusing instructions in that it appears by the directions that only one card can be turned, whereas the solution permits two cards. If it relies on the ambigous statements at the beginning of course you will trick/confuse people.

[@Safsal]

yeah that confused the hell outta me why he says you can only turn 1 card then turns 2 cards? thats cheating

[@coolpuff333]

He clearly says "which card slash cards must you turn over". The writing also says card(s). There was no ambiguity here.

[@Safsal]

so why not just turn them all?

[@Greynerd]

read the instructions

[@dmoneyswagg64]

Safsal can you not read? He and the typed words said that if you turn over a card that doesn't need to be turned over it counts as a fail.

[@weik0745]

My only question is why the Frick is someone drinking apple juice at a bar

[@saarah0006]

Madeline Thoemke maybe because there 16

[@weik0745]

Then why are they in a bar

[@EweChewBrrr01]

If the glass is warm then DONT DRINK THE APPLE JUICE!!

[@rollandibrahim4277]

Who said it's really apple juice in that box? They already allowed 16 in.

[@gingergoose2319]

I don't really think that the first one was harder

[@nettogames4268]

ErenceTT oh god, you're so patronising.

[@eddiehowell9871]

oh god, you're so repetitive

[@nettogames4268]

eddie howell not really annoying unless it's done more than three times. That's when it goes to be unoriginal. At least call it something that would make sense as an insult like "oh god, so original" since the first reply was patronising sarcasm. Either be an ass properly, or not at all.

[@CaptainObvious0000]

from a purely logical standpoint, probably not. from a standpoint of knowledge, it is: we already know alcohol is not allowed for people under 18 in many parts of the world. we don't need to go through a comprehension process that takes time in order to understand this rule. the card rule is completely arbitrary and unknown to us beforehand. it might as well be the other way round. we have to invest time in order to understand it. one riddle is set up to cater to us, the other one is not, therefore there is an objective difference in difficulty.

[@nettogames4268]

CaptainObvious0000 Not exactly... Since the first problem simply presented us with four cards and a basic rule. The second problem however, presented us with four cards, a just as basic rule, but the mind is then having to deal with all the information behind it. This can go two ways off the top of my head. I agree with Gillian because I've seen the first problem before a while back and knew how to work it out. For returning, the first one is easier. HOWEVER; I also agree with you, since for beginners who don't understand how to work it out, the second problem is better at explaining the methods used to figure out the problem. In conclusion, the first problem with basic rules is simpler, but it's a lot harder to figure out the method from just the basic rule. The second question presents us with a story we can relate to. This can be expanded on mentally to understand why we would only need to turn over two cards. Since any doubt from the first question is already cleared up by the story behind the second question.

[@richardhauer8391]

There is a mistake in the first task: You task is to find the one that doesn't follow the rule. But you know that only 2 Cards CAN break the rule, so you only need to switch one. If it is the one that breaks the rule, you got it. If it doesn't break the rule the other one must break the rule. Or have I misunderstood the task?

[@KingsleyIII]

These riddles have an unwritten second rule that complements the first. "If the number is even, the other side must be red" also means "If one side is blue, the number must be odd" since cards with an even number must have red on the other side. "If you're under 18, you're not allowed to drink alcohol" means "If you're drinking alcohol, you must be older than 18". The cards you pick must confirm both the written rule and the unwritten one, which is why you should pick 8 and blue, and 16 and vodka.

[@itsjoshuashawn]

Actually, you are misinformed, slightly. The "second rule" is one that you assumed to be true, but very well could be false and the riddle as is would remain intact. The initial rule was that an even number has a red back, therefore an odd number could very well also have a red back. Correlation does not imply causation. Meaning just because you're told that even numbers are red backed, you shouldn't assume odd numbers must be blue backed. It seems like an obvious logical method of reasoning, but in certain environments, that quick assumption can cause significant errors in your perception of mentioned environment.

[@Lemon-ur3fs]

MadeofAwesome4ever is right, though. The rule is an implication: [A - > B] (if even, then red) With that You also know: [not B - > not A] (if not red, then not even - OR: if blue, then odd) What You mean (if odd, then blue) is of the form: [not A - > not B] and is indeed a wrong assumption. But MadeofAwesome4ever (weird name, by the way) never said that to be true.

[@PhrontDoor]

If you think that there is an automatic second rule that if the side is blue then the number is odd, then you are inventing a rule where there is no reason. You cannot make the assumption that you can infer anything about the color of ODD numbers nor the odd-even status of BLUE cards. That's the entire point -- if you jump to that conclusion, then you are being illogical.

[@CalBruin]

+Lemon is correct in illustrating. More technical, the contrapositive is equivalent to the conditional. If A then B is equivalent to If not-B then not-A. Upon further thinking, +MadeofAwesome4ever hits upon the key difference. The riddle requires one to focus upon what conforms to the rule thus need to check every card versus the underage drinking rule the focus is upon rule breakers thus only need to check the potential violators, those under 18 years old. In the Real World situation, we do not care about the above-18 drinking non-alcohol so we do not need to check what everyone is drinking.

[@andrewphilos]

+PhrontDoor You can actually "invent" that rule, as the other commenters have shown. It's called "modus tollens," if you're curious. This might be more obvious. Consider this statement: "If you are younger than 18, you are a 'minor.'" Suppose I ask a friend of mine about person X, and my friend says, "X is not a minor." I know by modus tollens that X is not younger than 18. This is true by definition. If they were younger than 18, they would have to be a minor, so if they're not a minor, they must be 18 or older. Here's one more: "All cats are mammals." (If X is a cat, X is a mammal.") "X is not a mammal." "Therefore, X is not a cat."

[@Masfugo]

language barrier makes me didn't even understand what's the question really is.

[@Masfugo]

what does "turn" means? I mean, flip the card? I though the card has 2 side

[@alexli6935]

Yes it means flip the card

[@iAmTheSquidThing]

Even though I know a bit about formal logic, I automatically jumped to the assumption that odd cards must also have to be blue.

[@onee]

Basically it's abstract vs concrete. Red and even numbers are abstract. Alcohol and imagining someone at a certain age is concrete. So, it's easier for us to understand.

[@vasy4321]

I think the 2nd one is easier is because we don't have to think about the drinking rule because it's well known . I actually paused the video at 0:14 and tested each card to see if it can break the rule. I did it because the "even => red" rule was new for me, but for the 2nd one there was no need because "everyone" knows it. I am 99% sure that to someone who doesn't know about the minimum drinking age , the riddles have the same difficulty.

[@caseyevans5519]

This channel is absolutely fantastic, its about to get super popular

[@annefrank7820]

he feigns ultimately correct and superior knowledge over studies to gain cred so people blindly trust, then he makes money from your views

[@bvlampe6801]

well it just got one more from me

[@vongard94]

+

[@XiAwesomeGodziX]

Casey Evans yeah good information + cool accent/voice = popular channel

[@joncolumbino744]

the thing i like most about this channel is that its short and doesnt waste time

[@fy-]

I'd have a harder time with the second question if it were worded as "if you're under 18, you must drink juice".

[@aDogsVlog]

this is so good! it's great to have you back!

[@coloramber2517]

I didn't know I could pick 2 cards so I thought I was wrong when I got 2 answers.

[@joshuanyabayo9317]

I love your videos man, please find time to make more its been a while since I heard from you, you got fan support, keep it up. Your philosophy ;always brainstorming!

[@okok-kr3gu]

its not harder its just easier in the 2nd one because we were told how to solve the problem in the first one.if you were given the 2nd one first, we would have the same problem wether we were over thinking or just not understanding the problem

[@dmoneyswagg64]

xxkittykitkat if the second one is easier the first would have have you be harder.

[@Ramizire]

dude this channel is so good and so underappreciated

[@AndrewJDavis]

Could you make a video explaining why school is either useful or useless. There seems to be a lot of non factual videos explaining why school is or isn't important and I just want to know the truth.

[@BiteSizePsych]

Will be finished by end of week (hopefully)

[@AndrewJDavis]

+Bite Size Psych Thank you so much man!

[@itisdevonly]

That is not a topic that can be adequately addressed in a short video. There are so many perspectives on this, so many articles and books written on the topic. I think most people can agree school is not optimally formatted for learning, though there's fairly large disagreement on what changes would most improve it, or how we would measure said improvement. The answer you get will likely depends on how you define school, and what you think the benefit of it is or ought to be. If you're interested in the topic, there's a really good book called "How Children Fail" by John Holt (a former teacher). It's not very long, but it is quite interesting. It's primarily a collection of notes and observations he made of his classroom and the classroom of one of his colleagues. It was written in the 60's, so it's a bit old, but schools haven't really changed since then, and his observations are as true today as they were back then. They certainly rang true with my own experience working in a classroom. Although the book is called "How Children Fail" what it really addresses is how the structure of the school system sets children up to fail (at gaining real, transferable knowledge and understanding--not necessarily at failing at school). His followup book, "How Children Learn" addresses just what the title suggests. From what I learned getting my degree in psychology, what he talks about lines up pretty well with the research on how children learn. Long story short, people learn best in playful settings (and school is pretty much the opposite of play, though the more play-like it can become, the better chance it has of being a useful learning environment for children).

[@dragonrings14]

School (academic learning) is useful to people for many reasons. Anyone who says it is useless is probably unaware of how much they use academic knowledge. Essential day to day tasks are much harder without the ability to read, write and calculate well. Now sure there might be an aspect of academia that you felt wasn't particularly relevant to your life (people usually say geometry as an example) but there are many instances you can use geometry without realising it. Sports, architecture, design, woodwork, computing etc.

[@bortsampson6301]

I'm assuming you're writing about high school, but my comment will apply to college as well to a lesser degree. Even if you feel like school is just teaching you a bunch of useless things that you'll never need again, it's still incredibly important. Just by processing that information by memorizing things, calculating things, writing things, etc. in all those different subjects you're increasing your ability to process and retain new information for the rest of your life. No matter what you want to do with your life, that ability is pretty vital to interacting with the world around you. I didn't go to school as a kid and it was indescribably difficult to adjust to college in so many ways, and even now after I got into a stride and earned a STEM degree with a pretty good GPA, missing out on school in my formative years has caused me a lot of difficulty. I feel like I have to try five times as hard to accomplish what most people can without much effort, and if it hasn't gotten much better by now it probably never will. Basically, going to school as a kid/teen is worth SO MUCH MORE than the facts you memorize or equations you learn. That said, I've had the most random things from some of my early courses in college pop up as being useful in unexpected places. You never know when it'll help you to have some piece of knowledge in your back pocket.

[@yokatta-f]

Great video as always. The Many-Faced God sends his regards

[@stickmandomination9730]

The Lannisters send their regards.

[@souravzzz]

A man enjoyed the video. A man must like and subscribe.

[@renemunkthalund3581]

I would say you only have to turn one card: no. 2 with the 8? If it's non-red, that's the rule breaker. If it's red then card 4 must be the rule breaker since the rule doesn't apply to card 1 and card 3 can't violate it. Am I wrong?

[@NemanjaNiketic]

agree, the speaker sad that only one is violating the rule. if he would have said: find all cards that violate the rule, than his solution is need. however, in this case the riddle actually has two solutions, the one you said and the one with the same logic but for the card no. 4

[@renemunkthalund3581]

Agree, turn no. 2 OR no. 4. Turning both is redundant with the riddle given.

[@JackCalum]

Honestly I think part of the intuitiveness is due to the phrasing. I think the first puzzle would be slightly easier if it was phrased "If a card is even, it must NOT be blue" which is more of a direct analogy to the drinking example. This doesn't detract from the fact that being primed for a solution from real-world familiarity helps, but it does make the example here a little less persuasive.

[@butterbot333]

they were both easy and simple

[@butterbot333]

***** jealous that I'm an idiot?

[@dv_jn]

I take it this way, First problem mentioned that "if a card is EVEN, it must be RED" Second one is "no ALCOHOL if you're under EIGHTEEN" Take a look at the keywords in both the problems, The first one has keywords EVEN and RED so we tend to look at the red card and the even card, whereas see the second problem which has the keywords ALCOHOL and under EIGHTEEN so we tend to look at alcohol card and 16(under eighteen) card. It is just the matter of what words are used in framing the riddle. If the first riddle was framed as "no BLUE card should be EVEN", it would have been a much easier riddle and the difficulty of both the riddles would be same.

[@Memington]

waaaait a minute I've seen this video before. Am I a time traveler?

[@legolai811]

Deja Vu?

[@luckygreen9061]

You've probably seen the video from MindYourDecisions. It is a youtube channel.

[@BernardoPatino]

WonderWhy?

[@Memington]

Lucky Green that's it, ty

[@luckygreen9061]

Memington np

[@Epoch11]

Make more videos please. They are actually very interesting. The video about the 3 questions for Harvard students was what made me subscribe. I think it is nice to know what video makes a person subscribe to your channel.

[@damnstuck194]

Wow didn't even understand the question how the hell am I supposed to solve it... Guess I am not those 5%

[@zigzaggar453]

Technically you only HAVE to flip 1 of the cards. Either flip the 8 OR the blue. You can do this because we know that one of the cards breaks the rule. Therefore, if the card you flip beaks the rule, you found the card. Otherwise, if the card you flip adheres to the rule, you know the remaining card must break the rule.

[@NotQuiteFirst]

OBV just turn over all the cards

[@nflkaiju6291]

This guy deserves more subscribers , his knowledge is amazing

[@josepholvera2442]

both riddles were easy how were they hard?

[@stickmandomination9730]

The first easier too

[@stickmandomination9730]

Was*

[@Tastypieinyourmouth]

Comments like this are pretty pointless because there's no way to check if you really solved it easily or if you just brag

[@josepholvera2442]

Comments that attempt to discredit others are from disbelief or the need to gain recognition. I do not need prove whether I solved this or not. It is common sense which make make it harder for some to reason with. This is mearly a fact checking riddle to see if the statement is true or not. There's no reason to check the things not mentioned only the things that are, never take things ate face value.

[@Tastypieinyourmouth]

No need to defend yourself that much. I never accused you of bragging, I just put it forward as possibility

[@francoislaniel868]

Knowing that A implies B is equivalent to not B implies not A, those problems are really easy: One should check that if you have A, you also have B or equivalently if you don't have B, that you don't have A. In the first problem, you can see A as the proposition ''The card is even'' and B as ''The color of the back of the card is red''. Hence, if you have an even card, you have to turn it to see if it is red and if you know that you don't have a red card you have to turn it to see if it's not even (so if it's odd). The same rule would applies if there were 3 colors (say red, blue and green) and 3 type of numbers (say positive odd, positive even and negative). If the rules was again: ''If a card has an even positive number, than its back is red'', you should return only those with an even positive number on and those with a blue or green back.

[@arniecalang4583]

I don't understand the question

[@tennenrishin]

I don't think the difference lies in how difficult it is to apply the logic, but rather in how difficult it is to parse/understand the problem. For instance, the second version better communicates the problem by getting rid of a potential misunderstanding. In everyday language, we rarely say things like "if and only if", often simplistically substituting it with "if". Consequently, when we hear "if" we sometimes (depending on context) assume the speaker meant "if and only if". The second version's context makes it clear to the viewer that by "if" you really mean just "if".

[@Sparkz1607]

Try solving this riddle: Women.

[@onee]

*TRIGGERED*

[@randomdude8171]

The world may never know the answer...

[@gemstonegynoid7475]

nah it means you are boring lol

[@shogun1650]

Impossible. Not even the greatest professors could solve this.

[@Xgil2Play]

Riddle too stressful to handle. Ended up committing suicide.

[@L1NGY13]

so glad i came across your videos, youve earned a new sub! :D

[@Billythepowerranger]

no this is wrong. sorry this is this is really dumb. you know why the second one was easier? because you literally gave the same riddle twice and put the cards in the same position and expected us not to remember something we watched 20 seconds ago?

[@leotamer5]

Well, that an it applies context. The first one had confusing wording, where the second had a very clear real-life example.

[@kalinatankova3578]

the second one is more easy because you explained it after the first one....

[@aspie96]

I found the first version of the riddle extremely trivial, and the second version harder. The second version simply contained more information since it was less abstract, so it was harder.

[@VA51L]

The first one was formulated in a more tricky way. Also, the second was easier for me because I just was shown the solution of a very similar riddle just seconds before. The fact that I was shown the solution to a trickier riddle made it easy for me to solve the second one...which actually seems to support the school system...you get a lot of complicated and detailed information in order for you to find it easier to deal with random everyday life situations

[@TheBoHber]

Honestly i feel like these two aren't that different, but since we were not familiar with the rules and hade to take a second to comprehend the assignment, the first one seemed harder. Once we knew the rules clearly, we completed the second one with ease. Also, the second one was easier since the drinking age rule is ingrained into our minds since an early age, so putting it to practice was child-like simple. On the other hand, the even color rule was new to us, so again it took us a second to learn the rule. Its like saying "our brains are so mysterious, i can spell my name backwards faster than *insert unfamiliar word* backwards"

[@Catnugget76]

The 1st one is a trick question. The rule is "if a card is even, it must be red". The rule does not define a "vice versa", so the rule "if a card is red, it must be even" is nonexistent. Therefore the real answer to the first question is to flip only the "card 8"!

[@ebojfmdboojoh4023]

Yes the only rule stated was about numbers not colours. so in fact if there definitely is one card that breaks this rule it must be the 8 card so there is no need to turn any card over as you know it is that card already

[@MaxLohMusic]

This was also my first instinct which I quickly recognized as wrong when presented with the answer. You must flip the blue card too in case it's even. Even cards aren't allowed to be blue.

[@SupraD87]

Trick is in phrasing the question. The second riddle should be asked like. " People with age

[@AnonYmous-mc5zx]

The drinking riddle has salience which has been driven into us since we were kids. The colors riddle is a completely new, and arbitrary rule which we cant adequately apply to any other aspext of our lives, which means there are gaps our brains naturally feel the need to fill in order to feel like we have the full picture. Even numbers being red and odd numbers being blue are two rules with equal levels of relevance, and plausibility, so we tend to fill in the gap for the second rule wherein the riddle requires us to question the validity of that rule as opposed to noting the pattern and incorporating it. Stuff like that requires accute attention and can easily be tricked into being overwritten given certain scenarios. Meanwhile, we've been ingrained since we were kids that "adults CAN drink" and that "kids MUST NOT drink" which makes it easier for us to question the presumption which would make us fail the riddle, namely that "if youre an adult, you MUST drink".

[@richardherndon9670]

This is why learning math through application is easier for most people. If you can relate it to a real-world situation, the problem becomes more than invisible concepts, but a situation we can actually observe.

[@blazeryrodriges1537]

Fun fact friday, these two riddles aren't the same and familiarity isn't the only factor at play. The first riddle with the colored cards states: if a card has en even number, the other side must be red. From this statements 2 rules should be drawn: a) the red side of an even number has to be varified. b) the other side of a blue card cant be even While the second statement results in slichtly different "rules". From the second statement ("no alchol if under 18") the following rules can be drawn: a) if you are under 18 the other side cant be alchol b) if you are drinking alchol than the age on the other side must be over 18 In the second riddle the rules you have to conclude effect the items being mentioned. alchol, so i turn over all alchol, under 18, so i turn over everything under 18. Not much thinking required. While in the first statement not both objects mentioned are the objects your concluded rules aplly to. even, so i turn over even. red so i turn over red. Done , and wrong. So even though the probblem might seem the same, the way it's told actually influences the outcome. This does not exclude the effect the setting might have.

[@KombatGod]

These riddles are pretty rad. Thanks Jackie Chan!

[@sicktoaster]

To generalize, If A then B means If not-B then not-A. Language is powerful. Repeat that sentence when you encounter real life scenarios where that logic is used and in time you'll generalize it more. EDIT: In logic this rule is known as "modus tollens".

[@dylanwarwick4429]

I want to say, for the first riddle, I got the 8, but forgot of the contrapositive (the blue), and then, without intuition but with logic theory got the 16 and vodka (and having mentioned the previous one, applied the same rule ofc). I think if one had been shown the drinking one first, then then odd-even-colour one, without being shown the solution to either, they would have figured it out first time. The drinking version introduces the idea of the contrapositive (inverting the rule as some have said) and helps create the same logic in the odd-even-colour version. EDIT: I tested out that theory with my mom, who, no offense to her, isn't as smart as myself, showing her the drinking one first, and then the even-odd-colour version, and she got it after a little bit of uncertainty. (I did make sure to use the correct wording, saying "Which card or cards needs to be turned over to determine if they break the rule.)

[@xela8384]

When you're posing a logic problem, it's good to make sure the problem you pose is the one you meant to. These are, as stated, two different problems. The first problem statement (0:06-0:20) is: "If a card has an even number on one side, it must be red on the other. One of these cards breaks this rule, and your job is to fish it out." Clearly neither the 11 nor the red card can be the violator: the rule doesn't say anything about what to expect on the other side of either of them. So the violator must be one of the other two. You need only turn over one of the 8 or the blue card to see whether it or the one you haven't turned over is the violator. The second problem statement does not have such a clause, and is unclear as stated (1:35-1:41): "The rule is, if you are under 18, you are not allowed to drink alcohol. Which cards should you turn over?" Which cards should I turn over to find _what_? To find whether any card violates the alcohol-age rule? To find how many, if any, violate the rule? Juice and 41 are of course irrelevant to either reading. The latter requires turning over both 16 and vodka, and counting the violators, if any. The former may be answerable by turning over one card: if either vodka or 16 is a violator, you've answered it in the affirmative. But if not, you need to turn over the other. As for the educational psychology question: Is it not obvious to everyone (politicians excepted) that the best way to teach people to apply what they know to a variety of contexts is to provide them with opportunities to apply their knowledge in a variety of contexts? Schools with good programs in art, or shop skills, or theater, or music _do_ provide their students such opportunities. Schools where students are taught to take tests, don't.

[@SteinGauslaaStrindhaug]

If you know that exactly ONE of them the breaks the rule (no more, no less), it's sufficient to turn over just one card, isn't it? Either the blue card or the even card, because if the card you turned is not breaking the rule it must be the other... That depends on a very pedantic understanding of "one of these cards breaks this rule", of course; but such puzzles usually requires pedantic and literal interpretations...

[@Dhirallin]

Yes, the question was badly phrased. The author gets penalized :)

[@philipgalletta8833]

The first one was only harder because you introduced the second after explaining the trick so we already knew what to do.

[@Zekian]

I think the second one is easier because of transference. In the second situation you don't need to tell people the rule, they already know it. You could ask them to enforce the rule without even telling them the rule, just ask them "Who is breaking the law?" These are rules that they already put into practise. However the first one requires interpreting natural language in a way that most people haven't trained to. In day to day life the word If is often used differently. For example: Alice asks Bob, "Bob, Could you lend me $5?" Bob replies, "If I was a millionaire, I wouldn't lend you $5" In logician's English, this has no implication when Bob isn't a millionaire. But we know that this implies that Bob will not lend Alice money. Some people might misinterpret the rule and think that it implies "If a card is red, It must be even." Which leads to people checking the red card. It's clear that "If a person drinks, they must be an adult." does not imply "If a person is an adult, they must drink." Transference from the social situation make the same mistake seem absurd, perhaps even humorous. If you skip the task of interpreting natural language, it become a lot easier. Asking "Who is breaking the law?" is a lot easier than asking "Which card breaks the rule that if a card is even, it must be red?" because you already know the law, the rule is new.

[@taqu]

Yay, I got it. I'm addicted to the high from solving things. I'm a professional programmer, so my days are basically just a long string of small problems to solve. Though I'll admit it took me a minute to get the first one, when you think of this in terms of an if->then statement, it's pretty clear how it works. The problem could be represented as: IF (card.number % 2 == 0) THEN card.color = red. Using this logic, we don't care about odd numbers or other reds; the only thing we need to check is that there is no even card that is non-red.

[@laurel8831]

Great. You are one of these few youtubers were their videos are actually good.

[@joeymorrissey5916]

this are barely riddles, I didn't even know what it was asking

[@CorneliusHDybdahl]

The rules are formulated differently: "No alcohol if you're under eighteen" is equivalent to "No blue backside if your number is even", and conversely, the rule "Even numbers must have a red backside" is equivalent to "People under eighteen may only drink juice." This is an important distinction, and I would not be surprised if this is where the difference actually comes from.

[@jeffjones6951]

Wording of 1st scenario is: "ONE of these cards breaks this rule". Hence becomes unnecessary to flip both "8" and "{blue}". So flipping both results in failure!

[@bluegodofspeed]

This is absolutely genius and brilliant!! Makes me reflect on my own education and the questions posed "How can we make sure that this knowledge can be transferred" and makes me reflect if my knowledge is transferred, and when I think where my knowledge sources from. E.g the last time I quoted something, where did I read thing something, where did I learn this something from? I've realised it to be books, quotes, or the internet most of the time. Perhaps only because I surround myself with these and spend tons of time on the internet. Often when someone else speaks I am uncertain and doubt his credibility and trust a quote by someone on paper more than if the person actually said the quote in from of me. I wonder.

[@chinareds54]

People having trouble were never learned in math class "IF p THEN q" also means "IF NOT q THEN NOT p" . I think the thing with the cards is that it's more abstract and arbitrary (why do even number cards have to be red?) The alcohol example follows common sense, I think it would be less intuitive if the rule wasn't realistic (like "only people under 18 are allowed to drink alcohol") I was able so get both because the p/q logic training is even more abstract than cards and numbers.

[@audobone]

I got this correctly without any problems. But found the first one much easier to process. I'd wager that it's because of the mathematical terms just being more defined in my head.

[@marccowan3585]

Actually, you only need to turn over the blue card (we can discard the red and 11 as mentioned in the video) because we are told that only one of them breaks the rule. Let me explain In the first case, if the blue card is turned and is even, then we know it breaks the rule, and the 8 does not as only one breaks the rule In the second case, if we turn over the blue card and it is odd, the eight must break the rule as it is the only card left to break the rule The same logic can be applied to only turning the eight

[@richardhawkins2647]

To quote King Julien, "HOW LONG IS THIS GOING TO TAKE?!!" It has been 3 months since this video and you said you will give and answer in the next!

[@PepeKedor]

The answer for your question is easy. The biggest problem is the focus on the school system. It focusses on content instead of capabilities, making it harder for the "transfer" to happen. For example, instead of giving a text book, in history, for exemple, one could give documents so that kids learn to analyse them. So they now learn both history and the analysis of texts. Transfer made easy.

[@Spexxatron]

I did my masters thesis about the gab between education and practice, so I'm looking forward to your next video!

[@doodars9357]

The second one is easier because you just showed us the concept of the puzzle.

[@Canwetakearide2]

These problems may sound logically equivalent, but they're not quite by the following observation: In the first, the statement is of the form "if A then B". An equivalent statement is "if not B, then not A". So to solve the problem, you should consider all of the "not B" options to check for rule violations. In the second, the statement is of the form "if A, then not B", so the equivalent statement is "if B, then not A". So checking for B in order to find violations is the correct idea! I wager if you set up the first problem by saying the rule was "if a card is even, it cannot be blue", more people would check the blue card. Whereas, if you set up the second problem as "if a person is under 18, they can only drink juice", then more people will check who is drinking juice in this problem than on your original example.

[@Ceares]

for everybody saying if you solved the first one then the second one was easy, let me say that as someone that doesn't have a math brain, I had to pause and think and think and just gave up and even though he explained the first one and the reasoning that wasn't the reason why I solved the second one immediately. It really was because the format was different. Using people, party, drinking, ages etc... made it easy for my brain to accept and sort the info. I have to take TABC training so "solving" the 2nd one didn't feel like doing a math or logic problem but like something off that test.

[@alszentpeter234]

The two statements are not alike. "No alcohol" is prohibition, which is something very different. I bet if you say "No blue back when a card is even" then most people will get it right.

[@TosiakiS]

Or simply "if a card is even, then it must not be blue" instead of "if a card is even, then it must be red." If you were presented with both these statements side-to-side, you'd probably say they were exactly the same, and logically they are, but day-to-day usage of English makes you think of them differently.

[@forrestzhang3725]

The 2nd riddle is easier because the rules are more familiar to the average person. I've taken some programming and math proofs class and both riddles were pretty much equal to me. I've noticed that most people just get taken off guard when you introduce variables and abstract conditions, but normally they adapt very quickly with some practice.

[@arvindian]

Still waiting for ur next video. the content u share are pearls of wisdom. please do it more often

[@ZekeJW]

I picked up on the second one faster just because I did the first one. I found the questions to be exactly the same.

[@kyzyl4915]

The WAY you asked the question pretty much makes this question impossible to answer even after you explained it.

[@gandalf9138]

It's harder because you didn't clarify until afterwards that you can flip over more than one, but that information was provided for the second problem.

[@d1o2c3t4o5r]

the second one is easier because the statements are technically different. In the second riddle, if under 21, then no alcohol is not the same logical statement as if under 21, then only juice. The equivalent statement (for riddle 1) would be if even, then not blue. The only case where this is the same logical statement (to the statement if even, then red) is if we have a law of the excluded middle, where there are no cards that are not red, nor blue, and even if that were stated in the riddle, the law of the excluded middle is not a part of human intuition, so it would still confuse some people.

[@camilagasque7976]

But also the different choice of words can induce the mistake. If the question was "a person under 18 can only drink juice" most people would turn the 16 and the juice card, falling into the trap. With the same logic, if the first question was "an even number must not be blue", then you probably would get the correct answer from most people.

[@ZsOtherBrother]

thezebov is right: one riddle has the pattern "if A than B", and the other "if A than NOT B"... but still, without being told that one is "harder" they both seem pretty much the same level of complexity.

[@henk6172]

You don't tell when it's wrong to flip a card or not, the riddle makes sense but if you don't know the detail you can't solve it

[@UlquiInTheBox]

So the reason the first riddle was shared for me was because I honestly didn't really understand what he was trying to get me to do. Once he explained it the second riddle became easy. Not because that version is easier but because I had an understanding of how the game/riddle works

[@laksirifernando588]

In first riddle, no need to turn over both 2nd and 4th cards. Just one will do. If you turn 2nd and if is doesn't break the rule, 4th card is the one breaking the rule

[@RacistTortoise]

The two situations are NOT identical. Taking from my Discrete Mathematics course, situation 1 (If a card is even, it must be red) translates to "if p, then q". Situation 2 (No alcohol if you're under 18) translates to "if p, then not q". In short, if they were identical, situation 1 would read "If a card is even , it cannot be blue". This small detail makes all the difference.

[@supermonkeyyyyyy]

No the second one was easier, because the rule is worded "no alcohol" instead of "juice". If the first question was worded "no blue" then a lot more people would answer correctly

[@TosiakiS]

If you were to give people the sentence "if they are under 18, then they must be drinking juice, find the ones breaking this rule" it'd probably be unclear, but if you said instead, "if they are under 18, then they must be drinking juice because otherwise they'd be breaking the law, your task is to find the law-breakers," then it'd be much clearer because we have an intuitive sense of it. I think that's what the point of the video was.