I took advantage of the fact, that these are dots, not points, and just made the straight line start at the bottom of the dot of one side through the top of the other, and kind of zig zagged my way through... teacher wasn't satisfied
Glorious! Thank you, Edward! Despite of knowing the essence of your message, I receive always an uplifted when I perceive it from others. Your performance - the examples, the words, the heartful tone of your voice (not preaching nor lecturing, but SHARING) gets straight into tbe mind and the soul. God bless you! Thanks so much!
I really liked the concept as to how a simple change in perspective can lead to numerous problem solving techniques including using of hints, thinking outside the box and also seeing what’s not present as a positive attribute. It was a really thoughtful video. I enjoyed it very much, please keep making such videos :)
Yes, it is true that when problems are approached in an unexpected way, they can be solved in a quite easier way, as compared to the usual methods like Trial or Error. The video gives a good hint about the out-of-the-box thinking approach as well. This approach is very important to solve tricky questions. It makes tricky questions look very simple for the one who uses this approach. Also, reading the questions carefully is important for getting a solution. 😀
No it wouldn't. The candle would be sticking out directly from the wall like so __I__ and you can put more thumbtacks in there to better secure the area but also have the metal thumbtacks act as shields from the fire. So it's absolutely fine, no box necesasry.
the problem also never says to not damage the wall all you have to do is use the tacks to carve out a candle sized hole in the wall, then put the candle in it facing outward.
Tim Morgan melt the candle to a thumbtack and stick it in the wall use the rest of the thumbtacks to build a metal shield up the wall so you won't burn the house down.
Another solution for the pins is that you would use 2 or three of the pins to stick another pin upside down. The candle is stuck on the point of the upside down pin. Either way though, when the candle burns down it may still catch the board on fire, either by burning through the pins or by burning the box.
Beautiful explanation. *It's all about expanding the perspective.* Defining the problem from different angles can provide an unexpected solution. Combination of solutions can also create a new solution.
That's a very good way to put it. I remember that the fellow who solved Fermat's Enigma, proved his final unproven theory, did it by combining two methods which before everyone had thought were opposed!
Or, how about clearly defining the problem and parameters of the solution. It is not some genius leap in problem solving to "cheat" and think outside of the prescribed parameters. For instance, I immediately caught on to your lack of description to the 9 dots puzzle in that you didn't require a contiguous line, but the problem becomes much harder with that parameter. Doesn't mean I am some genius in problem solving, it means I didn't have all the information needed, and would have been disqualified. But the problem wasn't mine, it was yours, YOU failed to properly delineate the problem, rules, and solution parameters. And omittance is as much a sin as deception. (For a solution without a contiguous line, just draw through the three separate rows and then connect the columns with a fourth line.) Also, your errant solution to the candle problem states, according to your rules, "attach the candle to the wall", not attach the candle to the match box and the match box to the wall - your solution would be invalid by those rules. Also, the parameter was to not burn the house down, so either the candle has that ability or not - therefore either any solution would work (candle can't burn the house down), or your solution would also burn the house down - do you really think the match box won't catch on fire? The candle can start the house on fire but the burning match box can't? Is the matchbox inflammable? The glasses were just a math problem, similar to the classic "how do you cross the river" puzzle. As an example of what I am criticizing in your video, and these types of problems, how do we decrease the cost of space travel, and improve survivability with our current space flight technology? Transparent aluminum. Oh, wait, we don't use transparent aluminum in our current space flight technology, but that doesn't matter because I thought outside the box.
Nope, I fully agree with him. It is an issue that is constantly overglossed. To make an easy example, the candle issue. The instructions are to attach the candle to the wall without burning down the house. At no point did it state that the tacks or anything given are the only things to be used. (Don't believe me listen for yourself @ 0:45 ) So there is nothing stopping you from mounting a chandelier to a wall and attaching the candle to it. But if you were to do that, you are suddenly not understanding the exact problem they wanted to exploit. They are chasing their own results not actual data. So if you can use a match box you can use a chandelier.
bdoeden64 In a sense you are saying that if the description of the problem does not already suggest the solution, that is cheating. But in the real world, people have a problem, and no one yet knows the solution, and therefore the description of the problem of course does not say anything about the solution. The story of Paul McCready and the Kremer prize is a classic example: uxmag.com/articles/you-are-solving-the-wrong-problem
This is the issue exactly. If anything, the link you shared is a bad example. This 'the problem was the question' "Revelation" is overglossing what actually happened. His solution was not the solution to the initial problem. His solution was the answer to an issue he had while building. He didn't change the initial problem, he thought up a faster way to test different types of planes in less time. Clearly everyone understood the plane needed to be lighter, but noone decided to make an easy to build plane. That was his genius. But that isn't thinking outside the box. He was still doing the exact thing everyone else was doing, only he did it alot faster. The major difference between this video and the link is that, the link is open to all options. There was no: "I lock you in this room with the plane, now make it fly only on human power." So anyone could do and use whatever they could imagine. In the video, the people doing the testing limits the possibilities, because they expect a certain answer. If not then there would be no limit to solutions to the problems (Except the last one).
There are not just technicalities involved, but also the lack of requirements declared, or real reasons to "waste time" on the solution. For example: Three glasses problem: I will try to solve this in 3-4 moves and if it doesn't work I lose nothing, I can just give up. If you already know the solution (and won't accept my possibly different one), then apply it yourself, I've got nothing to prove. Nine dots problem: trying to find a solution that will work on any piece of paper. This particular piece here is big enough, but what if someone draws these same dots on a napkin, without enough room around it? Candle problem: Is it allowed to use the match box? Will it be considered "cheating"? I must not reveal my inclination to think that way. The majority of us don't like cheating, we are looking for "legitimate" (allowed) solutions. Or: this match box is used elsewhere later, so ruining it just for this is out of the question. (Value of the box is higher than the value of the solution.) As we can see, problems have external factors (factors outside of the box) that I didn't see the researchers here are taking into consideration.
The person who gave you the problem already knows the solution. So I don't think they will give you a piece of paper too small on the 9 dots problems, for exemple. "Oh, but should I use the match box or not?" is a kind of prejudice or insecurity, which are some of the factors to be analyzed in these psychological tests. The way you think, your fears, etc... are all taken in consideration by the psychologist or the person leading the experiment.
@@josenildoferreiraassuncao8963 but he made a good point with the box of matches unless they told the participants otherwise that they could use the matchbox
Interesting how people try to transfer their problems to someone/something else (in this case, the parameters or rules) when they are strugling to solve it. If you are really concerned on solving the problem you don't try to justify your incapability, you are just too focused on solving the problem that you don't have time for it. Robots don't ramble about their work, so why do humans do?
Taking a candle poking it with a pin after breaking that candle and surrounding it with the other parts of the candle forming a square with that main candle with the candle at a rotated angle and this line above shows that the candle will be put in a box after being broken and the other two parts of the candle will be packed to reduce the air supply but before that the candle's cotton will be rubbed harshly in an attempt/effort to reduce its power to burn with the pins surrounding the box from all sides both inside and with an 4 corners of that box to potentially prenvent that box from burning even if the candle may have lesser chance of burning by itself in fire-power. (R.W.,2024). As the pins maybe/might be fire-proof. (The Psychology of Problem Solving,Personal Communication,2017).
Ashique Desai You're absolutely correct and anybody who disagrees with you is unfortunately suffering from a disease known as "being a complete dumbass".
Ashique Desai I thought that would be boring: focusing on one problem for too long. Also, that would make comparisons amongst the experiments less apparent. Finally, if you look at the history of cinema, movies only really started to get interesting when filmmakers started to use cross-cutting. To make a video without cross-cutting is a little bit like deciding to write a sentence that has no adjectives. So that was my reasoning.
Edward Oneill, True cross cutting makes a video interesting but it applies to entertainment based video, your video wants your viewers to solve a problem...I think it should follow the pedagogy of an educational video or text...rather than the editing style of a movie...just my opinion...you might be right as well...but while watching your video I was completely lost and overwhelmed by the multiple problems.
You can answer the second puzzle by Thinking Outside the Box. But by REALLY thinking outside the box, you can actually solve this with 3 lines. Draw the top and bottom line parallel. Because they are dots and not points, we can draw the middle line at 1 degree. The lines can be infinite, so will join to make a very wide Z. QED
I did the glass one a different, simpler way: Fill 3oz glass from 8oz = 5oz + 3oz. Transfer the 3oz into the 5oz. Refill 3oz glass = 2oz + 3oz + 3oz. Top up remaining 2oz space in 5oz glass from the 3oz glass. Now = 2oz + 5oz + 1oz. Tip 5oz back into the 8oz glass. Now = 7oz + 1 oz. Transfer the 1oz into the 5oz glass. Refill 3oz glass = 4oz + 1oz + 3oz. Combine 3oz and 1oz in 5oz glass. Final set = 4oz + 4oz.
"Seeing the problem a certain way, prevents us from seeing the solution." This makes sense. That's why you might solve a problem after taking a nap or a break, because you start all over again with a fresh mindset.
Solving these sorts of problems for me is never usually a (ahem) problem, although I enjoy solving problems and have a lot of practice at doing so. What amazes me is the simple genius it takes to come up with them in the first place. Or maybe the fuel is extreme boredom
You never told us at the start how much empty space was in each glass. And there was no markings on any of the glasses to signify 3oz, 5oz or 8oz measures. We were told not to eyeball the measurements and yet that is how you solved the problem. Molre informartion at the start would have been a big help.
I have assumed that a certain level in the glass is "full." There is no measurement in the video based on visual assumptions. The only assumption is that the glasses are "full" at the start, and that "full" is a point where the 'ribs' of the glasses end. I could have filled the glasses to the brim, but it would have been even messier. There is no eyeballing, because subtraction allows one to know that when five ounces are removed from an eight-ounce glass, three ounces are left.
Exactly. The ambiguities in the cups were part of the problem. As far as the candle problem goes, it's odd that the narrator implies there was one and only one correct solution, yet the readers here thought of _several_ other ones that are LESS likely to burn the house down than the supposed correct one.
I used the tacks to affix the box to the board, and a tack through the bottom of the box INTO the bottom of the candle (like a candle-holder) keeping it upright.
extremely interesting video! those who complain about it show that they have completely missed the point. there isnt necessarily one solution to any problem , in fact the more the better. and some people view a "problem" as something bad. it can easily be a new design or product or even an easier way of doing something. undertake solutions as an interesting challenge and not as a "problem". and thinking outside the box is just looking for solutions with less limitations. of course there are always some limitations in life but if we place too many unnecessary limitations then one can never find a solution. and lastly, we must use everything at our disposal like experiences, imagination, education, advice from others etc. not to "box" oneself into a problem but to open up to use any and all resources at our disposal. thanks.
Actually a bigger candle does make a difference. I can soften the end of a small candle and put a thumbtack on it, then use other thumbtacks to hold it in place without burning the wall. The metal from the thumbtacks will probably insulate as well. With a bigger candle this is not possible. The glass problem was neat; figured it out in a couple minutes. The 9 dot problem I heard before, so lol.
I didn't read all the posts below, but you can do it in one line, even one THIN line, by taping the opposite sides of the paper together slightly skewed in such a way that as your marker goes in a STRAIGHT line around the paper tube, it crosses all nine dots. You may require a large piece of paper as the line will go slightly at an angle through the dots. But there's an even better way. You can do it in ZERO lines. Just get a marker that's big enough to cover all nine dots. Touch the page, let go before you've drawn the first line, and voila.
Ah, I had figured out the glass problem a different way. 1) Start with 8 oz cup full. 2) Fill 3 oz cup from 8 oz cup. 3) Pour all from 3 oz cup to 5 oz cup. 4) Fill 3 oz cup from 8 oz cup again. 5) Use 3 oz cup to fill 5 oz cup again. This fills the 5 oz cup, and leaves the 3 oz cup containing 1 oz. 6) Empty the 5 oz cup into the 8 oz. 7) Put the remaining 1 oz from the 3 oz cup into the 5 oz cup. 8) Fill the 3 oz cup from the 8 oz cup. 9) Pour the 3 oz cup into the 5 oz cup. 3+1 = Making 4 oz in the 5 oz cup.
This is what I got as well. But he didn't specify that we also had the pitcher to pour from--and back into. If there were no pitcher, he'd have needed to state that we started with the 8oz cup full. I really hate when people present problems or puzzles who clearly don't understand them well enough to define them.
I think that you could pin the candle to the white rubbery stuff in a brick wall. Nobody specified the wall's material. Or put it in a crevasse in a stone cliff face. Or do it to a wall that isn't inside the house. At least one of those would work.
Thank You Edward Oneill for this video ...if nothing else it may get people thinking a bit more about how problems are solved, which is always a good thing. My undergrad degree was in Psychological sciences and I was introduced to these and many other types of test used in the field of Psychology. There is something to learn from these experiments and there is some truth about the facts that we tend to get stuck in a certain views and have difficulty shifting to more novel approaches ... However ... many of us are aware that the real life experiences of problem solving are NOT well represented by these test, (yes they are still used by some who cling to what little validity are afforded them.) In real life when we encounter a problem the entire problem is immediately seen or considered THAT which stops us from doing whatever it is we are doing (or slows us or causes us to us hesitate). That I will call the "1stP". We have an up close, in person and intimate, relationship with the "1stP". We also have built in motivation to solve "1stP" (IF we want to continue doing what we were doing). I will call this factor "1stM" Motivation, as many studies show, is a huge factor in problem solving and yet in these types of test the only motivation is a ..."lets pretend for the sake of discovery we have a problem here" ... our minds will not resolve these problems in the same way we solve real life problems ... even though there are some shared factors involved. At each step of problem solving in real life we may or may not have the motivation to continue to resolve the "1stP" and may walk away from it. With test such as these lack of feeling motivation may just lead us to not really put forth the same sort of effort. Really people who do really well on these test do not demonstrate extraordinary real life problem solving abilities ... well actually they do solve certain types of problems better ... but the thing is here ... we all have certain problems we tend to solve better than others so really nothing grand here. Here is a Real problem .... many people have been lead to think there are people who are better at resolving problems. This thinking causes some people to instead of figuring out how to resolve a problem themselves they seek out a person who they believe will resolve that problem more quickly and better than they might. (They are often given titles such as specialist or Masters). Now don't get me wrong if your problem is medical there are people trained in medical techniques that know how to attend to your medical problem. That does not make them better at solving problems it shows they learn well and practice what they have learned. This is where the problem becomes a problem ... we confuse smart and well trained people who can do their job well with people who can solve problems well. The best person to solve a problem is the person who the problem effects first hand (they are encountering "1stP" and they will feel "1stM" and are most likely to stay around and take the time required to do whatever is required to solve the problem. They may ask for help but it is essential they remain part of the process because they will know if the problem is totally solved or not once they begin to do what they were doing again and they will know if the "fix" might have caused other problems and they will know over time if the "fix" just temporarily helped or if the fix lasted. Problems are something no one wants to happen while they are busy doing whatever it is they are doing ... no one likes problems (many people like solving puzzles for pleasure but a Real problems is never "welcomed". We always want the problem to go away as quickly as is possible but fact is ... some problems will take lots of time just to figure out what the real problem is and then even more time to figure out an effective way to solve it and then even more time to implement the solution and then time to find out if that solution works ... solving a problem requires intimate knowledge of All factors involved in "1stP" and it requires motivation that does not go away. We have formed job positions that do not allow us to take the time required to solve problems because we have to "get back to work" in some other fashion while someone else steps in to solve the problem. Society has formed a whole network of hiring others to resolve problems they know little to nothing about ... and it has lead to many other problems as well as important problems not getting resolved. I know that most people will not take the time to read all that I say here ... and it only begins to speak about how we might better solve problems. Remember I'm not suggesting we don't train people to specialize in certain actions ... but we need to remember they need the person with the problem to help them if the problem is going to have a better chance of getting solved well. There has to be clear communication about what, is "1stP" and there has to be the ability to not confuse "1stP" with "2ndP" or "2ndP" once removed etc ... Resolving complex problems requires resolve to do what is required. The problem of poverty for instance requires poor people to be at the table and they are not. I need to end this due to the problem of long comments not being posted at times. : ) Love & Peace to All
It also shows which area you are stronger and which area weaker. For me glasses problem was very easy and then candle . But I have to admit I dint solve dots problem until saw the clues. Now I can analyse why was thinking this way and find ways to improve my weaker side of problem solving.
4:30 pin the candle to the wall then break the candle at about the mid way point...the wick will keep it from breaking off and it can now be lit as the broken part will be perpendicular to the wall.
The solution to the matchbox problem does not meet the criterion that the candle must be affixed to the wall. by putting it in the matchbox, it was not fixed to the wall.
Really? most things that we consider being attached to the wall are actually indirectly attached, as in this solution. For example, for most human beings doors are considered attached to the walls, however, hinges are the ones that are attaching them to the wall. Even more, and if you want to be a real purist, only the screws are generating an attachment interaction with the wall, but we don't consider screws the only things attached to a wall right?. The basis of the problem is that if the candle is directly interacting with the wall the house will burn, so it is clear that an indirect attachment is needed. Thus, the solution is as valid as it is evident.
First you take duck across the river. Then you go back and grab the corn. You drop off the corn and bring the duck back across the river with you and pickup the dog and leave the duck behind. After you drop the dog off with the corn, you go back one last time for the duck. Congratulations, you have now successfully transported the food chain without it self-executing! However, interrupting the natural order of things is not without consequences. Human over-population is threatening extinction of the Human, Dog, Duck, & Corn. It would seem that solving one small and simple problem allows a much larger and more complex problem to emerge. Thus is the nature of the universe, no?
if the candle problem is properly described: use everything here to attach a candle to the wall so it doesn't burn the wall, you mentally include the box. If you properly describe the juice in glasses problem, you WILL be 'eyeballing' the levels. If you are told NOT to 'eyeball' it, then the glasses should have markers, right? The 9-dots, that gets me every time, and i'm glad to see it solved.
Anyone else notice how the 8 oz glass clearly contained more than the 5 oz glass after he’d “solved” the problem and spilled Red Bull all over the table?
I've seen Duncker's candle problem solved another way, but they said that it was incorrect. But basically using tacks holding tacks, and then candle across the tacks.
you could always punch a hole in the wall, stick a pin through the wall (if its thin enough) and stick the candle onto the sharp point of the tack facing away from the wall
1 . Perspective how to see 2 . Think outside the box 3 . What's not there 4. Hints are helpful 5. Doing things in a different way a lot to look for a better solution.
when ever I saw you talking about sticking the candle onto the wall I immediately thought of using the match box as well. didn't have any idea about the others tho
The 9 dot problem is possible to solve with 3 lines, but the lines would have to be super long and it relies the dots having more area than just a point.
well I actually thought of another way to solve the candle problem , it might sound crazy but , we canmake a hole on the candle ( preferrably near the bottom) and gently put one match inside the hole so it creates a horizontal line , then by putting 2 thumbtucks , one of each side of the match we can attach the match on the wall and then turn the candle so it doesnt face the wall , then light it !
@@Kotikjeff It seems like some people are upset that the glasses don't have markers for what is "full." I used an arbitrary level on the glasses, but I didn't mark it. Another confusion arises as to whether me pouring liquid around the glasses is truly arriving at four actual ounces. Those glassed DO hold the amounts given when filled to where the glass stops being smooth and becomes 'faceted.' But to me the pouring is an illustration of the math. I never thought to 'prove' I had four ounces in a glass.
Edward Oneill We need to make measures of exactly four ounces. Your words. Did you achieve this? If not, then I think it is best if you leave the problem solving to others and just watch how problems are really solved instead of trying to mislead people through your lack of understanding.
Two tacks method: 1. Press tack into wall leaving enough space to place head of second tack inverted...press first tack to secure second tack. 2. Press candle on protruding point of second tack and light One tack method: 1. Stick candle to tack 2. Knock wall down making it horizontal 3. Place candle and tack on wall
I solved all of the three questions differently and way easier than what this video has showed me. I think the phrase “think outside of the box” is literally inside the box!
*Don't think so* it is NOT a muscle! i think it is more like the muscles on and around your eyes: the more you strain them,the quicker they say fyou,i'll take a rest; this is a fact,DO NOT strain your eyes,NOR your brain!!!!
What the psychology has to tell us about problem solving? Clearly hints are helpful. Thanks, never thought about that, very insightful, I don't even know how I'm going to sleep tonight with my mind blown that way.
The assignment of the 9 dot problem is: connect all the dots using only three lines. Depending on your definition of "connect" the three line solution is not valid.
Edward Oneill "is to connect nine dots, arranged in a square, by four straight lines drawn without lifting the pen from the paper and without retracing any lines". I only see 1 solution: the one with the triangle. That is the only solution that uses 4 lines to connect the nine dots. It doesn't say 4 lines or less. Tbh I 've seen this test and solution multiple times, but I fail even to remember the solution. I am definitly in the 95% group that doesn't see a solution.
You didn't state "contiguous" or "without retracing". Those are essential parameters to narrow down to a single solution. Same with the liquid and 8/5/3 cups--we either start with a pither we can pour from and back into, or we start with 8oz total. Either way, we don't just have 3 glasses, and which of the two we have determines our outcome.
The video focuses on the occurence of functional fixedness when a person attempts to solve a problem , and encourages us to see things in a different way . It enunciates the fact that thinking out of the box helps a person in solving things easier ... . The takeaways are to look at things in a different perspective instead of getting fixed to a convention , exploring always ends up in giving better outcomes...
Yes. I read somewhere about a similar example too. Let‘s say I would give you $50k to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, would you do it? Most probably you‘ll said no, before I could tell you that the plane would be stationary on the ground.
The fixedness is just a consequence of our mathematical logic mind. It is neither limiting nor liberating. Before trying to solve a problem, we jump on the task and auto fill the gaps with the most probable settings based on our individual experiences to complete the equation. Back to the jump out of the plane, our minds automatically think of an airplane flying high above the clouds with the words parachute tied to it.
For the 9-dot line i easily solved it, you had to utilize the position of the center dot, the center dot can connect 2 dots with one line when struck through it(and itself of course) , they are eight dots excluding the center dot, 8/2 = 4, so 4 lines can be used to connect the excluding 8 and the center dot while striking through the middle...so 2 diagonal lines, 1 vertical and an horizontal . As for the Glass question, the first thing tht came to my mind was to write out equations. for eg(all the possible equations): 8-3 = 5;(if i pour 8 oz into 3 oz, we get 5 left in 8 oz glass) 8-5 = 3;(if i pour 8 oz into 5 oz we get 3 oz left in 8 oz glass) 5-3 = 2(if i pour 5 oz into 3 oz we get 2 oz left in 5 oz glass) these are all the positive possibilities(N.B. - we cant possible utilize negative numbers in real-life scenarios) thus, the 5-3 =2, method had to be utilized to its maximum potential)(since out of the positive equations it is a factor of 4) so i drafted numerous formulas (max,min)G- the meaning at the start we have (8,8,)G + (5,0)G + (3,0)G then (8,3)G + (5,5)G + (3,0)G then (8,3)G + (5,2)G + (3,3)G then (8,6)G + (3,0)G + (3,2)G then (8,1)G + (5,5)G + (3,2)G then(Key part) (8,1)G + (5,4)G + (3,3)G then (8,4)G + (5,4)G + (3,0)G DONE this is probably not the most efficient way but yeah thx for reading if you did. Btw: I didnt do the box one cz it looked weird xD
i didn't solve the glass problem the way it's done in the video. my thought was this: to put 4 water into the 5glass i need to first put 1 in it then use the 3glass to make it 4water. to do this i need to somehow end up with one water into the glass5. which can be done by first puting 3 into the 3 then empty the 3 into 5glass refill the 3glass with the 8glass then use 3glass to fill the 5glass leaving 1 water into the 3glass. the process of solving was slightly tedious but no really challenging my perspective. i just did a bit of trial and error and the problem was solved as soon as i had a grasp on how i could use the 3glass and 5glass to produce smaller value than 3. i first tried to obtain 2 but that wasn't working because i needed 2 glasses with 2 water at some point.
When the 3 glass problem was first being described, it was not clear if you had to start with 8 ounces of liquid in the largest glass or if you had a pitcher full to play around with. I mean, he showed all 3 glasses filled with respective amounts of liquid.
"Attach the candle to a wall..." FAIL. In the purported solution, the candle is NOT attached to a wall, just as the chandelier hanging in in the middle of a room is not attached to the patio or the floor.
As my name implies I am a cabinet maker which means I always have very sharp blades with me and I'm always cutting wood products. I had a job with a company installing their European cabinets and as an icebreaker they gave me the 9 dot Problem. Cocky as hell I told them I could solve the nine dot Problem with just one line. My boss told me go ahead and try. I folded the paper in such a way that all the lines lined up pulled out a sharp chisel and cut through all of the folds paper with one line. When I unfolded the paper all the Dot's had a line through them. I got fired that same day.
@@edwardroneill Yeah I know but I'm an engineer so I want the problem solved fast and cheaply. Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways... (Sorry couldn't resist! That's a quote from Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars: A New Hope)
1 - Melt the plastic from thumbtacks with matches, then apply the hot plastic to the wall and stick the candle. Light the candle. 2 - Wrap the paper in such a way that you can connect, by going horizontally - relative to the paper - all 3 group of 3 points by one single line. Try it yourself, it takes some time to figure it out. 3 - How can you even know how much did you put into one glass if you cannot measure ? "Measurement is the assignment of a number to a characteristic of an object or event, which can be compared with other objects or events." .. If you cannot assign a number to a some characteristic you cannot do this problem. The problem is the presentation of the problem.
No tacks needed ! Melt the end of the candle from with a match and stick the candle to the wall. Light the candle ! Then put a pot or something under the lightened candle to catch the dripping wax - and don't leave the house ! 😊
@@mareksajner8567 Hadn't seen it before, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call myself 'very smart', but it seemed immediately obvious that if you were to fill the 5-glass and pour it into the 3-glass, you'd be left with 2 units, which is a convenient factor of 4, and from then on the problem solves itself pretty much.
@@MBKill3rCat Maybe it was because of how he described the problem, because I suspect this is generally asked with higher numbers, but I knew all the problems anyway, so I can't judge. I know it took me several minutes for the first time, although I understand stuff easily. (I think I got 10, 8 and 6 units)
Two tacks in the wall and one tack in the middle pointing out, then stick the tack in the bottom of the candle (perpendicular to the wall) and light. I have seen the 9 dot before (had me stumped for a while). water glasses 8-0-0, 5-0-3, 5-3-0, 2-3-3, 2-5-1, 7-0-1, 7-1-0, 4-1-3, 4-4-0.
I think the matchbox is not needed if you make a sort of a wedge between 2 pins that are close together and squeeze the candle between facing away from the wall it should easily hold. Therefore solving this easily!
Brother, we can pin the candle half way tilted if don't have the matchbox and pinning the 1st pin with 2 pins diagonal to the center of the pin at 45 deg ... Done now you can make a chain of good looking candles on your wall
real problem solving is seeing that at 7:04 is clearly wrong (4=4, yet different liquid amount in each glass) and figuring out what went wrong in the process... all these solution are theoretical, but reality is messy and dealing with that mess is real problem solving
Something about the messiness of this video i.e. drawing crooked lines, spilling the liquid on the table and the dullness of the production i.e. the background music, and monotone voice, makes this video hard to watch.
orangeflip Sorry you found these things distracting. I wanted to use physical objects when possible rather than 'clean' digital ones. The production is not meant to be exciting. But a more exciting production would be interesting. Maybe you should make a better video.
The trouble with near all of these tests is that presents a problem with a suggest limit and to solve them you have to ignore the limit. The match box was not listed as a thing you could use. Drawing a line to empty space was not suggested by the dots. So the person whom solves these things those ways are breaking the rules and open it to nearly any solution. For example the candle thing never said I couldn't put the candle on a wall that was laid on the ground. The dots never said I couldn't fold the papers and push a pencil through it. I find the suggestion of limited options in which when people follow those options their efforts are labeled failure while the solution means breaking the limits to be dishonest.
It's not a question of limits, nor of "dishonesty." The problem sets out the goal and what is required and prohibited. Anything not listed as prohibited is possible. The "trouble" (as you call it ) with problems is that they cannot be fully defined. But that is not an external "trouble": that is what makes problems problems.
When I went to an interview, there was like a group of 12 ppl, they split us into 4 groups and asked us to build the tallest tower we could with only using marshmallows and pasta they had provided (btw this was just some random exercise they do for whatever reason) So we're building and im waiting towards the end because everyone is building theirs using marshmallows as connector points and the pastas as beams (obviously) but the problem is that the marshmallows were too heavy and made the tower collapse after a a bit... so, i made my tower, and just as the exercise is about to end I pick apart some mashmallow and just use the insides as glue to connect a spire on top because a whole mashmallow would be too heavy.... and ofc, mine is now the highest tower but everyone looks at me and starts doing the same XDDD not 1 person there thought about using just the inside sticky part as a glue they all used them as connectors/founations to stick the pastas into fecken plebs copying me with their small brains
Nick Langley Very clever! A competitive group job interview is not the place to ask folks to take risks or instantly form a team....Too much at stake. Did you get the job?
Nah, I didn't, but there was more to the interview than the small brain exercise... I probably didn't do so well in other areas. However, I'm happy at my current job :) This was a good few years ago!
I remember the marshmallow putty from junior high. Not sure if it was me or someone else that came up with it. A typical commercial office space would probably have dropped ceilings. I'd first try to stick a pasta through the ceiling tile and build downward to a desk, chair, or the floor. Being suspended from the top like that would almost certainly allow for a much taller structure. The 4 person group dynamic is useful for observing teamwork, but it really seems like the groups should be given some isolated R&D time before being brought together if competition and response to winning or losing is to be observed. That way it would be obvious who is copying and who is innovating.
Nick Langley i was actually thinking straight away use the white part i was amazed when i saw that those people were that dumb to use the whole thing lul
Very insightful. I wish i knew this before i burned my house down.
That "solution" would still potentially burn your house down. Placing a candle on a paper holder isn't the brightest idea ; )
I took advantage of the fact, that these are dots, not points, and just made the straight line start at the bottom of the dot of one side through the top of the other, and kind of zig zagged my way through... teacher wasn't satisfied
Oh, yes. This video would have certainly been helpful.
Hahahahahaha
😆😆😆
An absolutely stupendous demonstration of insight problems.
You are clearly a person of keen insight! ; )
I tried the candle 🕯️ problem and burnt my house down 😔
I tried the glass problem with vodka and ended with 3 empty glasses 😔
Hahaha, me in life 😆
OSCAR BADILLO Don’t be discouraged. Humor and sarcasm are also forms of intellect)
fishing for likes ?
And with crossed eyes after drinking the vodka, you could assume you had been drawing a straight line. Cool!
Good one
All the nine dots can be connected with ONE BIG LINE (MAKE THE DOTS SMALL AND THE LINE BIG ENOUGH TO COVER ALL NINE DOTS)
Thick enough*
Good point. They didn't quantify the size of the line.
Now that's rule breaking.
Seem legit
You can also make one thin, straight line, while bending the paper in a tube and connect them all. Not my solution; one I saw a few years ago.
Reframing an experience in life is a wonderfully powerful way to overcome adversity.
Glorious! Thank you, Edward! Despite of knowing the essence of your message, I receive always an uplifted when I perceive it from others. Your performance - the examples, the words, the heartful tone of your voice (not preaching nor lecturing, but SHARING) gets straight into tbe mind and the soul. God bless you! Thanks so much!
I really liked the concept as to how a simple change in perspective can lead to numerous problem solving techniques including using of hints, thinking outside the box and also seeing what’s not present as a positive attribute. It was a really thoughtful video. I enjoyed it very much, please keep making such videos :)
Thanks for the insight! :)
Yes, it is true that when problems are approached in an unexpected way, they can be solved in a quite easier way, as compared to the usual methods like Trial or Error. The video gives a good hint about the out-of-the-box thinking approach as well. This approach is very important to solve tricky questions. It makes tricky questions look very simple for the one who uses this approach. Also, reading the questions carefully is important for getting a solution. 😀
i solved the candle by sticking a pin in the bottom of the candle, and then pinning the pin to the wall with 4 overlapping pins around it
but
it is said to pin without burning the house down
which this solution would certainly burn your house
thought of it too xD
No it wouldn't. The candle would be sticking out directly from the wall like so __I__ and you can put more thumbtacks in there to better secure the area but also have the metal thumbtacks act as shields from the fire. So it's absolutely fine, no box necesasry.
so what happens when the candle sets fire to the box? sounds like a dangerous solution to me
the problem also never says to not damage the wall all you have to do is use the tacks to carve out a candle sized hole in the wall, then put the candle in it facing outward.
Tim Morgan melt the candle to a thumbtack and stick it in the wall use the rest of the thumbtacks to build a metal shield up the wall so you won't burn the house down.
Witkin's work on field dependence and field independence has a bearing on the ability to solve problems that use diagrams.
Thank you so much! I will look that up.
Another solution for the pins is that you would use 2 or three of the pins to stick another pin upside down. The candle is stuck on the point of the upside down pin. Either way though, when the candle burns down it may still catch the board on fire, either by burning through the pins or by burning the box.
Beautiful explanation. *It's all about expanding the perspective.*
Defining the problem from different angles can provide an unexpected solution.
Combination of solutions can also create a new solution.
That's a very good way to put it.
I remember that the fellow who solved Fermat's Enigma, proved his final unproven theory, did it by combining two methods which before everyone had thought were opposed!
Or, how about clearly defining the problem and parameters of the solution. It is not some genius leap in problem solving to "cheat" and think outside of the prescribed parameters. For instance, I immediately caught on to your lack of description to the 9 dots puzzle in that you didn't require a contiguous line, but the problem becomes much harder with that parameter. Doesn't mean I am some genius in problem solving, it means I didn't have all the information needed, and would have been disqualified. But the problem wasn't mine, it was yours, YOU failed to properly delineate the problem, rules, and solution parameters. And omittance is as much a sin as deception. (For a solution without a contiguous line, just draw through the three separate rows and then connect the columns with a fourth line.) Also, your errant solution to the candle problem states, according to your rules, "attach the candle to the wall", not attach the candle to the match box and the match box to the wall - your solution would be invalid by those rules. Also, the parameter was to not burn the house down, so either the candle has that ability or not - therefore either any solution would work (candle can't burn the house down), or your solution would also burn the house down - do you really think the match box won't catch on fire? The candle can start the house on fire but the burning match box can't? Is the matchbox inflammable? The glasses were just a math problem, similar to the classic "how do you cross the river" puzzle. As an example of what I am criticizing in your video, and these types of problems, how do we decrease the cost of space travel, and improve survivability with our current space flight technology? Transparent aluminum. Oh, wait, we don't use transparent aluminum in our current space flight technology, but that doesn't matter because I thought outside the box.
bdoeden64 You are thinking like a robot. Think like an adaptable mind.
Nope, I fully agree with him. It is an issue that is constantly overglossed.
To make an easy example, the candle issue. The instructions are to attach the candle to the wall without burning down the house. At no point did it state that the tacks or anything given are the only things to be used. (Don't believe me listen for yourself @ 0:45 )
So there is nothing stopping you from mounting a chandelier to a wall and attaching the candle to it. But if you were to do that, you are suddenly not understanding the exact problem they wanted to exploit. They are chasing their own results not actual data. So if you can use a match box you can use a chandelier.
RahxephonXtra I think you have missed the point that these are not puzzles, they are psychological experiments conducted on actual subjects.
bdoeden64 In a sense you are saying that if the description of the problem does not already suggest the solution, that is cheating.
But in the real world, people have a problem, and no one yet knows the solution, and therefore the description of the problem of course does not say anything about the solution.
The story of Paul McCready and the Kremer prize is a classic example: uxmag.com/articles/you-are-solving-the-wrong-problem
This is the issue exactly. If anything, the link you shared is a bad example. This 'the problem was the question' "Revelation" is overglossing what actually happened. His solution was not the solution to the initial problem. His solution was the answer to an issue he had while building. He didn't change the initial problem, he thought up a faster way to test different types of planes in less time. Clearly everyone understood the plane needed to be lighter, but noone decided to make an easy to build plane. That was his genius. But that isn't thinking outside the box. He was still doing the exact thing everyone else was doing, only he did it alot faster.
The major difference between this video and the link is that, the link is open to all options. There was no: "I lock you in this room with the plane, now make it fly only on human power." So anyone could do and use whatever they could imagine. In the video, the people doing the testing limits the possibilities, because they expect a certain answer. If not then there would be no limit to solutions to the problems (Except the last one).
4:06 is it some special kind of the fire proof boxes?
There are not just technicalities involved, but also the lack of requirements declared, or real reasons to "waste time" on the solution.
For example:
Three glasses problem: I will try to solve this in 3-4 moves and if it doesn't work I lose nothing, I can just give up.
If you already know the solution (and won't accept my possibly different one), then apply it yourself, I've got nothing to prove.
Nine dots problem: trying to find a solution that will work on any piece of paper. This particular piece here is big enough,
but what if someone draws these same dots on a napkin, without enough room around it?
Candle problem: Is it allowed to use the match box? Will it be considered "cheating"? I must not reveal my inclination to think that way.
The majority of us don't like cheating, we are looking for "legitimate" (allowed) solutions.
Or: this match box is used elsewhere later, so ruining it just for this is out of the question. (Value of the box is higher than the value of the solution.)
As we can see, problems have external factors (factors outside of the box) that I didn't see the researchers here are taking into consideration.
Very good points. I brought up similar problems with these puzzles. I think extremely analytical people will run into the same precision issues.
The person who gave you the problem already knows the solution. So I don't think they will give you a piece of paper too small on the 9 dots problems, for exemple. "Oh, but should I use the match box or not?" is a kind of prejudice or insecurity, which are some of the factors to be analyzed in these psychological tests. The way you think, your fears, etc... are all taken in consideration by the psychologist or the person leading the experiment.
Yeah problems have external factors that i didn't see the researchers are taking into consideration.
@@josenildoferreiraassuncao8963 but he made a good point with the box of matches unless they told the participants otherwise that they could use the matchbox
Interesting how people try to transfer their problems to someone/something else (in this case, the parameters or rules) when they are strugling to solve it. If you are really concerned on solving the problem you don't try to justify your incapability, you are just too focused on solving the problem that you don't have time for it. Robots don't ramble about their work, so why do humans do?
Dear Edward, it's a very interesting video! Thanks for your time and disposal.
By combining elements of solutions that don't work, we can sometimes find a solution that does work
Taking a candle poking it with a pin after breaking that candle and surrounding it with the other parts of the candle forming a square with that main candle with the candle at a rotated angle and this line above shows that the candle will be put in a box after being broken and the other two parts of the candle will be packed to reduce the air supply but before that the candle's cotton will be rubbed harshly in an attempt/effort to reduce its power to burn with the pins surrounding the box from all sides both inside and with an 4 corners of that box to potentially prenvent that box from burning even if the candle may have lesser chance of burning by itself in fire-power.
(R.W.,2024).
As the pins maybe/might be fire-proof.
(The Psychology of Problem Solving,Personal Communication,2017).
That match box solution would probably still burn the house down lol. :P ;)
Exactly
The video was helpful for me. Good reminder that sometimes we need to step back, relax and explore the problem space.
They should have taken one problem and completed it rather than continuously cutting between different problems...just an editing advice.
nope
Ashique Desai
You're absolutely correct and anybody who disagrees with you is unfortunately suffering from a disease known as "being a complete dumbass".
Ashique Desai I thought that would be boring: focusing on one problem for too long.
Also, that would make comparisons amongst the experiments less apparent.
Finally, if you look at the history of cinema, movies only really started to get interesting when filmmakers started to use cross-cutting. To make a video without cross-cutting is a little bit like deciding to write a sentence that has no adjectives.
So that was my reasoning.
Edward Oneill, True cross cutting makes a video interesting but it applies to entertainment based video, your video wants your viewers to solve a problem...I think it should follow the pedagogy of an educational video or text...rather than the editing style of a movie...just my opinion...you might be right as well...but while watching your video I was completely lost and overwhelmed by the multiple problems.
Rick Sanchez Please disagree respectfully on this page. Name-calling is not helpful in resolving disagreements.
A master class!! Thank you for helping us to be more creative!! I liked the empty space left that we never see!!
When I was given the 9 Dot Problem in high school the wording was connect all 9 dots using 4 continuous lines.
Still possible
That’s an important distinction. Without it you can just draw the stick shift pattern.
@@minecraftdimandar1283 how?
You can answer the second puzzle by Thinking Outside the Box.
But by REALLY thinking outside the box,
you can actually solve this with 3 lines.
Draw the top and bottom line parallel.
Because they are dots and not points, we can draw the middle line at 1 degree.
The lines can be infinite, so will join to make a very wide Z.
QED
Solves 3 worldwide respected problems, but can't attach a candle with a matchbox.
*Makes sense*
I did the glass one a different, simpler way:
Fill 3oz glass from 8oz = 5oz + 3oz.
Transfer the 3oz into the 5oz.
Refill 3oz glass = 2oz + 3oz + 3oz.
Top up remaining 2oz space in 5oz glass from the 3oz glass.
Now = 2oz + 5oz + 1oz.
Tip 5oz back into the 8oz glass.
Now = 7oz + 1 oz.
Transfer the 1oz into the 5oz glass.
Refill 3oz glass = 4oz + 1oz + 3oz.
Combine 3oz and 1oz in 5oz glass.
Final set = 4oz + 4oz.
Cool! I've read there is more than one solution. I think I chose the shortest one--for purposes of time.
"Seeing the problem a certain way, prevents us from seeing the solution."
This makes sense. That's why you might solve a problem after taking a nap or a break, because you start all over again with a fresh mindset.
Solving these sorts of problems for me is never usually a (ahem) problem, although I enjoy solving problems and have a lot of practice at doing so. What amazes me is the simple genius it takes to come up with them in the first place. Or maybe the fuel is extreme boredom
You never told us at the start how much empty space was in each glass. And there was no markings on any of the glasses to signify 3oz, 5oz or
8oz measures. We were told not to eyeball the measurements and yet that is how you solved the problem. Molre informartion at the start would have been a big help.
I have assumed that a certain level in the glass is "full."
There is no measurement in the video based on visual assumptions.
The only assumption is that the glasses are "full" at the start, and that "full" is a point where the 'ribs' of the glasses end.
I could have filled the glasses to the brim, but it would have been even messier.
There is no eyeballing, because subtraction allows one to know that when five ounces are removed from an eight-ounce glass, three ounces are left.
Exactly. The ambiguities in the cups were part of the problem. As far as the candle problem goes, it's odd that the narrator implies there was one and only one correct solution, yet the readers here thought of _several_ other ones that are LESS likely to burn the house down than the supposed correct one.
I used the tacks to affix the box to the board, and a tack through the bottom of the box INTO the bottom of the candle (like a candle-holder) keeping it upright.
extremely interesting video! those who complain about it show that they have completely missed the point. there isnt necessarily one solution to any problem , in fact the more the better. and some people view a "problem" as something bad. it can easily be a new design or product or even an easier way of doing something. undertake solutions as an interesting challenge and not as a "problem". and thinking outside the box is just looking for solutions with less limitations. of course there are always some limitations in life but if we place too many unnecessary limitations then one can never find a solution. and lastly, we must use everything at our disposal like experiences, imagination, education, advice from others etc. not to "box" oneself into a problem but to open up to use any and all resources at our disposal. thanks.
My problem was why was the fluid on the desk before anything has started 😂
Actually a bigger candle does make a difference. I can soften the end of a small candle and put a thumbtack on it, then use other thumbtacks to hold it in place without burning the wall. The metal from the thumbtacks will probably insulate as well. With a bigger candle this is not possible.
The glass problem was neat; figured it out in a couple minutes. The 9 dot problem I heard before, so lol.
I didn't read all the posts below, but you can do it in one line, even one THIN line, by taping the opposite sides of the paper together slightly skewed in such a way that as your marker goes in a STRAIGHT line around the paper tube, it crosses all nine dots. You may require a large piece of paper as the line will go slightly at an angle through the dots. But there's an even better way. You can do it in ZERO lines. Just get a marker that's big enough to cover all nine dots. Touch the page, let go before you've drawn the first line, and voila.
Ah, I had figured out the glass problem a different way.
1) Start with 8 oz cup full.
2) Fill 3 oz cup from 8 oz cup.
3) Pour all from 3 oz cup to 5 oz cup.
4) Fill 3 oz cup from 8 oz cup again.
5) Use 3 oz cup to fill 5 oz cup again.
This fills the 5 oz cup, and leaves the 3 oz cup containing 1 oz.
6) Empty the 5 oz cup into the 8 oz.
7) Put the remaining 1 oz from the 3 oz cup into the 5 oz cup.
8) Fill the 3 oz cup from the 8 oz cup.
9) Pour the 3 oz cup into the 5 oz cup. 3+1 = Making 4 oz in the 5 oz cup.
Fen Let There is indeed more than one solution. Well done!
I found the same solution
This is what I got as well. But he didn't specify that we also had the pitcher to pour from--and back into. If there were no pitcher, he'd have needed to state that we started with the 8oz cup full. I really hate when people present problems or puzzles who clearly don't understand them well enough to define them.
i mean you could always just pour out the 3 and the 5 and split the 8 50/50
No, you have one cup with 4 and the 8 oz cup now has 5 - the solution needed 2 cups holding 4 each
I think that you could pin the candle to the white rubbery stuff in a brick wall. Nobody specified the wall's material. Or put it in a crevasse in a stone cliff face. Or do it to a wall that isn't inside the house. At least one of those would work.
UA-cam recommendations where are my cat videos? GLAD I FOUND THIS
tacs: 1 - use 4 to pin a 5th with its pin facing out; Pin it on the candle base and now light it
Thank You Edward Oneill for this video ...if nothing else it may get people thinking a bit more about how problems are solved, which is always a good thing. My undergrad degree was in Psychological sciences and I was introduced to these and many other types of test used in the field of Psychology. There is something to learn from these experiments and there is some truth about the facts that we tend to get stuck in a certain views and have difficulty shifting to more novel approaches ... However ... many of us are aware that the real life experiences of problem solving are NOT well represented by these test, (yes they are still used by some who cling to what little validity are afforded them.)
In real life when we encounter a problem the entire problem is immediately seen or considered THAT which stops us from doing whatever it is we are doing (or slows us or causes us to us hesitate). That I will call the "1stP". We have an up close, in person and intimate, relationship with the "1stP". We also have built in motivation to solve "1stP" (IF we want to continue doing what we were doing). I will call this factor "1stM" Motivation, as many studies show, is a huge factor in problem solving and yet in these types of test the only motivation is a ..."lets pretend for the sake of discovery we have a problem here" ... our minds will not resolve these problems in the same way we solve real life problems ... even though there are some shared factors involved.
At each step of problem solving in real life we may or may not have the motivation to continue to resolve the "1stP" and may walk away from it. With test such as these lack of feeling motivation may just lead us to not really put forth the same sort of effort. Really people who do really well on these test do not demonstrate extraordinary real life problem solving abilities ... well actually they do solve certain types of problems better ... but the thing is here ... we all have certain problems we tend to solve better than others so really nothing grand here.
Here is a Real problem .... many people have been lead to think there are people who are better at resolving problems. This thinking causes some people to instead of figuring out how to resolve a problem themselves they seek out a person who they believe will resolve that problem more quickly and better than they might. (They are often given titles such as specialist or Masters). Now don't get me wrong if your problem is medical there are people trained in medical techniques that know how to attend to your medical problem. That does not make them better at solving problems it shows they learn well and practice what they have learned. This is where the problem becomes a problem ... we confuse smart and well trained people who can do their job well with people who can solve problems well.
The best person to solve a problem is the person who the problem effects first hand (they are encountering "1stP" and they will feel "1stM" and are most likely to stay around and take the time required to do whatever is required to solve the problem. They may ask for help but it is essential they remain part of the process because they will know if the problem is totally solved or not once they begin to do what they were doing again and they will know if the "fix" might have caused other problems and they will know over time if the "fix" just temporarily helped or if the fix lasted.
Problems are something no one wants to happen while they are busy doing whatever it is they are doing ... no one likes problems (many people like solving puzzles for pleasure but a Real problems is never "welcomed". We always want the problem to go away as quickly as is possible but fact is ... some problems will take lots of time just to figure out what the real problem is and then even more time to figure out an effective way to solve it and then even more time to implement the solution and then time to find out if that solution works ... solving a problem requires intimate knowledge of All factors involved in "1stP" and it requires motivation that does not go away. We have formed job positions that do not allow us to take the time required to solve problems because we have to "get back to work" in some other fashion while someone else steps in to solve the problem.
Society has formed a whole network of hiring others to resolve problems they know little to nothing about ... and it has lead to many other problems as well as important problems not getting resolved.
I know that most people will not take the time to read all that I say here ... and it only begins to speak about how we might better solve problems. Remember I'm not suggesting we don't train people to specialize in certain actions ... but we need to remember they need the person with the problem to help them if the problem is going to have a better chance of getting solved well. There has to be clear communication about what, is "1stP" and there has to be the ability to not confuse "1stP" with "2ndP" or "2ndP" once removed etc ... Resolving complex problems requires resolve to do what is required. The problem of poverty for instance requires poor people to be at the table and they are not. I need to end this due to the problem of long comments not being posted at times. : ) Love & Peace to All
I seldom comment. But this was a very intriguing read. Thank you for the valuable thought process that occurred to me. Also, sweet handle. :)
It also shows which area you are stronger and which area weaker. For me glasses problem was very easy and then candle . But I have to admit I dint solve dots problem until saw the clues. Now I can analyse why was thinking this way and find ways to improve my weaker side of problem solving.
I connected all dots with one line!
Folded the paper and punched a hole into the dots. One line!
Lol! A LIVING GENIUS
@@kimdes1867 I would expect some solution is possible using shrink wrap or shrink paper.
We have to pass lines through all the dots I just circled the paper and voila it's done
R/iamverysmart
@@justinporter2117 Yes, you are! You figured out how to join UA-cam three weeks ago, and you found here!
4:30 pin the candle to the wall then break the candle at about the mid way point...the wick will keep it from breaking off and it can now be lit as the broken part will be perpendicular to the wall.
The solution to the matchbox problem does not meet the criterion that the candle must be affixed to the wall. by putting it in the matchbox, it was not fixed to the wall.
If the candle is fixed to box and box is fixed to wall, by affiliation the candle is fixed to the wall! ;) lol.
Really? most things that we consider being attached to the wall are actually indirectly attached, as in this solution. For example, for most human beings doors are considered attached to the walls, however, hinges are the ones that are attaching them to the wall. Even more, and if you want to be a real purist, only the screws are generating an attachment interaction with the wall, but we don't consider screws the only things attached to a wall right?. The basis of the problem is that if the candle is directly interacting with the wall the house will burn, so it is clear that an indirect attachment is needed. Thus, the solution is as valid as it is evident.
After one has solved the "Dog, Duck & Corn riddle," it's all the more easy from there. ;-P
First you take duck across the river. Then you go back and grab the corn. You drop off the corn and bring the duck back across the river with you and pickup the dog and leave the duck behind. After you drop the dog off with the corn, you go back one last time for the duck. Congratulations, you have now successfully transported the food chain without it self-executing! However, interrupting the natural order of things is not without consequences. Human over-population is threatening extinction of the Human, Dog, Duck, & Corn. It would seem that solving one small and simple problem allows a much larger and more complex problem to emerge. Thus is the nature of the universe, no?
6:00 the glass pouring part reminds me of binary count.
Maksims Ivanovs https:\\www.facebook_apple_twitter_youtube_Meeting-Owner/_Robert_David_Uballe_webmaster/
It helps if you define the problem correctly (the nine dot problem is not defined properly in this video).
I knew how to solve the liquid problem from watching Die Hard 3.
Mr Drew cool,cool,cool,no doubt,no doubt, no doubt
decade cool, cool, cool, no doubt, no doubt, no doubt, also one of your sex tapes
if the candle problem is properly described: use everything here to attach a candle to the wall so it doesn't burn the wall, you mentally include the box. If you properly describe the juice in glasses problem, you WILL be 'eyeballing' the levels. If you are told NOT to 'eyeball' it, then the glasses should have markers, right? The 9-dots, that gets me every time, and i'm glad to see it solved.
Anyone else notice how the 8 oz glass clearly contained more than the 5 oz glass after he’d “solved” the problem and spilled Red Bull all over the table?
I've seen Duncker's candle problem solved another way, but they said that it was incorrect. But basically using tacks holding tacks, and then candle across the tacks.
Amazing content... Thank you for sharing.
Me:25 years old
also me: MOM! i need an adult
Great explanation! see patterns, think outside the box! Thank you for sharing!
you could always punch a hole in the wall, stick a pin through the wall (if its thin enough) and stick the candle onto the sharp point of the tack facing away from the wall
Amazing content. Really enjoyed the video.
1 . Perspective how to see
2 . Think outside the box
3 . What's not there
4. Hints are helpful
5. Doing things in a different way a lot to look for a better solution.
when ever I saw you talking about sticking the candle onto the wall I immediately thought of using the match box as well. didn't have any idea about the others tho
The 9 dot problem is possible to solve with 3 lines, but the lines would have to be super long and it relies the dots having more area than just a point.
R/iamverysmart
OCD triggered, spilling liquids ughh 😠
Omg _saaaaame_
Almost clicked off bc of that lol
Yeah right
well I actually thought of another way to solve the candle problem , it might sound crazy but , we canmake a hole on the candle ( preferrably near the bottom) and gently put one match inside the hole so it creates a horizontal line , then by putting 2 thumbtucks , one of each side of the match we can attach the match on the wall and then turn the candle so it doesnt face the wall , then light it !
His solution to the 3 glasses involves exactly what he said what could NOT be used. @ 1:22
Measuring, eye balling, guessing.
No. It involves subtraction.
Edward Oneill Guessing again.
@@Kotikjeff It seems like some people are upset that the glasses don't have markers for what is "full."
I used an arbitrary level on the glasses, but I didn't mark it.
Another confusion arises as to whether me pouring liquid around the glasses is truly arriving at four actual ounces.
Those glassed DO hold the amounts given when filled to where the glass stops being smooth and becomes 'faceted.'
But to me the pouring is an illustration of the math.
I never thought to 'prove' I had four ounces in a glass.
Edward Oneill We need to make measures of exactly four ounces. Your words. Did you achieve this? If not, then I think it is best if you leave the problem solving to others and just watch how problems are really solved instead of trying to mislead people through your lack of understanding.
@@Kotikjeff If you don't believe in subtraction, there's not much I can say.
Quarantine 2020 made me watch this
Two tacks method:
1. Press tack into wall leaving enough space to place head of second tack inverted...press first tack to secure second tack.
2. Press candle on protruding point of second tack and light
One tack method:
1. Stick candle to tack
2. Knock wall down making it horizontal
3. Place candle and tack on wall
these problems makes my mind fresh
I solved all of the three questions differently and way easier than what this video has showed me. I think the phrase “think outside of the box” is literally inside the box!
Enjoyed it, thank you. I believe this is the 2nd time I've watched it.
The brain is like a muscle, using it makes it stronger. Intellectual laziness is very common.
Is it?
@@mariodengue it is.
*Don't think so* it is NOT a muscle! i think it is more like the muscles on and around your eyes: the more you strain them,the quicker they say fyou,i'll take a rest; this is a fact,DO NOT strain your eyes,NOR your brain!!!!
What the psychology has to tell us about problem solving? Clearly hints are helpful. Thanks, never thought about that, very insightful, I don't even know how I'm going to sleep tonight with my mind blown that way.
"Without burning the house down"? And then he lights the candle on a PAPER box!
Ooops. You'll be happy to know that my house is safe and sound.
@@edwardroneill i hope your mum and dad were watching over you.
The assignment of the 9 dot problem is: connect all the dots using only three lines. Depending on your definition of "connect" the three line solution is not valid.
I didn't define the problem: the psychologist who first studied it did (Maier). www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100235231
Edward Oneill "is to connect nine dots, arranged in a square, by four straight lines drawn without lifting the pen from the paper and without retracing any lines". I only see 1 solution: the one with the triangle. That is the only solution that uses 4 lines to connect the nine dots. It doesn't say 4 lines or less. Tbh I 've seen this test and solution multiple times, but I fail even to remember the solution. I am definitly in the 95% group that doesn't see a solution.
You didn't state "contiguous" or "without retracing". Those are essential parameters to narrow down to a single solution. Same with the liquid and 8/5/3 cups--we either start with a pither we can pour from and back into, or we start with 8oz total. Either way, we don't just have 3 glasses, and which of the two we have determines our outcome.
It is actualy possible to do it with only 3 lines, but it requires a really out of box thinking ...
But would all dots have a route through a line (connection) to all other dots?
These aren't my problems
Call Houston.
Start focussing on the points mentioned from 7:22 and try to see if those general solution finding concepts can be applied to your problems.
Neither me too
Good one
great content
That was a good clip
Thank you for your good content.
Even if it is for a few people
You made a change.
Thank you!
The video focuses on the occurence of functional fixedness when a person attempts to solve a problem , and encourages us to see things in a different way . It enunciates the fact that thinking out of the box helps a person in solving things easier ... . The takeaways are to look at things in a different perspective instead of getting fixed to a convention , exploring always ends up in giving better outcomes...
Yes. I read somewhere about a similar example too. Let‘s say I would give you $50k to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, would you do it? Most probably you‘ll said no, before I could tell you that the plane would be stationary on the ground.
The fixedness is just a consequence of our mathematical logic mind. It is neither limiting nor liberating. Before trying to solve a problem, we jump on the task and auto fill the gaps with the most probable settings based on our individual experiences to complete the equation. Back to the jump out of the plane, our minds automatically think of an airplane flying high above the clouds with the words parachute tied to it.
Man I feel really, really dumb.
Don't! I'm sure I couldn't have solved these problems either.
Yes, most of us feel that way. sometimes ! But imagine how Trump feels like that ALL the Time ! 🐵
For the 9-dot line i easily solved it, you had to utilize the position of the center dot, the center dot can connect 2 dots with one line when struck through it(and itself of course) , they are eight dots excluding the center dot, 8/2 = 4, so 4 lines can be used to connect the excluding 8 and the center dot while striking through the middle...so 2 diagonal lines, 1 vertical and an horizontal .
As for the Glass question, the first thing tht came to my mind was to write out equations.
for eg(all the possible equations):
8-3 = 5;(if i pour 8 oz into 3 oz, we get 5 left in 8 oz glass)
8-5 = 3;(if i pour 8 oz into 5 oz we get 3 oz left in 8 oz glass)
5-3 = 2(if i pour 5 oz into 3 oz we get 2 oz left in 5 oz glass)
these are all the positive possibilities(N.B. - we cant possible utilize negative numbers in real-life scenarios)
thus, the 5-3 =2, method had to be utilized to its maximum potential)(since out of the positive equations it is a factor of 4)
so i drafted numerous formulas
(max,min)G- the meaning
at the start we have
(8,8,)G + (5,0)G + (3,0)G
then
(8,3)G + (5,5)G + (3,0)G
then
(8,3)G + (5,2)G + (3,3)G
then
(8,6)G + (3,0)G + (3,2)G
then
(8,1)G + (5,5)G + (3,2)G
then(Key part)
(8,1)G + (5,4)G + (3,3)G
then
(8,4)G + (5,4)G + (3,0)G
DONE
this is probably not the most efficient way but yeah thx for reading if you did.
Btw: I didnt do the box one cz it looked weird xD
i didn't solve the glass problem the way it's done in the video.
my thought was this: to put 4 water into the 5glass i need to first put 1 in it then use the 3glass to make it 4water. to do this i need to somehow end up with one water into the glass5. which can be done by first puting 3 into the 3 then empty the 3 into 5glass refill the 3glass with the 8glass then use 3glass to fill the 5glass leaving 1 water into the 3glass.
the process of solving was slightly tedious but no really challenging my perspective. i just did a bit of trial and error and the problem was solved as soon as i had a grasp on how i could use the 3glass and 5glass to produce smaller value than 3. i first tried to obtain 2 but that wasn't working because i needed 2 glasses with 2 water at some point.
Great piece of content , wish you the best
Excellent video. Genius in simplicity.
i study psychology, this video is nice
Thanks. I wanted to try my hand at an 'explainer' video that wasn't just: Powerpoint.
When the 3 glass problem was first being described, it was not clear if you had to start with 8 ounces of liquid in the largest glass or if you had a pitcher full to play around with. I mean, he showed all 3 glasses filled with respective amounts of liquid.
"Attach the candle to a wall..." FAIL. In the purported solution, the candle is NOT attached to a wall, just as the chandelier hanging in in the middle of a room is not attached to the patio or the floor.
As my name implies I am a cabinet maker which means I always have very sharp blades with me and I'm always cutting wood products. I had a job with a company installing their European cabinets and as an icebreaker they gave me the 9 dot Problem. Cocky as hell I told them I could solve the nine dot Problem with just one line. My boss told me go ahead and try. I folded the paper in such a way that all the lines lined up pulled out a sharp chisel and cut through all of the folds paper with one line. When I unfolded the paper all the Dot's had a line through them. I got fired that same day.
There's a billion ways to solve that candle problem.
The point of the video is the psychology of problem-solving.
@@edwardroneill Yeah I know but I'm an engineer so I want the problem solved fast and cheaply. Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways... (Sorry couldn't resist! That's a quote from Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars: A New Hope)
1 - Melt the plastic from thumbtacks with matches, then apply the hot plastic to the wall and stick the candle. Light the candle.
2 - Wrap the paper in such a way that you can connect, by going horizontally - relative to the paper - all 3 group of 3 points by one single line. Try it yourself, it takes some time to figure it out.
3 - How can you even know how much did you put into one glass if you cannot measure ? "Measurement is the assignment of a number to a characteristic of an object or event, which can be compared with other objects or events." .. If you cannot assign a number to a some characteristic you cannot do this problem. The problem is the presentation of the problem.
No tacks needed ! Melt the end of the candle from with a match and stick the candle to the wall. Light the candle ! Then put a pot or something under the lightened candle to catch the dripping wax - and don't leave the house ! 😊
Problems were nice. But you dragged them a little too much which made it boring after a while
the 9 dots can be done with 3 lines, all connected in a sort of z shape
The liquid problem seemed intrinsically obvious.
because you've probably seen it already, it's very well known. Or maybe you're very smart
@@mareksajner8567 Hadn't seen it before, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call myself 'very smart', but it seemed immediately obvious that if you were to fill the 5-glass and pour it into the 3-glass, you'd be left with 2 units, which is a convenient factor of 4, and from then on the problem solves itself pretty much.
@@MBKill3rCat Maybe it was because of how he described the problem, because I suspect this is generally asked with higher numbers, but I knew all the problems anyway, so I can't judge. I know it took me several minutes for the first time, although I understand stuff easily. (I think I got 10, 8 and 6 units)
@@mareksajner8567 That might be part of it, aye.
Probably thanks to Die Hard 3
one reason most people fail is not only expecting to only be allowed to think in the box, but also the way the problem is stated.
I have solved the 1st and third question but was stuck on 2nd ..
As you said look problem from different angle.
The nine dot problem? The video gives the solution. Google "nine dot problem" to find more.
Two tacks in the wall and one tack in the middle pointing out, then stick the tack in the bottom of the candle (perpendicular to the wall) and light. I have seen the 9 dot before (had me stumped for a while). water glasses 8-0-0, 5-0-3, 5-3-0, 2-3-3, 2-5-1, 7-0-1, 7-1-0, 4-1-3, 4-4-0.
I think the matchbox is not needed if you make a sort of a wedge between 2 pins that are close together and squeeze the candle between facing away from the wall it should easily hold. Therefore solving this easily!
Wouldn’t the Box of matches light up and burn the house anyways?
Yes, it fucking would and this puzzle is bullshit because of that fact. Unless the candle's wick ends before candle's bottom but you can't know that.
yes, a solution is to put a pin in the bottom of the candle, then use a few other pins (3 or 4) do hold the first pin to the wall
Waoo, that is Amazing😀😀👍👍
very informative. Inspires me to consider different perspectives. Thank you.
Brother, we can pin the candle half way tilted if don't have the matchbox and pinning the 1st pin with 2 pins diagonal to the center of the pin at 45 deg ... Done now you can make a chain of good looking candles on your wall
+ on x connects the nine dots centrally!
That's way more than four lines if drawn as a continuous sequence (you cannot lift the pen)
real problem solving is seeing that at 7:04 is clearly wrong (4=4, yet different liquid amount in each glass) and figuring out what went wrong in the process... all these solution are theoretical, but reality is messy and dealing with that mess is real problem solving
Something about the messiness of this video i.e. drawing crooked lines, spilling the liquid on the table and the dullness of the production i.e. the background music, and monotone voice, makes this video hard to watch.
not really
I liked it v:
orangeflip Sorry you found these things distracting.
I wanted to use physical objects when possible rather than 'clean' digital ones.
The production is not meant to be exciting.
But a more exciting production would be interesting. Maybe you should make a better video.
Triggered
The trouble with near all of these tests is that presents a problem with a suggest limit and to solve them you have to ignore the limit. The match box was not listed as a thing you could use. Drawing a line to empty space was not suggested by the dots. So the person whom solves these things those ways are breaking the rules and open it to nearly any solution. For example the candle thing never said I couldn't put the candle on a wall that was laid on the ground. The dots never said I couldn't fold the papers and push a pencil through it. I find the suggestion of limited options in which when people follow those options their efforts are labeled failure while the solution means breaking the limits to be dishonest.
It's not a question of limits, nor of "dishonesty." The problem sets out the goal and what is required and prohibited. Anything not listed as prohibited is possible.
The "trouble" (as you call it ) with problems is that they cannot be fully defined. But that is not an external "trouble": that is what makes problems problems.
When I went to an interview, there was like a group of 12 ppl, they split us into 4 groups and asked us to build the tallest tower we could with only using marshmallows and pasta they had provided (btw this was just some random exercise they do for whatever reason)
So we're building and im waiting towards the end because everyone is building theirs using marshmallows as connector points and the pastas as beams (obviously) but the problem is that the marshmallows were too heavy and made the tower collapse after a a bit... so, i made my tower, and just as the exercise is about to end I pick apart some mashmallow and just use the insides as glue to connect a spire on top because a whole mashmallow would be too heavy.... and ofc, mine is now the highest tower but everyone looks at me and starts doing the same XDDD not 1 person there thought about using just the inside sticky part as a glue they all used them as connectors/founations to stick the pastas into
fecken plebs copying me with their small brains
Nick Langley Very clever! A competitive group job interview is not the place to ask folks to take risks or instantly form a team....Too much at stake.
Did you get the job?
Nah, I didn't, but there was more to the interview than the small brain exercise... I probably didn't do so well in other areas. However, I'm happy at my current job :) This was a good few years ago!
I remember the marshmallow putty from junior high. Not sure if it was me or someone else that came up with it. A typical commercial office space would probably have dropped ceilings. I'd first try to stick a pasta through the ceiling tile and build downward to a desk, chair, or the floor. Being suspended from the top like that would almost certainly allow for a much taller structure. The 4 person group dynamic is useful for observing teamwork, but it really seems like the groups should be given some isolated R&D time before being brought together if competition and response to winning or losing is to be observed. That way it would be obvious who is copying and who is innovating.
Nick Langley i was actually thinking straight away use the white part i was amazed when i saw that those people were that dumb to use the whole thing lul