A game of Abstract Logic

[Jerry Wickey]

Infer the color of each of the four (?) spaces. You need no other information that what is given.

 

For the first row (red, red, orange, orange) One of these is the correct color and in the correct place, you just don't know what. The other three are wrong.

 

For the second row (green, blue, blue, green) Two are the correct color and in the correct place and one is the correct color but in the wrong place.

 

You get the idea. If you want to play more you can go to T H I N K

 

[imatfaal]

 

 

Actually the 2nd row is superfluous

 

from the bottom row you know that 4 colours are R B G B and that none of the positions in answer are same as bottom row. From Top row you can tell that only colour from RBGB is red; so either the first or second R is the one correct/correct - but from bottom row we know red cannot be in 1st position so R must be in second position. You know that other colours are BGB and that you cannot match positions from bottom row so third Must be not-G ie B and 4th must by not-B ie G - this leaves B for first position. Answer BRBG.

Check row 1 = R is correct/correct all others are wrong/wrong. Check row 2 BG in position 34 are correct/correct and B in position 2 is correct colour wrong place. Check row three - RBGB is BRBG all correct colours all wrong positions.

 

you don't need row two

 

 

[Jerry Wickey]

Imat, your are exactly correct about everything even about the second row. It is refreshing to see people who can think. It is scary how many "smart" and "successful" people can't think even half so well.

[lightburst]

People are good at different things and think differently.

 

Einstein and Oppenheimer, for example, played against each other in chess and according to those who know more, I assume, about chess than I do, they don't even compete with the average grandmasters. Two otherwise possibly among the smartest people that ever existed sucked at a strategy game -- a game of the mind.

[Jerry Wickey]

You are exactly correct about strategy games. A brilliant logician should play chess better than most, but it is also possible that someone who plays chess better than a brilliant logician could be of only average intelligence.

 

This is because chess is a strategy game. It has arbitrary rules. A knight moves this way and a bishop moves that way. These rules don't translate into real life situations. One learns chess heuristically.

 

However, this game has no strategy, no tricks to learn. No arbitrary rules. It is only natural logic with all the context removed. If one is very very good at playing chess, the same is not necessarily good at general purpose logic, just the arbitrary rules of chess.

 

On the other hand, if one is good at this game, he must be good at general purpose logic, real life logic. If A is true and B is false than what does that make C? true or false? Anyone who can play this game well, knows how to figure that out and do so completely independently from any arbitrary rules or strategies he might have learned.

[lightburst]

You are equating brilliant logic ability to intelligence. And implying that the ability to play great chess does not imply anything on intelligence. And that logic and chess have no relationship.

 

At this point we'd just be dancing on a head of a pin arguing what it means to be intelligent. But intelligence is also creativity, to see relationships, to rethink something to make it work, learning, to apply what is otherwise inapplicable and make it work. And some other subjective stuff.

 

I say being good at these kind of games is nothing but another personal knack. A knack that implies something about the person's intelligence, but is not the sole arbiter.

[Jerry Wickey]

You repeat your first argument without adding anything. Do you disagree that games like chess rely upon arbitrary rules which do not translate well into real life and that the above game instead has no arbitrary rules? One must use his wits alone in the same way that one must use his wits in all real life decisions which require logic?

 

Or do you believe that this game also uses arbitrary rules arbitrarily constraining the guesses which the player may or may not make?

[lightburst]

I don't see how whether some game has arbitrary rules or not relate to it being more 'for intelligent people'. I don't see how some game being more related to real life be more 'for intelligent people' either.

 

I'd say chess has more parallels to real life than logic games because life is more than just true or false. Variables change. Goals move. I mean you do use logical reasoning but a lot simpler because life is boring like that. The trick is to foresee the unforeseeable. Account for unknowns and predict possibilities. Rational thinking nonetheless, but not quite as polished and contrived as a logic game/test.

 

Chess may have arbitrary rules in the same way Hacky Sack does, but for every chess scenario there is such a thing as an ideal move. You either memorize the ideal move by memorizing the scenarios, or you look for it by thinking. Yea, some players cheat by memorizing but not everyone has savant long-term memorization.

 

It is still intelligence even if you're working under arbitrary rules. Chess, Physics (Nature), The Social Order, the Legal System.

 

You may be able to do these games 'out of the box', if one is endowed enough. But that doesn't create all what it means to be intelligent. The idea may be attractive because the ability is more inherent and you didn't have to learn anything beforehand but I say it's a matter of which framework fits best with your brain.

[Jerry Wickey]

Let's see if I can put it in a different way.

 

General purpose logic can be used to solve this puzzle as well as inform a chess move or a poker hand.

 

However, the rules which constrain players in chess and poker and other arbitrary logic games can not be used to solve this puzzle.

 

This puzzle is not constrained by any arbitrary rules. There are no tricks to solving it. No methods. No shortcuts or strategies. The only thing that works is general purpose logic. So if some gets good at this game, he is good at general purpose logic that can be applied to any subject. This is not true for chess as you accurately point out. But it is true for this puzzle.

[lightburst]

I do agree that there are no 'tricks' to truly solve these kinds of puzzles, and kudos to those people who can solve these things in a snap. And I do agree that 'general purpose logic' is a lot more useful in practically any field than chess skills. But that does not in any way guarantee success in a given field.

 

It may be that there is a correlation between very good 'general purpose logic', which may be something that is in your mind, and in general 'being good at everything'. I mean it could be the case, who knows. But very good 'general purpose logic' does not in itself guarantee all those other things that compose intelligence and therefore does not guarantee success in any particular subject. You may have a better future in math though.

 

Certainly, not being very good at 'general purpose logic' does not also imply lacking all the other things that compose intelligence and therefore does not guarantee failure in any particular subject.

 

Of course, some logic ability is crucial but not the lightning fast conscious kind that these puzzles expect. I'm not sure who said this, but there is this education 'adage' around that goes something like a person that does slower arithmetic than you does not mean she is dumber. it could be that she has a deeper understanding and does it all manually where you instead memorized a table. Of course, the 'table' doesn't apply to this but the essence of it is part of what I'm saying.

 

People are complicated and you cannot assert that the lack of knack for these games means they are not so smart after all.

[Jerry Wickey]

I go along with what you say here.

 

Lightning responses are not needed for this game and your point is well taken. Those who do well at these puzzles usually take a long time.

 

I think it is fair to say that someone who can solve these puzzles will sit and think about it for a while and those same people have a huge advantage in real life problem solving for real life everyday problems.