Someone posted a Wason selection task the other day with numbers and letters...

EDIT:

3. A phone that is owned by a civilian.

No hostility, I think you maybe just need more logic classes, or perhaps more English classes!

It's ok if you're not native English speaker! It's good to keep learning, keep at it! No need to be angry :)

It's even bolder for retards like you. Person on one side, item on the other. I hope you are neutered

Aww, don't be so butt hurt, at least you tried! :)

Keep going over the problem, you will see your miss-step in time, don't worry, have more faith in yourself!

Actually, I've got some time, so I will give you a hint. Look at where your problem differs from the Watson problem and you'll see where the change in logic has occurred.

I mean, really you have come up with an interesting logic puzzle, you just haven't quite seen why yet! :)

Nice attempt at ad hominem attacks. I think you are being emotional.

youtube.com/watch?v=t7NE7apn-PA

Here is a helpful video to like, legit explain how to get to the outcome.

You don't have to insult or be hostile just because you are wrong. There is no shame in being wrong, but there is a lot of shame in being needlessly antisocial and hostile over a subjective experience of a bruised ego.

I don't have to wish you any harm, you do enough harm to yourself by being the way you are to people you have to interact with IRL.

Not everyone understands language fully, it's not an attack!

Just look at the first sentence in the OP. It's clearly states there's only 1 gun, therefore only 1 owner. Therefore you only need to check the ownership of the gun.

It's a really neat puzzle here because it's not immediately obvious, you have to think around and not assume it's a Watson problem!

You don't have to tell me that you see the solution once you get it, I get this is the internet and you can just ignore me! It's just for your own edification really! Honestly, just read the statement a few times through and really think about it! You'll get there, good luck! :D

This is what happens when one tries to remember logic puzzles instead of understanding them. Tip: a card has two sides and there are four cards, giving us four people and four items.

Yeah, I agree with you! Glad someone else sees this! You have to apply fresh logic to any problem, even if it seems the same! Easy trap to make though, I don't blame the guy!

The first sentence says:

there is a police officer, a civilian, a gun, and a cellphone depicted on 4 cards.

Your conclusion that: "there is only 1 gun" is a non-sequitur. You don't win this argument by trying to nit-pick at semantics/syntax. Dude, you're wrong. There is nothing shameful about it. Just fucking learn and stop demonstrating your hurt ego to everyone reviewing this thread.

I don't see how you're not getting this, you even stated yourself "a gun"

It's the same gun! lol

Also, this selection task isn't literally the same as the classic Wason selection task.

But the principles between the OG Wason selection task and the one I created are the same, thus what I posted is a valid analog to the Wason selection task.

I agree it's an analogue, it's a good one too since it's creates a different solution, really tricks people who haven't read or understood the problem correctly, nice work :)

Then I am extremely glad that I don't see what you see and that I do not think the way you think.

Mate, totally with you, ignorance is a beautiful bliss

Thank you.

There was a researcher who added context to the Wason selection task and was able to get better results by using people's ages (16 and 21) corresponding to beverages (soda and beer) as analogs, then asked what beverages and ages needed to be checked in order to see if under-aged drinking was occurring. He was able to get people to apply logic once situational context was introduced and I thought that was super interesting.

Welcome bro, have a good one :)

Yes, you clearly didn't understand the problem and you're blaming me for that. There is no shame in not understanding problems, but to blame other people, there might be shame to that.

Are you not attempting to blame me? Where's your logic now? lol

I really hope you're 12 or something

Also, the one guy in the thread who is making an ass of himself might be a semi-decent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Blaming you? How am I blaming you?

I said there is nothing shameful about being incorrect.

Being incorrect and bad at logic isn't morally-blameworthy, but being a complete prick and making an ass of yourself to people who actually understand this problem might indeed be morally-blameworthy.

Remember, being incorrect or fallible is easier an easier problem to fix than anti-social and aggressive behavior that arises from having an overly-sensitive ego.

Yeah, I don't see the need for all that insults and bad language, I get it's Yas Forums and edgy, but there's something to be learnt here too, that's who whole point. Makes me sad because I know people like that are just not going to get very far in life :(

Yeah, which is why I feel sorry for you bro. I hope you work through all those issues and stuff, I know it's not easy!

I feel the same way. What kind of irks me is that they then blame their lack of success on everyone else and the entire world for being "wrong" and "illogical".

Wow, yeah, true. Right in the feels!