The categories of animals reminds me of the small world/seven degrees of separation thesis, that you'll know a lot of people who are in a tightly connected group, but you'll also know a handful of people who are distantly connected. These distant connections allow you to (theoretically) reach anyone in the world in seven steps. The people are the animals, the tightly connected groups are the categories of animals, and the distantly connected people are associations to another category.

He missed the entire class of categories that are based on the name of the animal (e.g. starting with the same letter). I think his multiple-personality technique is a neat treat for bringing different kinds of associations to the fore. That's assuming that you have the (now-meta) connection to the appropriate person in the first place. For example, he didn't think of imagining he's a lexicographer.

BTW: I wish he'd leave some white-space to separate hints that he doesn't want you to read.

> Students were asked a series of brain teaser questions. One group of students was told that the questions were invented at their university; the other group was told they were invented in a far away university. Thinking that the test came from far away somehow raised the creativity of the subjects. They answered more questions correctly.

Sheer tripe. Out of two groups, one is going to do better. If the first group had just happened to do better, we'd be reading an article about how thinking something is "close" makes it more "concrete" and raises your creativity, because it's easier to think of things that are tangible -- or whatever other Just-So story they'd invent. The second group didn't have its creativity "raised"; it just happened to be the group that won the coin flip.

Are you saying the difference between the performance of the two groups wasn't statistically significant, or that their methodology is flawed, or that their results were not reproduced in other studies?

It's possible that their theory is bullshit, but it seems like you're discounting the data it is based on without cause.

He is saying that in one single test of two groups, one of the teams has to win. Deciding that they won because of 'x' after the fact is not science.

They decided to see if X would help one team win before they collected results.

Oh okay I missed that. I still question the statistical significance of a single experiment. Still interesting though.

I usually assume that SciAm does a decent job of making sure they print credible articles. So I would generally assume that the experimental design was good.

The best way to improve your creativity? Read books by Edward De Bono. He's the daddy of this area. He invented the term lateral thinking.

Even after reading the whole thing I still couldn't figure out how Jack used the rope to escape from the tower.

  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX => XX XX => XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
  XXXX    XX XX    XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX
                   XX

Lame, I know.

In your interview at a rope pyrochronography factory, they ask you how to time 45 minutes given two ropes that each take an hour to burn.

(The ropes burn uneveningly and unequally. That is, half a rope won't necessarily burn in half an hour, and it won't necessarily be same amount of time as half of the other would take to burn - all you know is that the total time for one rope to burn is one hour.)

Okay - I'm stumped. Care to share the answer? (maybe in a day or so -- to allow others to attempt to puzzle it out?)

(Encoded with rot13.)

Yvtug ebcr 1 ng bar raq, naq ebcr 2 ng obgu raqf. Nsgre guvegl zvahgrf, ebcr 1 jvyy ohea bhg. Gura, yvtug gur bgure raq bs ebcr 2. Ebcr 2 oheaf bhg svsgrra zvahgrf yngre.

Well I think you mean: (rot13) Yvtug ebcr 1 ng bar raq, naq ebcr 2 ng obgu raqf. Nsgre guvegl zvahgrf, ebcr 2 jvyy ohea bhg. Gura, yvtug gur bgure raq bs ebcr 1. Ebcr 1 oheaf bhg svsgrra zvahgrf yngre.

But even then: (rot13) Guvf nffhzrf gung Ebcr 1 ohearq svsgl creprag va gur gvzr vg gbbx ebcr 2 gb ohea. Vs ebcr 1 bayl ohearq bar dhnegre, gura vg jvyy gnxr gjragl-gjb naq n unys zvahgrf, abg svsgrra, nsgre yvtugvat gur bgure fvqr.

(Rot 13)

Anu, vg qbrfa'g nffhzr gung. Vs ebcr 1 gnxrf 1 ubhe gb ohea, naq lbh ohea vg sbe unys na ubhe, gura vg unf unys na ubhe yrsg bs ohea gvzr. Vg qbrfa'g znggre vs gur svefg unys ubhe gbbx hc 10%, 50% be 90% bs gur ebcr yratgu, vg jvyy fgvyy svavfu oheavat va nabgure unys ubhe.

Oh yeah :-)

Vg qbrfa'g znggre ubj zhpu ohearq va 30 zvaf - ol qrsvavgvba gur erznvavat ebcr (ubjrire ybat) jvyy nyfb ohea va 30 zvaf (be 15 jvgu obgu raqf yvg).

Oh yeah :-)

Haha, when I read the question, my first thought was "he takes a knife and cuts it lengthwise. No wait... he might not have a knife. Hmmm..."

It took me a while to realize that cutting it lengthwise was the whole problem.

I thought of a different solution to the one everyone else is pitching. If you could loop the rope you might be able to get it around the tower (if the diameter of the tower is low enough, and if it's not it's a bit of an unusual tower), and then you can 'shimmie' down the tower, working around the rope as you do. I'd expect you'd have better odds doing this then splitting the rope.

If a part solution hadn't been given (tie the rope in a loop) then you might even be able to gnaw through the rope so you have it in two pieces - one to wrap around yourself as a harness so you can slide about as you work the rope down the tower. These solutions do assume that the diameter of the tower is consistent in both directions.

Although if it got thicker on the way down you might be able to loop slack into it higher up and then consume this as you descend.

Most rope has three strands twisted together. Pull these apart and tie them together. Voila - a rope that is 3 times as long (minus knots).

http://www.paddling.net/sameboat/Images/knotrope.gif The image shows what I've now learned is called "laid rope"

This is really good stuff. Interesting topic. Good writing. I like it.

take notes, on everything, review often.

Some people would argue that this reduces creativity... by drilling things into your mind you might lose the ability to think of new things.

I'm not sure which answer is correct, but just a thought.