• The _title_ uses the word “people”, but the problem never
indicates that Jill is a person. If Jill were a goldfish
or an alien or a statue, there might be no instances of a
person staring at another person amongst John/Jack/Jill.
But there might be. Thus, the answer is undeterminable.

• The conditions say Jack is not married, but they do not say
that he (or anyone else) is unmarried. In some contexts, the
two terms do not have identical meanings. The person posing
the problem could have made it unambiguous, but did not do so.
Thus, the answer is undeterminable.

• Married according to whom? Jill civilly marries her lesbian
partner Joan in Iowa and the couple then moves to Mississippi.
A few years later, they seek a divorce. John, their attorney,
is looking at Jill. Jill is looking at the unmarried judge,
Jack, who is just about to rule in the case. The answer cannot
be determined.

Finally, the statement of the problem does not restrict its domain to
John, Jack, and Jill. Because there is indeed somewhere in the universe
a married person staring at an unmarried person, the answer is B — but
not as a consequence of the problem’s conditions.

…Call me simplistic, but you could try winning

Be on the lookout for the next Perspective Power message tomorrow. I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions…

Steve

When we’re trying to solve a problem, one of the most effective things we can do is ask the question: What am I missing? And then mindfully flip our Brain-Frame every which way; looking for Outside Insights…You did this, full kudos.

The reason I posted the “Three People Puzzle” is to show how, if we’re given an out (C. Can’t be solved with the limited information given) we take this path too quickly. We stop thinking too soon and, as a result, miss clues to better solutions. The secret is to mentally ‘bracket-off’ our first answer, and keep looking for the second, third and fourth “right” answer.

In other news: I’ve just posted the second part of my “Mistakes Executives Make Managing Change” series, I would love everyone’s observations on these ideas. No puzzles, no ducks…just powerful tactics for managing change.

http://www.stevebedwell.com/bl.....istakes-2/

And, as for your 3 year old’s question re: the duck’s ears. What a great observation! This is precisely the kind of thinking we need to rediscover as adults. I take off my hat to her/his natural creativity, superb! (Obviously a Chelsea supporter.)

Have a great week,

Steve

PS: Julie, what letter?

By the way ask Julie about the letter.

Is it just me, or are you not taking this seriously

Nice to hear from you. And Julie, we’re up to seven comments. Rope in a couple more members of your family (and maybe the dog) and I’ll reveal all

There is a solution to the problem, using nothing more than the information given, which doesn’t rely on peripheral vision or adulterous ducks. This solution also provides what psychologists call a “cognitive snap”. An awareness that you’ve found an intellectually satisfying answer.

I’ll repeat my mega-clue: Look at one of the people from more than one perspective. Sandie and Theresa’s comments are accurate, but their conclusion is wrong.

Bob, I’d be interested to see what your students make of the Three Person Puzzle.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend,

Steve