Futility Closet - 039-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: December 22, 2014

Here are eight new lateral thinking puzzles that you can try on your friends and family over the holidays -- see who can make sense of these odd scenarios using only yes-or-no questions. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the PayPal button in the sidebar of the website. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners. This week we have for you another collection of lateral thinking puzzles, similar to what we did around Thanksgiving. This is becoming kind of a holiday tradition for us, we're finding, because the lateral thinking puzzle segment of the show is kind of unruly, we can never really tell what we're going to get when we record it. Yeah, we really appreciate that people send in terrific puzzles for us to record, but several things can go wrong in trying to record lateral thinking puzzles.

One is sometimes the person trying to solve it already knows a very similar puzzle, so we can't use those. Occasionally, the person trying to solve it is just having a bad day, and the puzzle just goes nowhere. You just can't get any traction at all. And there's just no way to salvage that. And unfortunately, we lose some really good puzzles that way. But there's just nothing that can be done with those. But what more typically happens that goes wrong with a puzzle is either the person solves it very quickly or takes a very long time. And then the length of it is just not right for our show. But there's sometimes still very good puzzles.

Oh, yeah. Often there's still very good puzzles. But they're sometimes still very good puzzles. Oh, yeah. Often they're still very good puzzles. And those are the ones that we collect and put into these collections for people to hear because they just didn't fit for the time requirements that we had. Yeah. So I guess this will become sort of a semi-regular feature where we'll just...

I've set up a system now so we just save the ones that we couldn't fit into the show and we'll start running them in specials like this. So we appreciate everybody that sends in the puzzles and please keep sending them in. And if you don't hear your puzzle on the show, it's probably for one of those reasons that we said. We also want to thank everyone who's contributed so far to the Patreon campaign that we started recently to support the podcast. If you haven't heard what that is, Patreon is a way for listeners to support the show by contributing directly a small amount of their choosing every time we publish a new episode. And we really appreciate every contribution that we've gotten, no matter how small. We also really appreciate the wonderful notes of support we've been getting from people. Yes, thank you. That's been really nice to read. We work really

hard on this thing, and it's great to read some of the kind words people have been writing about. Thanks very much for that. If you want to contribute to the Patreon campaign, you can find us at patreon.com slash futilitycloset, or we'll have a link in the show notes for you to get there more quickly. We're also, we're still getting organized with the whole thing, and we're taking next week off for the holidays. So we won't actually be charging anybody for your pledges until we come back with our first regular show in January. So enjoy these lateral thinking puzzles, happy solstice, and we'll talk to you in January.

This week, I'm going to be trying to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. Greg's going to try to stump me with an odd-sounding situation, and I'm going to have to try to figure it out asking only yes or no questions. This one is true. This one is true. During World War II, German anti-aircraft fire was inflicting heavy losses on Allied bombers. Officials wanted to protect the planes with armor, but armoring an entire aircraft would make it too heavy to fly. So they made a study of their turning planes, noted the areas where they showed the most damage, and planned to armor those areas.

A mathematician considered this plan and suggested an alternative that would produce a better outcome. What was it? plan and suggested an alternative that would produce a better outcome, what was it? Okay. Was the mathematician's suggestion involving putting armor, using armor? Let's start with that. But putting the armor in somewhat different places then would be suggested, oh, you would check the planes that didn't come back because the planes that did come back, they had been able to survive being hit. And so you'd want to know the ones that couldn't survive being hit.

That's exactly right. Oh, I'm so sorry. You had that all planned out and I solved it too fast. Let me give you another one then. I've learned now I just have a stack of them in case you fly through it like that. That was really good, though. That was really interesting. This was submitted. i'm not even surprised anymore when this happens this was submitted by a listener named lauren uh she says uh in 2004 the band they might be giants released

a song never before available on their new album yet yet if they had owned one of the earlier records a fan could have heard the song in 1999. How? Does it involve taking a song that had been previously released and doing something different to it, like playing it backwards or something? Yes. It's going to be a short show this week. Let me read Lauren's explanation because it's interesting. I didn't know any of this. She says, the song is simply another reversed.

On Earth My Nina, released in 1999 on the album Long Tall Weekend, is merely an inversion of Thunderbird, which came out in 2004 on The Spine. The two songs were exactly the same, except for a redubbed vocal track for clearness. A fan could have played the earlier record backward and heard at least the melody of Thunderbird by listening to On Earth My Nina. The interesting thing here in particular is that the song was originally written as Thunderbird, meaning that they released the backward version first, and then only released the forward version on a subsequent album. That is really interesting.

Thank you, Lauren, for that. I thought that was really interesting. This is from Kyle Hendrickson's book Mental Fitness Puzzles from 1998. Pierre went skydiving near his home in Dallas, Texas. As a result, Pierre saved his brother's life. Strangely, though, his brother lived in Boston and hadn't seen or spoken to his brother Pierre for a great many years. How could this miracle have taken place? Okay, these are two human beings. Yes.

Two adult males. Yes. Pierre went skydiving. Yes. And somehow that saved his brother's life. Yes. Pierre went skydiving. Yes. And somehow that saved his brother's life. Yes. Did Pierre take some other action besides skydiving that is important? No.

By skydiving, you mean he jumped out of a plane with a parachute on his back and plummeted towards the earth? Yes. Just checking. That's smart. And he took no other important action other than simply the act of skydiving no did pierre die yes is that how he saved his brother's life because like then his organs were available for transplantation oh. I thought that might've been too easy, but it was good if you hadn't got it. Oh, that would have been great if I hadn't thought of that. Oh shoot. I did this

whole cool introduction too that I really liked. Oops, since we're still recording. Okay. Here's the puzzle. If you look at the Western edge of South Dakota, where it borders Montana and Wyoming, you'll see a mostly straight line with a kink of about one mile where the borders with Montana and Wyoming don't line up. The kink does not benefit any of the states or local landowners and no other states are involved. Why is the kink there? Okay. Does it follow some kind of natural feature like a river? No.

No. And when you say, I want to understand this, you said it's a kink of one mile. That's, in other words, Montana, Wyoming are stacked one atop the other. Right. And so that line down the western edge of, is it North Dakota? Isn't quite. South Dakota. South Dakota isn't perfectly straight. Right. Okay. Does it have to do with the, obviously it would, the history of the state? Yes. Maybe not? Yes, no, I mean yes.

I mean some event that happened in the history of South Dakota. I can't quite answer that. Okay, but it's not topographical, it's not based on some natural feature there. Right. Is it immediately practically useful for some reason? Is it useful to the population of those three states that it works that way? No. So it could be said to be arbitrary?

Yes. Was it done by design? Did someone want it this way? No. Okay. Does any of these borders follow a line of latitude or longitude, anything like that? Not that I'm aware of. In other words, it's not some artifact of that.

Correct. Are there specific people I need to know about? Not specific people. Okay. Was this done by agreement? I mean, would you say it's inadvertent that it just maybe it just came out this way it wasn't yeah yeah let's say that okay do i need to know how the borders were decided somewhat meaning the method that was used to draw the borders no like some states they'll have like a river or something and say, okay, we'll just agree that that's what it was.

It's not that. It's not that. But not some historical chance that led to this. Like some event. I don't even know what battle or something. No, nothing like that. Okay. You said South Dakota.

Yes. Montana and Wyoming. Do I need to know more about the actual details other than what you said? In other words, is it Wyoming or Montana that sticks out by a mile? No, it doesn't matter. So if I'm going along the border, let's say north, along the Wyoming-South Dakota border, and I want to keep following the South Dakota border, I'm going to have to do a little dogleg and keep going.

Yeah. Why is that little dogleg there instead of it just being a straight line? Suppose I'm at the dogleg, at that actual little three-part. Would I notice anything if I just saw it? I don't believe so, no. I'd notice it on a map. Yes. Does the same feature or happenstance, whatever you call it, obtain anywhere else in the U.S. that you know of?

Not that I'm aware of. So this isn't a common thing. It's just a one-time thing. As far as I know. Would any of the three states object to changing it so it's a nice smooth... Not that I'm aware of. I'm not getting any traction here. Okay, so I wouldn't see anything if I were there.

Right. So let's give you a hint. It has to do with the survey of the border, the survey that was done. But it doesn't follow a meridian. Right. It's not associated with any geographical or physical feature. Could it be called an error in surveying? Yes.

Due to some cause, though, that you need to know. Well, cause is maybe not the right word, but an explanation. Okay. They were aligning the border on some, I don't know what to call it, target or guide? No. No. An error in surveying. How much do I need to know about surveying?

Okay. Think about timelines. When would you need to make borders with different states? As they enter the Union? Or as they became separate states. So Montana and Wyoming entered the Union at different times or became separate states at separate times? Yeah, or just needed their borders figured at different times. So they were surveyed at two different times or became separate states at separate times yeah or just needed

their borders figured at different times so they were surveyed at two different times yes and with slightly different results yeah the borders just didn't line up basically two different teams surveyed the borders with the west side of south dakota okay so one figured the border with wyoming in 1877 and they said it okay and then another figured the border with Wyoming in 1877, and they said it. Okay. And then another figures the border with Montana in 1885. Only the two surveys don't line up. And rather than pay to have, like, the whole thing redone, they just kind of made this little dog leg and said, okay, we'll just go with that. All right.

I'll buy that. This one's submitted by listener Pete Miller. A dead body lies on a sidewalk. Next to it are a plate and a mint. What happened? Okay. Okay, a dead body. A human?

Yes. Oh, okay. Oh, I had all kinds of scenarios for goldfish or I don't know. Okay. A dead human lies on a sidewalk. Yes. Does it matter what gender? No.

Does it matter the age of the human? No. Does it matter where this takes place? No. Other than that there's a sidewalk. Yes. Does it matter what gender? No. Does it matter the age of the human? No. Does it matter where this takes place? No. Other than that there's a sidewalk. Right. What I think of as a sidewalk? Concrete and everything?

Yes. Okay. Just checking everything. A plate. A dinner plate? No. Oh. Oh.

A plate made out of metal? Yes. A license plate? No. Bigger than, say, a book? Can you picture what this would... Yes. A plate that would normally be on a sidewalk?

No. A plate of something. Some kind of plate. Plate mail? No. Good guess. All right, let's go on to the dinner mint and a dinner mint did you say a mint a mint uh as in a piece of candy no no of course not um okay something made of metal and a mint i don't know what else you would call a mint some kind of food item? No. No. Something made of metal also? No. No.

Something made of plastic? No. Paper? No. Well, I'm just, okay. A mint. Something small enough for a person to carry? No.

Ah, a mint like a building that produces money, a mint. Yes. Okay. Oh, oh, so a plate from the mint, like an engraving plate from the mint? Yes. Okay. So, oh, um, so a plate from the mint, like an engraving plate from the mint? Yes. Okay. So a man is lying dead on a sidewalk next to a building where money is produced, and there is also an engraving plate next to him. Yes. Okay. Was there some kind of explosion? No. No. Was he stealing the plate? Yes. You've got it. The man was shot by a guard at the U.S. Mint during an attempt to steal a currency printing plate.

Ah. This is from Kyle Hendrickson's book Mental Fitness Puzzles from 1998. Herb gets a job in a new city. On the day of his move, Herb causes a traffic jam without ever leaving his home. How did Herb create such a monumental disturbance? Was it through an inaction of Herb's? Give me an omission of something, like something he ought to have done? And he didn't do?

No. I mean, is he somehow responsible for traffic control things, like stoplights or anything like that? Oh, as part of his job? Yeah. No, no, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I thought, you know, like he accidentally made stoplights go off or something, you know.

I've screwed up the timing of stoplights or something like that. So is it something like that? You mean as part of his job or? Or by not as part of his job, just something he did. Yes, but you ought to feel that out a bit more. Okay. All right. Do I need to know what Herb's job is?

No. Okay. So his job is, what his job is, is irrelevant to this puzzle. That's right. Okay. But, okay, the traffic jam, was it due to something to do with stoplights? No. Stop signs?

No. One-way streets? No. Emergency vehicles? No. Stop signs? No. One-way streets? No. Emergency vehicles? No. A traffic jam on streets outside? Yes. Is that what it was?

Yes. Yes. Okay. With regular full-sized cars, not like a traffic jam of little mini play cars somewhere. play card somewhere um does it matter what kind of street or or conveyance or that the cars were on yes there's something specific about it like it was a bridge or a tunnel or something like that uh was it a bridge yes okay oh it's not uh um drawbridge yes it's some kind of drawbridge Um, drawbridge? Yes.

Some kind of drawbridge? Um, somehow the drawbridge stayed up longer than it was supposed to? Yes. Something to do with a boat? Yes. Herb was on a boat? Yes. Um, Herb's boat was too big for the bridge and got stuck under the bridge and the bridge couldn't lower?

Something like that? Something like that. Okay, Herb is on a boat. Yes. Underneath a bridge. Yes. Does this have to do with his job? No. You said it doesn't matter what his job is. Correct. Does this have to matter? Does this, oh, is the specific location important? The specific geographic location? No. Other than it's on water under a bridge. Yes. Does the specific kind of boat important? Yes. I need to know what kind of boat is causing this problem. What kind of boat? Is it a boat belonging to the Navy or the Coast Guard? No. Is it a boat that normally only one person would be in? No, you've almost got it. It's like a big, like a really big boat. Let me read this again. Okay. On the day Herb gets a job in a new city, on the day of his move, Herb causes a traffic jam without ever leaving his home.

Herb's moving on a boat? No. On the day of his move, he lives on a boat. He lives on a houseboat. Yes, that's it. And the houseboat doesn't fit under the bridge? Yes. Ah, okay. Yes, that's it. And the houseboat doesn't fit under the bridge? Yes. Ah, okay. This first one may go quickly. We'll have to see.

I just thought it was a cute story. It's actually a true story. Okay. In 1930, two men drove from New York to Los Angeles and then back to New York in a Ford motor car. The journey of 3,340 miles took them 18 days they drove on normal roads and the car was not remarkable but because of this journey these two men hold a world record that endures to this day what is it and this is true this is true i actually looked it up in the guinness book of world records from 2013 and this is they still do hold this record wow yeah and this is from 1930 yeah

um that's i thought this was a cute one are they driving backward yes that's the only thing i can think of wow so say that again what's the distance uh it was 3340 miles and it took them 18 days but actually what happened was when they got to L.A., they took a break of 48 hours and turned around and drove the whole way back backwards also. It's just they hold the record for the fastest drive across the U.S. in reverse. According to L.A. Times article on the story, the entire trip took them 42 days to go both directions with their two-day layover in Los Angeles. They traveled day and

night at an average speed of 10 miles an hour, sleeping in a specially constructed seat in the car. And they left the car running the entire time, even during their two-day rest in Los Angeles. They wouldn't turn the car off, although the Los Angeles Times article doesn't say why. So I don't actually know what that was about, but, um, I just thought it was a really cute story. Can you imagine doing that? That's incredible. Okay. Well, apparently that was your appetizer. Okay. Um, lateral thinking puzzle for this week. So now here's a, hopefully the main dish. Okay. Mr. And Mrs. Jones were young and active people. Their next door neighbor, Mrs. Jackson was a 93 year old invalid. One day they asked her into their house to do something that neither of them could do.

What did they need her to do? That's a good puzzle. Oh, and I should say, both of these came from Paul Sloan's 1991 book, Lateral Thinking Puzzlers. I forgot to credit Paul Sloan. Okay. She's 93 and they're just young. A young active couple, yes. Would this have worked if they weren't a couple, if they were just, you know?

Yes. So a young person needs an old person to do something. Did Mrs. Jones have to be in their house to do this thing? It's not just they needed information or something from her? It's not just that they needed information or something from her. But they couldn't have just stopped her in the street and asked her to do this? Or would you say yes? Possibly.

Not sure. Okay. Maybe. Are there other people involved in this? No. And she did it, whatever it was, successfully, and they were satisfied with? Yes. And she did what they had expected her to do yes

okay she's 90 93 isn't particularly important she's just right older than they are yeah is it a okay does it matter what part of the house she went into? Should I pursue that? She's just inside their house. Yeah. Is it a physical act that she's doing? I mean, she's not just telling them something or writing something down. Hmm.

Is it mostly about information? Is she giving them information? No, she's not giving them information. That's not the point of this. That's not the point of this. That's not the point of this. Okay. I was having trouble answering your question, though, as it was exactly worded, but... Yeah, it's kind of a fuzzy line between doing something and...

Okay. Okay. So she couldn't... Mrs. Jones could not have done this if she was their age? No, she could have done this at their age, if she was their age. Meaning, well, okay, by that I don't mean she could have done it in 1942. If she lived next door to them and was the same in all respects except that she was younger physically, would she still have done it? Yes.

Is her gender important? No. Is the location important? No. Is she just a third person? Yes. So her age is not? Not relevant.

So they just need a third person to accomplish something, like putting a star on a Christmas tree or something? Is it something like that? Not like putting a star on a Christmas tree, but yes, they need a third person. Okay, so the essence of this is not that she's older than they are, it's just that they need a third person to accomplish some physical task. Right, and it's something that a 93-year-old could do. Could they have asked another neighbor to do the same thing?

Yes. With equal success? Yes. So they just happened to ask her? Yes. Huh. All right. I don't even know how to attack this. It seems like it ought to be perfectly straightforward. Okay. You had trouble answering whether it was a physical act, right? Well, the way you worded the whole question, because you had two clauses in there.

Okay. So, and you're right. I mean, where's the line exactly for what's a physical act? I mean, what do you consider a physical act? Okay, but the three of them worked together to get something done. You could say that. And it doesn't matter what room of the house this was that is correct is there anything unusual about the house that i need to know no and i said that there's a chance they could have done this in the street it didn't need to be in their house

okay um was she doing something to one of these people no No. Something to a physical object? Was she doing something to a physical object? Manipulating some, I don't know, I'm trying to approach this. Maybe, yeah. I mean, she is manipulating something, I suppose. That's not really the way you'd normally think of it, but I'd have to say yes. Yeah.

Okay, does this, I don't know how to approach this does this have to do with technology or that is something broken or something needs attention no are they moving something no um yeah okay are they all three together when they accomplish whatever this is? Yes. And they're all working on one artifact? I don't know. Sure, let's say that, yes. On one thing.

Yes. Furniture? No. Another person? No. They're not lifting or moving something correct um are they speaking i mean is on some object sort of yeah i mean is it close enough bigger than this table no um bigger than a bread box i'm not sure exactly what size of bread boxes bigger than say you know a toaster or a loaf of bread, small appliance? Roughly that size-ish.

Is what they're working on? Yeah. Is it a meal or are they just... No. Okay. But it's not a piece of technology. It's not technology. It's not a living thing.

It's not a living thing. Do we own one of these, you and I? I don't know. That's hard to say. Probably not. Okay. And they're not repairing it. They're not moving it.

They're not. They're not fixing it. Right. When might you need a third person or another person? It's not part of the husband and wife team you need another person to adjudicate some dispute you said they're not speaking no um they're all working on one thing but not moving fixing talking well working isn't quite the right verb but um interacting with one thing.

Yeah. Is the thing changed in this process? I guess you would say that. And is that the point of this? Is that what they needed her help with? That's hard to answer. Would they describe this as help? What she's doing is helping them?

Not exactly. That's not how you would usually describe it. Okay, this small thing. Is it, okay, you said it wouldn't be a piece of technology? Correct. Is it? Definitely not. Is it?

This could have happened in 1930. Is it one solid mass of some particular substance? Would you say it's a machine? No, no, no. It's not a machine. An artifact of some kind that's made by people? Yes. Would you say she's operating it?

No. Is it a piece of art? No. Can I go after what it's made of? is it made of wood no metal no food no um i'll give you a hint she couldn't have done this if she were blind she's reading something uh-huh in another language no she can read it and she's reading something. Uh-huh. In another language. No. She can read it and she's 93 and they can't. No, that's incorrect.

Is it a book? No. She's helping them read it? She's reading it. No, no. They're reading it to her. No. No. It's not a book.

It's not a book. But it's some kind of writing. Yes. A newspaper? No. Do we need to pursue this more particularly? Sort of, but just think, what do you need a third person for? And she couldn't have done this for them if she were blind.

Well, we said reading, right? Well, part of what she does involves reading, but that's not what she's there for. She's not there to read. But she needs to be able to see to be able to do her task and it's not a ceremony she's performing that's correct um can i pursue what this thing is that she's yeah i suppose reading i suppose it's not technology it's not a book It's not a book. It's not... Right.

It's not any of those things. Printed matter? It is printed matter. A newspaper? No. A periodical of some kind? No. Think about...

I mean, we've probably had occasion where we've needed a third person to do this for us. She's reading aloud? No. She's reading silently with them? Not necessarily, no. Maybe reading just to herself? She's doing more than that.

She's not just here to read. Singing? No, no. Is she moving as she reads? Are there images? No. She couldn't do this if she was blind. She couldn't do this if she was blind. She's reading and she's doing something else.

Yes, and it's actually the something else that she does that's more germane, that that's what they really need her for. Does this involve knowledge she has that they don't have? No. You said no. No, no. This object, could they have brought it over to her house? And she could have performed the same?

Yes. It doesn't need to be in their house. Are they reading at the same time? I think I asked that. No, they're probably not reading at the same time she is. But she's not reading it to them. Right. She has to be able to see.

Not just to read, but she has to be able to see to do her task correctly. I think I'm stuck. When do we sometimes need a third person with a document? Well, what I'm stuck on is to perform a ceremony.

No, no. She's marrying them. No, no, no. We're reading them some document. Okay. She also needs a pen. Oh, she's witnessing. Yes.

The signing of a document. Yes. Do we need to know what the document is? No, no, no. That's it. That's just the husband and wife both had to sign something and they needed a witness to verify. Okay. Their signature. So she's being their it. That's just the husband and wife both had to sign something and they needed a witness to verify their signature. So she's being their witness.

That makes sense. That actually makes a good puzzle. I thought it was really cute because it's very simple, but it actually makes sense. Well, the whole social convention of witnessing a signature is kind of strange if you think about it. Yeah, yeah. How much power that has.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, certainly you could, I'm sure, get someone to lie and say you signed it, but anyway. Well, if you could, I'm sure, get someone to lie and say you signed it. But anyway. Well, if you'd like to send in a puzzle for us to try to use, you can send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.