Futility Closet - 300-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: June 22, 2020

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Intro: In the 1850s, a $5 bill featuring Santa Claus was legal tender in the United States. In 1910 DuPont suggested that "some farmers have a wrong idea about dynamite." The sources for this week's puzzles are below. In a few places we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 is from listener Cody Scace. Puzzle #2 is from listener Jay Graham. Puzzle #3 is from Greg. Here are two links. Puzzle #4 is from listener Paul Rippey. Puzzle #5 is from listener Hanno Zulla, who sent these links. Puzzle #6 is from Greg. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Welcome to the Futility Closet podcast, forgotten stories from the pages of history. Visit us online to sample more than 11,000 quirky curiosities from Santa Claus money to farming with dynamite. This is episode 300. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. This is another special episode of Lateral Thinking Puzzles. These are puzzles where one of us describes a strange-sounding situation

and the other has to work out what's going on by asking yes or no questions. Thanks so much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles for us to try. We can always use more, so please keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. And we'll be back next week with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle. This is from listener Cody Skace. A farmer decided he wanted to grow a particular crop. After buying the seeds and installing an irrigation system, he sowed and fertilized and eventually successfully harvested his crop. He was delighted with the results and promptly threw the harvest away. Why?

Was the whole thing, would you say, some kind of experiment, like he was trying to grow something on the moon or in some kind of weird circumstances to see if it could be done. No. No. Oh, okay. So he grew a crop of something. Would you say these are plants? Yes.

Okay. So he grew a crop of some kind of plants and then threw the harvest away. Yes. Would you say he threw the entire plant away? No. So he threw some part of the plant away yes or something that the plant produced which would you say a part or something the plant produced i'd say a part a part of the plant okay i don't know why that's gonna help but i think of

like apples from a tree they're not really a part of the tree they're something the tree produced so yeah i understand okay so he threw away part of each plant are the rest of the plants still in the ground yes okay okay getting somewhere sort of maybe um but okay so was he would you say this plant is normally a food crop no no got it uh would you say it's used for material i'm not sure what you mean i don't know like cotton or hemp oh i see no um hmm did he want to quote unquote throw away i mean like he was trying to produce something to throw away like he's really composting it or he's doing something that you're calling throwing away that he's really making use of it in some way. No. No. So he's just discarding part of the plant. Yes. But part of the plant is still in the ground. That's right. Should I guess what kind of plant it is? If you can manage to guess it, that would be helpful. Okay. Are we going to go with like a standard size plant, like significantly smaller than a tree?

Yes. Yes. So it's not trees or something really big like that. And it's not a food crop and it's not for material, but it's something else that you grow. Does this have anything to do with fuel? No. What do you grow?

You grow... What do you grow? You grow... What do you make crops for? If not food or materials or fuel? And by food, I mean even for animals to eat, right? Was this something that you would grow for animals to eat? I think I'm going to say no to that. Insects to eat? No. For anything to eat? I don't think you would grow it. For something to eat it. Deliberately for that purpose. Deliberately

for something to eat it. But he grew it for a purpose, you would say? Yes. Well, you say he deliberately planted these things. Yes. Yes, he did. Does this have something to do with somehow cultivating or improving the land, like you grow certain things because they're going to add nitrogen to the soil or something? No. No. Is he trying to improve or cultivate anything? Uh, I sort of can't answer that. I guess I have to say yes. Does it matter where this takes place?

No. Does it matter when? takes place? No. Does it matter when? No. Not really. And you said this is a crop, so it's not something that we would normally consider like to be a weed. That's right. Is it drugs? Is it some kind of drugs?

Saying the word weed made me think. Some kind of drugs. Dang. I'm trying to think, what else do you grow plants for? Was he trying to grow plants for some unusual reason, like to screen something or hide something or cover something? I'm going to say no. Or to be picturesque.

Yeah, let's say yes to that. Oh, like flowers. No, which you're getting on the right track. No, but something more ornamental. Yes. I mean, that was the purpose, really. The purpose was he was growing plants to be ornamental, you would say, to be attractive. Yes.

As part of like a landscaping project. Let's say yes. Let's say yes. But then he threw parts of them away. Mm-hmm. But you're saying they're not actually flowers. Right. Like, is he growing lawn, like grass?

I mean, most people... Yes. A farmer... Oh! You walked backward into that. I was about to say this is not as foreign from your own experience as you might imagine. Well, I don't think a farmer's growing grass, but okay. A farmer decided he wanted to grow a particular crop.

Oh, that's the question. That's the question, but I get it now. He's growing a crop of grass, but not necessarily on his farm. A farmer wanted a lawn in his front yard. Yeah, yeah, okay. After it grew, he mowed it and threw the grass clippings away. I get it now. Which is something a lot of people do and doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you think of it. No, you're right.

This puzzle comes from Jay Graham in Minnesota. A man is binge watching several movies in a row. The first two movies he watches with no difficulty. On the third movie, however, he finds that he is very confused by the plot and does not understand what is happening. He attempts to slog through, but after watching part of the movie, he still feels confused. However, instead of picking a different movie to watch, he simply starts the movie over from the beginning, and this time, he is able to easily understand the plot line. What was changed the second time around? Okay, does this have to do with the titles of the movies? No. Well, I'm just,

never even mind why I ask. I can't even figure that out. He watches two movies and doesn't feel confused about the plot. Right. Even when the second movie starts. Yes. He's okay up to that point.

Yes. So there's something about the third one. Does that have to do movie starts. Yes. He's okay up to that point. Yes. So there's something about the third one. Does that have to do with language? Yes. You look like I've learned something important there, but I can't imagine what that's going to be. Is the third movie in the same,

is the dialogue, I guess, in the same language that the first two movies were? No. But I'm still not out of the woods here. So he watches, presumably he understands same language that the first two movies were. No. But I'm still not out of the woods here. So he watches, presumably he understands the language that the first two movies. Yes. And that's the same language for both movies. Yes.

So I understand why he'd be confused the first time through the third one, but I don't understand why he'd be any better off the second time through. Right. Unless it's just familiarity that... No. Is it that he took the language of the third movie for a different language? That sounds impossible. No.

Oh, was he using subtitles, closed captioning on the second time through? Yes, yes. Jay says the third movie was in the man's second language, which he doesn't understand as well as his native language, so he turned on the subtitles in order to increase his understanding. That makes sense. In 1961, when the Broadway musical Subways Are for Sleeping was poorly reviewed, producer David Merrick published a full-page ad in the New York Herald Tribune.

It listed the names of the city's seven top theater critics and attributed rave reviews such as one of the few great musical comedies of the city's seven top theater critics and attributed rave reviews such as one of the few great musical comedies of the last 30 years and no doubt about it subways are for sleeping is the best musical of the century the publicity made the show a success and none of the critics objected why were the critics all dead full full credit for that answer he went right to the morbid one but no in this case that's not it i didn't even think of that well then they wouldn't have checked okay um okay so i should assume that these living critics had actually not given these positive reviews of the show. That's right.

Okay. So it's not that he somehow took their words out of context and managed to use them. That's right. That's correct. So he was attributing quotes to people that hadn't said the quotes, but they did not object. That's false. That's false. That's false. Ah, something about the ad. He did use those quotes in the ad, and he did list the names of theater critics,

but he didn't actually say that the theater critics said those quotes. Don't need to restate that. Yeah, maybe you should. Okay, let's try this. to restate that. Yeah, maybe you should. Okay, let's try this. Did the ad state that the theater critics had said these quotes, these positive quotes? I'll say no to that. Did the ad imply that the theater critics had said these positive quotes? Yes. Did it do something kind of underhand, like it listed the names of the critics and then said in small print, did not say, and then listed these quotes? No, although that would work just as well, I suppose.

No, that's not it. So the ad implied that these critics had said these positive quotes that they hadn't said. But because it only implied it, is that why the critics couldn't object? Yes. Okay. Is there some kind of humor involved? Is there some kind of joke?? Is like some kind of joke? Yeah, I'd say this was lighthearted.

This was lighthearted. But not like, and they definitely didn't say this about the show, but. No. Was it see the show and see why the critics did not say these positive things about the show? No. So is there some kind of, I don't know, play on words here that I'm trying to work out?

No. Or some kind of deception that I'm trying to work out? I guess you could call it, yeah, like a lighthearted deception, kind of a twist. Like a twist. Were these quotes that the critics had said about a different show? No, you're full of good ideas tonight. Were these quotes that the critics had said about a different show? No.

You're full of good ideas today. Yeah, but they're not getting me anywhere at all. Like, I am no closer. But I have all these good ideas. They're just not the right ones. Okay. So, he said a bunch of positive quotes that sound like they're reviews of the show, but they're not actually reviews of the show. Oh, did somebody say these quotes about the show?

Yes. Somebody did. Yes. Like his mom? Is that your guess? Yes, that's my guess. No. Yes, no.

So he said them himself? No. Was it a specific somebody who said these quotes about the show? How shall I answer that? Yes. A specific one person? No. Was it a specific somebody who said these quotes about the show? How shall I answer that? Yes. A specific one person? No. A specific group of people?

Yes. So a specific group of people had actually said these quotes? Yeah, each quote was, it's sort of what you're imagining. Each quote is attributed to one name. Okay. But you're saying these quotes were not said about the Subway show, Subways Are for Sleeping. No, they were.

They were said about it. He got the critics drunk. Got them to say things. So, okay, let's start again. Let's take one guy. Let's say one of these quotes that you stated was said by one man or woman. One critic. And let's just focus on that one

quote. We can do that? Yes. That one quote was said about Subways Are for Sleeping? Yes. But in some kind of joke. There's a joke involved. Well, the whole...

Setup. The whole setup for this... Yeah. Ad. Okay. Involves a twist. Involves a twist. But yes, this quote is attributed to one person...

Who actually said the quote. Yes. And actually is a theater critic. No. No. Read what you said in the puzzle setup about the names of theater critics. It listed the names of the city's seven top theater critics and attributed rave reviews such as one of the few great musical comedies of the last 30 years. Did he find other people who had the same name?

Yes, he did. Merrick found seven New Yorkers who had the same names as the famous critics, invited them to the show, and got their permission to attribute these reviews to their names. The ad ran in only one edition of one paper, but the publicity kept the show going for almost six months. Merrick later said that he'd had the idea years earlier, but had to wait for New York Times critic Brooks Atkinson to retire because he couldn't find another New Yorker name. Oh, wow. That is so clever. This puzzle comes from Paul Rippey. One day when they were separating the clean clothes, Estelle remarked to Luke, curious, since you retired, I've noticed that even though we both put on clean socks every day, there are usually a lot more of my socks in the wash than yours. Luke and Estelle each have exactly two feet. What's up? Okay, Estelle and Luke, you said-

I like that note there that, you know, it's not that they have a different number of feet. Yes, that is important. Estelle said that to Luke. Yeah. And you said this happened since he retired. Yes. So it didn't happen before that. Correct.

Which means... So she said... Sorry, I'm still assimilating all this. She said that since he retired, when they're separating the clothes, they're finding more of her socks than his. More of her socks in the laundry than his. And that wasn't the case before he retired. Right.

So it would help me to know what job he retired from. No, not necessarily. Socks. But they used to be the same. So he's going through fewer socks after retirement than before. Is that safe to say? I don't think I'd say that. By socks has meant socks.

Yes. Okay. I mean socks. Just clarifying. Sure. Okay. You wouldn't say that. No, I wouldn't.

Is it that some socks are going missing somehow? No. So he's putting fewer socks into the laundry than she is. I wouldn't say that. You wouldn't say that. You wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that. But would you say that fewer socks are coming, of his socks are coming out of the laundry,

like clean socks? Yes. They're not going in, but they are coming out. Ask a specific question. Okay. Ask a specific question, and I will try to answer it given the specific wording of the question. If I understand what, like the last couple of questions seem to be saying

that they're putting an equal number of socks into each round of laundry. They're putting... The two of them. Okay, I'll say yes. Estelle and Luke is his name? Yes. You'll say that?

Are each putting, let's say they're each putting an equal number of socks into the dirty clothes pile. You'll take that? I'll take that. But she's now telling him that they're getting an unequal number out. They're getting more of her socks than his. That is correct.

So that would seem to mean that some of his socks, how do you say this, that go into the laundry are not coming out again? I would not say that. Can you read me exactly what she says again? She says, curious, since you retired, I've noticed that even though we both put on clean socks every day, there are usually a lot more of my socks in the wash than yours. In the wash? Yeah, meaning the laundry.

Um. Duh. And you're saying, okay. So let's take one day. Okay. They each have two feet, I am led to understand. Yeah, they do. So they each wear socks all day.

Yes. Those are four socks. Four socks. And all four of them go into the laundry. Yes. And then on laundry day, they wash. Let's say that's it. Okay.

And then tomorrow, they do the laundry. So there's four socks go in. Okay. Two of hers and two of his. No. Two of hers. No. Two of his?

No. This is certainly lateral. Okay. So she wore two socks. Yes. This couldn't be simpler. so she wore two socks. Yes. This couldn't be simpler. And he wore two socks. Yes.

And all four of those socks went into the laundry. Yes. There's nothing mysterious about the actual laundry itself, about the act of cleaning. Correct. Okay. Correct. So afterward, you've got four clean socks. Yes.

They don't come out? Is that what it is? They do come out. All four of you've got four clean socks. Yes. They don't come out? Is that what it is? They do come out. All four of them. All four of them. But she's saying there are more of hers in the laundry than his. So does that have something to do with the meaning of... What would that mean?

No. It doesn't have to do with the meaning of anything. More socks of hers, even though it was two and two going in and two and two coming out. I didn't say it was two and two going in. You're saying that. Well, there are two of his going in. No.

I said that. No. I said no already. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. One of his?

No. Three of his? No. Two of hers? No. I think one thing that might be confusing you here is that this is extremely unlikely to happen to us. And that's a hint. This situation would just never be able to apply to us.

Because of, how do you even ask that? Why wouldn't it happen to us? We each have two feet. Uh-huh. We wear socks. Uh-huh. If we put four socks in, we get four socks out. Yes.

And they put four socks in and they got four socks out. Three of hers and one of his? No. I don't know what else to ask. Let's say four of hers and zero of his but but why is he wearing her socks yes which is why it couldn't happen to us because we have very different size feet so how would how does that paul says luke looked away sheepishly since he retired he found himself liberated from the conservative dress code he had to respect in his office work. Since Estelle had a drawer full of colorful socks,

Luke would often grab a pair of her socks to wear if he was going out. And Paul had it. As you can guess, it is based on something that actually occurred between my wife and me. You're right. That can never happen with us. You're right. That can never happen with us. This is from listener Hanno Zula. In 2013, citizens of the German city Kirchheim-Unterteck began buying hourglasses en masse. In 2016, the citizens of Fulkach did the same. And in 2019, the citizens of Kloppenburg followed suit.

Why? Oh, my. Okay. These are all cities in Germany? Yes. Would you say that anybody else anywhere else in the world started buying hourglasses en masse or just three German cities? Let's say it's just these cities. Just these cities. So in three German cities, lots of people suddenly wanted hourglasses.

Yes. They wanted to own hourglasses. Yes. They wanted to own hourglasses. Yes. And by an hourglass, do you mean like a little time measuring device with like sand or something? Yes. Okay. Were the hourglasses all for like the same amount of time? Yes.

One minute? No. One hour? No. One day? No. Should I start guessing amounts of time? I'll tell you, it's 15 minutes.

So they sell 15-minute hourglasses. Yes. Which I'm not aware of, but now I know. Okay. And that's really specific. Yes. And they want an hourglass. They don't want to time this on some other kind of device.

That's correct. Okay. Okay. Hmm. And they want to do this in three German cities. Are the dates specifically important? No. But they were different years. Yes.

But that's not important either. That's not important either. It could have all happened at the same time. Oh, okay. Are they using the hourglasses? Would you say that all these people are using the hourglasses to time some kind of activity? Yes. The first thing I think of is cooking, but I don't know.

Are they cooking something? No, they're not. Is this for some kind of like a game or a sport? No. But they all want to time something for 15 minutes. Yes. And they think it would be easier to do this on an hourglass than say like an app on your phone or a digital timer.

Or no, they just want to time something for 15 minutes. Because I mean, you know, they make kind of other ways to measure time. Yeah, this is a, let's call it a social convention. A social convention in Germany? People in these places have agreed that this is something they'll do. Okay. I'm just so totally bewused here.

Okay. But it's not, it doesn't have anything to do with a game. Does this have something to do with dating, like speed dating or something? No, no. I'm trying to think of an oblique way to give you a hint. So there's a lot of people who are planning to do something for 15 minutes, and they want to have a way to time that. Yes.

Yes. And they'll use these hourglasses in public. They'll use these hourglasses in public. So these actions they're taking will be timed visibly to the public. Does this have anything to do with, I don't know, raising money for charity or raising publicity for some kind of cause? No. I mean, I'm trying to think, what would you want to time for 15 minutes? And it doesn't have to do with a game or a sport or cooking.

They're doing different things. They're doing different things for... Is this some kind of challenge? No. But they're doing it in public. When they're doing it in public, would you say that somebody else would be likely to be filming them

or photographing them? No. Okay. They're going about their ordinary lives. And then doing something... Is this politically motivated in any way, would you say? Do I need to know a lot about German customs to figure this out? No, you don't.

This could happen here. This could happen anywhere. Okay. They're going about their lives, and they're going to time something for 15 minutes. Would you say that the person timing themselves... Would you say a person is timing themselves? Yes. The person timing themselves, could they do this totally in isolation if nobody else was around? Yes. Could they do this any time of day or night? Yeah. Could they do this in any kind of location? No, I think I have to say no to that. Do they have to be outside? The timing or the activity that they're timing?

Who could be different? Let me say the other thing they have in common is that they use the hourglasses in their cars. They use the hourglasses in their cars? Yes. They're only supposed to drive for 15 minutes and then they're supposed to stop driving? No. No. Okay, so you're driving in your car. No.

I don't know why I'm finding this so funny. I just can't figure this out at all. I'm not driving. You're sitting in your car. Yes. With the car turned off. Right. For 15 minutes.

No. No. No. Okay, you're sitting in your car with the car turned off. And I have an hourglass. You have an hourglass. And I haven't started using it yet. You're waiting for something to happen.

No. You're planning to time something. Yes. So I set the hourglass going. Okay. And then I don't want to tell you too much. Then did you leave the car? Yes. So you're in your car.

You set the hourglass for 15 minutes. Right. And your goal is to do something and get back to the car before the hourglass runs out? Yes. So I have to figure out what it is you plan to do. Right. Does this have anything to do with your occupation? No.

Some kind of hobby? No. And I've told you it might be any number of things that I'm out there doing. Does this have something to do with you're not supposed to park in certain places for more than 15 minutes or you don't want to get a ticket or something like that? Yes. That's basically it. The hourglasses regulate parking. Generally, if you want to park in a metered space in German city streets, you have to buy a prepaid ticket. Those can cost more than three euros per hour, which is a lot if you're just making a quick stop to buy a loaf of bread or to use an ATM. So these towns have started selling hourglasses that can be used instead. You park your car,

attach the hourglass to your windshield or dashboard, and run your errand. If you can finish it in 15 minutes, then there's no penalty. Although the authorities say they'll find people who try to cheat by turning the hourglass over again. Archibald Ormsby Gore and John Betjeman were lifelong companions, but when Betjeman went abroad, Ormsby Gore never accompanied him. Why not? Were they all humans? Both humans? No.

Ah. But they were lifelong companions yes was either of them a human that'd be a good puzzle yes one of them was human oh well because i mean they would have more matching lifespans if one if they were both the same species so the one he went abroad was human yes and he didn't bring his pet something or other with him. But they were lifelong companions. Oh, it's not necessarily a pet. Okay.

Backup. Is one of them a non-human animal? No. Oh, it's not even an animal. So he had something that he had given a fancy name to, but it's... Would you say it's a living thing at all? No. So it's not even like a plant.

Right. Okay. So this guy had a companion that's like a teddy bear or something. Yes. Was it a teddy bear? That's exactly it. It was a teddy bear. And this is, I didn't even have time to say this.

John Betjeman, the British poet, who at one point was a poet laureate, Archibald Ormsby Gore was a teddy bear. And this is, I didn't have time to say this, John Betjeman, the British poet, who at one point was a poet laureate, Archibald Ormsby Gore was a teddy bear. Betjeman retained his childhood teddy bear throughout his life, even during his tenure as poet laureate of the United Kingdom. He didn't take Archie abroad for fear that customs inspectors might rip him open

searching for drugs. Instead, he sent him affectionate letters, which a secretary was required to read to the bear. When Betjeman died in 1984, Archie was buried in his arms. I'll throw in an obscure word as a bonus. An arctophile is a person who collects or is very fond of teddy bears. Oh, that's a very sweet puzzle. Futility Closet is supported entirely by our incredible listeners. If you'd like to contribute to our celebration of the quirky and the curious,

please check out our Patreon page at patreon.com slash futilitycloset or see the support us section of the website at futilitycloset.com. While you're at the site, you can also graze through Greg's collection of over 11,000 bite-sized amusements. Browse the Futility Closet store, learn about the Futility Closet books, and see the show notes for the podcast with links and references for today's puzzles. If you have any questions or comments for us or a puzzle to send, please email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and performed by Greg's amazing brother, Doug Ross.

Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.