The Candle Problem

[sean69]

Two simple cognitive tasks.

1)Yo have the stuff in the pictue and a cork board. How would you fix the lit candle to the cork board so that no wax drips on the floor? (if you cheat your mom's a ho)

--------------------------------------------

2)You have only 15 cents. It's 2 cents to unhook a chain and 3 cents to close it. Link the chains in a closed loop. (if you cheat yo mom's a hooker)

 

[SEXY_SCORPIO]

1. Ya Mamma






























2. Ya Pappy

 

[Andeyhollawho]

I need better explanations here. On the first one anyway. Not getting the visual.

 

[sean69]

I need better explanations here. On the first one anyway. Not getting the visual.

What more is there to explain?

What don't you get?

 

[sean69]

1. Ya Mamma

2. Ya Pappy

 

[grownazzblakman]

Candle Puzzle.

Solution 1...
(Assuming the cork board is attached to a wall, or vertical surface, and you can NOT remove it...)

1. Light 1 candle.
2. Carefully drip a few drops of wax onto the back of 1 thumb tack.
3. Let wax cool just a little so that it does not 'run', then attach waxy thumb tack to lit candle. (warm wax will create a 'bond')
4. Hold together. Allow the wax bond time to fully cool. (For a stronger bond.)
5. Stick lit candle-bonded-to-thumb-tack into cork board. (vertically, wick up)
6. Repeat steps 1-5.
7. Done.

-------------
Solution 2...
(Assuming the cork board is attached to a wall, or vertical surface, but you CAN remove it..)

0. Remove cork board from wall. (use 1 thumb tack if necessary.)
1. Lay cork board down flat, on floor (horizontally).
2. Light 1 candle.
3. Carefully drip a few drops of wax onto the back of 1 thumb tack.
4. Let wax cool just a little so that it does not 'run', then attach waxy thumb tack to lit candle. (warm wax will create a 'bond')
5. Hold together. Allow the wax bond time to fully cool. (For a stronger bond.)
6. Stick lit candle-bonded-to-thumb-tack into cork board. (horizontally)
(Any runny wax from lit candle should drip directly onto cork board, not on floor)
7. Repeat steps 2-6.
8. Tilt cork board up, very slowly. (Allowing any extra melted wax that has dripped onto it enough time to dry before running off the edge, once vertical.)
9. Use last thumb tack to re-hang cork board on wall. (vertically, with lit candles facing up)

 

[melonpecan]

Hmm...


...for me it only takes 12 cents to link the things together...

...as for the candles, empty the matches, use the tacks to put the box on the board. Light the candles and place in box. Box catches wax.

 

[sean69]

Candle Puzzle.

Solution 1...
(Assuming the cork board is attached to a wall, or vertical surface, and you can NOT remove it...)

1. Light 1 candle.
2. Carefully drip a few drops of wax onto the back of 1 thumb tack.
3. Let wax cool just a little so that it does not 'run', then attach waxy thumb tack to lit candle. (warm wax will create a 'bond')
4. Hold together. Allow the wax bond time to fully cool. (For a stronger bond.)
5. Stick lit candle-bonded-to-thumb-tack into cork board. (vertically, wick up)
6. Repeat steps 1-5.
7. Done.

Solution 2...
(Assuming the cork board is attached to a wall, or vertical surface, but you CAN remove it..)

0. Remove cork board from wall. (use 1 thumb tack if necessary.)
1. Lay cork board down flat, on floor (horizontally).
2. Light 1 candle.
3. Carefully drip a few drops of wax onto the back of 1 thumb tack.
4. Let wax cool just a little so that it does not 'run', then attach waxy thumb tack to lit candle. (warm wax will create a 'bond')
5. Hold together. Allow the wax bond time to fully cool. (For a stronger bond.)
6. Stick lit candle-bonded-to-thumb-tack into cork board. (horizontally)
(Any runny wax from lit candle should drip directly onto cork board, not on floor)
7. Repeat steps 2-6.
8. Tilt cork board up, very slowly. (Allowing any extra melted wax that has dripped onto it enough time to dry before running off the edge, once vertical.)
9. Use last thumb tack to re-hang cork board on wall. (vertically, with lit candles facing up)

This answer was actually the most common response to this puzzle.

In any case, both solutions are wrong. What prevents the melting wax from the lit candle from dripping to the floor after everything is mounted? (it's assumed that the cork board is attached to the wall by the way)

Hmm...


...for me it only takes 12 cents to link the things together...

...as for the candles, empty the matches, use the tacks to put the box on the board. Light the candles and place in box. Box catches wax.

Explain how you linked the chains together in 12 cents.

And your solution to the candle puzzle is right.

Functional fixedness is a cognitive bias that limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used.

It's a concept (originating from Gestalt Psychology) in the theory of the mind that suggests that the operational principles human cognition is holistic and parallel. That our senses, particularly visual senses, generate form from objects and figures as whole forms instead of just a collection of the parts. For instance, we see a cone instead of a collection of lines and curves.

 

[grownazzblakman]

This answer was actually the most common response to this puzzle.

In any case, both solutions are wrong. What prevents the melting wax from the lit candle from dripping to the floor after everything is mounted? (it's assumed that the cork board is attached to the wall by the way)

Btw, not to nitpick....
But the red text above was never mentioned (nor implied) as 'a condition that needed to be met'... at the very beginning.

So this puzzle is poorly worded, imo.

Two simple cognitive tasks.

1)You have the stuff in the picture and a cork board. How would you fix the lit candle to the cork board so that no wax drips on the floor? (if you cheat your mom's a ho)

A better 'wording' of this puzzle might be...

How would you fix the lit candle to the cork board so that no wax drips on the floor... after it is has been attached and continues to melt?

To the average person, just getting the candle 'affixed' is the end of the task. Period. Mission Accomplished.
(Since no additional conditions are mentioned, or even need to be met.)

But to support the solution in the diagram, one must 'assume' that the candle needs to stay lit AND CONTINUES TO MELT... long after it has been attached to the cork board.

... otherwise a reasonable person could 'assume' they simply 'blew out the flame' once the candle was secured to the cork board (without dripping any wax). End of story.

So how is that wrong?

Unless, for the heck of it... you just say "the assumption that the candle stays lit" COMPLETELY OVERRIDES "the assumption that the flame gets blown out." (With nothing to back it up contained in the original question. )

C'mon Son.

Based on the 'wording' alone...
- Some assume the candle needs to stay lit.
- Others assume it does not.
- But the task was to attach a 'lit' candle. That's it.
- It doesn't say anything about 'allowing the candle to melt'.
- So if someone blows out the flame (once the candle is attached).... they have met the criteria that was presented. No?

Who's to say who's right? or wrong?
That's the REAL puzzle, imo.

 

[sean69]

Btw, not to nitpick....
But the red text above was never mentioned as 'a condition that needed to be met'... at the very beginning.

So this puzzle is poorly worded, imo.



A better 'wording' of this puzzle might be...

How would you fix the lit candle to the cork board so that no wax drips on the floor... after it is has been attached and continues to melt?

To the average person, just getting the candle 'affixed' is the end of the task.
(Since no additional conditions are mentioned, or even need to be met.)

So one must 'assume' that the candle needs to stay lit AND CONTINUE TO MELT... long after it has been attached to the cork board.

... otherwise a reasonable person could 'assume' they simply 'blew out the flame' once the candle was secured to the cork board (without dripping any wax). End of story.

So how is that wrong?

Unless, for the heck of it... you just say 'the assumption' that the candle needs to stay lit OVERRIDES 'the assumption' that the flame gets blown out. (With nothing to back it up. )

C'mon Son.

Based on the 'wording'...
- Some assume the candle needs to stay lit.
- Others assume it does not.

Who's to say who's right, or wrong?
That's the REAL puzzle, imo.

Right.

Your above in-depth analysis exemplifies one of the key inferences from cognitive psychology on problem solving. i.e., that individuals with [technical] expertise, more often than not, tend to be more prone to functionally fixed cognitive bias and will devote more time analyzing a problem than actually solving it. (Paige & Simon, 1966).

There is no confusion here. The question was worded clearly and concisely.

Sure it's a compound sentence but that's never killed anyone now has it? The subject of the first independent clause in the sentence is "the lit candle". Why the confusion?

Preventing the melting wax from dripping on the floor - the crux of the puzzle - is clearly implicit in the phrase "the lit candle".

Gratuitous extension of the conditions of the puzzle to include scenarios like one blowing out the candle is, again, a by product of convergent thinking and functional fixation.

So. Anyone else think the "wording" was puzzling?

 

[grownazzblakman]

Right.

Your above in-depth analysis exemplifies one of the key inferences from cognitive psychology on problem solving. i.e., that individuals with [technical] expertise, more often than not, tend to be more prone to functionally fixed cognitive bias and will devote more time analyzing a problem than actually solving it. (Paige & Simon, 1966).

There is no confusion here. The question was worded clearly and concisely.

Sure it's a compound sentence but that's never killed anyone now has it? The subject of the first independent clause in the sentence is "the lit candle". Why the confusion?

Preventing the melting wax from dripping on the floor - the crux of the puzzle - is clearly implicit in the phrase "the lit candle".

Gratuitous extension of the conditions of the puzzle to include scenarios like one blowing out the candle is, again, a by product of convergent thinking and functional fixation.

So. Anyone else think the "wording" was puzzling?

Look, I don't know much about 'cognitive psychology' ....

But umm... is it just me.. or did you just use 'semantics' to 'assume' or 'imply' the candle remains lit in order to support that theory?

while disregarding the whole 'blowing out the flame' assumption part... of my solution?

In a nutshell...
The candle gets lit. Then attached. (assume) The flame gets blown out. So no wax to drip.
Clear and to the point.

How is that not a solution?

Meanwhile you just used an ambiguous compound sentence to bypass the faulty wording of the original question.

If you disagree, then I have but one 'compund' question...

Question:
How does someone 'imply' (or assume) the candle remains lit...
Yet is not allowed to 'imply' (or assume) the flame gets blown out?

... in order to solve the puzzle.

Because to me, what you just presented was....
The candle gets lit. Then attached. (assume) The candle continues to melt. So wax will drip.

Ok, so maybe I am stuck on a functionally fixed cognitive bias.
But at least it doesn't 'tap dance' around wording. Now does it? lol.

Just jokes.

Great info, btw. I will have to learn more about it.
Thanks.

 

[sean69]

Look, I don't know much about 'cognitive psychology' ....

But umm... is it just me.. or did you just use 'semantics' to 'assume' or 'imply' the candle remains lit in order to support that theory...

while disregarding the whole 'blowing out the flame' assumption part... of my solution?

The candle gets lit. Then attached. The flame gets blown out. So no wax to drip.
Clear and to the point.

How is that not a solution?

Meanwhile you just used an ambiguous compound sentence, plus added 'vague' terminology to bypass the faulty wording of the original question.

Ok, so maybe I am stuck on a functionally fixed cognitive bias.
But at least it doesn't 'tap dance' around wording. Now does it? lol.

Great info, btw. I will have to learn more about it.
Thanks.

OK. Perhaps we're not effectively communicating here.

I'm not a psychologist either, I just like to read, learn and share stuff - the reason I created the thread in the first place.

Different problems can be solved applying different methodological approaches depending on the nature of the problem. According to people who spend their lives studying stuff like this, it turns out that (counter-intuitively) individuals with specialized skill sets or "expertise" generally tend to approach problems using convergent thinking/rationalization which often times creates a bias that leads them to focus on the solution using simplified familiar rule sets and logic. This is the reason why diversity and team work is emphasized in almost all corporations business models. The whole "thinking outside the box" (no pun intended).

Clearly, some problems are perfectly suited for this kind of approach or there would be a bunch of unsolved technical problems. This in no way reduces the value of their skills or intelligence. Functional fixation clearly shares its utility in the spectrum of problem solving approaches. The world needs highly specialized experts - the reason we have science and technology in the first place. So let's drop that notion shall we.

And yes, I actually did apply semantics, in the linguistic sense, but only to deconstruct the sentence to show you that there was nothing ambiguous there and the phrase "lit candle" actually does imply that it stays lit.

And what 'vague' teminology are you referring to?

Again, does anyone else see a confusion here? Not being facetious, I really wana know.

And I don't have any "theory". I certainly didn't come up with it. I wish I did. But, you admittedly said that the blowing out the candle was an assumption on you part. All I'm saying is that such assumptions cater to the aforementioned bias. What stops the someone else from assuming that, say, the candle is made of a highly volatile paraffin wax that vaporizes once it melts when the candle is lit thereby, as you put it; "no wax to drip" ... hence solving the problem?

Not a reasonably fair comparison? Well then we really get into nit-picking assumptions.

I asked the question the same way it's been asked in the literature.
When you get a chance look it up and see if there's any history of contention about the grammatical framing of the question.

The only mention there is in this respect is when described as "a box containing thumbtacks" instead of "a box of thumbtacks", more subjects were able to solve the puzzle and quicker.

 

[grownazzblakman]

OK. Perhaps we're not effectively communicating here.

I'm not a psychologist either, I just like to read, learn and share stuff - the reason I created the thread in the first place.

Different problems can be solved applying different methodological approaches depending on the nature of the problem. According to people who spend their lives studying stuff like this, it turns out that (counter-intuitively) individuals with specialized skill sets or "expertise" generally tend to approach problems using convergent thinking/rationalization which often times creates a bias that leads them to focus on the solution using simplified familiar rule sets and logic. This is the reason why diversity and team work is emphasized in almost all corporations business models. The whole "thinking outside the box" (no pun intended).

Clearly, some problems are perfectly suited for this kind of approach or there would be a bunch of unsolved technical problems. This in no way reduces the value of their skills or intelligence. Functional fixation clearly shares its utility in the spectrum of problem solving approaches. The world needs highly specialized experts - the reason we have science and technology in the first place. So let's drop that notion shall we.

And yes, I actually did apply semantics, in the linguistic sense, but only to deconstruct the sentence to show you that there was nothing ambiguous there and the phrase "lit candle" actually does imply that it stays lit.

And what 'vague' teminology are you referring to?

Again, does anyone else see a confusion here? Not being facetious, I really wana know.

And I don't have any "theory". I certainly didn't come up with it. I wish I did. But, you admittedly said that the blowing out the candle was an assumption on you part. All I'm saying is that such assumptions cater to the aforementioned bias. What stops the someone else from assuming that, say, the candle is made of a highly volatile paraffin wax that vaporizes once it melts when the candle is lit thereby, as you put it; "no wax to drip" ... hence solving the problem?

Not a reasonably fair comparison? Well then we really get into nit-picking assumptions.

I asked the question the same way it's been asked in the literature.
When you get a chance look it up and see if there's any history of contention about the grammatical framing of the question.

The only mention there is in this respect is when described as "a box containing thumbtacks" instead of "a box of thumbtacks", more subjects tended to solve the puzzle and quicker.

Yeah, that's cool.

But it seems to me that the answer to the candle puzzle clearly revolves around 'implying' that the candle stays lit. (Meanwhile, I am clearly not allowed to 'imply' that it can be blown out. I get it.)

So based on the original 'wording' of the puzzle...

- You have to accept 'the implication' that the candle stays lit... in order to accept 1 solution.
- Or you have to accept 'the implication' that the candle can be blown out... in order to accept the other solution.

Just my opinion. Based on functional fixation cognitive bias, I guess - lol.

At the end of the day....

We can agree to disagree on the faulty 'wording'. I can accept that.
At least I learned another way to solve the puzzle.

But I still like my own solution, tho.

And btw, you really can't say it's 100% wrong... without using any 'implications'... which 'assumes' a specific stance on the issue of the candle burning, or not.
---------------------
Lastly, "What stops the someone else from assuming that, say, the candle is made of a highly volatile paraffin wax that vaporizes once it melts when the candle is lit thereby, as you put it; "no wax to drip" ... hence solving the problem?"

My question to that person is....
- Do you blow out the candle? or does it just keep burning? after you stick it on the wall, that is.

There's your answer.

If that person thinks the candle explodes, or something else completely different happens, then they may also agree that the original question is poorly worded, or lacks enough detail.

Or they may have no opinion, either way, because their thinking is so much more complex than mine that they would probably 'frown upon' on such frivolous questions from me. They probably waay out in the cosmos 'doing their thing' and gots no time for humans, or psychology.

 

[Big Dream$]

hey Sean69...I sent you a PM....

 

[melonpecan]

@ Sean psychological profiling the board.

And your solution to the candle puzzle is right.

And yay! for me





I'm probably wrong about the chains though but to link every end together I saw it was only twelve cents. I'll elaborate on it when I get back - got a deadline.

 

[sean69]

@ Sean psychological profiling the board.

And yay! for me

I'm probably wrong about the chains though but to link every end together I saw it was only twelve cents. I'll elaborate on it when I get back - got a deadline.

OK.

Yeah, that's cool.

But it seems to me that the answer to the candle puzzle clearly revolves around 'implying' that the candle stays lit. (Meanwhile, I am clearly not allowed to 'imply' that it can be blown out. I get it.)

You've taken a very simple question and completely complicated it. The question couldn't have been any more explicit.

 

[sean69]

OK. Here's another (cognitive test) question:

The area covered by water lilies on a lake doubles every 24 hours.

It takes 60 days to cover the whole lake.

How many days will it take to cover half the lake.

(note: the lilies are all the same shape and size, the lake doesn't evaporate and the lilies don't get eaten by vegetarian alligators)

 

[melonpecan]

2)You have only 15 cents. It's 2 cents to unhook a chain and 3 cents to close it. Link the chains in a closed loop. (if you cheat yo mom's a hooker)

It takes 3 to put red and yellow together; 3 for yellow and green; 3 for green and blue; and 3 for blue and red.

3 x 4 = 12

OK. Here's another (cognitive test) question:

The area covered by water lilies on a lake doubles every 24 hours.

It takes 60 days to cover the whole lake.

How many days will it take to cover half the lake.

30 days? Divide 60 by two...

 

[Nasag]

59 days to cover half the lake. He said that it doubles every 24 hours. Once half of the lake is covered it will only take an additional 24 hours to cover the remaining area.

 

[Nasag]

I have to admit on the candle problem I used the thumb tacks to pierce through the cork board and up through the bottom of the candle to make a jerry-rigged candle holder. I honestly did not assume that the cork board was mounted vertically on the wall.

 

[grownazzblakman]

You've taken a very simple question and completely complicated it. The question couldn't have been any more explicit.

Actually, I disagree.
I just looked at the original image that was presented...

And one of the first things I thought was... "the inside of that matchbox does not appear strong enough to support the weight of a candle of that size."

So I just spent time thinking about an alternate solution/s.

And btw, if you compare the original artwork.... to the artwork in the solution...
- There's a 'box' of thumbtacks. (in the solution)
- And a 'book' of matches. (Not a matchbox. )
- Plus a different candle.

Two different illustrations.
But the solution image pretty much has answer already 'drawn up' for the audience, imo.

Because to me, that box of tacks looks alot stronger + slightly larger than than the matchbox.

Honestly, if you had presented the top ('Figure A') portion ONLY of the solution artwork... at the very beginning....

We would not have had this discussion.

But doing that would admit there is a 'slight flaw' in this candle puzzle, right?
(whether it is about poor wording, or 'inconsistent' artwork. There's a small problem.)

Sometimes these minor details can affect a person's judgment, or their approach to the solution, imo.

Sure it's a 'technicality'.. but minor details / technicalities never hurt anyone, now do they?

 

[sean69]

It takes 3 to put red and yellow together; 3 for yellow and green; 3 for green and blue; and 3 for blue and red.

3 x 4 = 12



30 days? Divide 60 by two...

Wrong.

Remember, you have to close the chain links after you open them in order to have a "closed loop" and that takes 2 cents every time you close one. So you have 3 cents left. Not gonna happen.



And 30 days is wrong. Although it was the most common answer given due to misrepresentation of the problem.

59 days to cover half the lake. He said that it doubles every 24 hours. Once half of the lake is covered it will only take an additional 24 hours to cover the remaining area.

Correct.

This is another cognitive psychology test question called "wrong-answer verbal insight problems" used to study fixation.

Questions like this typically elicit the wrong answer at first and then with further insight. Insight problems like this involve "restructuring" of the problem in order to get the solution.

I represented the problem as a mathematical function ... an inverse power series that converges to x.

x = area of coverage and n = number of days.

[1]/[2^(60-n)] = x

Plug in the variable 30 and see what you get. Then plug in 59 and see ...

I have to admit on the candle problem I used the thumb tacks to pierce through the cork board and up through the bottom of the candle to make a jerry-rigged candle holder. I honestly did not assume that the cork board was mounted vertically on the wall.

Cork boards are usually wall mounted, but yea I get how that could have been confusing granted. But again that may be result of over analyzing the problem - the whole idea behind the cognitive test.

 

[sean69]

Actually, I disagree.
I just looked at the original image that was presented...

And one of the first things I thought was... "the inside of that matchbox does not appear strong enough to support the weight of a candle of that size".

So I just spent time thinking about an alternate solution/s.

And btw, if you compare the original artwork.... to the artwork in the solution...
- There's a 'box' of thumbtacks. (in the solution)
- And a 'book' of matches. (Not a matchbox. )
- Plus a different size candle.

Two different illustrations.
But the solution image pretty much has answer already 'drawn up' for the audience, imo.

Because to me, that box of tacks looks alot stronger + slightly larger than than the matchbox.

Honestly, if you had presented the top ('Figure A') portion ONLY of the solution artwork... at the very beginning....

We would not have had this discussion.

But doing that would admit there is a 'slight flaw' in this candle puzzle, right?
(whether it is about poor wording, or 'inconsistent' artwork. There's a small problem.)

Sometimes these minor details can affect a person's judgment, or their approach to the solution, imo.

Sure it's a 'technicality'.. but minor details / technicalities never hurt anyone, now do they?

Box of matches, box of thumb tacks, doesn't matter. There are different versions of the puzzle. The idea is that the box is not viewed only in its conventional function as receptacle for only it's contents.

And yes, I agree, proportion in illustrations could be misleading, but looking at the original illustration I posted, the proportions seem pretty adequate to me. But then again it's up for interpretation based on conventional notions of form and function so I guess so I see your point.

 

[grownazzblakman]

Box of matches, box of thumb tacks, doesn't matter. There are different versions of the puzzle. The idea is that the box is not viewed only in its conventional function as receptacle for only it's contents.

And yes, I agree, proportion in illustrations could be misleading, but looking at the original illustration I posted, the proportions seem pretty adequate to me. But then again it's up for interpretation based on conventional notions of form and function so I guess so I see your point.

Originally, I also thought...

1 or 2 fully-melted candles of that size would probably cause that small matchbox to overflow with wax.

So I just canceled that whole idea.

 

[sean69]

Originally, I also thought...

1 or 2 fully-melted candles of that size would probably cause that small matchbox to overflow with wax.

So I just canceled that whole idea.

Makes sense.

 

[Big Dream$]

hey Sean69...I sent you a PM....

^^^

 

[sean69]

^^^

mybad. I'll check it.

 

[melonpecan]

Wrong.

Remember, you have to close the chain links after you open them in order to have a "closed loop" and that takes 2 cents every time you close one. So you have 3 cents left. Not gonna happen.



And 30 days is wrong. Although it was the most common answer given due to misrepresentation of the problem.

Ok, I might need a definition of a closed loop...I have to open then all and them close them up again? Hmm....



As for the lake thing I haven't started my math classes yet...my head hurt.

 

[sean69]

Ok, I might need a definition of a closed loop...I have to open then all and them close them up again? Hmm....



As for the lake thing I haven't started my math classes yet...my head hurt.

" ... link the chains in a closed loop" = a loop that is closed.

In order to link a chain you have to first open the link and then close the link ... to form a closed loop.

 

[sean69]

Still no answer to the chain problem?

 

[Nasag]

Sorry about that, I thought someone already answered it. I had to stare at it a few moments and realize that the rings color coding had to be some kind of clue to solve this (or a red herring to make it more difficult). I thought that the key to efficiency was to make each opening and closing count. Use each red ring to join the other three ring groupings. First open one red ring and remove the remaining red rings then insert the ... it's hard to describe this so I'll make a quick and dirty pic.

Here it is....

 

[sean69]

Sorry about that, I thought someone already answered it. I had to stare it a few moments and realize that the rings color coding had to be some kind of clue to solve this (or a red herring to make it more difficult). I realized that the key to efficiency was to make each opening and closing count. Use each red ring to join the other three ring groupings. First open one red ring and remove the remaining red rings then insert the ... it's hard to describe this so I'll make a quick and dirty pic.

Here it is....

Exactly.

The colors of the rings really don't matter though. But yea, you unlink any of the three sets of inter-locked chains (that's 6 cents at 2 cents to unhook each one) then use them to link the remaining three sets of inter-locked chains, end to end, and then close each one (that's 9 cents at 3 cents to close each chain) for a total of exactly 15 cents.

I bet you had what's known in cognitive science as an "AH-HA" moment when you figured it out.
Good job.

 

[sean69]

Here's another one:

A baseball and a baseball bat cost $1.10 total. If the baseball bat costs $1 more than the baseball, how much does it cost?

 

[Nasag]

.05 is the cost of the baseball. That one was easy... simple algebra.

x+x+1= 1.10.

2x+1 = 1.10.

2x = .10

x =.05

Math isn't the problem...over thinking is my problem.

 

[sean69]

.05 is the cost of the baseball. That one was easy... simple algebra.

x+x+1= 1.10.

2x+1 = 1.10.

2x = .10

x =.05

Math isn't the problem...over thinking is my problem.

Yes. In the psychology of problem solving it's all about how the problem is represented in ones mind and then how it's restructured.

This was a fairly simple insight problem that could be formalized (algebraic representation) in order to get the solution. Most people tend to give the intuitive knee-jerk answer (10 cents) which results from misrepresentation.