|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Aug 1, 2009 16:51:52 GMT
But i disgree with what is deemed the correct answer!
Does that make me a woo Bob?
I am scared
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Aug 2, 2009 3:48:28 GMT
It just means you still need to understand how the given answer, is the most correct one.  The fact that you have spelt correctly, and have not used "lol" as an answer in the debate is usually a good indication you are not too "woo"  Did anyone else see that owl?  |
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Aug 2, 2009 9:21:21 GMT
What owl?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Aug 2, 2009 9:34:37 GMT
Didnt you hear the noise Barb?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Aug 2, 2009 19:16:54 GMT
Oh I think I get it a hoot of a laugh you mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomroberts on Aug 2, 2009 21:57:34 GMT
Oh I think I get it a hoot of a laugh you mean. barb, it might be owly sounds - t-wit, t-WOO! Sorry.  |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Aug 2, 2009 22:53:31 GMT
too woo |
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Aug 2, 2009 23:02:04 GMT
OK, I am a twit and a little woo,  but cuddly with it. |
|
|
|
Post by tomroberts on Aug 2, 2009 23:47:07 GMT
OK, I am a twit and a little woo, but cuddly with it. Please allow me to send you an everso gentle cuddle! And please forget twits and woos. T. |
|
|
|
Post by fluffet on Aug 3, 2009 6:25:09 GMT
lol  Whoops ....awwwww shucks ....the lure of the lol was too strong |
|
|
|
Post by ogre on Aug 3, 2009 18:36:03 GMT
Sorry if I've missed this in my read of the last 4 pages, but I think you've all missed the possibility that the child (like me) was adopted.
In that case your nice probability distribution goes out the window (as it does in the previously mentioned cases of it's NOT her kid) because factors like the fertility of the parents / wealth [what are the odds of Maddona's next child's ethnicity and gender??) / job (she could be a foster carer).
This question is not an excercise in critical thinking, it's an excercise in making wild assumptions based on too little evidence.
If we were all Sherlock Holmes or Marple or Poirot, we would examine the child and woman and look for similarities between them.
However 90% of the people I met when growing up just went "oh don't you look like your mum / dad?" which gave me an indication of their sincerity (but did sometimes make me wonder if they knew who my biologicals were).
As has been said (to my mind) the answer is to use the tools we have and just ask her, or read the documentation. Get some evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Aug 3, 2009 19:56:32 GMT
I understand your point ogre, but I disagree. It is to do with pure probability, not observation of the similarity. It is a pure critical thinking excercise, and it is not designed to account for every variable, but rather the statistical probability. Of course it would not always be correct, for the reasons you mentioned, and others. By adding different variables like adoption after the question has been posed, it changes the nature and circumstance of the question thereby adding the possibility of a different answer. I had no idea you were adopted though. How did you find that experience? |
|
|
|
Post by fluffet on Aug 3, 2009 19:57:07 GMT
Thats exactly the thing Ogre , these type of "critical thinking" questions are stuck in pure math and not in what a person would actually do if they just HAD to find out the sex of the mothers other child. Sure if they didnt want to ask , investigate , gather any other evidence or do all the things many have suggested they would be stuck with using math to come to a possible answer but not THE answer just the probability of one of the possible ones being right with the tiny evidence they did have. In reality if someone wanted to know the answer they would sack the math and just ask or investigate further . It kind of reminds me of all those hypothetical questions you used to get in maths you know the ones where if you filled a 20 litre bath that had a faulty plug that leaked half a litre a minute with a 1 litre bucket with a hole in it that leaked half the contents each time you emptied it whilst balancing a turnip on your head how long would it take you to figure out all you had to do was fix the bloody plug and turn on the tap instead ;D I see the point of the original question , i see the way in which the question would have to be stated to get the answer that was given by Jigsaw, i even see the practical applications of the math behind it , the point i think is in real everyday life people dont just go with the only information they have if they can find out more and come to a definative answer thats why people often find it hard to look at problems in a purely mathmatical way because rarely are we confined to having to use pure math alone . We ask , we investigate, we get more information....to me thats as important to encourage in people as using math is |
|
|
|
Post by ogre on Aug 3, 2009 20:37:49 GMT
Hi Bob. I've always had problems with exams as I tend to dissect the questions.
If the question is not going to give you the answer (what is the gender of her other child) then it's not really worth asking.
On the adoption, It has had an effect over the years (not necessarily negative). After I found my biologicals it gave me a real insight in to nature / nurture. As said it gave me a benchmark for people's sincerity (though I didn't realise it until I got older).
It's something I've been aware of since being told about it by my parents when I was about 5 or 6 (can't remember exactly).
And I agree with you fluffet, I do admire those who can pose the theories, but at some point somebody has to go out and test them. Maybe it is a failing in me, but I wouldn't even form the question as posed, if I was idly curious about the 2nd child I'd either ask or not spend any time worrying about it.
I mean the woman could also be a benefit cheat, claiming for a non-existant or dead child, or even an imaginary one that she's convinced some bored DSS clerk exists.
Imagination can open up SOOooo many more possibilities than maths. Maths won't get you a definative answer.
I'd apply this "question" to the problem we have with space exploration. For the last 40 years there's been far too many theoreticians sending out robots, the public gulled into inactivity by Star Trek or SG1. We should have been sending out boots on the surface.
|
|
|
|
Post by fluffet on Aug 3, 2009 21:21:16 GMT
|
|
but cuddly with it. 
