Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmunn | Hacker News Reader

This. The following question is likely to fool a lot of people, too. "I have a rooster named Pat. (Lots of other details so you're likely to forget Pat is a rooster, not a hen). Pat flies to the top of the roof and lays an egg right on the ridge of the roof. Which way will the egg roll?"

But if you omit the details designed to confuse people, they're far less likely to get it wrong: "I have a rooster named Pat. Pat flies to the top of the roof and lays an egg right on the ridge of the roof. Which way will the egg roll?"

It's not about reasoning ability, it's about whether they were paying close attention to your question, or whether their minds were occupied by other concerns and didn't pay attention.

View on HN

What does “get it wrong” mean for you with this question? Or what is “getting it right” here? If i hear that Pat is a rooster and i understand and retain that information I will look at you like you are dumb for saying such an impossible story. If i don’t i will look at you like you are dumb because how is anyone supposed to know which way will an egg laid on a ridge roll. How are you supposed to even score this?

"Getting it right" for this particular trick question means saying "Hey, roosters can't lay eggs". If someone tries to figure out which way the egg will roll then they've missed the trick. In most cases the person's response will tell you whether they caught the trick or not, though in the case of someone who just looks at you like you're dumb and doesn't say anything I will grant that you wouldn't be able to tell until they said something. But their first verbal response would probably reveal whether they saw through the trick question or not.

For me, I would interpret this as being that actually Pat is a hen and the original premise was mistaken. I.e. Pat is not a rooster.

My interpretation is that Pat is a rooster and he has laid an egg. That's in the question. A normal rooster can't normally lay an egg, but so what, that's completely irrelevant. Maybe Pat is not a normal rooster. Maybe by "lay" an egg, the question meant "put it down carefully". Maybe it's just that the questioner's English is poor and when they said rooster they meant hen.

Exactly this. The question states it as a fact, so why would you go back and point out the inconsistency?

This question is fundamentally different.

The original question used in this example does not contain a logical impossibility. This one does.

Very problematic to think that something's reproductive attributes have to correspond to what gendered noun we call it by.

Tell me you've never done any farming in your life without telling me you've never done any farming in your life. The difference between male and female animals matters, a lot, to farmers (or ranchers). There's a reason the English language has the words cow and bull, sow and boar, ewe and ram, rooster and hen, nanny and billy, mare and stallion, and many more (and has had those words for centuries). And that reason is precisely because of how mammal (and avian) reproduction works. A cow can't do a bull's job, nor vice-versa, if you want to have calves next year, and grow the size of your herd (or sell the extra animals for income). And so, centuries ago, English-speaking farmers who didn't want to spend the extra syllables on words like "male cattle" and "female cattle" came up with handy, short words (one-syllable words for most species, though not goats and horses) to express those distinctions. Because as I mentioned, they matter a lot when you're raising animals.

Some roosters lay eggs.

You might believe there is intrinsic sexual dimorphism among mammals and birds. You might even have overwhelming experimental and scientific evidence that proves it. But ask yourself: is it worth losing your job over?

Some roosters lay eggs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com