Forget it. It's crap.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:15 pm

Puzzles like this can help determine if your thought patterns resemble those of a psychopath.

A woman is at her mother's funeral when she meets a guy who has come to pay his respects. He says he's a family friend but she has never seen him before. Despite this, she instantly falls in love with him but he's gone before she's had the chance to get his name or number. Nobody else seems to know who he is. Three days later her sister dies.

What happened?

EDIT: Title changed

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:31 pm

Is it possible to expect to be disappointed?

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:16 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Is it possible to expect to be disappointed?

Do you mean me not receiving any replies? I've got no problem with that. I've just chucked it out there and if it falls flat, so be it. If you think I should edit out that last line, just say so and I will.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:17 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Is it possible to expect to be disappointed?
Do you mean me not receiving any replies? I've got no problem with that. I've just chucked it out there and if it falls flat, so be it. If you think I should edit out that last line, just say so and I will.

No, I mean these puzzles are always stupid because there's a million possible explanations and the chance of me thinking up the same one as you is, well, slim. You don't want to be the new Kieran Child, do you?!

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:23 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:No, I mean these puzzles are always stupid because there's a million possible explanations and the chance of me thinking up the same one as you is, well, slim.

Oh I see. Okay, I'll add a clue and remove that last line.

Charlie Reams wrote:You don't want to be the new Kieran Child, do you?!

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:37 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Is it possible to expect to be disappointed?
Do you mean me not receiving any replies? I've got no problem with that. I've just chucked it out there and if it falls flat, so be it. If you think I should edit out that last line, just say so and I will.
No, I mean these puzzles are always stupid because there's a million possible explanations and the chance of me thinking up the same one as you is, well, slim. You don't want to be the new Kieran Child, do you?!

Not if you know how to google
(but I still don't know how to use the quote facility properly)

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:42 pm

There's a clue? Sheesh.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:43 pm

Phil Reynolds, via PM, wrote:He's the doctor who diagnosed the mother as having the incurable congenital disease which killed her. He can't tell the woman at the funeral this because of patient confidentiality, but her sister has the same condition.

Amiright?

It's a fantastic answer, one I've not heard before. But you're not a psychopath.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:45 pm

Ian Volante wrote:There's a clue? Sheesh.

Yep, the fact that it's encouraging you to think like a psycho. That should narrow the possible answers down a bit.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:50 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:There's a clue? Sheesh.
Yep, the fact that it's encouraging you to think like a psycho. That should narrow the possible answers down a bit.

He shagged her sister to death and farted in the general direction of her auntie? While wearing bloomers? That would appear reasonably psychotic to me.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:06 pm

Ian Volante wrote:He shagged her sister to death and farted in the general direction of her auntie? While wearing bloomers? That would appear reasonably psychotic to me.

Also not the answer. Incidentally, 'psychotic' and 'psychopathic' are quite different things. But keep guessing.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:10 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:these puzzles are always stupid because there's a million possible explanations and the chance of me thinking up the same one as you is, well, slim.

Alec Rivers wrote:it's encouraging you to think like a psycho. That should narrow the possible answers down a bit.

I don't get these things. Maybe my mind just doesn't work how it's supposed to.
"This could have a million answers, how can I choose one?" pops into my head rather than suddenly finding myself thinking of a particular scenario.
I think of the existence of a multiplicity of 'correct' answers, without spending a moment actually thinking of a single specific circumstance of any one of those answers.
Maybe that's cos when I read it it was still a "puzzle" and not a "psychology test" so I was still approaching it in a "sort the evidence out, find THE right answer" way.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:11 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:He shagged her sister to death and farted in the general direction of her auntie? While wearing bloomers? That would appear reasonably psychotic to me.
Also not the answer. Incidentally, 'psychotic' and 'psychopathic' are quite different things. But keep guessing.

What, so there is a single answer? There isn't. There can't be. Am I fucking dumb or what? Bring back Kieran Child.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:13 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:He shagged her sister to death and farted in the general direction of her auntie? While wearing bloomers? That would appear reasonably psychotic to me.
Also not the answer. Incidentally, 'psychotic' and 'psychopathic' are quite different things. But keep guessing.
What, so there is a single answer? There isn't. There can't be. Am I fucking dumb or what? Bring back Kieran Child.

Wow, I had a mind meld with you there, Matt! I was just typing a similar thing, and I also added "Can we have the old Kieran Child back, and let this guy do puzzles sometimes if he wants to too? I like puzzles that make you think, and the answers to Kieran's never reached the "d'oh" level of someone like Douglas Wilson."

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:41 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:No, I mean these puzzles are always stupid because there's a million possible explanations and the chance of me thinking up the same one as you is, well, slim.
Oh I see. Okay, I'll add a clue and remove that last line.

Charlie Reams wrote:You don't want to be the new Kieran Child, do you?!

Uh oh - Charlie's premenstrual again .

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:52 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:What, so there is a single answer? There isn't. There can't be. Am I fucking dumb or what? Bring back Kieran Child.

Okay, it's all gone Pete Tong because the way I initially presented the question was unclear, and my subsequent amendments actually made matters worse. Tell you what, here's the answer that would suggest a psychopathic mind: It's the woman who kills her sister in the hope that the guy will come to that funeral as well, so she can meet him again.

Sorry for the balls-up.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:13 pm

I fail to see how you messed it up. All the information to get to that point was there. It's just none of us got it - which can only be a good sign can't it? We may not be sharing the forum with any psychopaths.

Having said that, I didn't seen your original post before the edit though.

Liam Tiernan · Post by **Liam Tiernan** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:44 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:No, I mean these puzzles are always stupid because there's a million possible explanations and the chance of me thinking up the same one as you is, well, slim.
Oh I see. Okay, I'll add a clue and remove that last line.

Charlie Reams wrote:You don't want to be the new Kieran Child, do you?!

Uh oh - Charlie's premenstrual again .

Says the woman who posted this

Sue Sanders wrote:
Liam Tiernan wrote:In no particular order:
Life of Brian
Raising Arizona
Manon des Sources
The Magnificent Seven
The Great Escape
Saving Private Ryan
The Majestic
Unforgiven
Blade Runner
The Shawshank Redemption
Manon de Sources - good call, and yet, Jean de Florette not listed. Are you missing a chromosome?

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:09 pm

Wow, how long have you been waiting to do that.
(oh shit, I used a false stop and now I think it should have been a question mark).

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:25 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:Wow, how long have you been waiting to do that.
(oh shit, I used a false stop and now I think it should have been a question mark).

Surely you needed an interrobang‽

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:33 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:false stop

What's that then?

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:50 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:false stop
What's that then?

It's the opposite of a false start; e.g. where you erroneously carry on typing even though you've already finished the sentence grapejuice entropy Belgium.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:05 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:false stop
What's that then?

Can't believe I did that, I have a blind spot for certain words and phrases.
I think I should wear a fools top for writing that one. (or made to jump up and down on one leg. Geddit)
I used to think that the song "When will I see you again" was sung by Frieda Greaves.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:45 pm

A fools top! (A fool's top?) Brilliant. I'm going to replace my hairshirt with one.

Oh dear, the chromosome remark wasn't meant to be a festerer! But if anyone is thinking of watching the fabulous 'Manon de Source', the way for glorious, heartbreaking tragedy of it is paved in the first part of the story - 'Jean de Florette'. Anyone wanting to sit down in from of the telly for six hours of beautiful French cinematography, with a box of tissues should seek the two films out

(full stop/false top/fools top) > > > .

Period. Oh, back to Charlie's cycle again!!!

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:36 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:What, so there is a single answer? There isn't. There can't be. Am I fucking dumb or what? Bring back Kieran Child.
Okay, it's all gone Pete Tong because the way I initially presented the question was unclear, and my subsequent amendments actually made matters worse. Tell you what, here's the answer that would suggest a psychopathic mind: It's the woman who kills her sister in the hope that the guy will come to that funeral as well, so she can meet him again.

Sorry for the balls-up.

Oh dear, I just pm-ed you this scenario which confirms the diagnosis of many eminent psychiatrists.

You didn't balls this up though: people assumed it was a puzzle when it's a multi-scenario option response, your choice of which determines if you are a nutter or not.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:49 pm

David O'Donnell wrote:Oh dear, I just pm-ed you this scenario which confirms the diagnosis of many eminent psychiatrists.

And I just read your pm before seeing this post. lol. I'm sure you'll understand my curt reply.

David O'Donnell wrote:You didn't balls this up though: people assumed it was a puzzle when it's a multi-scenario option response, your choice of which determines if you are a nutter or not.

Thanks. I agree, but I couldn't be bothered to defend it so I just gave up.

David O'Donnell · Post by **David O'Donnell** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:36 pm

On second thoughts, you did seem to call it a puzzle but maybe that doesn't imply there is only one answer.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:42 pm

David O'Donnell wrote:On second thoughts, you did seem to call it a puzzle but maybe that doesn't imply there is only one answer.

Yeah. It was called 'a puzzle' in the title to begin with (I think), and then later described, as you can see now, in terms of "Puzzles like this".
'Puzzle' doesn't necessarily imply there's only one answer, but I think it certainly implies that you're supposed to use the evidence presented to work something out.

This was more of a psychological survey

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:54 pm

I came, I saw, I concurred.

Sorry, no idea what the Latin for that is.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:08 pm

Cameni, Sarone, Concurrious. Maybe.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:18 pm

Lol, well done Matt. I was trying to think of a funny response to that, but gave up.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:45 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:Lol, well done Matt. I was trying to think of a funny response to that, but gave up.

I'm not entirely sure I succeeded either.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:30 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Cameni, Sarone, Concurrious. Maybe.

No veni, vidi then?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:43 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Cameni, Sarone, Concurrious. Maybe.
No veni, vidi then?

I refuse to believe for a single second that you didn't know what it was yourself, or that you actually wanted someone to supply the right answer, unless there was some kind of punchline you planned to follow up with. If that is the case, then this should please you:

Veni, vidi, vici.

Fire away.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:40 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Cameni, Sarone, Concurrious. Maybe.
No veni, vidi then?
I refuse to believe for a single second that you didn't know what it was yourself, or that you actually wanted someone to supply the right answer, unless there was some kind of punchline you planned to follow up with. If that is the case, then this should please you:

Veni, vidi, vici.

Fire away.

Erm, no punchline, I'm afraid. My post initially just read "I concur". I thought that was boring so I changed it to "I came, I saw, I concurred" but, not knowing 'I concurred' in Latin (not 'vici', as that means 'I conquered'), I decided instead to draw attention to my not knowing.

"Veni, vidi, concuri" perhaps?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:54 pm

Ah yeah, my bad. I thought you were requesting someone to post Veni, vidi, vici which is obviously mind-blowingly obvious, so you can see why I expected some sort of punchline!

Veni, vidi, viconcur it is then.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:52 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Veni, vidi, viconcur it is then.

If you say so. lol. I never studied Latin.

Thanks, btw.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:22 am

I speak latin like a native

I came I saw I fell asleep

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:57 am

I've seen this before with the line that 98% of serial killers get this right. My aunt's a criminal psychiatrist and it's not a test she's ever used on any of her patients (or even heard of). Also, I tried it at someone else's family party and was horribly embarrassed when the very sweet 15yo daughter got it right. What they don't tell you is the percentage of perfectly normal people that get it right (although I was relieved not to!). Still, all that said the answer's quite a nice one and it's interesting.