Who do you choose? Email I got to make you think!

[tm37]

Got his as I did my final email check for the night.

Enjoy!



THIS WAS TOO INTERESTING NOT TO SHARE.

You are driving along in your car on a wild, stormy night. You pass by a bus stop, and you see three people waiting for the bus:
1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect man (or) woman you have been dreaming about.

Which one would you choose to offer a ride, knowing that there could
only be one passenger in your car?
Think before you continue reading.
This is a moral/ ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application. You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first; or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the prefect chance to pay him back. However, you may never be able to find your perfect dream lover again. The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer.


What did he say?






















He simply answered: "I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him/her take the old lady to the hospital; I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the woman/man of my dreams"

Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought limitations. Never forget to "Think Outside of the Box."

 

[yakko]

I would just drive on by thinking it sucks to be them.

 

[Nocturnal]

<< Got his as I did my final email check for the night.

Enjoy!



THIS WAS TOO INTERESTING NOT TO SHARE.

You are driving along in your car on a wild, stormy night. You pass by a bus stop, and you see three people waiting for the bus:
1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect man (or) woman you have been dreaming about.

Which one would you choose to offer a ride, knowing that there could
only be one passenger in your car?
Think before you continue reading.
This is a moral/ ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application. You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first; or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the prefect chance to pay him back. However, you may never be able to find your perfect dream lover again. The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer.


What did he say?






















He simply answered: "I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him/her take the old lady to the hospital; I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the woman/man of my dreams"

Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought limitations. Never forget to "Think Outside of the Box." >>



Word

 

[luvya]

<< Got his as I did my final email check for the night.

Enjoy!



THIS WAS TOO INTERESTING NOT TO SHARE.

You are driving along in your car on a wild, stormy night. You pass by a bus stop, and you see three people waiting for the bus:
1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect man (or) woman you have been dreaming about.

Which one would you choose to offer a ride, knowing that there could
only be one passenger in your car?
Think before you continue reading.
This is a moral/ ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application. You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first; or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the prefect chance to pay him back. However, you may never be able to find your perfect dream lover again. The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer.


What did he say?






















He simply answered: "I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him/her take the old lady to the hospital; I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the woman/man of my dreams"

Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought limitations. Never forget to "Think Outside of the Box." >>


Nope! Nobody can touch my car!!!!!!! IT'S MINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

People who quote stuff like that just to add a few meaningless words are very annoying btw.

Anyway, I'd give an even more annoying answer:

Depends on what side of the road they are waiting on in the first place.

 

[rgwalt]

Is running the entire group over with my car a possibility?

Anyway, cool e-mail and a good answer.

Ryan

 

[SHoddyCOmp]

That guy was ingenious to think of that. Anyway though it would also depend if you could trust your old friend not to gank your car too he could have turned into a car theft ya know, been doing hard drugs for the last 5 years and not even remember you lol, jk

 

[obiwaynekenobi]

whoa
cool answer.

 

[tm37]

I really liked this.

Glad some of you did to.

I know I would have said the old lady.

Which is why I still have the job I do.

 

[chickendinner]

id make money off them

 

[Doggiedog]

That sounds like a question you get in Ultima 4.

I guess that guy who interviewed ended up as a Paladin.

 

[SpecialEd]

<< Never forget to "Think Outside of the Box." >>




tm37!!! step away from the box...





(only funny if you've seen that stupid cell phone commercial)

 

[rudder]

Why did the guy who said he gave up his car keys get the job? Was he so sure of the his friend's ability to drive, maybe he drives too fast on a wet surface and kills both him and the old lady. Maybe the old friend who saved your life is pissed at you cause he lost his hearing while rescuing you (kinda like Cop Land). And then just steals your car. And the person that they hired must be so arrogant to think he can just stop and chat with some lady of his dreams and think they would automatically fall in love. I would take the old lady because I am sure of my driving abilities and would make sure she gets to the hospital. I would not dump it off on someone else just for a chance at a piece of ass. Gotta really think outside the box sometimes.

Maybe the guy that got hired will like to dump crap off on his coworkers so he can chase the secretary. Stupid human resource people.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Why did the guy who said he gave up his car keys get the job? Was he so sure of the other person's ability to drive, maybe he drives to fast on a wet surface and kills both him and the old lady. Maybe the old friend who saved your life is pissed at you cause he list his hearing while rescuing you (kinda like Cop Land). And he just steals your car? And he must be so arrogant to think he can just stop and chat with some lady of his dreams and think they would automatically fall in love. I would take the old lady because I am sure of my driving abilities and would make sure she gets to the hospital. I would not dump it off on someone else jsut for a chance at a piece of ass. Gotta really think outside the box sometimes.

Maybe the guy got hired will like to dump crap off on his coworkers so he can chase the secretary. Stupid human resource people. >>


Your thoughts mirror mine for the most part. Why burden the friend with the job of helping the old lady just so you can score? However, I don't think any of that has to do with why the guy got the job. Normal thinking patterns dictate that you must choose 1 of the 3 passengers, and most people will look at it as a moral dilemma, and the question being asked as indicating:
1) You are a helper
2) You reward those who have helped you
3) You are a horny bastage

However, the guy who go the job showed an ability to think of the problem from a perspective different from what was presented to him/her, and that is a quality many people look for when hiring someone. Solving problems often comes from being able to look at the problem from a different perspective.

 

[Descartes]

His answer proves that he can't even follow the story. You cleary said...

"Which one would you choose to offer a ride, knowing that there could
only be one passenger in your car?"

You didn't say, "What would you do knowing you could only have one passenger?". Also, as others have said, I would never think of giving "an old friend" the keys to my car, so it wouldn't even cross my mind.

 

[killface]

<< 1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die. >>


Oh come on! All old people look as if they're about to die.

 

[Descartes]

<< However, the guy who go the job showed an ability to think of the problem from a perspective different from what was presented to him/her, and that is a quality many people look for when hiring someone. Solving problems often comes from being able to look at the problem from a different perspective. >>



A different perspective is one thing, but an obfuscated perception of the story is another. The limitations imposed ("offer a ride", "one passenger") negate the possibility of "handing over the keys". One could go so far to say that, as there's only one passenger "in your car", you could simply strap the other two to the roof

Stories like this are bs.

 

[rudder]

However, the guy who go the job showed an ability to think of the problem from a perspective different from what was presented to him/her, and that is a quality many people look for when hiring someone. Solving problems often comes from being able to look at the problem from a different perspective.

Good point. But in my experience, I have yet to see any human resource folks with psychology degrees tat would be able to interpret questions like this without being spoonfed. Hopefully they would be smart enough to realize the guy answered the way he did becuase he can look at it from a different perspective rather than the fact that he just wants some tang and likes to dump crap off on other people to get it.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< A different perspective is one thing, but an obfuscated perception of the story is another. The limitations imposed ("offer a ride", "one passenger") negate the possibility of "handing over the keys". One could go so far to say that, as there's only one passenger "in your car", you could simply strap the other two to the roof

Stories like this are bs. >>


It is narrow minded to read the question and assume you cannot hand over the keys as part of the solution. The thought of strapping someone to the roof is negated by the fact that it was a stormy night, not to mention human decency, but handing over the keys to your car to a friend is plausible (maybe the guy drove a Yugo and doesn't care if the friend runs off with the keys). Remember, this is not a get-the-priests-to-the-other-side-of-the-river-before-the-cannibals-eat-them logic problem. Too many people read the question and assume because it says "offer a ride" and "one passenger" that there cannot be any other solution to the problem. Almost any problem has more than 1 solution, and it is the creative thinkers that come up with the solution noone had thought of before that deserve the recognition for what they are.

 

[Spooner]

I thought this was a very interesting little story, although Descartes brings up some very valid points. I fully agree with his posts

 

[Paunchy]

<<

<< Never forget to "Think Outside of the Box." >>




tm37!!! step away from the box...





(only funny if you've seen that stupid cell phone commercial) >>



We want to chaaaaaaaange the para-diggum!

 

[Descartes]

<< It is narrow minded to read the question and assume you cannot hand over the keys as part of the solution. >>



So, one suffers from some sort of myopia for reading a story, and logically deriving a response (ambiguous as it may be) from the defined constraints? Perhaps dopamine flows more freely to my frontal, rather than my temporal, lobes.



<< The thought of strapping someone to the roof is negated by the fact that it was a stormy night, not to mention human decency, but handing over the keys to your car to a friend is plausible (maybe the guy drove a Yugo and doesn't care if the friend runs off with the keys). >>



Now you're embellishing once again, which is what one would have to do to derive the response that was given in the first place. You created the idea of a storm, I did not create the "offer a ride" and "one passenger" constraints.



<< Remember, this is not a get-the-priests-to-the-other-side-of-the-river-before-the-cannibals-eat-them logic problem. Too many people read the question and assume because it says "offer a ride" and "one passenger" that there cannot be any other solution to the problem. Almost any problem has more than 1 solution, and it is the creative thinkers that come up with the solution noone had thought of before that deserve the recognition for what they are. >>



Not to turn this into a flame fest, but this sort of "creative embellishment" is just a way of rationalize the fact that many people horribly obfuscate the meaning of a story. This occurs often in religious contexts.

I admit to being a pragmatist, but this doesn't mean I'm not creative, nor does it mean I suffer from some form of intellectual myopia.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< So, one suffers from some sort of myopia for reading a story, and logically deriving a response (ambiguous as it may be) from the defined constraints? Perhaps dopamine flows more freely to my frontal, rather than my temporal, lobes. >>


No, one suffers from myopia by assuming that because you would not solve a problem a particular way, then no one should be allowed to solve it that way.



<< You created the idea of a storm, I did not create the "offer a ride" and "one passenger" constraints. >>


What part of "You are driving along in your car on a wild, stormy night." did you not understand? Oh, the "wild, stormy night" part.

<< Not to turn this into a flame fest, but this sort of "creative embellishment" is just a way of rationalize the fact that many people horribly obfuscate the meaning of a story. This occurs often in religious contexts.

I admit to being a pragmatist, but this doesn't mean I'm not creative, nor does it mean I suffer from some form of intellectual myopia. >>


But if you cannot admit that there exists another solution to a problem than your own, then you are suffering from intellectual myopia. There is no obfuscation going on here. Again, you assume that because the problem was worded in a specific way that logic dictates it must be solved using exactly those parameters given. While this will work for most purely scientific problems, the creative thinker can look at the problem and realise that the problem never said he could not give his or her keys to the friend, and a new solution to the problem presents itself.

 

[Hammer]

I would tell him BS space for one passenger. My friend and I once fit 5 chicks in an eclipse hatchback, if we can do that, we can do this.

 

[Descartes]

<< No, one suffers from myopia by assuming that because you would not solve a problem a particular way, then no one should be allowed to solve it that way. >>



There you go being "creative" with your interpretation again. Where did I say that no one should be allowed to solve it that way? You said...



<< It is narrow minded to read the question and assume you cannot hand over the keys as part of the solution >>



Thus I refuted your comment. Your are of the opinion that to not derive this response is "narrow minded", I simply manifested the reductio ad absurdum.



<< What part of "You are driving along in your car on a wild, stormy night." did you not understand? Oh, the "wild, stormy night" part. >>



That much is clear. What is *not* clear, is that this was *not* in the original story! I was being facetious with my "strap them to the roof comment", but you refuted my statement with a "fact" (your words) that didn't exist in the original story.



<< But if you cannot admit that there exists another solution to a problem than your own, then you are suffering from intellectual myopia. >>



Where did I say that my solution to the problem was the only one? I'm simply saying, that with the information presented in the story, the lack of such a "creative" response is NOT, in any way, indicative of lack of creativity.



<< There is no obfuscation going on here. Again, you assume that because the problem was worded in a specific way that logic dictates it must be solved using exactly those parameters given. >>



If it said that, "only two people can reside in the car at any given time", then one could at least consider the possibility of handing over the keys.



<< While this will work for most purely scientific problems, the creative thinker can look at the problem and realise that the problem never said he could not give his or her keys to the friend, and a new solution to the problem presents itself. >>



Some people are more frontal, some are more temporal. Neither is more accurate, I'm simply presenting a different viewpoint.