Our new President-Elect has been holding court in his New York skyscraper receiving all manner of visitors and suitors for various positions within the soon-to-be new government. Our President Elect is a very smart guy, by his own admission. He said he would get the smartest people he can find to run the country for him. One can guess that will leave him more time for golf.
So how does a Smart Guy, actually find other Smart Folks to run the country?
First you start with :
What qualifies one to be a Smart Person?The answer is:
You find the richest person willing to take the job.
The 99% doesn't qualify by definition. The 99% are not rich by anyone's definition including their own.
The 1% doesn't qualify either. Most of these are "single digit millionaires" and are barely tolerated by the truly rich.
The truly rich are the .1%. They qualify as potential Smart Folks, because their wealth is in the billions and billions and billions.
Ability is a secondary or a non-existent concern. The theory being, that if you were clever enough to amass billions and billions and billions you are certainly clever enough to run the government.
So from among the many Smart Folks, as defined by their income statements or Forbes rankings, who are looking for government privileges (or advantages), how can you tell one from another? After all, a few billion here and a few billion there with a few billion stashed in Panama or the Turks and Caicos, there isn't much of a yardstick left.
LOGICPure and simple.
LOGIC
Our President Elect must have an highly enhanced ability to use logic. Our first indication of his ability to use logic is his reaction to the now Not Daily Security Briefings. As he has said, he doesn't need to hear the same thing 7 days a week:
- Russia yadayadayada: check.
- China yadayadayada: check.
- NEXT!
A while back I wrote about the logic fallacy of the commonly held mantra used anyone wishing to justify anything they want to do, especially if those items are illegal or were illegal at the time they did them and now that they have the ability to do them legally, they still want to be able to use the same old mantra ad nauseam. While it takes several posts to step through the entire logic flaw sequence it appears our new President Elect has Got it in One.
There were no WMDs. None. There never were.So we have two important indicators that our incoming President has superb logic and can tell a knight from a knave. Which brings us back to how to tell one wise person from another? It's a logic puzzle called The King's Wise Men.
The story goes as follows:
The King has to pick a new wise person to be his advisor.
He has called the 3 wisest people to his court. He places a hat on each of their heads. The King tells the three wise candidates that the hats are either White or Blue. Each of the candidates can only see the other 2 candidates hats and but they cannot their own hat.
The King tells the wise candidates that at least 1 hat is blue. The King also states that the contest will be fair to all three of them.
The King says that the first person to stand up and correctly state the color of their own hat, will be the new advisor.
After a while, one of the candidates stands up and correctly declares the color of their own hat.
I believe our new President takes groups of billionaire candidates into one of the sumptuous rooms of his skyscraper, sits them down, and places a sorting hat on their heads. If one of the candidates is as smart as our new President, they will know the answer straight off.
But just about anyone can learn how to solve a logic puzzle and should one of the 99% get invited to the Presidential sorting process here is the answer.
The King's Wise Men
Rule 1: It is fair to allThere are 4 scenarios.
Rule 2: There is a at least 1 blue hat
There are 3 candidates and 3 hats. You can see 2 of the 3 hats but not your own.
Case 1.
There are 3 white hats.
This violates Rule 2: at least 1 hat is blue.
Case 2.
There are 2 white hats and 1 blue hat.
If you saw 2 white hats, you would know yours is the blue one (Rule 2) and you would stand up right away. But since no one stands up right away then no one sees 2 white hats.
Since no one sees 2 whites hats and stands up, that means there are at least 2 blue hats.
Case 3.
There is 1 white hat and 2 blue hats.
Each candidate wearing a blue hat would see the other competitors as wearing a 1 white hat and 1 blue hat. The candidate wearing a white hat would see 2 blue hats. But again, no one stands up.
The candidate who sees 2 blue hats cannot determine the color of the hat s/he is wearing, a violation of Rule 1: that the selection is fair. Additionally, provided they have figured out there are at least 2 blue hats from Case 2, those members seeing 1 white and 1 blue hat would stand up right away knowing their own hat is blue. They don't because this is not what they see.
Case 4.
There are 3 blue hats and no white hats.
Each person is wearing a blue hat. They each see the other two with blue hats. Because Case 2 and Case 3 already fail, it can be induced that everyone is wearing a blue hat.
The solution is:
One of our wiser candidates starts working the puzzle with the possibility that s/he is wearing a white hat and sees the other 2 candidates wearing blue hats. If so, one of the other candidates would see 1 white + 1 blue hat and knowing that there are at least 2 blue hats, they would stand up right away, claiming victory.
Because no other candidate stands up right away, the solution is: everyone has a blue hat and our wiser candidate stands up to win.
It should be noted that the rules can change so pay close attention to rules as they are given or alternatively have the NSA/FBI/CIA send you a silent text message with the answer.
References:
- Michael Hayden and the One Question by KimB
- The Answer Is.... by KimB
- Michael Hayden's Dictionary by KimB
- The OH SHYTE Presidential moment by KimB
No comments:
Post a Comment