Why brain-teasers don't work

Martha Gill's Irrational Animals column.

Question: Beulah died in the Appalachians while Craig died at sea. Everyone was much happier with Craig’s death. Why? Answer: Beulah and Craig were both hurricanes.

Irritating, isn’t it? Brain-teaser questions are all irritating. It’s not that the answers are hard, just that they’re set in a context you’d have to be odd to anticipate. They’re the verbal equivalent of the game where you offer someone a high-five only to slap them in the face, or of dating men in London. Only a hyperalert psychopath could expect to get it right.

But ever since Microsoft decided to use brain-teasers in recruitment interviews back in the 1990s they’ve been spreading like gas in a hermetically sealed kitchen from which you have exactly nine minutes to escape. Tech firms use them; banks use them; Oxbridge has always used them.

They don’t work for hirers, though. They also actively discourage good candidates and have long-term ramifications for a company’s ability to recruit, according to research that came out in October. After putting 360 participants through the mill, Chris Wright of San Francisco State University found that otherwise qualified workers are put off interviews that use brain-teaser questions because they see them as unfair and setting them up for failure.

More than that, Wright found, interviewers don’t know what to do with the answers. The questions are often open-ended with no clear solution, so employers are often impressed with how a retort sounds, rather than what it includes. With open-ended brain-teasers – “Is this a question?” – it’s the smart-arse “Only if this is an answer” that gets points, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the similar “Is your mum a question?” and “Is your face a question?” scored just as high. In Wright’s study, interviewers did a much better job of working out a participant’s skill level after hearing answers to conventional rather than puzzle problems.

In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow the psychologist Daniel Kahneman lists a few puzzles that it’s hard to get right. Here’s one: a bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? The answer most people give is ten cents: “intuitive, appealing, and wrong”. That would make the bat $1.10 ($1 more than the ball) and the total $1.20. The answer is five cents.

Not too difficult to work out, in the end, so why do people get it wrong? Kahneman says that it’s a question of motivation. Some people are simply lazy and some are, by nature, “engaged. More alert, more intellectually active, less willing to be satisfied with superficially attractive  answers, more sceptical about their intuitions.”

But I would go further. Some people are expecting to be asked a brain-teaser question and are trying to impress the questioner, and others are simply trying to end the encounter politely so they can get to the bar. If you’re in the latter category, what the brain-teasers are testing is your sensitivity to context. If you’re sensitive enough, you get the answers wrong. Of course you do. The questioner is indicating left. Why would you ordinarily turn right? It would be a monumental waste of energy to expect the unexpected all the time. Thank goodness most of us don’t.

Infant protégé? Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

This article first appeared in the 05 November 2012 issue of the New Statesman, What if Romney wins?

Adriana Calvo at pexels
Show Hide image

Three’s adblocking trial is terrible news for journalism

Against a backdrop of editorial redundancies, it's hard to feel celebratory about the rise of adblocking. 

In a decision which will delight phone users but strike fear into media companies' hearts, the mobile provider Three is running an adblocking trial across its network from mid-June.

The company says it's considering adblocking as a way to improve its customers' privacy and reduce data costs, which makes sense, up to a point. Ads, especially video ads, can eat up mobile users' data and battery life, and can render already-clunky mobile websites practically unusable.

However, the move comes in a week where both new and old news organisations, the Telegraph and Vice, have laid off staff in a bid to make cost savings. These organisations rely (to differeing extents) on ad revenue. If readers aren't seeing ads, then whoever published and paid for that writing isn't making money, and probably won't be able to pay for that writing for much longer. 

The trial mirrors Apple's launch in September 2015 of an operating system which supported adblocker apps (which unsurprisingly shot up the Apple Store charts). At the time, I wrote about what this could mean for journalism:

Apple's move is just another which puts journalism at the mercy of giant tech companies. The consumption of media is already dictated by the whims of Google's algorithm, with publications forced to redesign sites and tweak content to ensure they rank highly and are indexed by the search engine.

Apple, notorious in the industry for its fanged response to attacks in the press, will now select its own news for readers via its news app. And media producers may now be forced to turn to social media sites like Facebook, where adblockers have less power, to market or even publish their content. 

Without ads, media companies will need to find other revenue streams, which could include subscription or paywall models - great if they work - or more sponsored posts by companies. 

Ads certainly need to become more user-friendly, and Three makes a good point when it argues that advertisers should pay for the data costs of their ads. But if you were saddened by the editorial redundancies across the media this week, take pause before you celebrate the rise of adblocking. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.