Photo by http2007

This is my 200th post. Thus, I can now say I’ve written hundreds of posts, instead of dozens. It will take 1,800 more posts before I can say I’ve written thousands, so this is a nice milestone!

I heard about this puzzle from @marelisa on Twitter, and I found a related but harder version on Wikipedia. It’s known as either Einstein’s Riddle, or The Zebra Puzzle. Albert Einstein allegedly created it as a boy, and he said that only 2% of the world’s population could solve it.

While it’s not clear whether it was actually created by Einstein, the 2% figure seems about right, especially because most people haven’t tried a puzzle like this before. But if you’re feeling up to it, I’ll give both versions of the puzzle, followed by some tips on how to do it.

---

Here’s the version of Einstein’s Riddle that Marelisa found. (Note there’s no zebra in this one.)

- In a street there are five houses, painted five different colors.

- In each house lives a person of different nationality.

- These five homeowners each drink a different kind of beverage, smoke a different brand of cigar, and keep a different pet.

Einstein’s riddle is: Who owns the fish?

Necessary clues:

1. The British man lives in a red house.
2. The Swedish man keeps dogs as pets.
3. The Danish man drinks tea.
4. The Green house is next to, and on the left of the White house.
5. The owner of the Green house drinks coffee.
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
7. The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill.
8. The man living in the center house drinks milk.
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
10. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
12. The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.
13. The German smokes Prince.
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
15. The Blends smoker lives next to the one who drinks water.

---

Here’s the version of The Zebra Puzzle in Wikipedia. This is the first known publication of the puzzle, from 1962. While similar to the version above, it’s significantly harder. As far as I can tell, it requires making a guess from multiple possibilities, then looking ahead to see how it pans out, and backtracking if it doesn’t work.

1. There are five houses.
2. The Englishman lives in the red house.
3. The Spaniard owns the dog.
4. Coffee is drunk in the green house.
5. The Ukrainian drinks tea.
6. The green house is immediately to the right of the ivory house.
7. The Old Gold smoker owns snails.
8. Kools are smoked in the yellow house.
9. Milk is drunk in the middle house.
10. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
11. The man who smokes Chesterfields lives in a house next to the man with the fox.
12. Kools are smoked in a house next to the house where the horse is kept.
13. The Lucky Strike smoker drinks orange juice.
14. The Japanese smokes Parliaments.
15. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.

Now, who drinks water? Who owns the zebra?

(In the interest of clarity, it must be added that the five houses are in a row, each is painted a different color, and their inhabitants are of different nationalities, own different pets, drink different beverages, and smoke different brands of cigarettes.)

---

Here are some tips.

I can’t imagine solving these puzzles without using a chart to keep track of what you know. Most people would use a chart like the following, where it starts off blank and you fill in the words as you learn what’s in each house.

This is how the chart would look near the very beginning, after applying the clue that milk is drunk in the middle house.

House	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
Nationality
Color
Drink			Milk
Cigar
Pet

But this is what I did. I started with a chart listing all the possibilities. For example, each of the drink cells started off with “Water Tea Orange Milk Coffee,” which I abbreviated here as “WTOMC” so it fits. Then I began deleting options that were impossible.

Below you can see how it looks after learning that milk is drunk in the middle house.

House	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
Nationality	NUESJ	NUESJ	NUESJ	NUESJ	NUESJ
Color	YBRIG	YBRIG	YBRIG	YBRIG	YBRIG
Drink	WTOC	WTOC	M	WTOC	WTOC
Cigar	KCLPO	KCLPO	KCLPO	KCLPO	KCLPO
Pet	FZHDS	FZHDS	FZHDS	FZHDS	FZHDS

This way is more cumbersome, and I would only do it on a computer, not on paper. But I think it makes it easier to keep track of what you know, and therefore easier to solve the puzzle. That’s because you can track every possibility you rule out, instead of only writing something down after you’ve ruled out all other possibilities.

One more tip: cross out clues after you no longer need them. As the list of clues shrinks, you fill in the details, and eventually find out who owns the fish or the zebra.

Photo by AMagill

The Matrix trilogy presents a number of yin yang pairs, one of which is seen in the Oracle and the Merovingian. Although they take on the form of humans in the matrix, they’re actually computer programs. And they’ve been designed to specialize in different kinds of logic.

The Oracle is gifted with foresight based on inductive reasoning. Although she’s not actually psychic, she was specifically created for the purpose of understanding humans, and this gives her amazing powers of prediction. She can effectively see into the future, up to the point where free will presents a choice. She says nobody can see past a choice they don’t understand, thus showing her limitations.

The Merovingian is gifted with hindsight based on deductive reasoning. Believing that everything is determined by cause and effect, he thinks that someone’s power is based on their understanding of why events unfolded the way they did, and he understands this quite well. But his ability makes him overconfident, because he really doesn’t know everything. For example, he didn’t know that his wife would turn against him, because he saw no cause that would create that effect.

The Merovingian and the Oracle are opposites in this regard, and he dismisses her as a silly fortune teller. He laughs at Neo and his friends for visiting him just because the Oracle advised them to, when they didn’t really know why they were there or what they expected to happen. They were just blindly following orders, without knowing the answer to that all-important question: why?

But despite his mocking, the Merovingian secretly desires the Oracle’s powers of induction to complement his powers of deduction. And understandably so, when you consider what one could do with both of them.

This post is fairly long and complicated, but it’s virtually guaranteed to boost your reasoning skills. Read it once, then enjoy the benefits of improved logic for a lifetime.

Inductive reasoning

The Oracle inductively knew that Neo was coming, and she was ready with cookies in The Matrix (1999).

With inductive reasoning, you reach a conclusion that is believed to be true but not guaranteed. Specifically, you use observations of particular cases to make a generalization. While this may not seem logical, we do it all the time.

Here’s a common example:

“The stock market has averaged 10% annual returns in the past, so it’s reasonable to expect that it will continue to do so.”

Statements like this are often followed with an admission that 10% returns are not guaranteed. As they say, past performance does not guarantee future results.

However, predicting 10% returns based on available data seems preferable to ignoring the past, and deciding that returns of 10%, -100%, or 1,000,000% are equally probable. In other words, we naturally want to make a prediction, so we should make one that fits the pattern.

The card game Mao is based on inductive reasoning. New players are not told what the rules are, because the point of the game is to figure out the rules. Players have no choice but to observe the game, make many mistakes, and slowly piece together the rules by induction.

Here are some examples of so-called strong induction:

“Mary always hates horror movies, so she’ll hate this horror movie.”

“I’ve never seen a green canary, so your canary is probably not green.”

“Technology has changed a lot in the last 100 years, so it will change a lot in the next 100 years.”

“White eggs have a hard shell, so brown eggs must have a hard shell.”

“Five channels are showing static, so the cable is out.”

“Penicillin killed these bacteria, so it will kill other bacteria.”

“Pi does not terminate or repeat after the first million digits, so it never terminates or repeats.”

This is called strong induction because the conclusion is likely to be true, assuming the premise is true.

However, these statements could be stronger if the wording were more specific. What does it mean that “Mary always hates horror movies?” Which ones, and how similar are they to the one you’re predicting she’ll hate? You could also say she’ll probably hate the movie, to acknowledge the possibility that she might not.

Here are some examples of what’s called weak induction:

“I could run fast 60 years ago, so I can run fast now.”

“I always sleep until noon, therefore everyone always sleeps until noon.”

“I made a wish and it came true, so all wishes come true.”

This is weak induction because the arguments aren’t very convincing at all. There’s a very weak link between the premise and the conclusion.

However, what one person considers weak induction, someone else may consider strong induction. For example, Isaac Newton induced his theory of gravity from observing the motions of planets and falling apples. This theory was undoubtedly met with varying degrees of resistance, depending on how strong someone considered the induction to be.

Any induction, particularly weak induction, carries the risk of overgeneralization, which can lead to prejudice and delusion.

Rejecting inductive reasoning

On the other hand, if you don’t generalize at all, that’s a problem too. If you know how to drive a Camry, it would be crazy to say that you don’t know how to drive a Corolla because it’s a different model. We have to generalize to survive.

I know a baby who rejects inductive reasoning. When he gets hungry, he cries. Most babies will stop crying when you start feeding them, but not him. He knows that just because baby food satisfied his hunger last time, there’s absolutely no guarantee that it will satisfy his hunger this time.

So he keeps crying, while mom shovels food into his mouth as fast as she can. He doesn’t stop crying until he actually feels full, and therefore has proof that his hunger was satisfied. And he’s a big baby, so this takes two jars.

You can imagine how his mom feels. She inductively reasons that since he’s done this every time, he’ll continue to do so for a while. Wouldn’t it be nice if her baby used inductive reasoning to determine what was likely to happen, instead of insisting on a guarantee?

Deductive reasoning

The Merovingian deductively believes that every cause and effect has already been determined, so he just sits back and enjoys himself in The Matrix Revolutions (2003).

With deductive reasoning, you apply known rules to given data to prove a conclusion. Unlike inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning lets you arrive at a guaranteed conclusion, as long as your reasoning is sound. This is what we usually think of as “logic.”

For example:

“The sum of the angles of every triangle is 180 degrees. In this triangle, two angles are 45 degrees, so the remaining angle must be 90 degrees.”

We like deductive reasoning for a couple of reasons. One, we’re so used to thinking of it as the definition of logic. Two, it’s a lot more certain than inductive reasoning, and people like certainty.

However, it also gives us false certainty. Suppose you’re looking at an animal, and want to prove that it can fly. So you use this logic:

“This animal is a bird. All birds can fly. Therefore, this animal can fly.”

There are a couple of problems here. Most importantly, the claim that all birds can fly is false. For example, penguins can’t fly. We call an argument like this valid because the deduction was logical, but not sound because it’s based on a false premise.

Also, how can you confirm that it’s a bird? On a math test, you’re given all the information you need. But in the real world, a problem won’t necessarily be set up so conveniently.

The problem with deductive reasoning is that it’s like an insurance policy that guarantees to pay off, but only if a particular set of conditions is met exactly. And you’d better read the fine print. It’s easy to be far more confident in the outcome than your logic warrants.

The deduction above is relatively simple, but verifying the preconditions is extremely difficult. How do you know it’s a bird? Because it looks like other birds you’ve seen? That’s inductive reasoning. What’s the definition of a bird anyway?

Is it true that all birds except penguins can fly? What about chickens? They can fly a little, or can they? What’s the definition of flight? What about injured birds? What about birds that are afraid to fly?

Math is logical, but filled with assumptions

Math makes heavy use of deductive reasoning, but it’s a lot less solid than we might think. Think back to your high school math. You learned how to deduce many things, but it was all based on a set of axioms that we just assumed to be true.

Some of these axioms seem obvious, like “all right angles are congruent.” Of course they are. How could they not be? But that’s an assumption that can’t be proven. Some axioms seem stupidly obvious, like “if A and B are true, then A is true,” or “x = x.” It hurts your head to even imagine them not being true, but we need to make these assumptions to support everything else.

In geometry, we even have three undefined terms: point, line, and plane. This goes beyond unproven – they’re not even defined!

For over 2,000 years, Euclid’s assumptions of geometry seemed so obvious that no one questioned them. Today, we need to specify “Euclidean geometry” when referring to the version that seems obvious to us, because there are different versions where these assumptions are violated.

Far from being an unquestionable universal truth, Einstein suggested that Euclidean geometry is a good model of physical reality only if the gravitational field is not too strong.

Yes, math is very logical, and you can say that A is definitely true, if you assume that B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are true. But in that case, what have you really proven?

An attempt at inductive reasoning in math

Say we have a function f, where

f(x) = x⁶ – 15x⁵ + 85x⁴ – 225x³ + 274x² – 120x

OK, but what is this, really? What’s f(0)? You plug it in and see that f(0) = 0. OK, what about f(1)? That’s also 0. You try f(2), f(3), and f(4), and they’re all 0 too. Looks like a pattern is emerging.

You try f(5) and get 0 again. Now you’re getting tired of this. Obviously, f(x) = 0 for all whole numbers x, right?

Nope, because f(6) = 720.

This is the problem with inductive reasoning. You can observe as many specific cases as you want, but you’ll never prove a generalization from observation unless you observe all possible cases.

However, our observations are still helpful, because we can apply deductive reasoning to them. The fact that f(0) = 0 means that x is a factor of f(x). The fact that f(1) = 0 means that x – 1 is a factor of f(x), and so on. By factoring everything out, we find that

f(x) = x(x – 1)(x – 2)(x – 3)(x – 4)(x – 5)

This form is much simpler, and now we can see exactly why f(x) = 0 only when x is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

So while our inductive reasoning failed, our observations turned out to be fuel for deductive reasoning.

Let’s try another one.

Mathematical induction

Let’s say you want to prove that 1 + 2 + 3 … + n = n(n + 1) / 2 for all natural numbers n. This seems far from obvious. How would you even get started?

Well, let’s plug in some numbers and check. It’s true for n = 1. Also 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10…

But we saw in the last example that just because something is true for ten or a thousand or a million cases, that doesn’t guarantee that it’s true for all cases. So what can we do?

Think about when you set up a bunch of dominos to knock down in a chain reaction. It works like this:

If (1) all the dominos are set up in such a way that if one falls down, the next one falls down, and (2) the first domino falls down, then they all fall down, right?

Let’s use that same idea to prove that 1 + 2 + 3 … + n = n(n + 1) / 2 for all natural numbers n.

First, let’s check that it’s true for n = 1. Yes, it is.

Now, let’s check that if it’s true for some arbitrary number x, then it’s also true for x + 1, i.e., that 1 + 2 + 3 … + x + (x + 1) = (x + 1)(x + 2) / 2.

OK, if 1 + 2 + 3 … + x = x(x + 1) / 2, then 1 + 2 + 3 … + x + (x + 1) = x(x + 1) / 2 + (x + 1) = (x² + x + 2x + 2) / 2 = (x + 1)(x + 2) / 2. Done. And so the dominos all fall down.

This is called mathematical induction, yet it’s technically a form of deductive reasoning, because the conclusion is guaranteed if you do it right. However, it’s similar to inductive reasoning in that you’re taking a finite number of observations and generalizing them to an infinite number of cases.

But wait a minute. How do we know that the principle of mathematical induction, the “domino trick,” is true? Well, it’s usually taken as an assumption! It can only be proven if you make certain other assumptions, such as (1) the natural numbers are well-ordered, (2) every natural number is either 0 or the successor to another natural number, and (3) n + 1 > n for all natural numbers n.

Wow, we sure need to make a lot of assumptions in order to “prove” anything! Which brings up another point. Even if you manage to prove something, how can you prove the proof? Fermat’s Last Theorem was “proven” many times by reasoning that was ultimately revealed to be flawed.

Abductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning is often used in math, because they’re trying to prove things from a known starting point.

Inductive reasoning is often used in science, because they’re trying to discover things, not prove them.

And there’s another type of reasoning, called abductive reasoning, that’s often used by detective types, because they’re trying to explain things, not discover or prove them.

It works like this. A patient has certain symptoms, and goes to the doctor. The doctor knows that appendicitis will cause those particular symptoms. There are other possible causes, but appendicitis is far more likely, and therefore considered the best diagnosis based on the known information.

In some countries, doctors have been known to remove the appendix without actually testing for appendicitis. They thought it was better to occasionally be wrong than to consistently take the time and money to run a test to confirm a rather obvious diagnosis.

Now, using the method of your choice, possibly abductive reasoning, can you determine the point of this post?

Michael Martine has now launched his WordPress SEO Secrets. (If you heard me mention SEO-Nomicon before, this is the same product, just renamed.)

Yes, there are other SEO products out there. But one thing that makes this one unique right off the bat is that it’s specifically about WordPress SEO. Now if you happen to be blogging on a platform other than WordPress, you won’t care about that. But since WordPress is by far the most popular blogging platform, it’s great to finally have something specifically designed for it.

I had a chance to get an early look at the ebook portion of the product, and I immediately thought it was possibly the best looking ebook I’ve ever seen. I know that’s kind of superficial, but once I looked past the cover and the fonts, I found that there was inner beauty too.

What I mean by that is that it gives you all the details you need, in a way that’s easy to understand and implement. The information is very thorough. For example, it has possibly the world’s most complete list of WordPress SEO plugins and Firefox SEO extensions. At the same time, it’s written for people with beginner or intermediate-level SEO knowledge, so it’s not going to leave you scratching your head wondering how to actually put it into practice.

I’m actually not much of a fan of SEO because I find so many people talking about how to game the system, or focusing on keywords at the expense of content quality. But I agree with Michael’s idea that we should write for people, but tweak for search engines. Content comes first in my book, but content that people can find is even better!

You can get a sneak peak of the ebook right here. (If you’re reading this in your email or RSS reader, you’ll probably have to click through to the post.)

I haven’t heard the audios or watched the videos included in WordPress SEO Secrets. However, I’ve been on two of Michael’s teleseminars and two of his webcasts, and he doesn’t disappoint. I stayed on one of his webcasts for over two hours!

If you need more traffic to your site, you really want to check out WordPress SEO Secrets!

So at last I get around to reviewing Napoleon Hill’s classic, Think and Grow Rich. It was first published in 1937. People had lost their money as well as their spirit in the Great Depression, and needed a reminder that financial success was still possible for people who would create their own opportunities. That’s not so different from today, is it?

“You have ABSOLUTE CONTROL over but one thing, and that is your thoughts. This is the most significant and inspiring of all facts known to man! It reflects man’s Divine nature. This divine prerogative is the sole means by which you may control your own destiny. If you fail to control your own mind, you may be sure you will control nothing else.

If you must be careless with your possessions, let it be in connection with material things. Your mind is your spiritual estate! Protect it and use it with the care to which Divine Royalty is entitled.

You were given a WILL-POWER for this purpose.

…

Doubting Thomases scoffed scornfully when Henry Ford tried out his first crudely built automobile on the streets of Detroit. Some said the thing never would become practical. Others said no one would pay money for such a contraption.

FORD SAID, “I’LL BELT THE EARTH WITH DEPENDABLE MOTOR CARS,” AND HE DID!

His decision to trust his own judgment has already piled up a fortune far greater than the next five generations of his descendants can squander. For the benefit of those seeking vast riches, let it be remembered that practically the sole difference between Henry Ford and a majority of the more than one hundred thousand men who work for him, is this-FORD HAS A MIND AND CONTROLS IT, THE OTHERS HAVE MINDS WHICH THEY DO NOT TRY TO CONTROL.”

This gives a taste of his writing, which is a bit old fashioned and peppered with glaring typos, creative punctuation, and RANDOM ALL CAPS. It also requires a good amount of patience to read it, because he’s very wordy, sometimes going on and on about things that are completely out of date.

But Think and Grow Rich is worthy of being a classic. While the wording is dated, the ideas are timeless. It’s also incredibly optimistic without being too cheesy.

And it’s practical. It’s about controlling your thoughts, but in a down to earth way instead of being all about “thought vibrations” (although there is some of that). If you find yourself making excuses instead of money, Napoleon Hill will whip you into shape.

Actually, it’s not really specific to money. At one point he says that “riches” means “financial, spiritual, mental, and material estates.” Think of it as a guide for keeping your mind from getting in the way of your success, whatever it is you’re working towards.

He alludes to Andrew Carnegie’s secret, which he says is the key to all great financial success. He doesn’t state it directly, but he hints at it in every chapter, and says the secret will appear to you when you’re ready. I’ll revisit the Carnegie Secret at a later time. (Update: now you can learn The Hidden Secret in Think and Grow Rich!)

Meanwhile, Think and Grow Rich is freely available from this link.

Table of Contents:

Author’s Preface
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Desire: The Turning Point of All Achievement
Chapter 3 – Faith Visualization of, and Belief in Attainment of Desire
Chapter 4 – Auto-Suggestion: the Medium for Influencing the Subconscious Mind
Chapter 5 – Specialized Knowledge, Personal Experiences or Observations
Chapter 6 – Imagination: the Workshop of the Mind
Chapter 7 – Organized Planning, the Crystallization of Desire into Action
Chapter 8 – Decision: the Mastery of Procrastination
Chapter 9 – Persistence: the Sustained Effort Necessary to Induce Faith
Chapter 10 – Power of the Master Mind: the Driving Force
Chapter 11 – The Mystery of Sex Transmutation
Chapter 12 – The Subconscious Mind: The Connecting Link
Chapter 13 – The Brain: A Broadcasting and Receiving Station for Thought
Chapter 14 – The Sixth Sense: The Door to the Temple of Wisdom
Chapter 15 – How to Outwit the Six Ghosts of Fear

Photo by stephend9

In the comments on The Birthday That Never Arrives, some people requested another lateral thinking puzzle. Here you go!

This one comes from Encyclopedia Brown, a series of children’s mystery books published from 1963 to as recently as 2007. These books star Leroy “Encyclopedia” Brown, the 10-year-old know-it-all supersleuth son of the chief of police. (For the members of generation Y, an encyclopedia was something like Wikipedia, but in books!)

This story has been reconstructed from what I remember.

Mr. Diamondthief is invited to a party at a friend’s house. Because the house contains things that people would like to steal, all arriving guests are frisked to make sure they aren’t carrying any weapons and such. Mr. Diamondthief is clean, so they let him in.

But Mr. Diamondthief has sinister motives. He’s really there to steal a diamond. And he’s been in this house before, so he knows exactly where it is. Upon entering the foyer, he goes up a narrow staircase, down a long hallway, into the fourth room on the left, where the diamond is. He takes the diamond.

Because he knows he’ll be frisked on the way out, he can’t just take the diamond out with him. So he looks around, trying to find some way to get the diamond out of the house. He comes across a bow and a quiver full of arrows. Perfect! He ties the diamond to an arrow, opens the window, and shoots the arrow into a tree down the street. He closes the window, puts the bow back where he found it, and wipes off his fingerprints.

He then walks out the front door. They frisk him, and he’s clean. The arrow with the diamond is stuck in a tree down the street, but he decides it’s too risky to get it now. Another party guest might see him walking down the street instead of getting into his car, or the cops might search the homes of all the party guests. He decides to come back for the diamond another time.

The next day, the owners of the house notice the missing diamond, and call the police. Police chief Brown calls all the party guests back to the house for questioning, and to search for the diamond. The assumption is that the diamond is probably still in the house, since all guests were frisked on the way out. Of course, Chief Brown takes his son Encyclopedia with him, since he’s the one with the best detective mind.

Encyclopedia thinks Mr. Diamondthief looks suspicious, but there’s no evidence against him. Encyclopedia starts exploring on his own, and finds the bow and quiver of arrows, noting that one arrow is missing. He sees the window, and realizes how the diamond was stolen.

As Encyclopedia comes down the stairs, he hears Mr. Diamondthief saying “Chief, this search is pointless. Even if the diamond is still here, this house is huge. We’ll never find it!”

Encyclopedia says, “Don’t worry, Mr. Diamondthief. The diamond is just an arrow flight away.”

Mr. Diamondthief says, “Well then, go outside and look for it.”

Encyclopedia says, “Dad, arrest him!”

How did he know Mr. Diamondthief was guilty?

As a kid, I thought the answer was a little cheesy. I actually like it much better now, though my preferred answer is slightly different from the official answer.

If you’ve heard it before, don’t blurt out the answer – let’s give a chance for other people to guess.

Photo by Asela

In 1887, L. L. Zamenhof published the Unua Libro (First Book). It was the first book that described the language he invented, Lingvo Internacia (international language), which was later renamed as Esperanto (one who hopes).

He believed that much world conflict was caused by isolation and misunderstanding, so he designed a language that would be very easy for everyone to learn, no matter where they’re from. The idea is that Esperanto would serve as a universal second language. Everyone would learn the native language of their homeland, but they’d also learn the language that would let them communicate with anyone.

Esperanto has been described as a linguistic handshake. If I’m talking to someone from China, the only way we can communicate is if they’ve made an enormous effort to learn my language. Meanwhile, I’ve made absolutely no attempt to learn theirs. It’s completely one-sided.

What happens in a handshake? Both people extend their arms and meet halfway. And so it is with Esperanto, when two people from completely different cultures can meet on neutral ground.

Photo by ElektraCute

Obviously, it hasn’t exactly taken off like the metric system. The percentage of the world that speaks it is estimated to be 0.03%, and possibly far less. But it does work. There are actually some people who speak Esperanto as their native language, often because their parents don’t have any other language in common.

If Esperanto’s time hasn’t come yet, what other tool can we use to promote peace and understanding? How about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?

People often think of the MBTI as a career planning instrument, though I don’t think it’s helpful in that regard. To me, it’s always been a simple way of describing the essence of someone’s personality. If a picture is worth 1,000 words, then your 4 letters are worth a whole heck of a lot of words too. And what this comes down to is better understanding of ourselves and others.

I thought about this while watching an episode of The Office a couple days ago. Pam Beesly, an ISFP, went to put her food in the microwave, and found a disgusting mess. In perfect ISFP fashion, she printed the following note on yellow paper and taped it over the microwave:

TO WHOEVER MADE THE MICROWAVE MESS:

THE MICROWAVE IS A SHARED
KITCHEN APPLIANCE.

BY NOT CLEANING IT UP, YOU
ARE BASICALLY TELLING WHOEVER
FOLLOWS THAT THEIR TIME IS LESS
VALUABLE, AS THEY WILL HAVE TO SCRUB
OUT YOUR DISGUSTING SPLATTER.

SINCERELY,

DISAPPOINTED

Later, she comes back to the kitchen to see her coworkers’ reaction as they see the mess and the note. (Remember they don’t know who’s responsible for either.) This conversation ensued:

Andy (ESFP): That is just obnoxious.

Oscar (ISTJ): No kidding.

Pam (ISFP): Yeah…Wait, what, the mess, or the note?

Oscar (ISTJ): The note. So holier than thou.

Angela (ISTJ): Hmm. I liked it.

Pam (ISFP): Don’t you think the person who left the mess is the obnoxious one?

Andy (ESFP): No! The note is way more obnoxious than the mess.

Meredith (ISTP): “Sincerely, disappointed?” Get off your high horse, richie!

Pam (ISFP): Just because someone likes things clean doesn’t mean they’re rich.

Meredith (ISTP): Nah, they’re rich.

Lots of conflict here, because people aren’t thinking about where the other person is coming from. So they label someone as “holier than thou” instead of ISFP. (Or “bitch” instead of ENTJ, etc.)

One set of labels says “You’re different from me, so I’m going to disregard you or insult you.” The other says “You’re different from me, so I’m going to figure out why you are the way you are, and see how we can get along. And if we can’t get along, then at least we can respect our differences.”

That’s one of the great things about the MBTI – it helps us appreciate people who are very different from us. A few months ago, I got pulled over for “disregarding a stop sign.” The cop said I didn’t even remotely come to a complete stop, and he was almost laughing because he couldn’t believe what I did.

Here’s what the cop, an ISTJ, was probably thinking:

“Are you blind? Did you not see the stop sign? Did you not know what you were supposed to do? How could you fail at such a simple task? Didn’t you learn this the first week of driver’s ed?”

Here’s what I, an INTP, was thinking:

“There wasn’t another car in sight. It was pitch black, so I would’ve seen their headlights a mile away. The purpose of a stop sign is to manage traffic at an intersection. If there’s no traffic to speak of, why would I come to a complete stop, wasting gas and wearing down my brake pads, knowing in advance that I was just going to start back up immediately? I’m surprised I even took my foot off the gas.”

Not that this would get me out of a ticket, but at least the cop wouldn’t leave thinking that some people don’t know what a stop sign is. If he had read The Personality Puzzle, he could have said, “License, registration, and Myers-Briggs Type.” Upon hearing “INTP,” he could have said, “Well, sorry about the dumb rule, but technically I still have to give you a ticket. It’s my sworn duty. Now do you want to talk about The Matrix?”

Image from The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

It’s hard to believe we’ve already reached the 10th anniversary of The Matrix. It’s a good time to remember that reality isn’t nearly as objective, straightforward, and deterministic as it seems. Instead, it’s a bizarre combination of free will, destiny and randomness that I haven’t figured out yet.

The world is constantly evolving, and in order to move along its path, it needs all kinds of people. No one is better or worse than anyone else, because we all have our part to play. We can’t all be Neo, whose purpose was to end the war between the humans and the machines.

• Someone needs to be Morpheus, whose purpose was to free Neo from the Matrix.
• Someone needs to be Tank, whose purpose was to save Neo and Trinity from Cypher’s betrayal.
• Someone needs to be Thadeus, whose purpose was to warn everyone that the machines were amassing an army to attack Zion.
• Someone needs to be the Keymaker, whose purpose was to give Neo the key that would let him reach the Source.
• Someone needs to be Trinity, whose purpose was to give Neo a choice of not rebooting the Matrix and rebuilding Zion.

All of these people have a purpose, and if one fails, we all fail. So let’s support each other in doing what we’re each supposed to do, whatever that may be.

Now, to clear up a few misconceptions about personality:

1. There are no bad types.

This is a really hard thing for many people to accept, but all types are equal. Social conditioning may have convinced you that your personality is flawed, or that you should be more like this person or that person. That’s crazy. Your personality is just as it’s supposed to be. You don’t need to change anything.

Go ahead and acknowledge your weaknesses, address them if you want to, but don’t beat yourself up about them. Anything you’d like to change about yourself is the flip side of something you like about yourself. You can’t have one without the other.

Questions like “Why can’t I be more organized?” or “Why do I just blurt things out?” point to the inherent consequences of your type. Even if you could change your personality, you couldn’t drop the downside without sacrificing the upside. The yin must balance the yang.

2. Your type doesn’t limit you in any way.

A lot of people are afraid of labels, but labels are not bad unless you misuse them. Your type isn’t a box or a prison, but simply a description of your preferences. If you generally prefer chocolate over vanilla, you wouldn’t be offended if I said “You seem to prefer chocolate.” It doesn’t make sense to be offended by your own preferences.

That goes for personality too. Preferring one side of a spectrum doesn’t mean that you couldn’t, wouldn’t, shouldn’t ever go near the other. Identifying your preferences and learning about yourself does not restrict your options, it expands them.

3. Your type is what it is. It’s not what a test tells you.

“Do you know your type?”

“Yeah, I took one test that said I was an ISFJ, but another one said I was an ISFP.”

“OK, that’s what the tests said, but what’s your real type?”

“Well, the tests said…”

“Don’t tell me what the tests said. Tell me what you are. You know yourself pretty well, don’t you?”

“Well, I guess I’m not entirely sure what the letters mean.”

“Ah, then that’s what you should work on!”

If someone measures your height at 5’9″, and someone else measures it at 5’10″, does that mean your height is messed up, or inconsistent, or a huge mystery? No, it just means that at least one of the measurements was off. That happens, because some things are hard to measure. But the answer isn’t dependent on any one measurement.

It’s like fingernails on a blackboard to me when I see people making ridiculous claims about people’s types. Tony Montana, an ENTJ? Have you lost it? Darth Vader, an INFP? Are you mental?

Even better is when people make one unsupported wild guess after another. “Barack Obama? Maybe he’s an ENTP. Or maybe an ENFJ. Or how about INFP? Hey, what about INTJ?” Guys, these types aren’t remotely similar! Either learn more about what the letters mean or learn more about Obama, but stop shouting out random letters!

How would you determine a dog’s breed? You’d observe the dog, learn about the different breeds, and make an educated guess, right? You wouldn’t say “Maybe he’s a Chihuahua, or a Poodle, or a Great Dane, or a cat, or a pig, or a bird…”

It’s not always easy to figure out your own type, let alone someone else’s. For one thing, the words don’t mean what you’d think they mean. Like “extravert” doesn’t mean social, “judging” certainly doesn’t mean judgmental, and even “intuition” doesn’t mean intuition. I still can’t believe I once left an MBTI workshop thinking I was an ISTJ. Another thing is that you don’t act the same way all the time, and even if you did, your behavior isn’t a perfect reflection of your personality.

Despite the difficulties, it’s well worth your while to learn what makes people tick. And now you can order The Personality Puzzle at 20% off the regular price of $27 (you can verify the reduced price in your shopping cart). The price goes back up on Sunday at 11:59 PM EST.

Whether you take advantage of this offer or not, I hope that in 2009 you take big steps down your chosen path, and improve both your alignment with your true self and your connections with other people. That is my New Year’s wish for you, and for the world.