6 ms·

Agreed! My kids are slightly older but we've long enjoyed a roadtrip game that's a variation on 20 questions: "give me an input, I'll respond with an output, th

Agreed! My kids are slightly older but we've long enjoyed a roadtrip game that's a variation on 20 questions: "give me an input, I'll respond with an output, then you guess what the 'machine' [algorithm|function] did". They'd get to provide one input, I'd respond w one output, then they'd get one chance to define the operation -- to which I'd respond only yes or no -- before the next person's turn to test it. Whoever solves it gets a point (if we're keeping score; not important). Then the next person gets to be the function maker. They got pretty good at hypothesizing plausible solutions and refining them to hone in on the precise answer, and it was more interesting than standard 20 questions. It's also fun to go beyond strictly numeric types, eg responding to a number with the name of a country, or turning a letter or word into a number, etc.

nathancahill 7y ago
Awesome version of 20 questions. My parents are biologists and we played 20 questions with plants/animals on road trips growing up. The games were intense! Learned a ton.
- vikramkr 7y ago
  Did anyone ever just try and search through a phylogenetic tree?
  - nathancahill 7y ago
    Basically yes, that is what the games evolved in to.
bspammer 7y ago
I taught at a programming camp one summer, and my favourite example of this that I drove several kids crazy with was "above the line, below the line". Given any input word, I would tell them whether it was above the line, or below the line (which corresponded to acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in camp-speak). I think only two kids figured it out on their own, and each time I challenged them to write a program to categorize words automatically. I wonder if hacker news can figure it out :) "Hacker" -> Above the line "News" -> Above the line "chrisweekly" -> Below the line "functional" -> Above the line "programming" -> Below the line
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  Curious that the way we play these games is “race to the answer” in fewest tests, and as soon as someone else gets it, the game is over and spoiled for anyone who didn’t. Is there a good way to play to train for “most confidence before answering” without making it a drudge of endless tests and humhawing? Making each question a more powerful test would be good, but that’s not what racing to the answer encourages, that encourages guessing the teacher’s password. What about tests are free, first to answer wins, but a wrong answer or two disqualifies you completely?
- bg4 7y ago
  We used to play a game in summer camp where one had two sticks and could hand them to the next person 'crossed' or 'uncrossed' declaring as such. The key was it was the persons legs, not the sticks, which determined if one was passing the sticks 'crossed' or 'uncrossed'.
- tomsmeding 7y ago
  Current list of words is consistent with "has an even number of letters". What about "Hacks"? It uses only letters found in accepted words, but should be rejected because of the odd number of letters.
- gmt2027 7y ago
  Check for odd or even string length? "Above the line" if len(s) % 2 == 0 else "Below the line"
- marviel 7y ago
  (Spoiler?) I think it's called "above the line" "below the line" because the characters in each of the accepted words don't travel below the "character placement line" that runs along the bottom of every word. I've forgotten the "real name" for this line. Thus, toothpaste -> below the line, because of "p" tooth -> above the line, no characters pass below it. Generally, if the word contains a y,p,q,g, or j, then it's "below". Right? EDITS: 1: TIL the name for this property of a character is called a descender[1]. (And yet I still can't find the name for that blasted line.) 2: It's called a baseline[2], thanks taylorlunt REFS: [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/descender https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/descender [2] https://typedecon.com/blogs/type-glossary/baseline/ https://typedecon.com/blogs/type-glossary/baseline/
iainmerrick 7y ago
For a non-road-trip version of this idea, check out Zendo: http://www.koryheath.com/zendo/ http://www.koryheath.com/zendo/ You don’t have to use the official Looney pyramids, of course, but those work really well. Just enough variations to be really interesting. There’s an older game that uses playing cards, Eleusis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusis_(card_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusis_(card_game)
netsharc 7y ago
I remember a friend pranking other friends, the quizmaster would rotate his pair of hands palm up or palm down and the victim had to guess either "opened" or "closed". Slowly the kids would get it after a few steps, frustrating the "main" victim of the prank. In the end it turned out the state was whether the quizmaster left his arms pressed against his body (closed) or a few inches "opened". A variant would be whether he'd leave his lips pressed together or slightly apart...
7777fps 7y ago
This reminds me of a prediction game experiment I heard that was described like the following. \* The researchers presented the following to people. f(1) = true f(2) = true f(4) = true f(8) = true And asked, what is f? And the people will immediately jump in and test 16, 32, and then proudly declare that f = x -> x = 2^n for some integer n Forgetting to test f(3), f(5), etc. With more examination it turns out that f = x -> true. \* I wish I could remember more of the details such as whether it was an experiment or just an illustration of one but it's not an easy thing to search for and I rely on memory and searching too much.
- sethammons 7y ago
  a similar thing happens with folks when debugging. They assume something, and test their assumption and can happily declare victory. Instead, they should be testing _against_ their assumptions to prove their theory wrong.
  - msla 7y ago
    > Instead, they should be testing _against_ their assumptions to prove their theory wrong. I think this mindset should be taught explicitly starting in grade school. If you have an idea, think how you'd disprove it, and test it. If you can't think of how you'd disprove it, that's a strike against the idea. If you can't test it, that should at least make you suspicious.
    - gowld 7y ago
      In theory, that's the scientific method, but aomehwt we've evolving this weird grade school science project "scientificky" method in it's place.
- KMnO4 7y ago
  Sounds a lot like Derek Muller’s (Veritasium) video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo https://youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo
  - 7y ago

nathancahill 7y ago

Awesome version of 20 questions. My parents are biologists and we played 20 questions with plants/animals on road trips growing up. The games were intense! Learned a ton.

vikramkr 7y ago
Did anyone ever just try and search through a phylogenetic tree?
- nathancahill 7y ago
  Basically yes, that is what the games evolved in to.

bspammer 7y ago

I taught at a programming camp one summer, and my favourite example of this that I drove several kids crazy with was "above the line, below the line". Given any input word, I would tell them whether it was above the line, or below the line (which corresponded to acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in camp-speak). I think only two kids figured it out on their own, and each time I challenged them to write a program to categorize words automatically. I wonder if hacker news can figure it out :) "Hacker" -> Above the line "News" -> Above the line "chrisweekly" -> Below the line "functional" -> Above the line "programming" -> Below the line

jodrellblank 7y ago
Curious that the way we play these games is “race to the answer” in fewest tests, and as soon as someone else gets it, the game is over and spoiled for anyone who didn’t. Is there a good way to play to train for “most confidence before answering” without making it a drudge of endless tests and humhawing? Making each question a more powerful test would be good, but that’s not what racing to the answer encourages, that encourages guessing the teacher’s password. What about tests are free, first to answer wins, but a wrong answer or two disqualifies you completely?
bg4 7y ago
We used to play a game in summer camp where one had two sticks and could hand them to the next person 'crossed' or 'uncrossed' declaring as such. The key was it was the persons legs, not the sticks, which determined if one was passing the sticks 'crossed' or 'uncrossed'.
tomsmeding 7y ago
Current list of words is consistent with "has an even number of letters". What about "Hacks"? It uses only letters found in accepted words, but should be rejected because of the odd number of letters.
gmt2027 7y ago
Check for odd or even string length? "Above the line" if len(s) % 2 == 0 else "Below the line"
marviel 7y ago
(Spoiler?) I think it's called "above the line" "below the line" because the characters in each of the accepted words don't travel below the "character placement line" that runs along the bottom of every word. I've forgotten the "real name" for this line. Thus, toothpaste -> below the line, because of "p" tooth -> above the line, no characters pass below it. Generally, if the word contains a y,p,q,g, or j, then it's "below". Right? EDITS: 1: TIL the name for this property of a character is called a descender[1]. (And yet I still can't find the name for that blasted line.) 2: It's called a baseline[2], thanks taylorlunt REFS: [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/descender https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/descender [2] https://typedecon.com/blogs/type-glossary/baseline/ https://typedecon.com/blogs/type-glossary/baseline/

iainmerrick 7y ago

For a non-road-trip version of this idea, check out Zendo: http://www.koryheath.com/zendo/ http://www.koryheath.com/zendo/ You don’t have to use the official Looney pyramids, of course, but those work really well. Just enough variations to be really interesting. There’s an older game that uses playing cards, Eleusis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusis_(card_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusis_(card_game)

netsharc 7y ago

I remember a friend pranking other friends, the quizmaster would rotate his pair of hands palm up or palm down and the victim had to guess either "opened" or "closed". Slowly the kids would get it after a few steps, frustrating the "main" victim of the prank. In the end it turned out the state was whether the quizmaster left his arms pressed against his body (closed) or a few inches "opened". A variant would be whether he'd leave his lips pressed together or slightly apart...

7777fps 7y ago

This reminds me of a prediction game experiment I heard that was described like the following. \* The researchers presented the following to people. f(1) = true f(2) = true f(4) = true f(8) = true And asked, what is f? And the people will immediately jump in and test 16, 32, and then proudly declare that f = x -> x = 2^n for some integer n Forgetting to test f(3), f(5), etc. With more examination it turns out that f = x -> true. \* I wish I could remember more of the details such as whether it was an experiment or just an illustration of one but it's not an easy thing to search for and I rely on memory and searching too much.

sethammons 7y ago
a similar thing happens with folks when debugging. They assume something, and test their assumption and can happily declare victory. Instead, they should be testing _against_ their assumptions to prove their theory wrong.
- msla 7y ago
  > Instead, they should be testing _against_ their assumptions to prove their theory wrong. I think this mindset should be taught explicitly starting in grade school. If you have an idea, think how you'd disprove it, and test it. If you can't think of how you'd disprove it, that's a strike against the idea. If you can't test it, that should at least make you suspicious.
  - gowld 7y ago
    In theory, that's the scientific method, but aomehwt we've evolving this weird grade school science project "scientificky" method in it's place.
KMnO4 7y ago
Sounds a lot like Derek Muller’s (Veritasium) video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo https://youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo
- 7y ago