A2K challenge!

Could you correct the grammar in the challenge you quoted? For example, "Conclusion: each their scent." is not a complete sentence, is not stated as a question, and has little meaning.

Sheesh, I could make up some real stumpers if I were allowed to do that when composing riddles.

Nothing to see, here, folks.

In spite of my better judgment, I'll attempt an answer:

The sick garbage man has anosmia; he cannot smell anything.

Thus, the ammonia in the smelling salts do not affect him, and ingesting the smelling salts just makes him sicker.

I'm not sure that the question is why did the man faint, and get better when drug away.

Since it's a little difficult to even read the story and make sense of it, I was wondering if there were some kind of code in there.

Or, like I was thinking before, it was written by someone where english is their 2nd language.
I don't know Hex Hammer very well yet, all the new names are blurring together.

I think Tryst has given the best answer so far.

I find this exercise to be rather fatuous. What is the point of anyone putting time into it? You have left it so vague (intentionally) that the answer is whatever you decide it to be. That really isn't what makes up a good riddle or logic game.

Cycloptichorn

I thinks so too! Tryst and his evil twin Tryagain are masters of the riddle(d) world.

Jack wrote, " I have a brilliant doctor friend, who uncritically told me a story he heard in a auditorium filled with fellow doctors at Panum (danish educational institute ..or something)"

Tryagain wrote:
"Kelly Levin, Benjamin Cashore, Steven Bernstein and Graeme Auld introduced in 2007 the distinction between "wicked" and "super wicked problems" in their paper "Playing it Forward: Path Dependency."

What he failed to mention.....
'They presented a revised version of the paper to the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Congress, 10 - 12 March 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark.'

The Panum Institute is a part of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Jack also wrote, " People with high IQ would be able to solve highly complex liniar logically matters, but ..when matter, purpose and objective ..etc, becomes unclear people with high IQ often fail, because they need to have defined perimiters and such, that's where RQ comes to play."

Ergo... If you can answer the question you do not have a high IQ.


The respiratory quotient (RQ) is calculated from the ratio: RQ = CO2 eliminated / O2 consumed

Quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum,
- Lucretius


CalamityJane, you are just too sweet.

What about me?

That's excatly how it was told.

Further ..I have provide a minor explenation of the premesis of the challenge free of charge, yet I wasn't presented any such help features when I cracked it, so you have much more than I ever had.

Well, I have no shot, so why try?

The problem definition depends on the solution.
Fter reading the same artical tryst/TA has drawn on....
The solution is often(?) arrived at by group think, ie by agreement of the stakeholders.
If i say "this" is the solution and enough people (stakeholders) agree then I am correct and the problem is solved... (or possibly not).

other stuff that may be of interest
Strategies to tackle wicked problems
Wicked problems cannot be tackled by the traditional approach in which problems are defined, analysed and solved in sequential steps. The main reason for this is that there is no clear problem definition of wicked problems. In a paper published in 2000, Roberts identifies the following strategies to cope with wicked problems:

Authoritative

These strategies seek to tame wicked problems by vesting the responsibility for solving the problems in the hands of a few people. The reduction in the number of stakeholders reduces problem complexity, as many competing points of view are eliminated at the start. The disadvantage is that authorities and experts charged with solving the problem may not have an appreciation of all the perspectives needed to tackle the problem.

Competitive

These strategies attempt to solve wicked problems by pitting opposing points of view against each other, requiring parties that hold these views to come up with their preferred solutions. The advantage of this approach is that different solutions can be weighed up against each other and the best one chosen. The disadvantage is that this adversarial approach creates a confrontational environment in which knowledge sharing is discouraged. Consequently, the parties involved may not have an incentive to come up with their best possible solution.

Collaborative

These strategies aim to engage all stakeholders in order to find the best possible solution for all stakeholders. Typically these approaches involve meetings in which issues and ideas are discussed and a common, agreed approach is formulated. In his 1972 paper, Rittel hints at a collaborative approach; one which attempts, "…to make those people who are being affected into participants of the planning process . They are not merely asked but actively involved in the planning process…" A disadvantage of this approach is that achieving a shared understanding and commitment to solving a wicked problem is a time-consuming process. Research over the last two decades has shown the value of computer assisted argumentation techniques in improving the effectiveness of cross-stakeholder communication. More recently, the technique of dialogue mapping has been used in tackling wicked problems in organizations using a collaborative approach.

No one is asking for tips in solving the problem. We are asking for clearer communication of exactly what you want solved.

Able2Know has an ESL forum. Maybe this is where your thread belongs.

or maybe the problem has something to do with the misplaced i's e's, o's, etc.

No, I sincerly appologize if my poor english lingual skills offend you guys.

Okay, I went through and corrected all the spelling errors. Let's see if this helps:

[Foreword] None in my former Philosophyforum.com has cracked this story, so I let you A2K to the challenge.

----

[Intro] Long have I pondered about logic, most of what has been available was only what I call "linear logic" which I define as clearly defined perimeters, clearly defined frame of scenario, objective and purpose, etc.

People with high IQ would be able to solve highly complex linear logically matters, but ..when matter, purpose and objective, etc, becomes unclear people with high IQ often fail, because they need to have defined perimeters and such, that's where RQ comes to play.

I was inspired to ponder about this by reading this article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart.html

I have a brilliant doctor friend, who uncritically told me a story he heard in a auditorium filled with fellow doctors at Panum (Danish educational institute, or something)

This story he told me I will propose as a challenge to this forum.
Quote:
Two garbage men, who had been in the business for Two decades, who had suffered foul odors throughout their career, took on a vacation to Turkey and went to the perfume streets.
As they walked the one would become ill, and in the end fell to the ground. The helpful perfume sellers would aid the poor man with their smelling salts, but only making him go to a deeper coma.
The other garbage man would realize it was the thick odor in the street that caused the problem, and pulled his friend out to cleaner air, which helped and he would awaken from the coma.

Conclusion: each their scent.

What offends us is your refusal to clarify exactly what we are supposed to solve. "Conclusion: each their scent" does not tell us what to solve.

(English is also my second language. I spoke German before I learned English. Maybe if you give us the problem in German, I can do an English translation for the rest of us.)

I think that my problem with it is you have designated a forward, an intro and a conclusion but have not designated which part is the body of the challenge.

The question is where is the challenge housed? Is it in the forward, the intro, the conclusion or the unspecified body of the post? If the body, where does the intro end and the body start? Does it start with your presumptions about IQs and logical thinking? Does it start with the article you linked to? Does it start with the description of your doctor friend and the setting in which he heard the story? Is it the story itself?

Like Wandell said, your english skills don't offend any of us.

That fact that words are being spelled incorrectly, or that the same word is spelled 2 or more different ways, led me to believe that could have been part of the challenge.

Apparantly that's not the case.

So, how can we know where to begin, if we may be looking at things, as if they are clues, when they mean nothing at all?

I'm thinking that a large part of the issue is because the native english speakers who have responded so far do not grasp the concept of what you want.
The concept doesn't translate, or looses something in the translation.

What is your first language?
If we knew that, maybe someone who speaks that language can translate the story so we can understand better.

Yeah, you're stating a large part of how I feel also.

It all is disjointed, no beginning or end, and a bunch of stuff in the middle that may, or may not, matter.
All this, and adding in not knowing what is being asked.


Hex Hammer, I agree with Wandell (I think it was him that said it).

If anything offends me, it's that it seems you are refusing to even point us in a general direction.