Creative Thinking World Championship

The 2020 Creative Thinking World Championship will take place on Friday, August 7th. Questions will be provided at 730pm (London time) and contestants will have up to 24 hours to email their responses. Note that no more than 2 to 3 hours will be necessary–we recommend that you spend up to 30 minutes per question (the 24 hours are intended to make it accessible for participants from various time zones across the globe). A maximum word count of 500 words per answer is allowed. In addition, participants are welcome to provide one image per answer, but that is completely optional.

To get a feel for this unique event, check out last year’s questions with a sample of answers courtesy of William Hartston who writes and scores each round. Hartston won the British Chess Championship in 1973 and 1975. He writes the off-beat Beachcomber column for the Daily Express and has authored books on chess, mathematics, humour, sloths, sex and useless information. He has also been a regular guest on the BBC Radio 4 and occasional TV programme, Puzzle Panel.

MSO 2019 Creative Thinking WC Recap

The six highly talented and imaginative entrants to the Creative Thinking event at MSO produced some glorious ideas. Every round was, as usual, limited to 30 minutes, but the time pressure did not seem to inhibit the flow of ideas. Here are some of the best, round by round. 

Round One: Clearing out my sock drawer the other day, I discovered that it contained 23 odd socks. 

Your task is therefore to provide suggestions for things to do with 23 odd socks and also to explain why there are 23 of them. 

 

Unusual uses for commonplace objects is a standard theme for creativity tests, which was perhaps why, in general, suggestions for how to use the socks were better than explanations of why there were 23 of them. Perhaps the best answer to the latter question was that of Joe Mela who suggested that 23 is the average class size and the socks were presents from a grateful class of students, each giving me one sock in appreciation of my performance as a guest lecturer.

Natasha Regan suggested that the socks would be ideal for an Entropy contest, using seven differently coloured socks for the counters and the other 16 as bags to hold the counters for 32 players, which is the ideas number for a 5-round knock-out tournament.

I gave the highest mark, however, to Eeshan Malhotra who realised that you can make a perpetual calendar from 23 socks using up to 12 to signify the month, while the other 11 can give the two digits of the day number, with 29 using the full number of socks as 2 + 9 = 11. 

 

Round Two: The material for this round consisted of two paintings, supposedly dug up in the distant future by anthropologists long after almost all knowledge of current civilization has been lost or forgotten. Contestants were asked what conclusions they drew from them. Here are the pictures: Most replies saw the two pictures as showing two stages of evolution of the human species, but opinions differed as to which came first. Eeshan Malhotra identified the pictures as The Last Supper and Cubism, but it was the upper picrure he saw as cubism, as is clearly shows that people lived in cubes, and the lower picture commemorated the last supper the humans had before extinction as they had clearly degenerated to a state that made survival impossible.
The most complete explanation came from Dan Holloway who drew conclusions from a vast number of details in the pctures before drawing the conclusion that “This was clearly a society of beings built from constituent parts, presumably by some bored children of an as yet undetermined more intelligent species.” 

Round Three; 

The transcript of a police phone tap of a conversation between two suspects includes the following questions (not necessarily asked in this order):

 

Are You Lonesome Tonight? 

How much is that doggie in the window?

Do You Know the Way to San Jose? 

How Can You Mend a Broken Heart?

How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?

Where have all the flowers gone?

 

Your task is to reconstruct the conversation, explain what they are discussing and advise on whether an arrest is imminent. 

 

Several entrants showed considerable ability for composing short detective stories. Joe Mela incorporated all the above song titles into a conversation in a magnificently uncontrived manner, while Eeshan Malhotra ingeniously explained how they all involved slight errors in transcription by n inexperienced policeman. These two approaches were so different that I awarded buth a maximum score of 25 points.

 

Round 4: 

We saved the biggest problem to the end: pointing out that this year marks the 200th anniversary of the word “back-stop” according to the Oxford English Dictionary, I asked contestants to list possible uses for a backstop, particularly an Irish backstop, including specifications for how to disguise the backstop as something else so that it will be acceptable to anyone radically opposed to the idea of a backstop. 

 

Joe Mela defined a backstop as a final line of defence, or possibly “de fence” diving your property from your neighbour’s. To disguise it, he recommended a false moustache the length of the fence. Eeshan Malhotra thought that an Irish clover could be used for all backstop decision-making, tearing off its leaves one by one, in she-loves-me, she-loves-me-not fashion, but accompanying each leaf removal with the words “Brexit” or “No Brexit”, with the clopver disguised by adding an extra leaf or two to give the desired result. 

Rajko Vujatovic saw a backstop as a possible cure for diarrhoea; Natasha Regan thought a backstop could be used to prevent socks escaping, and causing the 23 odd socks problems of round one; Emily Watson saw a backstop as “something placed at the back to form a barrier” and could therefore be used as a bra hook guard to prevent sudden unclipping by rude men. 

Dan Holloway, however, produced the most imaginative and convoluted backstop creation, using an Irish sheep for a decision-making baaackstop, then substituting a pig to make a porkstop baaaackstop backstop. For reasons too complex to go into, his entry began with Paul the predictive Octopus, and  went on to Mozart the predictive Cow before he named the sheep Bach, which also brought a bachstop into the picture. The Eurovision Song Contest and Japan also came into his suggestions, though it would take too long to explain how. 

All suggestions have been forwarded to Downing Street and Brussels. We are sure they will contribute towards a solution of the backstop problem.

 

Why Creativity Matters and One Way We Can All be More Creative by Dan Holloway

Dan Holloway runs Rogue Interrobang (https://rogueinterrobang.com/) a company that helps people and companies solve wicked problems using creativity, and won the 2017 Oxford University Humanities Innovation Challenge for Mycelium a creative thinking card game based on the memory systems of medieval monks and the brain scans of battle rappers. He is also the 2016 & 2017 Creative Thinking World Champion and the 2017 and 2018 European Speed Reading Champion.

Dan Holloway (center) after winning the Creative Thinking WC in 2016

I have always loved playing with ideas although I had never particularly thought of myself as being creative until, 21 years ago, I turned up rather timidly to the Royal Festival Hall and took part in the first Mind Sports Olympiad, taking a bronze in Creative Thinking. More importantly, the event’s evil genius of a host, Bill Hartston (as a chess player in a former life, Bill was one of my childhood heroes), paid me the ultimate compliment: “you have a very sick mind.” I still come to the MSO, and have had the pleasure of winning Creative Thinking in 2016 and 2017.

People talk a lot about why creativity matters (just try searching TED talks and see how many hits you get). Reasons tend to range from saving our jobs when the robots come for us to the simple, satisfying sense of enrichment it gives us to produce something that, even in the smallest way, is somehow new.

But for me, there’s an even more important reason why creativity matters. In many ways we are, as a species, walking off a cliff (largely of our own making) with no way of changing our path. Whether it’s climate change, food security, how to handle artificial intelligence, the impact of transhumanism, or a host of other things we are facing wicked problems that we don’t know how to solve.

The only thing we can be sure of is that in each case carrying on as we have been will lead us further into rather than away from trouble. We need new approaches, new frameworks, new perspectives, and we need as many of them as we can get our hands on. And the one way to do that is a revolution in creativity. We need people with more creative skills, and we need greater openness to the value of creativity.

One of the things we have consistently got wrong as a society is the way we view human knowledge. Ever since the 1500s, ironically coinciding with the explosion of print, which has made storing information outside of our heads easier (but for reasons that are fascinating and have to do with memorists being accused of trying to summon demons), we have tended to think of knowledge as the sum of what we know.

A creative approach, however, where we value the ability to make connections, to create new possibilities from existing materials, whether they be ideas or things, sees knowledge as the product of what we know. If you stop and think about the sheer mathematical difference between the two approaches, you will get an idea of how much greater the potential this way of thinking is – every time you learn something new you are not adding a tiny drop to a sea, you are multiplying an already vast ocean by orders of magnitude!

Yet we persist in valuing memorizing things (vitally important, as it provides many of the raw materials for creativity) above how we use the things we have memorized. Despite the countless connections waiting to be made between the things we know, we remain really bad at making them.

One reason for this is that we lack some basic techniques. I think a lot of that can be traced back to somehow seeing creativity as something “magical”. A lot of it also comes down to some rather lazy ways of thinking about things that I can illustrate by posing a fairly standard creative thinking puzzle:

“What do you get if you cross a dog with a skyscraper?”

If you’re like most people, you will struggle to come up with many imaginative answers to this for a simple reason. The words “dog” and “skyscraper” trigger very specific images in your mind. Maybe you think of your first pet, Spot, and of the Empire State Building. Your way of thinking has turned the question into “What do you get if you cross Spot with the Empire State Building?” And there aren’t very many, or very varied, answers you can give to that.

But suppose instead that you train yourself to think about things not by linking them to a specific example of that thing, but by breaking them down into their constituents – whether that means physical components (teeth, paws, vertebrae), cultural associations (“man’s best friend”, “Pavlov’s dogs”), behavioural ones (tail wagging, stick fetching).

Think of each of these components as hooks, like dendrites of a neuron reaching out from the object, looking for something to connect to. If you do this, you will find that suddenly you start to find that even really dissimilar things like dogs and skyscrapers have things in common (dogs are vertebrates, skyscrapers have a core and dampers to keep them upright; dogs have paws, skyscrapers have a “footprint”; both have living organisms in their innards).

The hooks from each thing have joined up, and once one hook has joined up, you find other hooks joining up, and a whole host of more interesting and varied connections forms really rather easily – maybe you get a giant beast that consumes the unsuspecting citizens of a city; or a skyscraper with paws planted in the ground, where the individual pads could act as private parking bays, or a tower that will not just resist the wind but have floors that can twist with the flexibility of a spine, with a lift shaft that operates like a spinal cord.

 

 

An Interview with Bill Hartston founder of the Creative Thinking World Championship

Bill Hartston is a journalist, chess master, and award-winning author. He runs both the creative thinking world championship and the infamous quiz at the Mind Sports Olympiad.

Riva Kent is a participant of the Mind Sports Olympiad. She now lives in Israel where she runs Immersive Play www.immersive-play.com

Riva: How would you describe what the Creative Thinking World Championship is and how did it come about?

Bill: It came about as part of the Mind Sports Olympiad, which is a sort of a boardgame-athon, it’s a lot of people who’ve got nothing better to do other than play chess and bridge and poker and all sorts of other games. My wasted youth was in chess, so I had very good connections with the people who were running the thing, this was about twenty years ago when it started. I’m not sure whether they suggested it to me or I suggested to them a creativity competition. It was definitely they who called it the world championship, which I think is quite ridiculous, but it was a wonderful idea to have such a thing.

At the time I was writing for The Independent and one of the things I wrote was a column called ‘Creativity’ which was based on management psychology tests. One of the other things in my wasted youth was developing personality tests, working as a psychometrician. I read maths but the subject and I lost interest in each other while I was meant to be doing a Ph.D. So I went off and did all sorts of other things instead, one of which was working on this personality testing business. I developed personality tests and I came across some creativity tests, of which the most common form was the unusual uses for commonplace objects. You give someone a thing like a brick or a paperclip, or something else really mundane and ask them to come up with unusual uses for it. I’d been asked to come up with some ideas at the paper that would attract readers to contribute and so I thought that this creativity was a great one and would make a wonderful reader involvement newspaper column. Each week I would suggest one object and readers would come up with ideas for it. The first object I chose was an odd sock and the best response I got was unravel the wool in it and use it to knit the missing one. I thought that was brilliant.

But then if you knitted the missing one then you’d still have one odd sock…

Oh how terribly mundane of you. Yes, of course, you would but you’d have the other one. You’d have the one you were missing.

For people who aren’t familiar with what the Creative Thinking World Championship is, can you explain what it is.

It’s all writing based, I give them silly things to do and they do them. It might be an object to come up with silly ideas for. In the very first year I gave them a set of things that looked like intelligence test questions but they were asked to come up with unusual answers so one of the questions was “what is the next number in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5” and of course you got no credit for saying 6. I asked them to come up with as many answers as they could for this and they had to provide reasons for them. And it was very interesting to see what they came up with. I can’t remember any of the answers now as it was so long ago. One of the questions was what is the next letter in this series, the series being “g, g, g, g, g, g”. The answer that I actually had in mind when I wrote the question was “h” because it is actually a series of the last letters of the days of the week in German starting on Thursday. It was just inviting them to come up with silly ideas. One of the questions last year or the year before, I had this idea when I was wandering through the market in Cambridge and I overheard a snatch of conversation. It was a group of three or four people and a woman was saying “and then when I woke up I was completely naked and I used the lobster things to cover my breasts.”

Yes, I remember that question…

I thought that that was so wonderful. So I spent some time just wondering around the market to pick up other lines and then asking people [in the Creative Thinking WC] to build them into a story.

Do you have a favorite question that you’ve ever asked in the competition?

I have a favorite answer. Which was, I once gave them a torn out bit of music manuscript, it was a bit of a Haydn piano sonata but nobody would know that. Just a few bars. And I said “in several thousand years time, future anthropologists dig this up when they know nothing about our civilization or music or anything like that. What do they make of it?” One contestant, who I think actually won the competition that year, produced a complete explanation of musical notation as if it’s mapping the places on telegraph wires that starlings are sitting prior to migration. The five lines in the stave were the telegraph wires, whether the notes were open or filled in (white or black) was whether they were male or female, which direction they were facing was the direction that the birds would fly off in, the bar lines were the telegraph poles. It just went on and on, she used everything that was in the picture in front of her to explain starling migration. I thought that it was brilliant.

Just to backtrack a bit to the Mind Sports Olympiad, what would you say is the place of the Creative Thinking World Championship. It seems quite different to the other competitions – they’re using logic and strategy and this is using creativity.

There is a huge connection between creativity and logic. Except logic tends to be a convergent process and creativity tends to be divergent. There is a book by Arthur Koestler called ‘The Act of Creation’ in which he discusses what creativity really is and he comes up with this word “bisociation” and says that the essence of all creativity is bringing together two ideas that are on parallel lines and that it’s a way of combining things, a way of seeing similarity where there wasn’t any before. It’s totally logical but it’s not a convergent logic, it’s not following all the information you’ve got and drawing conclusions from it. You have to draw the conclusion first and then make it fit. So it is very different from the other games but most games have room for creativity in them. You know, the people who play them by rote aren’t the good ones.

How do you mark the Creative Thinking World Championship? What is your criteria?

The way we used to mark the creativity tests as management tests with the unusual uses for commonplace objects was by looking at how many different dimensions people were seeing things in, how many essentially different ideas they were coming up with and whether these ideas were thought of by other people or not. So we were really looking for answers that were different from the mundane, that were lifted above the level that most people were putting. So if someone’s unusual use for a paperclip involves unwinding it and then picking their ear or nose with it that’s completely mundane. Someone who uses it as a branding iron for mice is getting a bit unusual.

I’ve seen people who run creativity courses. Personally, I don’t think that creativity can be taught but you can convince people that they’re being creative by giving them a sort of strategy to follow to come up with ideas that they wouldn’t have come up with before. So with the unusual uses, you can look at the shape of the object, the size, the colour, you can look at an object in any of those dimensions. Normally we look at all of them together. The French for paperclip is trombone and a paperclip looks just like a trombone so if you tried to turn a paperclip into a musical instrument, you’d get something trombone-ish. So you can get people to think outside of their usual way of doing so.

I used to mark the thing quite objectively, scoring 2 points for an idea that nobody else thought of and 1 point for an idea. Quite often people would come up with a lot of ideas that were all essentially the same thing so you’d only get 1 point for those. The way that I tend to mark all of the rounds now is to read through all of the responses, decide which one is best, which one appeals to me most, give that 25 marks and then mark all the others accordingly.

I did a radio programme years ago on creativity where I interviewed a lot of people and one question that I put to everybody was “whats the difference between a good idea and a bad idea?” And I don’t know a good answer to it.

Do you think that it’s just a matter of intuition? Like you can just tell?

I think that this is one of the differences between scientific creativity and artistic creativity. Scientists will tend to say that it’s a good idea if it works, but that’s not right – you can have a very good idea that just doesn’t work, that’s unlucky. And you can have a bad idea that does work. In art, the good ideas work. On some level they work, they don’t need to be popular, I don’t think. I don’t know. I really don’t know what the difference between a good idea and a bad idea is, or how one defines it.

You said that you don’t think that creativity can be taught, so are you saying that it is more natural as opposed to nurture? Some people are just naturally more creative?

I think that everybody is born creative, I think you have to be. When you realise what a baby is doing when it’s coming to terms with the world. We’re receiving sensory input through all our senses and we’re getting this absolutely muddled picture of sight, sound, taste, everything, and we have to form some picture of the world from it and it is a creative process. I once interviewed a professor of psychiatry whose main area was the development of children and he had this line that basically growing up is a limiting process. All children are ridiculously creative because they haven’t formed the patterns that they need to form to be able to function as human beings. Gradually we have all these rules imposed on us and we impose them on ourselves because it makes life easier. A lot of people end up being completely mundane and living their lives entirely by rules and never doing anything unexpected because they don’t know what’s going to happen if they do something unexpected. They talk themselves out of being creative.

One of the people that I interviewed on the radio programme was a guy who had been suggested to us by somebody that ran creativity courses. He was identified as a star pupil and he was one of the least creative people I’ve ever met. He was absolutely frantic before the interview and was constantly asking the producer of the programme “what questions are you going to ask me?” so that he could work out his replies. I said that it’s impossible to give you a list of questions because the questions will depend on your answers. But then I gave him a list, I satisfied him in the least, citing ten areas that I wanted to cover. When we sat down for the interview, I started with number six on the list and he absolutely panicked because he was only prepared to answer question one.

I think that you can draw people out, you can get them to look at things in different ways and they can feel that they’re being creative. But what they’re really doing is just applying a different set of rules and they should be inventing their own rules.

Some people might think of themselves as not very creative.

It’s a pity if they do because you have much more fun being creative.

How do you think that a person can develop their creativity? Can you suggest any thought processes, exercises or inspiration that might help a person?

Koestler divides his book ‘The Act of Creation’  into three sections and the third one is jokes. When you start trying to analyze jokes it gets very interesting because the way jokes work is by setting the listeners mind on one path when actually the story is going along on another and the punchline jumps from one path to the other. I think that analysing how this happens is a creative thought process. I think that actually starting with any question, finding the answer and then trying to think of other possible answers is a way to develop one’s creativity. We’re normally satisfied with just one answer but we need to realize that there can be others and that ideas are limitless.

I write a column called ‘Beachcomber’ in the Daily Express. When people ask me what it’s about I tell them that I write anything I want to as long as it’s silly. When my kids were at primary school I got volunteered for a day when dads come to school and explain what they do for a living. After getting the kids on my side by setting them some puzzles and throwing them sweets when they got the right answers, I then read some Beachcomber columns. I’d never really analysed how I write them before but I realised that one very common technique was to start with a slightly illogical premise and then pursue it with rigid logic ad absurdum.

One of the examples is having conversations with self-checkout machines in supermarkets. Once when I was in the supermarket and just buying a carton of milk I scanned it through, put it in the wonderfully named ‘bagging area’ and the voice of the machine said “unexpected item in the bagging area, please remove the item”, so I removed it. And then it said “please replace the item in the bagging area” so I put it back and then it said “unexpected item in the bagging area” and we got stuck in this loop. So for writing the piece I wrote the story up till then as it had happened but then I said to the machine “excuse me I’m in a bit of a hurry, I just want to buy the milk, do you want it in the bagging area or out of it?” and the machine then says “I’m sorry I’m having a bit of a difficult morning” and we then have this wonderful conversation with the machine and it starts with the slightly illogical premise that there is a person inside the machine who is actually saying these things. Or that the machine is lifelike, it’s giving it a proper identity. Over several columns, I’ve really developed this romance between me and the checkout machine.

Back to the Creative Thinking World Championship – when you set a question do you often have an answer in your head? Or is part of the fun not having any idea about how you would answer the question yourself?

That’s a very good question because at the start of me doing a creativity column in The Independent, I always thought about the thing first and what ideas I’d come up with, just to make sure that the thing was feasible. But after a time I realised that I had such an imaginative audience that I could ask them anything and they would come up with brilliantly silly ideas. So in the Creative Thinking World Championship I just ask anything I like.

Ken Robinson says that one misconception that people have about creativity is that it is just about letting yourself go and being completely free and unstructured. Do you agree?

I think that you have to let yourself go to the extent that you have to be prepared to be wrong and I think that this is one of the things that holds people back. They are unwilling to do anything that might be a mistake, that might be wrong. With any creative process, you don’t know where it’s going, you’re just following your hunches, following your ideas and seeing where they lead. I think that to that extent the letting yourself go must be there, must be part of it, because people are very restrained.

When I interviewed this psychiatrist professor about the cognitive development of children, he mentioned something that I found very interesting. He said that up to a certain age children are prepared to entertain alternative realities, that you can simultaneously hold two views that are completely incompatible with each other and switch from one to the other. This is how children can both believe in Father Christmas and know that he doesn’t exist, this is no problem for them. And yet it becomes a problem that at some stage, we have so drilled into ourselves that there are right answers to everything, that I think that some people become afraid of entertaining possibly wrong answers, and I think that you musn’t be afraid like that, you must see where they lead.

Ken Robinson also mentions that this problem that you’re speaking about is compounded by the heavy focus on standardized testing in schools. Do you think that creativity could be fostered better in schools?

I know that I never thought of myself as creative until I was applying for a job with a group of psychologists and was given a personality test and came out of the test as highly creative. And I was astonished by this, because I had always thought that I was very systematic in my thought processes and very convergent rather than divergent. I was good at rigidly pursuing an idea until I got the answer rather than pursuing things that might not have answers. And partly as a result of the fact that they were psychologists and therefore didn’t understand people and relied on my personality test saying that I was creative, whenever I came up with a silly idea they thought that it was brilliant and they implemented it. And a lot of them worked. And I was very surprised by that but I then began to realize that a lot of the ideas that I’d just thought were silly were actually very good. I’m still a bit like that. I’m still realizing that some of the ideas I’ve had in the past that I’ve just dismissed as pure joke are in fact very good ideas.

Even though we don’t really know what makes a good idea do we.

Haha no we don’t. When my younger son had a bad attack of soft furry animal syndrome and became a vegetarian, I found myself either cooking a lot of meals in two pots and making something that could be made either with or without meat or making a dish for him that would then serve as the vegetables for everybody else. I then had the idea of a vegetarian cookbook called ‘Just Add Meat’. At the time I just completely dismissed it as a wonderfully silly idea but I’ve talked to food writers recently and chefs who’ve said that it’s a brilliant idea lets do it. And a vegetarian cookbook called ‘Just Add Meat’ is just the complete opposite of what you’d think. The way that one quite often is serving dinner for a number of people, one of whom is a vegetarian, I mean you don’t want to just fob them off with an omelet or the vegetables that everyone else is eating, you want to do something for them. But you don’t want to just pander to their whims and make everybody eat this rubbish so a ‘Just Add Meat’ cookbook is perfect for them.

You mentioned cookery and cookbooks, obviously, creativity can be found in any area of human endeavor – meaning any area in which a human does something, they can do in a creative way. Would you say that there is a particular area of creativity that you are most interested in?

One of the questions that I asked everybody when I was interviewing them is whether creativity is a process that an individual can do and can be applied to anything or whether it is context specific. You know, would you expect a creative scientist to be a creative artist and a creative chef. The really interesting thing was that everybody that I asked had a very firm answer to that but it was entirely dependent on themselves. People who had been creative in more than one area said “oh it’s undoubtedly a process that you apply to anything that you do.” People who had been creative in one very specific specialty said “oh it’s context dependent. So if you’re a creative physicist then it’s physics that you’re creative at, not everything else.” Now I think that that’s strange, I view it as a process. And that’s one of the reasons why in the Creative Thinking World Championship thing I try to throw people completely on their own resources and present them with something that they’ve never dreamt of before.

Oh yeah, “dreamt”, that’s a good word. I think that dreaming is one of the things that shows how creative everybody is, it’s our brains coming up with the most bizarre ideas. We’re putting things together. We’ve got a complete jumble of ideas in our head and only when we’re dreaming are we relaxed enough to start producing whole plots, usually completely impossible or science-fictional and we’re producing these wonderful ideas. It shows that everyone is much more creative than they think. Even mundane people have the most wonderful dreams.

2016 Creative Thinking World Championship

The 2016 Creative Thinking World Championship was won by Dan Holloway. The Creative Thinking World Championship is run by Bill Hartston and has been taking place at the Mind Sports Olympiad for 20 years. Bill has kindly supplied a summary of some of this year’s best answers. Enjoy!

Round One

I have just been tidying my house and organising the various over-stuffed drawers and cupboards and piles of stuff on the floors.

After going through everything, I am left with an odd glove, 13 odd socks and one unpaired chopstick.

What should I do with them?

All suggestions gratefully received.

——————————————————————————————————

There were plenty of ideas for things to do with each of the three items mentioned individually, but the most creative responses were those that incorporated all of them together, ideally taking into account the precise number of the socks. I particularly liked Dan Holloway’s absurdist adaptation of the idea of a sundial to create a lunar calendar with the socks marking out the 13 lunar months of the year, the chopstick as a gnomon, and the glove standing at the edge “to imitate a cockerel so that the moon will know to go away come morning and get rest before moving on to the next stage”.

Another of Dan’s ideas was to use the chopstick as a handling device and the glove to avoid leaving fingerprints, then “deposit each sock at the scene of local felonioes to spice up the theorizing of bored police”.

Peter Steggle produced a design for a terrifying children’s toy with 14 legs and a single giant hand. The glove, of course, forms the hand, 13 of the legs are socks and the 14th is an artificial leg made from the chopstick.

More than one contestant came up with the succinct idea of unravelling the wool from the socks then braking the chopstick in two to form a pair of knitting needles. Then you can knit the missing glove.

  

Round Two

Britain won 67 medals at the Rio Olympics but this was achieved at a cost of £350million investment of public money which works out at over £5 million per medal. In this age of austerity, that seems very expensive. You are therefore invited by the UK government to come up with ideas to achieve similar success for less money.

Please submit your reports.

——————————————————————————————————–

The most common theme in the answers was drugs, which split into two types: one half suggested that it would cost far less than £350million to develop undetectable drugs to boost the performance of British athletes; the other half used the money for a variety of surreptitious methods of drugging other countries’ contestants, or their blood and urine samples, leading to theri disqualification.

Again Dan Holloway produced the overall most imaginative suggestions which included cryogenically freezing our medallists from Rio then thawing them out for 2020, which could also bring success in a competitive defrosting event. Dan also set his sights even higher with a suggestion to replace the official US national anthem recording with a Jedward party remix “to ensure  the most historically successful does all in its power not to win more than its first gold”.

Other suggestions including not leaving the EU but taking the chance to build a European super-state to include the UK whose combined effors would win even more medals. Or, as some suggested, we could achieve the same result by military means, rebuilding the British Empire to include the nations with the best athletes.

Resli Costabell had perhaps the simplest and most effective idea of infiltrating Tokyo with British taxi drivers who would take our rivals to Osaka instead of Tokyo. I also very much liked her idea of saving money on pole-vault training facilities by glueing together all the chopsticks from the frist question to make a pole.

Round Three

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-1-58-59-am

These two diagrams come from patent documents. The upper is a Swedish invention, the lower is Japanese. Their titles have one significant word in common.

What are they? What do they do? How do they work? And what is the word they have in common?

————————————————————————————————–

Nobody, I am pleased to say, came remotely close to the intended uses of these inventions. The word they had in common was “nose”. The first is a device to make it easier for people wearing ski clothing to wipe their noses (basically it’s a pad worn on the wrist with an absorbent pad that may be flicked open). The second is a combined nose hair trimmer and cigarette lighter.

Peter Steggle provided the most comprehensive explanation of what the devices were and how they worked together as part of a ghost-busting kit he called the GGPS (Ghouls and Ghosts Positioning System). With detailed explanations of the functions of all the numbered parts on both diagrams, he included a psychic wave detector and ectoplasm sampler in his ghost-trapping and neutralising mechanisms as well as a MortuoLinguo translator (lower diagram) to reveal the meanings of their ghoulish utterances.

Resli Costabell also outlined the functions of all the numbered parts, but thought that both items were disability aids. “The photo on top clearly shows a one-thumbed man strapping the device to the stump of another man’s leg,” she says. She did, however, make the interesting obsetvation that the Swedish invention (upper diagram) is in the blue and yellow colours of the Swedish flag while the lower diagram features the black-and-white of Japan. Even compared with Peter Steggle’s ghost detecrtor, however, her explanations were a little far-fetched.

Other ideas included devices to be used against alien invasion (Nandini Shiralkar), a means of changing the colour of clothes (Emily Watson) and a signalling device for drones (Pauline Lewis).

Round Four

While walking round Cambridge market yesterday, I overheard the following snippets of conversation (not necessarily in this order), only one of which was addressed to me:

1: “From this hand to this shoulder round the back of the ball cage.”

2: “So I ended up naked and holding the lobster things over my boobs.”

3: “It’s nice to step in and step back out again sometimes.”

4. “Excuse me, are you the man from Gogglebox?”

I have a feeling there may be a link between them all, so your task is to blend them into a coherent narrative or plausible story.

———————————————————————————————–

I really did overhear all those lines in Cambridge the day before the Creativity competition. Number 2 was the first, and the temptation to use it in a question was irresistible.

Dan Holloway wove a gloriously incomprehensible postmodern narrative involving the incomprehensibly postmodern writer David Foster Wallace who wrote, among other things, a collection of essays entitled “Consider The Lobster”. His tale ended with the “lobster things over m,y boobs”, which I think is the right place for it. But he also managed to weave the other quotes into his tale, including the Gogglebox reference despite the fact that David Foster Wallace died before the programme was created.

Resli Costabell produced an equally convincing and ingenious (though somewhat deviant story) involving a woman who liked the feeling of a lobster’s tentacles or antennae on her breasts.

Peter Steggle’s tale involved a Japanese game-show in which contestants chose soft toys shaped like seafood, and then had to dodge ice lollies thrown by a man in a gorilla suit.

Strangely, it was the Gogglebox line that people found hardest to build into their stories convincingly, but a lot of lobsters were cooked in the tales.