As we continue our vainglorious attempts to solve the Rubik’s 360, we’ve been asking if these kinds of puzzles are more than pure distraction. Well, yesterday, Nora put these questions to Philip R. Servos, Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience, and a professor of psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University. A shortened version of the interview will air on Spark’s February 11 & 14 episode, but the full uncut interview’s below (or download the MP3).
Play audio:
Also next week: Toronto Rubik’s Cube competitors Callum, Emma and Jack will have a go at the 360 and offer up their expert critique of the new toy/puzzle/cruel device.
But what do you think? Will the Rubik’s 360 be a hit? Why would you want to try it out?
And if you like hearing these extended interviews, why not subscribe to Spark’s enhanced podcast? You’ll get regular weekly episodes, plus additional blog-only content like this. [Subscribe via RSS] or [Subscribe with iTunes]
[Original image by stephenphampshire]
Rubik’s 360 requires more sleight of hand, than in logic thinking as an original cube of Rubika. “It is more kinetic problem, more physical because here also force of an attraction is involved.