The categories of animals reminds me of the small world/seven degrees of separation thesis, that you'll know a lot of people who are in a tightly connected group, but you'll also know a handful of people who are distantly connected. These distant connections allow you to (theoretically) reach anyone in the world in seven steps. The people are the animals, the tightly connected groups are the categories of animals, and the distantly connected people are associations to another category.<p>He missed the entire class of categories that are based on the name of the animal (e.g. starting with the same letter). I think his multiple-personality technique is a neat treat for bringing different kinds of associations to the fore. That's assuming that you have the (now-meta) connection to the appropriate person in the first place. For example, he didn't think of imagining he's a lexicographer.<p>BTW: I wish he'd leave some white-space to separate hints that he doesn't want you to read.
> <i>Students were asked a series of brain teaser questions. One group of students was told that the questions were invented at their university; the other group was told they were invented in a far away university. Thinking that the test came from far away somehow raised the creativity of the subjects. They answered more questions correctly.</i><p>Sheer tripe. Out of two groups, one is going to do better. If the first group had just happened to do better, we'd be reading an article about how thinking something is "close" makes it more "concrete" and raises your creativity, because it's easier to think of things that are tangible -- or whatever other Just-So story they'd invent. The second group didn't have its creativity "raised"; it just happened to be the group that won the coin flip.