• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    And I think that hits on the truth, which makes this less “iamverysmart”. It’s not that the tourists are dumb, it’s that they’re new and not willing to pay much attention to things like trash can design. 1% of a normal person’s attention presents a lot like a really dumb person.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      7 months ago

      Is it 1%? Maybe when they first try to open it they’re distracted But when doesn’t open and now they’re concentrating on the problem and still fail, then we have to kinda own up to the fact that a lot of people aren’t smarter than a bear.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think if they can score 100 on an IQ test, they can figure out any reasonable trash can eventually, assuming the moving parts are visible. Many people would rather just litter.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Yup. The ranger did say “stupidest”, I guess, but I feel like at 70 or something you still know to pull on stuff in a few set ways until it moves.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                That makes me wonder what designs they were considering. The ones I’ve seen use a sort of pinch motion under metal hood. Maybe the idea there is to require dexterous forelimbs, rather than any intellectual ability.

          • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            100 is the average, implying half the population is lower than that

            At the risk of pedantry, if 100 is the average (the mean), we’re saying “most people are at 100”. If it were the median, then we’re implying “100 is the middle score of those sampled”. A subtle, but important difference.

        • affiliate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          i’m not really sure what IQ has to do with this. it was originally designed to measure people’s proficiency in school. it was not designed to be a general measure of intelligence. that was something that was co opted by eugenicists.

          here’s a quote from Simon Bidet, the original creator of the IQ test, about his thoughts on the eugenicists using his test:

          Finally, when Binet did become aware of the “foreign ideas being grafted on his instrument” he condemned those who with ‘brutal pessimism’ and ‘deplorable verdicts’ were promoting the concept of intelligence as a single, unitary construct.

          you can read more about this stuff on his wikipedia page. (the quote is from wikipedia)

          even to this day, there is quite a bit of doubt as to how accurately IQ measures “general intelligence”

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I know. It’s a shorthand quantitative measure everyone’s familiar with, though, so it’s useful for communicating. Thanks for adding a disclaimer for me.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yah, that’s possible too. But I can’t say I’d figure anyone that litters is much smarter than a bear either.