I never would have gotten it in a million years. I am pretty clever and observant, but I was looking for an animal, an outline, a paw, an ear, a tail. Something. Never in a million years would I have got that.
I also think it is disingenuous. There is NOT a 2nd animal in that picture and so there is not a 2nd “tiger”. A word is not the same as the thing the word identifies.
If you showed me a picture with 2 items, one a circle and the other the word “circle” spelled out, and asked me how many circles were in the picture, I would say only one circle. The word is not the thing.
“I also think it is disingenuous. There is NOT a 2nd animal in that picture and so there is not a 2nd “tiger”. A word is not the same as the thing the word identifies.”
****
I know. The first time years ago, I tried it it was how our teacher said it which was “spot the second tiger”. Years later. my Stanford prof says “find the hidden tiger”. and the students were “what the heck are you talking about?”
“If you showed me a picture with 2 items, one a circle and the other the word “circle” spelled out, and asked me how many circles were in the picture, I would say only one circle. The word is not the thing.”
I agree. The way they state the problem as an “optical illusion” and “finding a second tiger” sends most people on a wild goose chase looking for a second tiger. It’s just a purposeful misdirection.
To be fair, it is easier to spot when you can see the entire picture at once and not have to scroll around on a larger picture shown here. Also, in the video attached to the article they junk up the view with chyrons flashing in and out. :0)