Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by randomstudent 3184 days ago
Cool, thanks. That definitely answers my questions. They really should link the study!

The part about distinguishing the animals from one another is still a problem, but I think that if Pokemon were actually real animals kids would distinguish them just fine anyway.
1 comments
zimpenfish 3184 days ago
I'd also venture that Pokemon are almost certainly deliberately designed and focus tested to be recognisable and distinguishable because, well, that's how you market stuff and that makes this a bit of a dumb study.

Mother Nature, alas, does not have this luxury.

link
lucozade 3184 days ago
> that makes this a bit of a dumb study

Only if you assume no intent on the part of the study's authors. For example, I wonder if they would have had quite a different result if they'd used, say, 14 year olds. Or a mix of ages.

I wasn't overly encouraged that two of their citations were for the Biophilia Hypothesis. An interesting book, for sure, but not exactly rigorous science.

I was left with the definite impression that this study was as much about politics as science. To that end, maybe not dumb just not particularly impartial.

link
zimpenfish 3184 days ago
> I was left with the definite impression that this study was as much about politics as science.

I suppose if they were trying to force a conversation about (say) getting children to zoos, it wasn't dumb.

But in the sense of extending the human race's knowledge, it was dumb.

link