Want to find out if you tend to focus on detail or prefer to see the bigger picture?  Then just look at the following picture and see if you can find the cat (click the picture to see a larger picture). People who find the cat in less than 30 seconds have a great eye for detail and aren’t at all creative, whilst those who struggle to see the furry fella tend to see the bigger picture and have a wonderful imagination (I just made that up). Thanks to Neil J.

132 comments

    1. Our cat goes out into the garden to WATCH mice. I kid you not. We had a snake eating fish in our pond, which I had to remove myself!

      Not the one in the picture though!

    2. Feral cats are a big problem here in Toronto. They are a major threat to the local wildlife we are working so hard to protect from extirpation or extinction. I like cats. But I also like spiders, mink, butterflies, snakes, coyotes, owls and all other critters, and for that reason, the introduction of fur coats made from felis catus may not be as bad an idea as it seems at first sight.

    3. …and then, we have a problem with Mink in the UK after some were released from a farm some years ago by activists. They displace a lot of our indigenous animals. Cats will help here!

    4. Indeed. One person’s indigenous life-form is another’s vermin. Mink are not native in the UK and they can be a problem indeed.

      Which is why -I guess- I hear more and more voices going up that doubt the wisdom of destroying non-native animals. Sure, it does seem to be working wonders on the Galapagos, but can we really do that all over the planet? Are we not fighting that which should not be fought because it is inevitable? I don’t know. Seen on a longer timescale, it seems so much more of an ethical problem than a biological or conservation problem.

      Maybe there is no good answer, but it’s certainly worth wasting some time on, thinking about it.

    5. I think we can consider the red fox native because it’s been here for so long, but we definitely have problem with European birds that were imported here because some cultural genius thought it was a good idea to bring all the birds of Shakespeare to us. And now, we can sometimes see massive murmurations of starlings in Toronto where they are outcompeting native birds.

    1. Left side. Find the squarish white-yellow thing in the middle. Cat is to the right and down. It’s black and white, heading down. (Photoshopped, I think.)

      Took me 50 seconds.

    2. Thanks. Located it. Clue provided by M was also helpful. I think if it is difficult to locate the cat, it is not because it gets camouflaged, but it is so tiny.

  1. Shoot me. I knew my family was lying when they said I had no imagination, but I didn’t know I had this much imagination. It took me almost 8 minutes to find the critter, and then only because I magnified the picture several times, and then used the cursor keys to move the picture over the visible part of the screen.

    Of course, now. I have no way of not seeing it anymore. GRRRR…

  2. About 20 seconds to find the cat.

    It took me an additional 30 seconds to see the silhouette of a man carrying rubbish, another 10 to see the playing field of the World Series illuminated by 1,024,000 candles, and 10 more to realize it’s a garage heap.

  3. Took a few minutes. I got the pic big, stood back, tried a polarizing filter, thought it was a cumulative kitty. Finally got it as I was giving up. And all my life I’ve been so good at finding p$%#y.

  4. What about people who are told there is cat in the picture and some arbitrary rule about their imaginations?

  5. Random searching proved useless. Try scanning left to right in imaginary lines; then you’ll spot it. Clever.

    1. Please do not compare
      Feynman
      Wiseman
      seem to be different leagues…
      even though both where joking sometimes…

  6. Took me about 1.5 mins. Interesting though – I identified the area of the dump where the cat was within about 20 seconds – I though – there is a cat there, but I just couldn’t see it. Kept coming back to that area, and eventually I saw it.
    Of course, maybe just random chance that happened, but feels like somehow the cognitive processes inside my brain are not quite talking to one another properly…

    1. I had more or less the same experience. I had a feline, sorry feeling, that I’d seen a cat in an area, but then I had to rescan the area for quite a while to actually consiously see the cat.

  7. First looked for a cat made out of the rubbish. No joy, read the comments and figured out it was a real cat and found it but scanning from bottom right to upper right and honestly found it within 2 seconds.

  8. Saw the cat after about 30 seconds. I don’t agree with any of the generalizations that makes about my character, though.

  9. I found the cat fairly quickly. An old catalytic converter, much as you’d expect to find in a pile of old junk. That is what you meant isn’t it?

    Of course there’s another four legged, furry one too.

  10. This:
    “People who find the cat in less than 30 seconds have a great eye for detail and aren’t at all creative, whilst those who struggle to see the furry fella tend to see the bigger picture and have a wonderful imagination (I just made that up)”
    Is crap..
    Just to know how to scan for details in a big picture does not inlcude any correlation between creativity, imagination and knowledge.

    1. Yeah he said that he made it up.

      It was apparently a sort of passing attempt at humour. Gosh! Humour on t’internet, who’d a thunk it?

  11. Took me minutes to find it. If only it had twitched a little – my eye would have been jerked toward it…

    1. Mrs DiscoveredJoys, trained as a proof-reader and who delights in ‘hidden object’ puzzles, spotted the cat in seconds.

  12. There are too many things that look like cats in that picture. I give up on trying to find the actual cat. Never been good at these Where’s Waldo type things, even though I’m quite detail-oriented and (according to an IQ test I took at 15) not very good at seeing the big picture. So I don’t know how far that connection goes.

  13. I give up. Can’t find anything about cats (animals, writings, composite figure). Maybe is some kind of pun that I can’t understand?

  14. Took me about 20 seconds after using up the first 10 seconds thinking there was going to be a large “virtual cat” made up by a pattern in the rubbish. But no…it’s just a cat walking on the rubbish. Just scanned my eyes about until I saw the cat.

  15. I took about twenty seconds to find it… odd, because it normally takes an eternity for me to solve those puzzles(and sometimes, I don’t even see the object I’m looking for even when it’s pointed out). I guess I’m becoming more experienced at this.
    Just hoping that this doesn’t mean I’m losing my creativity 😉

  16. I’m glad you made it up, because it sounds like dodgy psychology, Richard. You also forgot to factor in whether the person wants to find the cat (as in, whether they like finding cats).

  17. ” People who find the cat in less than 30 seconds have a great eye for detail and aren’t at all creative, whilst those who struggle to see the furry fella tend to see the bigger picture and have a wonderful imagination ”

    Could you tell us why?

  18. I’m not creative in the slightest but it took me less than 30 seconds to find it. Maybe it’s just because I like cats. And, is it me, or is that cat Photoshopped in there!?

  19. Eventually found it! I thought the cat may have been hiding inside some containers or that there’s no cat and the test was whether to see if people would lie about seeing it.

  20. If you imagine an x y grid, x being the vertical, the cat is at about 4x 2y, 0 being the bottom left corner of course.

    I’d imagine there’s a much more acceptable and scientific way to describe that coordinate but I suck at maths.

    And for the last time lab partners; HE SAID HE MADE UP THE BIT ABOUT THIS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR CREATIVITY.

    1. You are right. And it may be wise to click on the image to enlarge it. It is hardly visible on the smaller version.

      Here is a good text version of the image:

      skyskyskyskyskyskyskyskyskysky
      rubblejunkrubblejunkrubblejunkjunk
      junkrubblejunkrubblejunkrubblejunk
      rubblejunkrubblejunkrubblejunkjunk
      junkrubblejunkrubblejunkrubblejunk
      rubcatjunkrubblejunkrubblejunkjunk
      junkrubblejunkrubblejunkrubblejunk
      rubblejunkrubblejunkrubblejunkjunk
      junkrubblejunkrubblejunkrubblejunk
      rubblejunkrubblejunkrubblejunkjunk

    1. But if you mean the reflection on the black scrap thing right in the middle of the screen. Than yeah i might have spotted the cat, bear, dog looking furry animal.

  21. It took about 5 minutes for me. I was distracted by the idea that it was going to be some sort of fake or illusionary cat. Once I gave up looking, I found the real cat by doing the previously mentioned “cat scan”.

  22. It took me about 20 seconds. For those still looking, it’s a real cat, about half way up on the left, just under and to the right of the big yellow square thing and fairly well camouflaged.

  23. Never saw the one on the left till it was pointed out. I saw the overall big cat made up of all of the rubbish first, but maybe that is as he said – good imagination… Have to squint to see it though…

  24. So maybe the cat is just not there for some of you and is for others? is it *gasp* Schrodinger’s Cat?

    Sorry, I figured the universe might collapse if someone didn’t bring it up.

  25. Saw it in about 5-10 seconds. I got lucky though, as I hadn’t even looked at most of the picture by that time. I started at the bottom and went clockwise.

  26. What cat? Is it an optical-illusion cat or a real cat? And what bit was Richard making up? I’m a details woman, I think, but I still haven’t seen the cat. Is this a trick question?

  27. I thought it was a massive illusion and the rubbish made an image with the impression of a cat, so I was totally looking at it in the wrong way. One of the first times we’ve been asked to see an animal which is actually an animal…

  28. 14 seconds, BUT . . .

    It is just luck – it depends where you start, it depends on looking at the correct spot and a more organised, analytical mind would have taken longer with a process driven methodology.

    14 seconds, but it was just luck.

    Would be easier, were the cat really there.

  29. Totally irritated. I have stared at this for ten minutes, and can see no cat whatsoever. My daughter glanced at it and saw it immediately.

    1. I AM a girl!! 🙂 I finally found it, but I had to zoom way in and look at small sections at a time.

    2. I AM a girl!! 🙂 I finally found it, but I had to zoom way in and look at small sections at a time

    3. Goofy thing is that last week I went through a Waldo book and found them all within less than five minutes.

    4. Unfortunately, our brains aren’t always that consistent. Some times they are less reliable than others.

      I remember that I once had to look for a bug in a programme I wrote and it took me over three weeks to find it. I consistently looked over it. I got so depressed over it, that my customer told me not to worry and simply start over. And then, hours later I discovered it. A z0 and a zO had been mixed up. That was the time a variable only had two significant characters…

      I’d say that if Waldo worked, you still have quite a while to go before you won’t recognise yourself in the mirror any longer! ^_^

    1. I just realised that my post, above, is a practical example of the small picture versus the big picture! Cool!

  30. I’m not so sure the image hasn’t been photoshopped; my neural circuits for recognising cats in tips are well established because I hunt them for the local shire, but I had to keep returning to the area my eyes were telling me the cat should be in for more than a minute before the synapses got the hippocampus feeding to the prefrontal cortex.
    It needed to make a whole new paradigm for a cat walking apparently horizontally across an apparently steep tip.

    The only photoshopping hints I can offer are that the cat’s tail is unconvincingly shadowed towards its tip, that the cat is not gracile enough for a tip-dweller – for example, she wouldn’t likely have the heavy undercarriage, even if pregnant – that the cat is not dirty enough around the face and paws, and that the posture doesn’t jibe with a cat’s careful negotiation of uneven ground.

  31. Just because someone is detail-oriented, and has strong senses, does not mean that they are any less creative than people who are big picture thinkers. It’s when someone becomes obsessed with the small details that they become uncreative, just as someone who thinks too big picture becomes uncreative when they forget about the details that will bring their ideas to fruition. You have to have a healthy balance between being detail-oriented and big picture thinking

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s