>> Males pooping + females peeing + pooping = 3. Got it?
apparently... to an incorrect, shallow first-order approximation that assumes an even distribution of toilet events.
A better model would be:
Pseat = f(gender, diet, beerConsumption, scratchUrge)
where
gender = {male, female}
beerConsumption(male)=12; beerConsumption(female)=3.1
scratchUrge(male)=1; scratchUrge(female)=0
Clearly your model breaks down by assuming e(toilet), i.e. toilet events, are evenly distributed among #1 and #2.
But you fail to take into account the gross (!) differences in beerConsumption and scratchUrge among the gender=male cohort. (Footnote: scratchUrge can only be satisfied with seat = UP.)
The detailed mathematics* are left as an exercise for the reader, but it can be shown that lidUp toilet events occur at a frequency four to five times higher than lidDown events.
Therefore, lidUp = 5(1) = 5, whereas lidDown (as in your simple model) = 3 (and some researchers believe the ratio to be even higher).
The natural position of the lid is, as you can see from this analysis, UP.
*Males are MUCH better at math. That was your first mistake.
don’t hurt me
Okay...THAT is funny!
You do realize I am a female beer drinker and my husband doesn’t drink beer at all. Neither does my son - unless we wanted child protective services after us. SO...where does that leave me in my house?!
On 2nd thought, save your brain for more taxing problems, like whether the toilet paper roll is hung outsies or insies. :)