Submitted 13 hours ago by ickplant@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/91245f6f-4551-4c6e-bec7-6c7e5739902c.jpeg
I’m not buying that heatmap data. Why are almost all the dots on the left red? That would mean that women pick a random spot and focus on that for an extended period of time before moving on to the next. This is not really how you’d investigate a scene. The right images are much more believable to me: Short glances at random points to get an overview of the scene and then re-investigating points of interest.
I am a man, though. Women: Do you really stare random points into oblivion?
Considering how common and easy eye tracking is, this seems like some shitty science.
whaaaat surely BYU, the school that claimed to have done cold fusion, is an upstanding pillar of academic research
Shitty science at BYU? Surely not!
This would be the perfect use case for that fancy Apple VR headset they released a year or two so. Since it has built-in eye tracking, it would be easy to set up a test in a controlled environment where participants navigate it while looking around.
Study designed around a conclusion using a borderline invalid method.
I feel like utilizing eye tracking would be used if they were to study this concept more deeply. That data would be more complicated to sift through given how much data and how many variables might come into play. Definitely more telling but also harder to analyze.
Yeah, what this data actually shows is that, in the situations tested, women tend to find darker areas of a picture more interesting and men tend to find lighter areas more interesting. Not as interesting of a headline though. I’m interested to see what the actual paper says, not some click bait pop-sci meme.
[researches] asked [participants] to click on areas in the photo that caught their attention.
Then the different-colored dots make even less sense. And why are there fringes?
Seems like a seriously flawed study, doezn’t it, asking people to point to what’s interesting is NOT AT ALL the same as tracking their eyes.
We could actually track their eye movement by using special glasses. Just call your study what it actually is, ffs… don’t confuse the data.
…also, it has to do with attention on photos rather than real world going home experiences.
they picked a location on campus widely known among the student body for people getting raped. i was warned as a freshman during orientation not to go there after dark.
As a woman, imagining situations like those: I can see the brightly lit center is empty, that’s all I need to know about it. The stairs require several glances especially if I’m in heels or other unstable shoes. But those dark corners need checking and rechecking the whole time I’m walking, to be sure no tiny changes betray a lurker. Who is probably going to wait until they’re at my back to make a move.
My mental image of the guys scanning the same image: “Yeah that’s where I’m going, that’s obviously where I’m looking.” Sure, they could get mugged but it’s less likely, and physical threat isn’t on their mind.
Sure, they could get mugged but it’s less likely This is completely untrue, men are (and always have been) the primary target of random violence such as mugging. According to FBI crime statistics it’s hugely disproportional year after year. Women are disproportionately victimized by their intimate partners, both male and female. Both of these facts are beyond tragic but it is, in my opinion, really important to get these things straight. Women are more likely to scream for help when they are being robbed which leads them to being de-prioritized when violent criminals are choosing their targets. Men tend to submit, and are likely to avoid reporting it due to shame, so the disparity is probably significantly higher than the already gigantic reported disparity.
Hope you don’t see this as me just trying to stir shit cause I’m not. It just really irks me to see that sentiment repeated even though it’s entirely unsubstantiated. I’m a man of small stature and a minority. With awareness of the reality of the situation, the threat of physical violence is literally always on my mind. I’ve had a solid handful of random encounters in public that very nearly turned violent and it causes me pretty severe anxiety.
Don’t know why I felt like typing a novel over this, like I said though I guess I just find it frustrating. I can’t talk to my female friends about this, they just laugh at me. They talk about it like I’m wholly immune to violence by virtue of being male when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
I was mugged in the playground of my building, the street across fine my house, my lobby, and at 57th and suttton, all in Manhattan. Then a few more times when I lived in Baltimore. I really hope most women don’t get raped that often.
My point wasn’t that women aren’t looking at the surroundings, but that they don’t do it as is portrayed in the image. You said it yourself: “checking and rechecking the whole time” That doesn’t match singular hotspots, but rather a more spread-out heatmap with peaks at certain positions.
I’m not buying that heatmap data.
In the article they note that they participants were shown photos and told to click on areas that caught their attention. The results show that women paid more attention to the periphery. No eye tracking, no long focus.
Isn’t it like a video game, where you look to where people might be hiding?
I feel like you should probably do this study again outside of BYU and more generally outside of Utah, Mormon culture especially Utah Mormon culture is weird and could definitely fuck with a study like this.
Though fun bit of personal experience with this exact scenario, my grandmother has better general visual awareness while my non visual awareness is a lot better overall. This means I subconsciously avoid things around me due to feel, sound, and smell but can be looking directly at something and not see it. Probably has something to do with the fact my eyesight is naturally fucked though, so my edge vision is basically useless for everything outside of movement since it’s basically just a blurry blob.
that specifically is known as Rape Corridor, so of course the women aren’t looking straight ahead
Makes sense for the school that expels women for being assaulted. As if I needed another reason to hate BYU
i can give you good reasons or bad reasons i got them all
They call it nonconsensual immorality
I look mostly at the ground to avoid stepping on dog poo.
Yeah I’m a hard ground starer too. But def scanning periphery when not looking down. Especially at night when it’s most dangerous but I’ve always avoided going outside at night as much as possible.
Broad conclusions for a study conducted on a population of ~500 undergrad students at a single religious university in one city of one state of one country.
Even if this was a conclusive study (sounds like there’s some issues there with selection and methodology,)….
This is probably because women are more likely to be harassed/assaulted/raped/mugged/etc.
Other vulnerable groups (trans, immigrants, etc) are probably are also scanning and maintaining better situational awareness.
It’d be nice to be able to walk down a street without making other people uncomfortable because men in general are less assholish than bears.
It’d be nice to be able to walk down a street without making other people uncomfortable because men in general are less assholish than bears.
A part of it is large numbers bias. Very few people encounter bears, so very few people experience bear attacks. Even if every bear was predisposed to attacking people, there would still be very few bear attacks. But virtually everyone encounters men on a near daily basis. So even if the likelihood of an attack is extremely low on a case-by-case basis, the overall number of incidents is much higher simply because there are more cases of people encountering men.
That’s why the go-to response to “it’s not every man” essentially boils down to “sure, it’s not every man. But it’s enough of them…”
I don’t trust Mormon findings until they are peer reviewed.
Until you learn the peers reviewing are more Mormons.
Mormons only consider other Mormons peers, so that checks out.
“Why can’t we live in a world where women don’t have to think about these things? It’s heartbreaking to hear of things women close to me have dealt with,” Chaney said. “It would be nice to work towards a world where there is no difference between the heat maps in these sets of images. That is the hope of the public health discipline.”
I’m not convinced this phenomenon would disappear in a world where women don’t have to think about these things. It could be an evolutionary psychology thing. Would have to repeat the experiment in different societies and environments to find out.
As a somewhat paranoid person, you better believe I ain’t looking just straight ahead, even as a man. You never know who is nearby, waiting to confront you for any reason.
I don’t know you, I don’t know where in the world you live and what the crime statistics are there, but you don’t have to be paranoid to take reasonable precautions. Being aware of your environment isn’t paranoia. People can be attacked anywhere in the world.
As a self defense instructor, the most important advice I give people is to leave your senses unimpeded and trust your intuition. If something feels wrong, take action (usually evade and escape if possible) and do so right away. Don’t just tell yourself “it’s probably nothing, it’ll be fine.”
Obviously, if you have an actual psychological condition that gives you undue stress in relatively safe conditions, that’s probably something you could see a mental health professional about.
As a fellow paranoid person I assume you also make some effort to concral when you’re looking around; tie your shoe, check yourself out in a store window, watch reflections on cars, etc.
If some sketchy guy is following me, I want to know, without them knowing I know.
We had people come into our grade school to give us advice like that.
We’ll never get better game sense if we don’t keep an eye on our surroundings!!!
I thought these were guitar hero screenshots at first
Men have better peripheral vision.
TIL i’m a woman
🩵🩷🤍🩷🩵
I wouldn’t be looking at any of that, where’s the smartphone showing dumb memes?
Alright yall, experiment time.
Go bird watching. Or squirrels. Something hard to spot that moves quickly.
Scan the treeline, or instead fixate on a point straight ahead. Do what comes naturally first, then the opposite. What method “spots” the motion first?
See what method works better for you. Hope it helps!
I ride a motorcycle… When I was doing the MSF training (after riding illegally for years), I kept getting dinged for not turning my head to look into a turn. Thing is, I have excellent peripheral vision. I can see 90° to either side when I’m looking straight ahead - so I tend to keep my gaze straight ahead regardless of where my attention is…
Its been years since I took the course, but I believe one of the reasons for turning your head into a turn is “balance”. It basically recenters yourself into the turn.
The other is not all helmets are made the same. Some are going to restrict your vision more than others.
yeah, i got dinged on my driver’s test for not turning my head to look. because my eyes can rotate in their sockets, something the examiner did not consider.
Men are better at detecting motion. I would bet men are better at detecting motion in their perephiral vision too.
Right… peripheral vision in general is better at motion, but shit for details. It’s why sacchads happen seemingly at random; often something is signalled in the periphery, so the individual glances in that direction.
Well, a man who scanned the periphery would come across as shifty (“what’s he looking for? is he some kind of voyeur or predator? he’s not staring at that girl’s tits, is he, the creep?”), so looking straight ahead is kind of like keeping one’s hands where everyone can see them. Though granted the absence of likely threats would also have an influence.
Was going to say nearly the same. We’re conditioned to always fabricate a guise of confidence and the body language you give off ‘scanning the periphery’ comes off as the opposite of that.
That’s why I can never find anything and have to ask my girlfriend for help. I’m bad and scanning the periphery.
Factor in trauma x gender otherwise the data worthless.
Yeah I’m a guy who focuses so much on my surroundings. My trauma score is pretty high as well
I must be a woman cause I too am always looking around. But I get why women have to do this. Same reason they rather run into a bear in the woods rather then a man. It’s fuck up but just proves as a collective us men need to do better.
Men and women also navigate differently. Men navigate tend to by direction and women tend to navigate by landmarks. I suppose looking around helps to find those important landmarks.
I always wonder if women were the gathers becuase of how they navigate and look around, or were women the gathers becuase they could navigate by landmark and tend to look aound alot?
please do not get me started on how my mother gives directions she always includes turning at some animal. you know, those animate things that have lives and can move and not be there when i drive by.
it all started because she watched O Brother Where Art Thou and she thought “you will see a cow on a roof” was funny, and it was, and then she saw a goat with a hat on it on a drive to someplace and she was turning there and told everyone to turn at the goat with the hat. guess who was not there when everyone else was driving by oh gods i got started
This could also be evolutionary… Imagine 2 cavemen walking through a forest. The woman scans the periphery while the male focuses ahead. It may be an evolutionary thing.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 hour ago
Really? I scan the environment too, even check for snipers.