r/interesting • u/Zu_Qarnine • Jul 04 '26
Intriguing Heat maps show men look straight ahead; women scan periphery.
The closest thing it reminds me of is Predator vs. Prey visions. I don't know if they're related or not.
source Study visually captures a hard truth: Walking home at night is not the same for women
719
u/Mundane-Bath1368 Jul 04 '26
where? how was this measured? source?
163
u/Zu_Qarnine Jul 04 '26
It's from this study: Study visually captures a hard truth: Walking home at night is not the same for women
822
u/JustASimpleDurp Jul 04 '26
This study doesn’t replicate realworld walking at night it only measures where people clicked on static photos, so it demonstrates differences in visual attention, not actual behavior or the causes of those differences.
145
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis Jul 04 '26
Oh wow. Until your comment I assumed it was an eye tracking study. I can’t believe this came out in 2023.
Thanks Brigham Young, I guess…
21
2
141
Jul 04 '26
[deleted]
13
u/empty_graph Jul 04 '26
"Bollocks" is going too far. The conclusion about walking home at night is not supported or even really tested, but there is a real behavioral difference that has been measured here.
That said, the study title "Gender-Based Heat Map Images of Campus Walking Settings: A Reflection of Lived Experience" is terrible. It should have been cut off at the ":" as there is absolutely no evidence that "lived experience" is the cause of the differences between genders or the differences between different test subjects of the same gender.
11
u/_sloop Jul 05 '26
In fact, men are more likely to be attacked, and therefore should be the ones scanning their environment.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)34
u/ARectalThermometer Jul 04 '26
this doesn't mean its absoult bolloks, its just not properly tested yet. its a very simple way to build an initial hypothesis and collect prelimenary data which would then provide basis for future work which tests and confirms it properly.
the trend and pattern itself may still be right it just needs some more work.
56
u/caketruck Jul 04 '26
The article and OP are making claims with unreliable data in an unnatural environment. The “hard truth” is bollocks.
3
27
u/Ralh3 Jul 04 '26
No its bolloks, clicking what "stands out the most to you" in pictures has NOTHING to do with the claims of where people are looking when they are out walking.
→ More replies (2)10
u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 04 '26
The article is bullocks , but that is the case in 99.9% of cases, I don’t think I have ever seen an article accurately represent the study it describes, at least not in the title alone.
That doesn’t mean the study is bullocks though
→ More replies (4)5
u/hypersonic18 Jul 04 '26
Ever heard the saying "looking for trouble." For guys even if they are sketched out of their minds the best move often is to ignore it because people can just snap if you glance at them. Study could have easily added in heart rate measurements to atleast correlate it with stress. Especially since that is a major crux of their hypothesis.
3
u/dthdthdthdthdthdth Jul 05 '26
No it is completely worthless. If you have people click on some photos, they are making conscious decisions on that they find interesting or even what they might think is expected of them. It tells you absolutely 0 about their intention to do so or how they behave in that situation.
Yes it does not mean the hypothesis is wrong, but the experiment just has nothing to do with it. It is not helpful as "preliminary data" nor a basis for anything.
→ More replies (1)9
7
5
u/CustomerLittle9891 Jul 04 '26
In the dark and on stairs and the place the person looks the most isn't where their feet are going? Yeah, obvious click bait garbage.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)-4
u/oldfarmjoy Jul 04 '26
It shows that women think defensively and men think offensively.
The study asked people to "click on areas in the photos that caught their attention.
Men focus on the destination, what's ahead.
Women focus on potential threats they might meet as they move towards their destination.
79
u/LandOfGreyAndPink Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
Whether the participants are thinking 'defensively,' 'offensively', or anything else isn't directly demonstrated by the photos or findings. It's an inference or judgment that we make about what the participants might have been thinking.
→ More replies (15)13
u/DeadlySquirrelNinja5 Jul 04 '26
We can see that there is a difference between female and male, now I would like them to do a mor advanced study. But the result as such is interesting.
→ More replies (5)4
u/LowerPick7038 Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
" We can see that there is a difference between female and male, "
Yeah. Its about time that we forget all the nonsense. Men are women ARE different. That doesnt have to be a bad thing, if you just flip the narrative and say its positive then......its positive. Either way socially and genetically they are either end of the spectrum.
Edit: I in no way mean this as not being equal.
→ More replies (5)10
u/Rezzone Jul 04 '26
Pretty wild conclusions from clicking patterns. I would really be hesistant to make such assertions.
9
u/Late_Apricot404 Jul 04 '26
Also bullshit. Men live and commute in bad areas all the time, they’re definitely thinking defensively.
You never just focus dead ahead.
4
u/LowerPick7038 Jul 04 '26
" It shows that women think defensively and men think offensively. "
Does it really?
If anything i would say its more defence to look at where the threat is coming from. Not where they couldnt be
13
u/Visible_Pair3017 Jul 04 '26
Men also focus on potential threats, just not in the same way. Locking eyes with some guy by looking on the sides is something i learned not to do really fast growing up in a bad neighborhood.
4
u/40ozCurls Jul 04 '26
What is “locking eyes by looking on the sides”?
5
u/Open_Helicopter4482 Jul 04 '26
It means eyes forward, dont be looking around at everyone and avoid making eye contact. It catches attention.
7
u/Visible_Pair3017 Jul 04 '26
There are men around you. You look straight ahead because if you look in the periphery and lock eyes with the wrong guy, he may attack you.
2
u/40ozCurls Jul 04 '26
I see. “Locking eyes” means to stare into the eyes of someone, so locking eyes “by looking to the sides” sounded like you were describing staring someone down by giving them hard side eyes.
5
u/Visible_Pair3017 Jul 04 '26
My bad, i've been juggling languages today so i'm sort of getting bad at every one of them at that point
→ More replies (2)3
5
2
u/empty_graph Jul 04 '26
It shows that there is a difference. "Women think defensively and men think offensively" is a hypothesis that could potentially explain that difference, but it is in no way shown by this experiment.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Angelofpity Jul 04 '26
As someone who used to walk at night a lot, you quickly realize that your peripheral vision is much, much better at low light vision. This study used a still picture in an office. I'd imagine a in situ study would provide different results.
10
2
2
u/LastOfLateBrakers Jul 04 '26
It's funny how most of the comments actually prove that the privilege exists since they're completely missing out on the point and making unfunny statements.
14
u/your-favorite-simp Jul 04 '26
I think its weird that none of you guys point out that this study was only done on white Mormon students at Mormon universities but youre treating it as universal human experience.
13
u/Onludesrightnow Jul 04 '26
Privilege? Huh? Never mind that the study proves nothing... how is having the ability to look forward and not at your surroundings a privilege?
→ More replies (1)13
5
u/Huntsman077 Jul 05 '26
I mean the comments are pointing out that it’s bs. Also you do realize men are more likely to get attacked right?
→ More replies (24)2
u/genobeam Jul 04 '26
Men are not likely to be victimized by stranger violence than women so what is the privilege here?
You can twist the results into opposite BS just as easily: Maybe it's that men are taught not to look around because the male gaze is seen as threatening?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)1
u/Easy_Walk_3206 Jul 04 '26
Men are far more precautious than women for other men. We're literally the ones who prepare for fights and exit strategies
3
u/petit_cochon Jul 05 '26
You think women don't have fight and exit strategies lol?
→ More replies (1)2
7
→ More replies (1)12
4.7k
u/GarageEuphoric4432 Jul 04 '26
Since it seems to have been intentionally left out. This is from a study done of 600 individuals, 44% of which were male, they were shown pictures and asked to click on the areas that stood out to them.
To take a flawed 600 person study and apply it to men and women in general is peak gender wars nonsense.
1.9k
u/johnnyblaze1999 Jul 04 '26
"click on the areas that stood out to them". Lol, I thought they use the eye tracker device to show the heat map
600
u/JackieHands Jul 04 '26
It went from a study about how people subconsciously act based on gender to one about what people selectively choose...
Amazing way to structure a post OP
→ More replies (3)135
Jul 05 '26
[deleted]
40
u/nhorning Jul 05 '26
Also, what a shit study.
7
→ More replies (4)3
u/sibjat Jul 05 '26
Maybe. Depends on what they were actually studying. 4 pictures with incorrect context doesn't tell you much
20
74
44
u/Bush_Hiders Jul 04 '26
Yeah, we have the technology to do this study more accurately. What a bizarre way to go about this.
53
u/VapOr22722 Jul 04 '26
An eye tracker would never give the datapoints of the female images. Its too small heat zones and too many to be that red.
23
u/Bignholy Jul 05 '26
This. The eye tracking would be a bunch of smears or a bunch of pinpoint sized lines depending on how they measured and represented the focus, not perfect round dots.
25
u/redpillsadorewelfare Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
I mean yeah, sure...
But like with any data set, you'd appropriately transform and filter out the noise (what you're speaking of), so you could and would still arrive with something visually identical to this.
4
u/Cold-Confection6091 Jul 05 '26
I think they are saying that human eyes just dont focus like this. They move. They glance. They dont stare at a dot for 10s. Its not noise, its behavior.
→ More replies (2)5
2
u/Guy-1nc0gn1t0 Jul 05 '26
I think that's what anyone would see from the images initially but I can't imagine an eye scanner being a heat map thing
3
4
u/McCaffeteria Jul 05 '26
What’s interesting is that even if it were an eye tracker heat map, it wouldn’t mean what most people think it means.
When I (make) am going somewhere, like at the grocery store, I am looking ahead because A) I am moving fast because B) I have an actual goal. That does not mean I am not looking at my peripheral vision, and I am still often the first one to make traffic changes.
Eyeball Orientation != Attention
If there is a difference in where men and women look (which, again, this study does not show) it does not actually tell you what they are paying attention to. Now, in combination with more studies (perhaps designed similarly to this) you could learn about how we utilize our vision to pay attention to things, which would be very interesting. Just not from either study alone, and not from this post.
It may be the case that Women’s peripheral vision just straight up is not as effective as Men, and so they “have to” look directly. It could also be the case that their priorities are different, and they are using their peripherals for the same function as we use our primary center visit for, which would support a more one-track-goal/defensive dynamic.
→ More replies (5)2
171
u/Foxs-In-A-Trenchcoat Jul 04 '26
individuals*college students
The subjects of probably 90% of behavioral studies.
65
→ More replies (35)12
u/PudgyChocoDonut Jul 04 '26
Not mention they're hung over and generally don't want to be there
10
u/whistling-wonderer Jul 05 '26
This was a BYU study, so tbf, less likely to be hungover lol
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
15
11
u/Ok-Direction1155 Jul 05 '26
You're not thinking about it right, you need to let the rage consume you
→ More replies (1)53
u/MrDD33 Jul 04 '26
600 is large sample size. How many would you expect to sample then?
55
u/CloseToMyActualName Jul 04 '26
The sample size is fine.
The sample population... not great.
The implications... problematic.
The conclusion fits our narrative, and it's certainly worth further study, but clicking points of interest on a computer screen is a lot different from how someone would react when walking down a path.
What if we're talking about a hunter following a trail, or a forager looking for berries? This experiment would service the exact same assumptions.
19
u/CplOreos Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
The fact that OP's emphasis on the sample size is misplaced seems to be the point of the comment you replied to, not an assertion that there aren't other study design and conclusion issues.
Lay people seem to underestimate the explanatory power of seemingly small sample sizes. 600 is a lot, most studies don't even approach that size.
→ More replies (4)8
u/CrabAppleFarmer Jul 05 '26
What problematic narrative relies on women prioritizing periphery scoping at a higher rate than men?
2
u/CloseToMyActualName Jul 05 '26
It's not about the narrative being problematic, it's claiming that the experiment proves that narrative.
There are many potential reasons the women may have looked clicked around the periphery of the still images more.
2
u/Defiant__Idea Jul 05 '26
The study is flawed, that we all agree on. But to claim that this is "peak gender wars" without even suggesting a potential problematic narrative is just stupid.
2
u/Freediverjack Jul 05 '26
It’s like the article I see all the time about bull bars causing more deaths. No real study to back it just several unlinked data points
-Basically more pedestrians died in an increasing trend over years
- vehicles have gotten bigger, which means more mass.
with no data specific to the incidents they just draw a line between the two and call it a day
2
u/CloseToMyActualName Jul 05 '26
Possibly, but people certainly would have looked at the vehicles causing those collisions (and I can think of at least one or two reported instances where the fatality was clearly caused by the driver not seeing the pedestrian due to the height of the car).
The linkage in the article is much more tenuous.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
u/volvavirago Jul 05 '26
Looking around is still pretty essential for hunting. And ya know. Staying alive and alert to your surroundings.
3
u/CloseToMyActualName Jul 05 '26
The idea would be that you're actually tracking the animal and don't want to lose the trail.
But the wider point is it's a 'just so' story. In reality we're just speculating how an actual tracker would look around.
6
u/ChironXII Jul 05 '26
When you ask people to do a study they know is sampling men and women, about what visually looks interesting in obviously suspicious circumstances like a creepy image, do you think that might influence the sorts of things they think of and signal as interesting?
Ironically, it's very well studied that yes, people actually do internalize and perpetuate cultural narratives about themselves in these situations. The data therefore tells you mostly what they believe about themselves and not how they actually behave.
→ More replies (7)12
u/WalkAffectionate2683 Jul 04 '26
At work, we test maaaaaany things maaaaaany times.
And honestly, with random sample the precision nearly flats out after 16 people.
I couldn't belive it, but yeah, more than 16 person usually doesn't add much more details.
We still do 100 or more time to time, but the 16 rules is nearly always verified.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Tanekaha Jul 05 '26
...what analytics do you use? statistical power of a sample of 16 is way too low unless the apparent effect size is huge.
2
8
u/Nicodemus888 Jul 04 '26
It’s just a self reporting thing? I thought it was doing something interesting like tracking eye movements or something. This is just asinine
→ More replies (3)7
u/badaboom Jul 05 '26
Depending on the sampling process, an n of 600 is plenty to be able to generalize
2
u/cfi-2025 Jul 05 '26
Sampling was college-aged students at a single, religion-affiliated school.
→ More replies (1)6
u/LiveComfortable3228 Jul 05 '26
Not to mention the suggested connection between men = predators / women = prey
2
u/MBunnyKiller Jul 05 '26
Thank you! These supposed results didn't make sense to me. My situational awareness is like 10x that of my wife.
2
u/Iron_Wolf123 Jul 05 '26
Plus people on the spectrum struggle to look straight ahead as they avoid eye contact often.
2
u/Limp-Exercise-343 Jul 05 '26
600 doesnt bother me as much as it not being eye tracking in an actual area
8
u/AnonymousCapybara72 Jul 05 '26
It also doesn't really support the idea that people want it to support.
Men are the vast, vast majority of victims of random violence. If someone gets attacked walking home at night by some predator lurking in the bushes, the victim is almost always a man.
So people are trying to use this study to reinforce the idea that women have to be constantly on the lookout for danger. But data from the real world is very clear: men are objectively in far more danger than women.
→ More replies (7)3
4
u/Cellist_Violin Jul 05 '26
Ok but as someone who does behavioral research 600 is a very very large sample for this type of study. Huge in fact. Most are 200 max
2
u/pm_me_falcon_nudes Jul 05 '26
Reread the comment and you will better understand why the flaw isn't the sample size.
→ More replies (2)4
4
3
u/Careful_Farmer_2879 Jul 04 '26
Sounds like a well-powered study to me. What’s your issue?
57
u/AnotherBoringDad Jul 04 '26
Because they aren’t studying where males and females look when walking down a path. They are studying where a a narrow slice of males and females report interest in a photograph. Then they are reporting the latter as the former.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/Careful_Farmer_2879 Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
“Results here should be viewed in the light of the study limitations.”
“As this study was an initial explorative step, the next ones should include a broader sampling strategy, including follow-up with participants to discuss what they saw, and why.”
“The results presented here can be a useful conversation starter”
But this part is the key:
“Male and female responses demonstrated they were seeing different things despite being shown the same images.”
You don’t think THAT is worth exploring?
41
u/tf2coconut Jul 04 '26
He didn’t say it’s not worth exploring. He said it’s not what this study is being presented as. You should probably be more careful to reread and make sure you aren’t clearly in the wrong before you decide to come off so arrogant
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (8)12
2
u/corticalization Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
If the sample size is too large standard analysis can lead to false significance (too high sample size leads to too high power). There are statistical methods to counter it, of course, but it’s an issue to be aware of with large data sets. I have not read the original article of this post to assess, but I’d like to assume as a peer-reviewed work that the necessary steps were taken (but it’s part of why seeing a seemingly large sample size can earn a bit of a side eye)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026151771730078X
→ More replies (1)3
9
u/AMuonParticle Jul 04 '26
yeah like the central limit theorem starts to be applicable around N=30, 600 seems like a decent size to me
14
18
u/Bulky-Leadership-596 Jul 04 '26
"Click on what looks interesting to you in this picture" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actually scanning your environment in real life.
→ More replies (1)12
u/rydan Jul 04 '26
Male mammals always scan the genitals of whatever animal is in front of them whether it is male or female. This is known via eye tracking. But if you asked them what was interesting in the photo most men would probably click on the bat the guy is holding, not his junk.
2
u/aldkGoodAussieName Jul 05 '26
Exactly.
Its could be a combination of subconcious vs concious Embarissment not wanting to admit what they first looked at Analysis of the image after viewing it (what was looked at my not be the most interesting thing) Interpretation of the question
2
2
u/YebelTheRebel Jul 04 '26
It could also be said that men are more focused while woman are distracted and always looking around
2
u/HandleThick5953 Jul 05 '26
Reddit is the only social media website where the top comment will be calling out blatant bullshit. I love it
→ More replies (43)2
322
u/JackieHands Jul 04 '26
Can we even be bothered to putting more effort into the research done here? Like even a link?
No just a random image posted with a bare minimum sentence describing it?
94
u/Desperate-Cookie-449 Jul 04 '26
Don't ask logical questions. Just emotionally react
18
u/JackieHands Jul 04 '26
Statement: this could be interesting if more effort was put into it to provide context.
Question: why was so little effort put into it?
5
8
u/yell42 Jul 04 '26
It has become very normal that posts don't contain sources, even in cases where they in my opinion _obviously_ should.
I have started suspecting that the Reddit algorithm will often favor posts without any links. If a post has a link, I will often follow that link and read there. If it does not have a link, and if its not obvious what I should google for, then I will instead browse through the comments to find either a link or a hint for what to google for.
Perhaps posts missing a link will result in more user interaction on Reddit, therefore being pushed to user by the Reddit algorithm.
Just a theory.
→ More replies (3)8
u/pandershrek Jul 04 '26
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2023.0027?cf-mal-redirected=true&
We present the results of a cross-sectional survey (n = 571) where participants were shown images from college campus (n = 4 campuses) depicting different lighting (daytime, nighttime), and entrapment levels (high, low; i.e., able to easily escape if needed, with high entrapment being difficult and low being easy), and using the Qualtrics heat map tool, selected features that stood out to them most.
571 college students from 4 campuses
14
2
180
u/Ralh3 Jul 04 '26
What the actual hell is this pretend bullshit. This isnt a heat map of where men or womans eyes were scanning while they are walking through these places. This is what people who were looking at these PICTURES clicked when they were asked what "stood out to them the most" this has abso fucking lutely NOTHING to do with where people look when they are walking
→ More replies (23)0
16
u/Elektrycerz Jul 04 '26
A single point (circle) with no "smearing" or merging should mean one single response, right?
So why is it that multiple points in the "female responses" (in the middle) are blue-green-yellow, and single points (on the sides) are orange-red?
In "male responses", the areas with multiple points (in the middle) are correctly shown in warm colors. But in the "female responses", it's the opposite - for some reason single points in the periphery are warm, and multiple points in the center are cold.
That's some bullshit data manipulation.
8
u/Quietly_managed Jul 05 '26
Finally somebody noticed it as well, there is no way those red circles on the left are all women making PIXEL PERFECT clicks on the exact same thing without any deviation, the data is completely made up, worse, by somebody who has no clue what they’re doing.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/Vhailor Jul 06 '26
Yes!!!
I noticed this immediately when this went viral on twitter a couple months back, it makes no sense. The only red that should appear, according to their own color scheme, should be in the shape of blob-y intersections of circles, not perfect circles!
14
u/Atari774 Jul 04 '26
First off, this study is pretty meaningless. It asked people to click on the spot they found most interesting on a static image. That’s now showing what their eyes are doing when they see that image. They might say the center is the most interesting, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t also look elsewhere first. So it’s a bit silly to act like this means much.
Secondly, men are significantly more likely to be the victims of every kind of violent crime except for SA. So if anything, men technically have more to fear than women do when walking alone at night, since theft, assault, and murder are more common than SA. We need to start accepting the fact that we have more in common with each other than we realize, but we deal with it in different ways.
It’s a common comparison I’ve heard that, when asked what their biggest fear is on a date, many men will discuss trivial issues with the date whereas women will almost always say either rape or death. It’s not that men are never raped or murdered, or that men don’t fear those things, but instead the guys are thinking more specifically rather than more generally. Yeah, being assaulted or murdered would be horrific, but that’s not really specific to dating. You could be assaulted or murdered by anyone, and more often than not it’s by someone you know, not a person you just met. So saying that the thing you fear most about dating is potentially being murdered is kind of like saying the thing you fear the most about going to school is potentially being murdered. Yeah, it could happen and it’s probably the worst thing that could happen, but it has nothing to do with the act of dating. So the women are focusing more on the “what’s your greatest fear” part of the question, while the guys are focusing more on the “dating” part of the question.
TL;DR: men and women are a lot more similar than people think, we just handle our problems in different ways. As with most things, it’s more of a sliding scale rather than a set of boxes that people fit into.
2
u/RandomCatgif Jul 07 '26
also SA and rape are both more likely to happen from someone you already know rather then some random
29
u/Sabbathius Jul 04 '26
I think I remember the study, and the overall conclusion seemed to be that it's nonsense.
We have headsets capable of actually tracking eye movement in real time. So they could have put that on people, and tracked where they were looking, and used actual data, instead of clicking pictures.
Also, as a man, not looking around is a defense mechanism of its own. The same way you don't want to lock eyes with a gorilla, it'll charge you. To stay safe, you keep eyes down, or straight ahead.
Plus there may be other factors, like color blindness, which is more common in males. And when I say more common I mean 1 in 12 for males, and 1 in 200 for females. Meaning a male could straight out mechanically be unable to see certain things that women can, in the same environment. So there's no reason they would concentrate on that area.
So, overall, that whole study was just terribly flawed.
→ More replies (3)
9
u/Manny77 Jul 04 '26
Would be better if they somehow tracked where men and women ACTUALLY looked (eye tracking?) in a more realistic situation (walking)
→ More replies (1)2
u/Aderim_himself Jul 06 '26
Other researchers have used actual eye tracking hardware to measure where people's eyes involuntarily dart as they move through environments. These eye tracking studies confirm that the "straight ahead" versus "peripheral scan" divide is very real.
The point of this study is very different, it measures conscious environmental threat assessment.
5
u/Defiant_Lawyer_5235 Jul 04 '26
Based on them looking at a picture and imagining themselves walking in that place? That is hardly going to show a true to life outcome.
31
11
17
u/MikeStoneMax Jul 04 '26
Funny thing is when I walk with my wife she never notices her surroundings and I’m always scanning everywhere.
But I grew up in a poor neighborhood. I look around all the time when I’m outside out of habit anyways.
9
u/TriangleTransplant Jul 05 '26
Seriously, my wife has the absolute worst situational awareness of anybody either of us has ever met. And she's the first to admit it. I'm constantly having to point out things to her when we're out and about. Several times in our lives I've literally had to stop her from absently wandering into traffic
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/nishbipbop Jul 05 '26
It only means that she feels you are safe and that she's not going to be in danger when you're around. Socially, a woman walking with a man is left alone whereas a woman walking on her own invites attention and will raise her vigilance.
It's only when a woman walks with a man that they lose the situational awareness, it's the one time to relax the constant vigilance.
Would be interesting to find out from your wife whether she feels as relaxed when she's out and about on her own.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/somethingspecial33 Jul 04 '26
This is about walking home alone, not general gender differences in perception
4
u/mercfanboi44 Jul 04 '26
I guarantee you where people are from has more of an effect on this than their sex or gender. Im a man, born in London and lived there my whole life, and whenever im walking anywhere at night my head is constantly on swivel, and i guarantee the vast majority of other Londoners are the same
9
5
20
3
u/Schnitzhole Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
From The source:
“Nearly 600 individuals took part in the study, published recently in the journal Violence and Gender, with 56% of participants being female and 44% being male. Each participant looked at 16 images and were told to imagine themselves walking through those areas. They used a Qualtrics heat map tool to click on the areas of the image that stood out the most to them.”
No indication in the summary for what percent of male/female clicked and parts of the image that “stood out to them”. Either way the premise and method of the study are extremely flawed. This should really be done via eye tracking in varying real environments and having them walk. Pictures are not a representation of how people react in real life.
3
10
13
u/Lady_Luci_fer Jul 04 '26
I feel like it says a lot about horror movies and shorts tbh. They’re a male dominated field and often the cameras seem to follow this pattern of only following the path itself, maybe looking behind the character.
I wonder if more women were making horror movies if the camera styles would be completely different.
3
u/EmotionalWaveWalker Jul 04 '26
While an interesting question to ask, I dont know that this "study" is the best basis since it, and OP, extrapolate a lot of information from minimal data. Theyre clicking pictures, not walking at night, and picked from a rather small candidate pool.
I do think horror films with women directors are better at showing the lead womans actual point of view in terms of fear in the moment, where most of the men directors approach from a more objectifying angle of watching them. Im not sure it would change much in terms of overall camera style, mainly because of how we film, but it would lead to better characterizing shots and intensity.
11
u/fonkordie Jul 04 '26
That explains the dents on her car.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Far-Army8356 Jul 04 '26
Why do insurance companies charge more for male drivers
4
u/Ralh3 Jul 04 '26
Because you are lying to yourself about the data, men only pay more before the age 30 because they are generally more of a risk at the younger ages, so for 14 years men pay more, after that recklessness simmers down and the mechanical way men drive changes the entire chart up, then women pay more untill 55 when it equals out again for 5-10 years then women pay more for the rest of the time
3
2
u/ute-ensil Jul 04 '26
Crazy all the girls looking everywhere and didn't look exactly where a guy would hide to get them
2
2
u/Existing-Cabinet-107 Jul 04 '26
This sounds like a leap. Many different possible reasons for this. Also irrelevant unless they are trying to understand why women are more paranoid then men. Women being more paranoid about danger has no impact on whether or not the danger is real.
2
u/AttemptImpossible111 Jul 04 '26
Women seem well practicsed in avoiding eye contact with strangers on the street
2
u/Busterlimes Jul 05 '26
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the scientific evidence that men cannot see shit unless its in front of our face.
I looked, damnit, please for the love of God just use your superior vision to find it.
2
u/Zeke_The_Angel Jul 05 '26
Doctor during the test: Please look straight ahead
Men: Ok
Women: ⬆️⬇️⬅️➡️↗️↖️↙️↘️↕️↔️↪️⤴️⤵️🔃🔄
3
2
u/Swoobat_Gang Jul 06 '26
Years ago, I saw a study that showed women were far less aware of their surroundings and it was attributed to why so many of them are easy targets when walking.
At the end of the day, I think it’s all BS and some people are just more observant than others. Some people are just born with dogshit situational awareness.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/mindgardening Jul 06 '26
I’m a woman and use my periphery all the time. I can watch others without them knowing. I can see more than if I only looked straight ahead. 🤷🏼♀️
2
u/Saliiim Jul 07 '26
The study is flawed as others have said, but it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Men hunt so focus on the prey, women gathered so were scanning everywhere for food to collect.
Might explain why I can never find things in the fridge.
2
u/Sure-Criticism3416 Jul 07 '26
It's kinda funny to me, because in my experience, women are totally unaware of what's around them compared to men.
Women can't seem to extrapolate the trajectories of other people walking as well as men, or at least it seems like it to me. I see so many almost-collision of women in crowded places, it's comical.
But maybe it's all just my biases, who knows.
Or maybe women observe their surroundings more, in order to compensate for their lack of extrapolating movements without looking?
5
Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)2
u/Atari774 Jul 04 '26
Yup. Your peripherals have rarely seen direct light so they’re much more sensitive than your direct eyesight. So focusing straight ahead technically gives you better situational awareness in dark environments.
3
3
2
u/Craygor Jul 04 '26
Going by this, its a wonder why evolution didn't move woman's eyes further from the center of their face.
2
3
u/EACshootemUP Jul 04 '26
Article and the science behind it are shoddy at best with over reaching claims.
4
Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/TheIrishBreakfast Jul 04 '26
I'm assuming the "hotter" areas were looked at more frequently or longer.
3
Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/LandOfGreyAndPink Jul 04 '26
From a summary of the study: ''Each participant looked at 16 images and were told to imagine themselves walking through those areas. They used a Qualtrics heat map tool to click on the areas of the image that stood out the most to them.''
6
3
u/johnnyblaze1999 Jul 04 '26
As you, op, said, I think the same. Women always have to scan their surroundings for safety, while men don't have to
3
Jul 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/faironero02 Jul 04 '26
because they dont scan the surrounding apparently😂
(jk, this study Is bullshit and the streets are dangerous for everyone, statustically speaking women arent more frequent victims, stay safe everyone, men and women alike!)
2
u/antisa1003 Jul 04 '26
Isn't it the other way around? Men are those that scan the surrounding and think about a lot of potential situations that could happen and women tend to disregard the surrounding.
There is even a lot of memes on that topic
2
u/MothweaverTales Jul 04 '26
"Heat map shows that men can't see anything unless it is directly in front of them."
I can spin titles too.
2
u/daedas33 Jul 05 '26
This explains why moms always seem to find the stuff you're missing
→ More replies (1)
2
u/CIA_napkin Jul 04 '26
Maybe I just did too much time in jail/prison but I'm always checking the cuts. Seeing where doors are, where specific people are in a room, how can I put my back to a wall or move to an open area quickly if I need to. Be aware of your surroundings yo.
→ More replies (1)
2
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 04 '26
Hello u/Zu_Qarnine! Please review the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder message left on all new posts)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.