this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
385 points (92.5% liked)

Today I Learned

17311 readers
920 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The eyes have it: Men do see things differently to women

The way that the visual centers of men and women's brains works is different, finds new research published in BioMed Central's open access journal Biology of Sex Differences. Men have greater sensitivity to fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli, but women are better at discriminating between colors.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] quinkin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

So the ladies can check out the men's plumage as they perform a dance off.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 282 points 1 week ago (24 children)
[–] Frog@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 week ago

Hmm... Men are more excited through visuals while women are more excited by touch.

I'm not actually sure if you are joking.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 130 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Still can't find your damned socks though

[–] antmzo220@lemmy.ml 53 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

But our girlfriends can, because she can distinguish the sock colour from the floor colour easier...nature, it just works.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 59 points 1 week ago (6 children)

So what i'm hearing is that i should attach all items my husband regulalrly loses track of to a moving object to play into his sight strengths. Basket on the ceiling fan it is

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Socks don't move of their own accord.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Then how do they disappear from the dryer?

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I need to see your clearance from at least one of three or four three letter agencies before I can tell you the real answer.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 104 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

And most of us absolutely love filling those neurons with images of women

[–] AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 50 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

That explains jiggle physics then

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 80 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But they still can't see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] huginn@feddit.it 61 points 1 week ago (2 children)

... Men are also ~20% larger than women on average. Is this count standardized by size of the person?

[–] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Does that include brain size? I mean yeah the total sum of all size comparisons is 20% larger, but like piece per piece that ain't remotely true (see boobs for an example that defies the total average).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 49 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm curious about this. They say that it's related to in utero exposure to androgens, which means it's probably not as clear cut as XX vs XY, because intersex folk and folk with atypical hormonal exposure (such as fraternal twins of different sexes, with a shared placenta) experience different levels of exposure, and different reactions to that exposure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Taalen@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Whatever it does, it doesn't seem to help with colors.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 81 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Men have greater sensitivity to fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli, but women are better at discriminating between colors.

Literally under the headline.

[–] hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world 53 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If only some men used those neurons to read

[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Brain one way, but other brain other way. Chemical stuff is making brain stuff happen. Makes see different.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 39 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Men have greater sensitivity to fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli

Looks at every first person shooter demographic

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shyguyblue@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Anecdotal proof time:

My dad's truck.

Me, my brother, brothers' friend and brothers' friends' sister, all XY, all see a greenish gray truck.

My mother, sister-in-law, brothers' friends' wife, all XX, all see a dark green truck.

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 22 points 1 week ago

It's the blue/yellow dress all over again.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

ok so, here's my theory. The obvious answer here is that this is obviously "for hunting" or something. But evolution doesn't really work that way.

So my take on this is that this is actually an evolutionary adaptation to the different structure of the male body, as well as it's general abilities, and how they have been used throughout humanity. If men are generally stronger, taller, and faster runners, wouldn't it make sense that the visual processing would be adapted to be more responsive to these use cases?

this seems like the only realistic answer to me. Something about men must be different enough, or at the very least, have been used differently enough at some point in time for a long enough period of time, that it has to have been an evolutionary adaptation.

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not sure what your mean by it doesn't work that way

If men were predominantly doing the hunting, women would be more likely to choose a more successful hunter (more likely to pass on their genes if they have a better mate)

Also in general the ones who were better at hunting and their mates would be more likely to survive long enough to have children

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

it's essentially an excessive over simplification of something that's not perfectly accurate, that's the problem.

While it would apply to hunting, when you're talking about something like visual acuity, it's super broad in the applications that it's useful in. Even things such as not falling over would be beneficially influenced by better visual acuity. You could argue that men just stopped falling over and dying as frequently, leading to evolutionary selection over time, but that's probably not super accurate lol.

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I would argue there that there's a limit to how much better eyesight would affect things like that though, falling over and dying

Using that example if someone's vision is like an old CRT they might not see a root or something, trip over and die. If they have 1920x1080 they might see it if they have 4k they definitely see it.

Hunting however can benefit limitlessly, the further away you can see the better you can track

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I would argue there that there’s a limit to how much better eyesight would affect things like that though, falling over and dying

that specific example was a little bit hyperbolic, but i think there is likely a general improvement with the ability to sight vision and small discrepancies in things.

Also you're talking about visual clarity, this is specifically about being able to detect motion better.

as for why this matters for shit like not falling over and dying? Well cool little story, sometimes humans like to move around. Things around us move in relation to ourselves, so it could be expected to see some benefit in that regard as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (5 children)

I was thinking it was more to do with dancing, possibly even music. It could even be something really weird.

Usually the way to identify if its about hunting/war or not is to find the exceptions and links: do hunters that perform really, really well have 3x the visual cortex neurons? Is it a socialization thing where doing certain tasks results in higher brain differentiation?

There's a lot of questions

hmm, that's definitely interesting.

Usually the way to identify if its about hunting/war or not is to find the exceptions and links: do hunters that perform really, really well have 3x the visual cortex neurons? Is it a socialization thing where doing certain tasks results in higher brain differentiation?

yeah, this is why i think it's more of a secondary adaptation, as opposed to something directly evolving from the needs of hunting for example. Something like this is generally broad, and generally applied, usually. So i would think the cause would as well.

One thing that i thought of was a nightwatch position, the heightened visual acuity would be highly valuable in a low visibility environment. So maybe it's something like co-evolution? Where females developed more accurate color perception, while males developed more accurate movement perception.

we're probably thinking too hard about it, and it's probably just evolution trolling us and giving us the best of both worlds because we are in fact a socialized species. So this could stem from our social aspect, not directly, but the benefit of it in a social aspect is vastly more impactful, leading to more socialization, and further development of this adaptation.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

women are better at discriminating between colors.

Well I'm red-green colorblind so I never stood a chance anyway. If it isn't in a box of 8 crayons/markers, I don't attempt to use that color's name generally, cuz I will never pick the right shade. All the fuschias, magentas, maroons, burnt siennas, teals, cyans, etc. of the world can fuck off.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Isn't colorblindness almost exclusively found in males too?

Probably oversimplifying, but it's something about the mutation being on the X chromosome, meaning women have a backup X and men don't.

[–] CyanideShotInjection@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It is possible for someone with two X chromosomes to still be colorblind, but since this gene is recessice you have to have the mutation on both chromosomes, which makes it way more rare.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›