You must log in or # to comment.
Really? I scan the environment too, even check for snipers.
Watch out! He is behi
Crazy coincidence that he fell on his keyboard in a way that did send the comment but did not add any random letters to the message
That was clearly not a sniper, but Candlejack making a comeb
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.
Ah yes, let’s study a cult, that seems like a splendid effort
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.
Based on reaction to images, clicking with a mouse where subjects looked
Could just as easily be a study on how different sexes respond to the same instruction
I look mostly at the ground to avoid stepping on dog poo.
Edit: looks like the study was not done using eye tracking and was instead done with pictures:
https://news.byu.edu/intellect/study-visually-captures-hard-truth-walking-home-at-night-is-not-the-same-for-women <- news thing
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2023.0027 <- paper
Participants were given 16 images and asked to consider walking alone through the place in the picture. Using the Qualtrics heat map tool, they were instructed to imagine themselves walking through these areas and to click on the area(s) of the image that stood out to the most to them.
Source: the research article paper I linked above
Also, even if it was done with some type of eye tracking glasses, if you knew you were taking part in a study, would you be worried about what might happen, in comparison to how worried you are normally? Like I’m not gonna be worried about someone sneaking up on me if I know I’m being observed and more likely to be safe, so naturally I’d be more relaxed. I imagine the same applies for other people.
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.
Is this Loss?
New proof that I am indeed a woman just dropped 💅🏻
Take that transphobes !
I aggressively look every direction. Mine is 360
what is this from it looks amazing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelion%3A_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone - the Ramiel encounter, specifically.
thank you so much I appreciate you sharing that information
It’s that scene in Pinocchio when he’s busting out of that whale using the lazer vision his godmother gave to him
Aware people look about. Unaware people don’t. But yeah, let’s divide it by gender.
I mean, there are plenty of studies and experiences that genuinely show women have not just a greater concern for their safety, especially at night, but are far more likely to be assaulted than men.
We just had somebody else in the thread show studies for how men are mugged more frequently than women. However I wouldn’t be surprised if women are threatened cat called and assaulted more often, and are looking out for more than just violent criminals.
The only violent crimes that women are more likely to be victims of are sexual ones. Any nonsexual violent crime is more likely to have a male victim. Is this because women are more cautious? Maybe!
I thought these were guitar hero screenshots at first
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.
Eh… The vast majority of encounters with bears are generally with black bears where both sides are usually just scared of each other and scamper away.
I think most men just lack the perspective of just how vulnerable women are compared to men. Imagine if you lived in a world where you were surrounded by dudes the size of your average NFL lineman, and a non insignificant percent of them have a history of sexual violence towards someone your size… You too might be nervous walking in the dark by yourself.
I am 6’3 with a cut weight around 245lb and I have to be mindful about how I carry myself, or how closely I walk near people to not make people of any sex uncomfortable. There’s a reason a big jolly guy is a stereotype, no one is comfortable around a large dude with an attitude.
I am nervous walking in the dark by myself. I simultaneously am relatively tall and will be perceived as male by anyone, so I also try to be wary of how I might make anyone else nervous.
The actual experience that most women have of smaller aggressions even in safer contexts probably also plays a role. I’m probably nervous walking alone at night because of a combination of being physically quite weak in spite of my looks, having experienced bullying throughout my childhood so “unpleasant random encounters” is a concept engraved into my brain, and because I’m affected by reading/hearing about any kind of assault happening to people walking alone.
Replace the bullying with “random men being assholes/threatening/worse” and most women have all 3 of those factors as well.
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…”
that location at BYU specifically is informally known as Rape Hill, so of course the women aren’t looking straight ahead
i know i’m very glib and i joke a lot, but i’m deadly serious right now.
Makes sense for the school that expels women for being assaulted. As if I needed another reason to hate BYU
They call it nonconsensual immorality
https://apnews.com/general-news-domestic-news-domestic-news-6b3c434ba4ab476f904fa5652fad01ee
He said rape is bad, but also any sex outside of marriage is bad.
So, by his logic, raping someone is no worse than getting consent if you aren’t married.
Rape is often treated lighter than consensual sex
Human rights in the mena countries still a millennium behind
Mormons are in Utah 🫣
i can give you good reasons or bad reasons i got them all. one of the worst mistakes i made was attending there.
In your defense, there’s a lot of social pressure to go to BYU within the Mormon church, and most high school kids don’t have the experience and knowledge to navigate the official and unofficial propaganda. I just happened to luck out that my parents pushed me not to go to BYU
i like your parents
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
We’ll never get better game sense if we don’t keep an eye on our surroundings!!!
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?
Edit:
Ok, at first I thought this was actual eye tracking information. However,
[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?
Considering how common and easy eye tracking is, this seems like some shitty science.
Shitty science at BYU? Surely not!
Study designed around a conclusion using a borderline invalid method.
whaaaat surely BYU, the school that claimed to have done cold fusion, is an upstanding pillar of academic research
i hate defending byu, but wasn’t that UofU?
I recently watched a BobbyBrocolli video on it, the controversy mostly surrounded UofU, a quick search shows that Pons and Fleischman are from UofU. The video also mentioned that BYU also claimed to discover cold fusion, but not the energy of the future self sustaining kind.
UwU?
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.
Navigating that scene in real life (or even simulated) would make the data orders of magnitude more annoying to interpret. On a static image you can just overlay all eye movements and produce a heatmap. But for a subject that’s actually (or virtually) moving, none of the data would coincide and you’d have to manually find out which focus points were actually equal.
Put the subject in an auto driving kart and make it go in same path for all of them
Sure, but any decent webcam and monitor can do this.
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.
How so?
Thanks. But you can use eye tracking on static images with just a good webcam on a monitor.
Also in a live environment, presumed static (no people or traffic etc) image stabilization tech makes things much simpler.
To your edit: The dots do make sense.
This is an overlay of every participant. So if 100 women clicked in the same 10 places, for instance, they would be red. While places 50 women clicked would be yellow.
Also, even if this was eye tracking of one person, it could still make sense. Red != 100%. Red is the place where the most time was spent looking. So of 1s was spent on all the dots, and everywhere else was less than 1s, then red. Comparing it to the male chart is what makes it seem off, but the comparison of color doesn’t matter, it’s the math.
I think their question was why would all the women click the same ten random places rather than spread the heat map out more broadly along the dark area?
Exactly, thanks.
Ahh, that’s more clear then, sorry!
Heat map images were analyzed using canonical correlation (Rc) to determine the relationship between the two groups; dispersion testing to decipher spatial uniformity within the images; the Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) to characterize the nature of image patterns differences; and, the Breslow–Day Test to specify pattern locations within images.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2023.0027
Basically:
- n women clicked somewhere on the bush
- The bush is officially located at coordinates x/y
- Place heat map point (circle) n times at x/y (the bush)
Isn’t it like a video game, where you look to where people might be hiding?
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.
Um. Holy shit. How does a known place on campus not get corrected immediately.
that’s the neat thing! they expel the students who get raped, not the rapists. that way they can keep their crime statistics low.
It’s probably 1 click = blue, right? The more clicks overlap at a certain point the closer to red.
And all women telepathically agreed on which exact pixels to click?
Theres probably variation from the background there, that drives clicks to that particular spot. Several of the red-female locations have blue-male dots at the same spot.
…also, it has to do with attention on photos rather than real world going home experiences.
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.
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.
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.
Edit with data from FBI crime data explorer: Over the last 10 years it’s 906k male victims of robbery to 474k female victims, and (though it doesn’t need to be said) that’s just about double.
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.
I hope you’ve started scanning the dark periphery like we do. Not because you deserved anything that happened to you! And I’m not assuming you weren’t already. But because I can’t do anything to protect you from over here on the Internet and I don’t want that to happen to you anymore. It’s when we’re near home that we tend to let our guard down.
Thank you. I’ve taken a much more holistic approach. It’s worked very well. Haven’t been mugged in decades.
Can you mention some of the changes you’ve made? Maybe it would help someone who might read this comment chain.
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.
[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.
