Men better at distance vision due to hunter-gatherer past: study
July 30, 2009
A man looks out at sea. Men are better at seeing things in the distance due to their hunter-gatherer past chasing animals, while women are better focusing on things at close range, a British study said Thursday.
Men are better at seeing things in the distance due to their hunter-gatherer past chasing animals, while women are better focusing on things at close range, a British study said Thursday.
In findings which reflect how men's and women's brains have evolved differently over thousands of years, they found that men are better at judging faraway targets.
Researchers tested their theory by asking a group of 48 men and women to use a laser pointer to mark the midpoint of lines on a piece of paper at different distances.
Men were more accurate than women when the paper was placed at a distance of 100 centimetres, while women were more accurate when the target was only 50 cms away, within arm's reach.
"Evidence already exists that separate pathways in the brain process visual information from near and far space," said psychologist Helen Stancey from Hammersmith and West London College.
"Our results suggest that the near pathway is favoured in women and the far pathway is favoured in men," she said, in a study published online in the British Journal of Psychology.
And she said: "These sex differences in visual processing may be a result of our hunter-gatherer evolutionary legacy.
"As the predominant gatherers, women would have needed to work well in near space, whereas the prey for (predominantly male) hunters would have been in far space."
(c) 2009 AFP
Dec 21, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
Was being ironic now; will do the ironing later.
men may look to an energy source at a greater distances.
but women can see a males eyes at greater distances.
ever look at a woman walking towards ya? they turn the heads because they can see your looking at them. yet a male never sees her eyes.
ps. men do NOT look at a womans a$$. they look to the Ovaries Energy. same with women they look to a males balls. this is true when ones eyes are turned from the looker.
queers just look to see.
Actually, if you're an aqua-ape fan a lot of hunting would have taken place at close range (spear fishing). Furthermore, even attacks on large prey would not have taken place at 25-50 meters, even modern man doesn't hunt at that distance unless he has a rifle and probably scope.
Man was not a successful hunter because he was accurate and could kill from long distances, he was successful because he could use tactics, wound an animal and track it until it gives up or dies from exhaustion.
I do agree however that 100 cm seems to be a little close, plus the study seems to say as much about hand-eye coordination as eyesight.
Partially correct, partially incorrect.
Early man hunted through two methods. One was up close and personal (within 20 yards) for larger prey.
The second method is what made us the superior homonid. We utilized throw weapons capable of up to a 40 yard throw with a good degree of accuracy. After wounding the animal tracking it was quite simple, if we missed we could fall back on our good ole sweat glands and run them down, as non glanded animals can't tolerate running long distances.
Now as for the aqua-ape theory, I believe it. Look at all of man's earliest settlements, always near a water source. That makes spear fishing an easy win for a viable food source, but, evidence points to early man mastering the gathering of shore shell fish before we started spear fishing.
Ding! This is what I wanted to point out (pun not intended). They're pointing at something using a laser pointer from a distance. Assuming equal eyesight, I would be very surprised if guys did not fare better at such tasks. Guys tend to get more experience pointing, throwing and whatnot (and evolutionarily speaking, it may make sense if guys developed a bit of evolutionary advantage at tasks often performed by guys -- but you need evidence for that). It would also be expected that women on average would traditionally (in just about any culture) fare better at finer close-ranged tasks. There's no explanation of how they corrected for hand-eye coordination, if at all. I'd rather they had the dot wander around the midpoint and have them judge when it looks best (correcting for patience and such of course).
> the target was only 50 cms away, within arm's reach.
That's why us men are better at searching the horizon ... because we can point to something 3 feet away better than the chicks. I hope the study isn't actually as idiotic as this article.
I enjoy anthropology but I'm not much of a student of it, so I won't argue... too much. ;P
While atlatls had a great range and power (and I'm sure they had to take quite a few shots at 25m ), and were capable of wounding/killing beyond close range, I still can't imagine them being actually reliable beyond 25m.
The atlatl wasn't replaced until the Bow and arrow, and that was only due to how much lighter the ammunition was and how much truer the projectile flew.
They have an atlatl league in Rhode Island. If you ever get a chance, go check it out, you'd be amazed how incredible this simple stick launcher really is.