Doesn’t the Jurassic Park power-restore scene align with this, too? Muldoon gets wrecked by a raptor on his side, while Ellie immediately notices/dodges the one that pokes through the wiring.

I tend to turn it into a “casual sweep” of the scene. I’m looking at leaves, architecture, license plates! Well, and also getting a glimpse of whoever’s around me. From being bullied in grade school, to learning to fly in college, with growing up as a young women between the two eras, situational awareness has become baked into my existence. But it’s not a bad thing, it’s a skill.

Tangentially, I wonder how much of this increased situational awareness plays into our famous “women’s intuition”? If we’re taking in more of our surroundings, it makes sense our unconscious minds will notice more readily when something’s “off.”

As well, I’ve often considered my “luck” to come down to increased awareness. When retrospectively thinking about a sequence of events, I can sometimes put together how noticing A led to me doing B, even if I didn’t consciously think about it at the time. Like unconsciously noticing that a car in front of you is somewhat lopsided and getting the urge to switch lanes and pass them. You’re not thinking about it. But later on when that car spins out on a flat tire, you’re well past them - a safe distance away.

Or a situation that undoubtly makes people think I’m lucky - finding four-leaf clovers. A split-second scan of the ground and I can notice a four-leafer in a patch. Just a few months ago I was pumpkin-picking with my girlfriend and it happened again. We were standing outside and I was telling her about this exact phenomenon when I stopped, laughed, crouched down, plucked one particular clover, and handed it to her. “See?! It just happens!” I then proceeded to find two more, and at that point I knew I had to stop myself.

So yeah, it’s not all bad. :)

Watch out! He is behi

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.

Makes sense for the school that expels women for being assaulted. As if I needed another reason to hate BYU

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.

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

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.

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…”

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.

Considering how common and easy eye tracking is, this seems like some shitty science.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s probably 1 click = blue, right? The more clicks overlap at a certain point the closer to red.

Isn’t it like a video game, where you look to where people might be hiding?

Until you learn the peers reviewing are more Mormons.

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.