Women usually give directions that include landmarks and left or right turns. Men, on the other hand, talk about compass directions and estimate distances in minutes or kilometers
He says to go straight for three miles and then turn east. She says to pass the school and turn right near the green house. Both describe exactly the same road that leads to the market, but the different form of description reflects the differences between the sexes, which are the source of many frictions between those sitting in the front seats.
Deborah Saucier, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, examined the wording differences in a study she conducted in 2003. She found that after reviewing a map and being asked how to get to different places, women tend to give directions that include landmarks and left or right turns. Men, on the other hand, talk about compass directions and estimate distances in minutes or kilometers.
Certain animals, such as house pigeons, have a high proportion of iron in their snouts, which helps them navigate based on the magnetic force of the North Pole. However, Saucier hypothesizes that the origin of men's internal maps is in our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors. During the hunting trips, the men went far from home and reached unfamiliar territories, in order to bring home food - wild animals. The men may have navigated based on the position of the sun, and natural navigational skills helped them find the shortest way home.
On the other hand, it is most likely that the prehistoric women, who gathered food near the house, found their way from the growing areas of the edible plants based on landmarks. In a study conducted last year by Joshua Bera, an evolutionary psychologist from the University of California at Santa Barbara, he tested the theory in a food market. After doing a single tasting round in the market, women were able to more accurately indicate food stalls they visited, and especially those that offered food with a high energy content. The women saw the food stalls as landmarks, and managed to navigate the market better than men.
In order to compensate for the differences between the genders, Saucier suggests giving women or men travel directions according to gender. "That way fewer people will get lost on the way" says Saucier.
By Corey Binns, published in the April 2008 issue of Popular Science
14 תגובות
moderate reader:
Of course he repents.
I, on the other hand, don't know what "Freudian seems to..." means, especially when the three dots are replaced by a false claim.
I don't know what mahbatim means. In a Freudian sense, you seem to be enjoying yourself quite a bit.
moderate reader:
Statistically you are right but individually there are some exceptions to the rules you describe.
Gillian, for example (the famous alien) is a girl.
There was also a time when a girl who called herself "Schrödinger's cat" expressed herself here - actually a serious girl and I kind of miss her comments.
Besides, there are also some people here who are ideologically motivated in some of the issues.
For a long time there were tireless scumbags here, but recently a group of ideologues from the opposite direction joined here (a group that I am happy to name) who probably succeeded in bringing the site back into the scientific arena. Against them because it is clear to me that this is a war on sanity. This has nothing to do with "peacocks" either.
What is interesting about these "important" studies is that according to the statistics, most of the readers are men. And most of the debaters are also men. The regular debaters on this website, for example, are men. The website serves as a tool for them to display their ego or control just as the peacocks display their feathers. Especially the writers of the articles or the debaters on the issues stir up controversy or when expressing extreme opinions against sacred cows of any kind. It doesn't seem to me that a single Shabbat Chava has expressed its opinion in this evident manner on the site throughout its existence.
Research discovered America again P.M.
Women in general like to talk much more than men. And it certainly doesn't matter if it's directions or an endless phone call.
A necessary addition to my previous response:
Of course, everything that is said is a generalization and therefore is not accurate and is not even true regarding a certain part of the population. However, this is an impression that stems from many years of experience and observation and my correct assessment of more than half of the population, although it is clear that I did not conduct measurements, records, control groups and all that.
I too, in my work, conducted research on the subject and below is a summary of the results.
1. The women are not interested in the process or the way but in the result. The men see a challenge and interest in planning, in the way of alternatives leading to different possible results. This has effects both in the attitude of the sexes to social and political problems as well as to technical issues.
2. It is important for women to be well integrated within the existing social system, "as is customary". The men are more inclined to want and shape the social system by finding existing deficiencies and trying to change them according to their view or by accumulating power and wealth.
3. Similarly, reference to technical matters. Men tend to plan and see it as a challenge. Women are interested in understanding what the existing capabilities of any technological system (device) are and how it can be used.
4. The attitude of the men is more analytical from the perspective of the process.
The attitude of the women is more stereotypical in view of the result.
wondering:
My entire response is completely worded (except for the hard mistake that turned the word "in the account" into the word "calculator").
It is not entirely clear to me why you did not understand one of the things formulated in it, and this is the indication that the information generated also has a practical use (as mentioned - giving different explanations to women and men regarding the same path) - a use that the article also pointed to.
When you say that the research is provocative, as well as in your first comment, you are actually exercising censorship on what is allowed and forbidden to investigate even if you say from the language and to the press that in a democracy everything is allowed to be investigated. This is something that democracy allows you to do, but the question was not about democracy, but about your opinion.
Not only that, but the studies on the topics you described as important are not neglected, but it makes sense that different people would study different topics.
I do not consider the correspondence we have to be idle. Science is meant to bring us closer to the truth in any field and in my opinion any research that does this is worthy of praise and not condemnation.
I'm fine (God willing :)
By the way Michael..
How are you?
Good Day.
Michael, your question is not formulated.
In any case, of course, it is allowed to explore any field, that's the beauty of democracy.
It's a shame that the funds are not directed to really significant research such as the study of strategic threats from space, accurate prediction of earthquakes, etc. rather than to proactive research, all of whose consequences are correspondence of the kind we are conducting now.
Good Day.
wondering:
Do you think this is an area that should not be explored?
Doesn't the conclusion that gender should be taken into account when giving road descriptions seem helpful to you?
This whole driving thing... we are all so obsessed and do strange research on the matter, as if if there was a final study it would totally decide who is "better"...
We didn't exhaust the eye, we are all different and successful, in some things there are overlapping areas. And that's all..
Good Day.
Not surprisingly, men are more likely to describe roads using quantitative scores.
Interesting research.
She said it would be nice with me
Tschernihovsky six o'clock five just come alone
I can't find, I can't find
Your description is shrouded in fog no need to apologize
I will wait for you in the fields