this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
610 points (87.5% liked)

Science Memes

19492 readers
633 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 215 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (40 children)

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?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 165 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

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

[–] wedge@multiverse.soulism.net 8 points 2 weeks ago

Study designed around a conclusion using a borderline invalid method.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)