It is Proven: Men See Six Time Worse Than Women

6898

He: Where’s the butter?
She: In the fridge.
He: I’m looking exactly here and there’s no butter.
She: It IS there, I put it to the fridge only ten minutes ago!
He: No, you must have stuck it somewhere else. There’s NO butter in this fridge!

Beautiful Woman’ EyeFor many this dialog will appear familiar. After these words She strides to the kitchen, pulls the fridge door and like with a wave of a wand takes out the butter-dish. Inexperienced men find it a mean trick and blame women for hiding things from them. Keys, underwear, socks, shoes – this all is here, men just can’t find it! But why can’t they?

The answer is hidden in our history. Very long time ago, when our forefathers lived in caves and had a warm in the fire in the evenings, men had to leave every day and hunt for food for the family. In order to see and follow the goal far off, the hunter needed the ability to see for long distances, everything else was set aside and did not draw away. And Clever Nature took care of men already in those ancient times. The field of the vision of the vast majority of men was formed like a tunnel: a man can see a plenty tight space, but far – and exactly this provides him the ability of hunting a distanced object.

In her turn a woman of those days stayed at home, took care of children and household and needed to have in view everything around in case of danger or threat to her descendants. That’s why the Nature programmed her in such a way, that if she looks at one object, she can also see everything around it within a radius of almost 180 degree. This explains the fact that she can find a thing in the fridge or wardrobe much easier than a man, who has only about a 30 degree vision radius.

Man’s Eyesight

What he sees: “Tunnel-like” eyesight of men (30 degree radius)

Woman’s Eyesight

What she sees: “Broad” eyesight of women (180 degree radius)

And this is why a man needs to turn his head right-left and up and down to find the “vanished” object. An average woman needs only to take a look at the open fridge to have the full sight of everything there and to find the object in seconds.

By the way, the men’s habit to gaze after beautiful women, which as often as not irritates and offends wives and girlfriends, is connected with these very particularities of men’s and women’s eyesight. In reality this doesn’t mean women don’t gaze after the nice men nearby – they also commit this sin, they just don’t need to turn head or focus the eyesight at the object.

10 COMMENTS

  1. What a dumb sexist article designed to degrade man as a lust seeking animal gazing at woman with an IQ of 85.

    Contrary to most men, I have an IQ of 145+ off charts, I have a lifetime ability of 6th sense and energy reading of people and surrounding environements, liguistic verbal skills, and I can see perfectly fine 180 degrees in high definition. I may be more like a woman in a lot of areas and I am very proud of that. But I am here to say that article is sexists and even women and lesbians gaze at beautiful women — not just men. Men should be proud of their ability and the rights to gaze at beautiful women and take multiple partners at his pleasure — because that’s what Mother Nature entitle us to be. There has to be a pro and a con to be a man or a woman. Woman are beautiful, selfish in general — so the other side should be — weak men gets nothing while the strongest men gets multipel women, abiding by the law of nature.

  2. Who wrote this article? Where is the emprical data to back up its claims? what experiments did they conduct? How is it that the very vision of one gender could have changed to dramatically? What extraneous variables were ruled out? Maybe men in other cultures don’t do this? Maybe men in our culture don’t look long enough? or choose to focus on small things? or are lazy? The story seems a little bogus.

  3. This just proves that women, in fact, are worse than men. You think we are incompetent psycological liers? Look in the mirror, you are much worse than the true majority of men. Let me guess? You dated a complete jerk after turning down that sweet little nerd boy? Great job, awesome show, you fail.

  4. @ Truthseeker: Who said that men were incompetent LIARS (that’s the spelling… ;P) ? I don’t see THAT written in the article! If you can READ it properly… BOTH men and women DO WRONG… it doesn’t say MEN alone… like… the hell??? It’s an article that’s trying to prove something of both sex but not one! Nothing is one-sided!
    AND FOR YOUR INFO… NOT ALL women… if you categorize them in your hate… as beautiful, sexy and all that glamour DATE hunks or handsome guys! SOME actually CHOOSE NERDS! YES! NERDS! Sooo… if your hurt by that… being turned down by some sexy hot momma then MOVE ON! Cuz as the saying goes there are a LOT of fishes in the sea! My gawd… I dunno why I’m arguing with you… But I just wanted to compliment this article which is great by the way! But somehow ruined my mood when I saw SUCH a comment… hmm… Thank you and I’ll be taking my leave…

  5. oh, so that’s how our vision works… and that’s probably why women are more prone to vehicular accidents huh?

  6. Wow, the funny thing is women actually will beleive this tripe.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Women are petty vindictive sexist creeps who wallow in their narcisistic lifestyles and do nothing for the advancement of the human race but for procreation.

    You all pay for nurturing and growing nasty personalities in your youth so when you go above 30 nobody wants you anymore.

    Have a nice life all!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  7. The article’s claim is valid. The density of rods and cones on a human eye depends on two things: the location of the retina examined, and the sex of the species in question.

    A male has highly dense regions of these organic photon-absorbing cells right in the middle of the retina and the density fades off towards the sides of the vision.

    A female, on the other hand, while having the same amount of these individual sensor cells, the “pixel” density in the center of vision is not as high but it is indeed higher on the sides of her vision than that of a man belonging to the same species.

    As the correct wavelength of light with enough photon energy arrives to the rod and cone cells. In turn, the appropriate energy oscillation frequency (which must match the organic periodically-poled [with a period in the range of nanometers] structures) causes a voltage potential across them. This in turn commands to fire a single neuron packet via a discrete channel (which is protected by efficient organic insulation) directly into an appropriate location in his or her visual cortex.

    Men (specifically those who feel threatened by this article), do not fear of being inferior due to this discovery, and rejoice, because the amount of “thick” cells that detect longer wavelength light is higher in men, thus giving you ability to see much better in the dark.

    The fact that rod and cone retina density maps depend on sex proves the original theory which speculates that the vividness of color, the ability to see in dark, the ability to analyze multiple objects within the entire vision, and the ability to focus on a task, greatly differs between men and women.

    To recap:
    —-Men’s advantages: A) see much better in dark and B) see in ultra-high definition at the center of vision.
    —-Women’s advantages: A) see in higher definition on the peripherals of vision and B) detect color with a much higher accuracy.

    I hope this clears everything up. There’s nothing wrong with being a man or a woman — be glad that you have the opportunity to live. Some people don’t even get born, and some don’t even get conceived, and some are even too socially anxious to be attempted to be conceived. You’re lucky.

    In case anyone is wondering, I have experience studying and applying electrical and computer engineering, optoelectronics, neuroscience, and psychology. However, I possess neither social nor verbal skills.

Comments are closed.