Asanon;283094 said:
In reaching the wrong conclusions, the study is completely missing the factors that make it wrong ...
Women are more advanced than men at judging visual precis ... they can judge (size things up) with less info to go on, and they can do so at a higher perceptual speed (in less time).
The Women wouldn't look as long at something because they don't have to ... they pick up things like that quicker than males.
They also might not look at a baseball player's junk for the simple reason that you can't see it .... that's an athletic cup, .... duh.
And as far as staring at a dog's junk .... errr .... maybe they don't care ...? Hardly titillating, is it.
Whoever did that study is either a moron, or had some political agenda.
stridge, ... have you ---tried---- P.E.?
If you'd put half as much energy into that, instead of continually arguing how being average is somehow equivalent, you'd be over 8 inches by now .....
*
A political agenda? Get real, they discuss the researchers and purpose of the study - the software wasn't even designed to prove that particular point, it was an accidental finding.
So far as your assertion that women just "pick things up faster," offer some proof. Cognitive testing has repeatedly shown that male and female brains are highly similar except for judging speed and depth of moving objects (which is, for instance, why men are better at things like baseball).
But since you're so appaled by this study, let's break down your points of proof here:
"The Women wouldn't look as long at something because they don't have to ... they pick up things like that quicker than males"
The software measures total fixation length and accounts for even small incriments of time (this stuff is designed to enhance advertising so you'd better believe that it's accurate and tracks every eye movement), and the female pattern shows no fixation on the crotch. Not a low amount as you suggest - I see no indication whatsoever.
Also, can you provide evidence that shows women can more quickly derive visual information than men by simply looking at a picture? I'd like to see some hard evidence that women have an across the board higher ability to digest and process visual information than men, which is what you're asserting. If you can't do so, then you may wish to admit that you're basically jsut making that point up to support your point of view. Keep in mind, the female pattern shows they basically didn't even bother to look, so you're coming close to suggesting that women have some sort of extra-sensory perception when it comes to these things. Now that's an obsessive male fantasy if I've ever heard of one . . .
Also, even if the female pattern did show some indication of looking, obviously the men's pattern is still far more intense than the women's, which still proves my point - men are simply much more interested in these sorts of things than women.
"They also might not look at a baseball player's junk for the simple reason that you can't see it .... that's an athletic cup, .... duh."
So, you're suggesting that a woman is presented with a picture of a baseball player, and then goes through the following mental process:
1. Hmm, a baseball player
2. As a baseball player, he's probably wearing an athletic supporter
3. Given that he's not in his natural state, I suppose I won't bother glancing at his crotch to see what's going on down there, but instead will just check out his face and upper torso.
Does anybody think that's a reasonable or logical appraisal of a person's though process when they're presented with a random image? If you're brain works that way, you are an intensley strange person.
Also, your point begs the question of why men don't come to the same conclusion. Many more men are probably familiar with the need to wear a cup while playing baseball, so why don't guys figure things out the same way. After all, the women had a univsersally similar action as we see from the pattern, so what gives with the men? Duh?
"And as far as staring at a dog's junk .... errr .... maybe they don't care ...? Hardly titillating, is it"
Yeah, so the same results are repeated with dogs instead of a baseball player, but you write this off for totally different reasons that you listed above. So the female brain works differently when presented with different images, but the male brain doesn't?
Here's a better question, did you make one substantive point that holds up to even the slightest scrutiny?
"stridge, ... have you ---tried---- P.E.?
If you'd put half as much energy into that, instead of continually arguing how being average is somehow equivalent, you'd be over 8 inches by now ....."
Yes, I have. For several years actually. And I am pretty damn close to 8 inches, although I'm more interested in girth at the moment so I could care less about that.
The reason I post information about what I believe to be true averages and female expectation is because there is a ton of bullshit and bad information floating around this forum. I personally find it encouraging and interesting and I suspect other guys do as well. This doesn't negate the interest or benefits of Penis Enlargement, I'm just trying to inject some reality into a forum that is driven by a lot of bad information and unrealistic assertions (such as, uh, that somebody designing advertising efficacy tests has a "political agenda," or that women can process visual data exponentially faster than men).
Drjeckle, this guy don't know squat except that he can't reconcile the possiblity that women just don't care about the size of our dicks as much as he does.
MoS Notifier:
@
oldandlively:
mattersofsize.com
