TIL: males have 25% more neurons in the visual cortex than females

All for boob prrocessing

Hmm... Men are more excited through visuals while women are more excited by touch.
I'm not actually sure if you are joking.
Eh, I prefer my boob processing to be tactile. Juuuust to check.
Speak for yourself I'm too busy looking at ass.
I think this is the most upvoted comment I've ever seen here
- Because one comment has never contained so much truth.
What about trans men?
- They can also process boobs if they'd like to
- Their bed nucleus of the stria terminalis should be twice as large as a woman's, and that's what guided their gender identities. Not that I'm a biological determinist, just a strict physicalist with no belief in metaphysical choice superceding determinism, but a lot of times the brain's development has recursive feedback loops such that smaller choices early on can alter the size of brain structures along with sex hormones and the development environment in the womb or even outside of it for a while, the earlier the more significant. All I know is that the size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis is pretty consistently twice the size in men as it is in women regardless of the gender assigned at birth.

Still can't find your damned socks though

- So what i'm hearing is that i should attach all items my husband regulalrly loses track of to a moving object to play into his sight strengths. Basket on the ceiling fan it is
- No, it's because women are smart enough to look under shit and we men are not. 90% of the time I ask my partner if she knows where something is, she asks if I looked under x, and about half the time it is, in fact, under x.
- Goddamend nature and all these bugs disguised as features!
Socks don't move of their own accord.
- Then how do they disappear from the dryer?
Men’s vision is movement based, just like T-rex.
Because socks don't move.

And most of us absolutely love filling those neurons with images of women

Fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
That explains jiggle physics then
- Hey, I am more complex than that!
I am agree

But they still can't see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch...

'Cause it's absolutely loaded with sugar?
- And toast, and crunch!

... Men are also ~20% larger than women on average. Is this count standardized by size of the person?

Does that include brain size? I mean yeah the total sum of all size comparisons is 20% larger, but like piece per piece that ain't remotely true (see boobs for an example that defies the total average).
That would be an interesting metric, though I'm not sure it would really mean anything.

I'm curious about this. They say that it's related to in utero exposure to androgens, which means it's probably not as clear cut as XX vs XY, because intersex folk and folk with atypical hormonal exposure (such as fraternal twins of different sexes, with a shared placenta) experience different levels of exposure, and different reactions to that exposure.

But most things human are regulated by hormones, because of genes.
- Yes, absolutely. But as I said, it's probably not as clear cut as whether you're XX or XY, because there are other factors that can also impact hormone levels and sensitivity to hormones

Whatever it does, it doesn't seem to help with colors.

Men have greater sensitivity to fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli, but women are better at discriminating between colors.
Literally under the headline.
- If only some men used those neurons to read
- My wife (presenting me with three identical carpet samples): "Do you like grey with a hint of blue, grey with a hint of pink or grey with a hint of yellow?"
  Me: "Trick question?"
- I thought he was referring to more frequent color blindness in males

Men have greater sensitivity to fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli

Looks at every first person shooter demographic

So is the power of transness allowing me to obliterate eggs in Shell Shockers?

Anecdotal proof time:

My dad's truck.

Me, my brother, brothers' friend and brothers' friends' sister, all XY, all see a greenish gray truck.

My mother, sister-in-law, brothers' friends' wife, all XX, all see a dark green truck.

It's the blue/yellow dress all over again.
So, for XX folk, the increased colour differentiation comes from fact they carry two sets of genes that encode for colour detection, and because they don't encode identically, each set creates a ever so slightly different perception of colour. And when you get two similar, but non identical perceptions of colour, you see more hues
- My two eyes see slightly different color. Noticed this years ago when looking at a florescent ceiling light with my eyes relaxed such that I was seeing a double image. The two images of the light were a slightly different color.
  I'm a dude.
- I've heard that women have more cones in their eyes as well, which leads to a more nuanced sense of differentiation between colors.
Picture or it didn't happen.
Now you need to post a picture of that truck!
This reminds me of my wife and I arguing over whether my shorts were grey or brown, she asks her friends and she just says "oh those, they are taupe". Which essentially means my wife won that argument.

ok so, here's my theory. The obvious answer here is that this is obviously "for hunting" or something. But evolution doesn't really work that way.

So my take on this is that this is actually an evolutionary adaptation to the different structure of the male body, as well as it's general abilities, and how they have been used throughout humanity. If men are generally stronger, taller, and faster runners, wouldn't it make sense that the visual processing would be adapted to be more responsive to these use cases?

this seems like the only realistic answer to me. Something about men must be different enough, or at the very least, have been used differently enough at some point in time for a long enough period of time, that it has to have been an evolutionary adaptation.

Not sure what your mean by it doesn't work that way
If men were predominantly doing the hunting, women would be more likely to choose a more successful hunter (more likely to pass on their genes if they have a better mate)
Also in general the ones who were better at hunting and their mates would be more likely to survive long enough to have children
- it's essentially an excessive over simplification of something that's not perfectly accurate, that's the problem.
  While it would apply to hunting, when you're talking about something like visual acuity, it's super broad in the applications that it's useful in. Even things such as not falling over would be beneficially influenced by better visual acuity. You could argue that men just stopped falling over and dying as frequently, leading to evolutionary selection over time, but that's probably not super accurate lol.
I was thinking it was more to do with dancing, possibly even music. It could even be something really weird.
Usually the way to identify if its about hunting/war or not is to find the exceptions and links: do hunters that perform really, really well have 3x the visual cortex neurons? Is it a socialization thing where doing certain tasks results in higher brain differentiation?
There's a lot of questions
- I was thinking it was more to do with dancing
  You're thinking of Homo Groovensis, the famous hunter dancerers.
- hmm, that's definitely interesting.
  Usually the way to identify if its about hunting/war or not is to find the exceptions and links: do hunters that perform really, really well have 3x the visual cortex neurons? Is it a socialization thing where doing certain tasks results in higher brain differentiation?
  yeah, this is why i think it's more of a secondary adaptation, as opposed to something directly evolving from the needs of hunting for example. Something like this is generally broad, and generally applied, usually. So i would think the cause would as well.
  One thing that i thought of was a nightwatch position, the heightened visual acuity would be highly valuable in a low visibility environment. So maybe it's something like co-evolution? Where females developed more accurate color perception, while males developed more accurate movement perception.
  we're probably thinking too hard about it, and it's probably just evolution trolling us and giving us the best of both worlds because we are in fact a socialized species. So this could stem from our social aspect, not directly, but the benefit of it in a social aspect is vastly more impactful, leading to more socialization, and further development of this adaptation.
- Women do prefer men who show attention to detail. It's why men's attire meant to look good, often contains buckles, buttons and pins that give it a slight touch of detail.

women are better at discriminating between colors.

Well I'm red-green colorblind so I never stood a chance anyway. If it isn't in a box of 8 crayons/markers, I don't attempt to use that color's name generally, cuz I will never pick the right shade. All the fuschias, magentas, maroons, burnt siennas, teals, cyans, etc. of the world can fuck off.

Isn't colorblindness almost exclusively found in males too?
Probably oversimplifying, but it's something about the mutation being on the X chromosome, meaning women have a backup X and men don't.
- It is possible for someone with two X chromosomes to still be colorblind, but since this gene is recessice you have to have the mutation on both chromosomes, which makes it way more rare.
- It’s not really a backup X. In any given cell in a woman’s body, one of the X chromosomes has been inactivated into something called a Barr body. The remaining X chromosome is then the active one.
  Women carriers of the gene defect for protan (causing protanopia in males) exhibit Schmidt’s Sign, an abnormal insensitivity to long wavelengths (red light). This is due to the highly skewed L:M cone ratio caused by the defective gene.
- You pretty much nailed it
- I know a colorblind XX person. But he's a trans man, so make of that what you will.

Does this mean the visual center is 25% larger or that the configuration of cells is different? If it is larger where are are women's brains larger then men's brains?

It means there are 25% more, but neurons aren't the only thing the brain is made of. Idk how much of a size difference, if any, this makes. Considering how sensitive lips and fingers are compared to equal sized parts of your skin in other areas, there might be a similar situation of just having a lot of space in the total structure for extra neurons. It could be a small increase in size, it could have no impact on size, more studies required.
- At the very least it makes a good exercise in questioning facts to make sure you are not coming to faulty conclusions by misunderstanding.

I've seen multiple people suggest hunting and get correctly told thats inaccurate

But would war fighting, or just fighting in general what with our aggression n shit help explain it?

The only times I've noticed this discrepancy in life are when hunting with women of playing competitive FPS games with my wife watching. I'll regularly see and react to things they don't, and are shocked when I shoot the sniper out of the tree on the other side of the map because yes, I did see him and I'm not crazy when I say I see shit flicker gdi

Aliasing also bothers me more than any woman I know, and everyone I know who hates it as much as me is a man

Maybe, and I'm not a biologist or an expert on evolution, so take my uninformed opinion with a big ol' chunk of salt, but I feel like what you're describing is more cultural than biological. Like, generally women just play video games (at least online competitive ones where there's interaction between players, like the ones you're describing) less than men, because those kinds of video games are sort of a hellhole for women. So in general, their eyes probably aren't attuned to things like aliasing and digital sniper glints because that's not something they experience often, not necessarily because their brains aren't as well equipped to recognize those things.
hunting is just an extension of fighting, sooo....
realistically, i think it's probably a little more fundamental than hunting or something, and more to do with the fact that men are generally more muscular, stronger, taller, and probably faster as well. So it's probably just a general evolutionary advantage to benefit those capabilities. For things like hunting, etc.
- Could be as simple as humans get so many neurons and need to allocate them across total set of stuff needed for life.
  Women need to devote a good % of those to pregnancy mode, while men just have normal mode.
  Therefore some functions may have to deal with reduced neuron allocations, because the 'missing' ones are required elsewhere.
  Obviously a simplification of things, but with only one way of needing to be men optimize to a different configuration with a different allocation of neurons to match.

So the ladies can check out the men's plumage as they perform a dance off.

I see.

U P

women are better at discriminating between colors.

Misread this as saying women are better at racism lol.

Woman can be racist to way more shades of skin color than men

I wonder if that correlates with hallucinations or seizures.

and yet I still miss things right in front of my face

They are not rapidly moving.. no wonder you miss them

men have a 50 to 90% bigger genitals. I don't see anyone talking about that! Also they can eat more because they have 20% more inside space, without fucking uterus and ovaries

I mean, in all fairness I sure do hope I have a bigger penis than my sister.
- My Thai girlfriend says penis size doesn't matter, but I still wish hers wasn't bigger than mine.

Women and men were equally hunters, it is a complete myth that it was only been
- Equal? No. There's ONE report from two years ago that claimed that and it was torn up when it was published. Women did hunt, but not as often as men.
- that it has only been what? There is absolutely no way women were hunting as much as men.
9 upvotes and 18 downvote? yall are actually crazy if yall thought women were hunting even as much as men did.

So when you transition, does this part of the brain get lobotomized?

No, though brain physiology does respond to hormonal shifts.
This doesn't invalidate trans folks. No one says they are physically completely equal to cis people. It just doesn't matter.
I must assume this was said in bad faith, if so, stop.
- It was a stab at women, actually. No, I don't regret it.
  I have nothing against transatlantic people, nor their accents.
In the brain there are high concentrations of male sex hormone (androgen) receptors throughout cerebral cortex, especially in the visual cortex which is responsible for processing images. Androgens are also responsible for controlling the development of neurons in the visual cortex during embryogenesis
Probably not. This happens during very early stages of development. Transitioning shouldn't have an impact, but I don't know if research has been done on that.

It doesn't seem that is so clear cut:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/
Men were long crafters, and women long hunters.
Men need to find animal
Women needed to make sure it was safe to eat
The hunter vs gather comparison seems silly when it was men doing both based on what was readily available
- also not to mention, just because someone is 10% worse at doing something, doesn't mean that they're completely useless at it, and shouldnt do it at all. It may be something where they each have specific roles in taking down large game for example. Just not the same one.
- Men need to find animal
  Women needed to make sure it was safe to eat
  Most food eaten wasn't harvested from animals for most of human history in most cases. The obsession with hunting and meat consumption is a cultural one FROM CURRENT CULTURE (especially in the US where I live).
  There really is no good reason to enforce our current conceptions of gender, masculinity and feminity on wildly big swaths of human history. It is always a lie best case, worst case it plays into dangerous narratives about who "men" and "women" are """""naturally""""" supposed to be.
  These kinds of reductive generalizations seem fun to make but they are hurtful, just plain wrong and honestly just kind of boring compared to the actual truth.

The 1950s would like their joke back, please.
Also why men run reds
You are literally charged more for insurance for being a man in the US because men are, observably and on average, worse drivers than women.
- Yes, but to be more exact, men get in more expensive accidents, and women get into more frequent cheaper accidents. I assume it has to do more with risk taking.
- So you agree?
Woman bad, amirite guys?
Grandpa you figured out how to get online

The eyes have it: Men do see things differently to women