Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
History of Feminism
Showing Original Post only (View all)An example of junk science re: objectification. [View all]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725150215.htm
How Our Brains See Men as People and Women as Body Parts: Both Genders Process Images of Men, Women Differently
ScienceDaily (July 25, 2012) When casting our eyes upon an object, our brains either perceive it in its entirety or as a collection of its parts. Consider, for instance, photo mosaics consisting of hundreds of tiny pictures that when arranged a certain way form a larger overall image: In fact, it takes two separate mental functions to see the mosaic from both perspectives.
A new study suggests that these two distinct cognitive processes also are in play with our basic physical perceptions of men and women --and, importantly, provides clues as to why women are often the targets of sexual objectification.
The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts.
(snip)
"Local processing underlies the way we think about objects: houses, cars and so on. But global processing should prevent us from that when it comes to people," Gervais said. "We don't break people down to their parts -- except when it comes to women, which is really striking. Women were perceived in the same ways that objects are viewed."
...
How Our Brains See Men as People and Women as Body Parts: Both Genders Process Images of Men, Women Differently
ScienceDaily (July 25, 2012) When casting our eyes upon an object, our brains either perceive it in its entirety or as a collection of its parts. Consider, for instance, photo mosaics consisting of hundreds of tiny pictures that when arranged a certain way form a larger overall image: In fact, it takes two separate mental functions to see the mosaic from both perspectives.
A new study suggests that these two distinct cognitive processes also are in play with our basic physical perceptions of men and women --and, importantly, provides clues as to why women are often the targets of sexual objectification.
The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts.
(snip)
"Local processing underlies the way we think about objects: houses, cars and so on. But global processing should prevent us from that when it comes to people," Gervais said. "We don't break people down to their parts -- except when it comes to women, which is really striking. Women were perceived in the same ways that objects are viewed."
...
Yeah, right. More evo psych nonsense.
How ridiculous to ignore reality. It's completely socialised behavior. Our sex obsessed society/media objectifies women constantly, yet somehow this woman thinks that ie just natural behavior? If the media put 500% more effort into obsessing on six-pack stomachs and broad shoulders like they do breasts, legs and bums, then it would end up viewing men as objects too.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
35 replies, 11786 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
" you sound like a climate-change denier?"" I am being thoroughly civil here." ah, no.
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#14
you have made it clear since it made "peer-reviewed academic journal" it is valid.
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#15
totally amazing tying evo babble to this when from the day girls and boys are born they are taught
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#11
there is plenty of documentation that challenges this. you obviously did not read any of it. to me,
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#23
unilaterally attack Evolutionary Psychology is to deny that there is any part of human behaviour
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#25
i can say the same right back at you. so why bother? i have no desire to converse with a person
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#27
I am also having trouble seeing any assertion about natural behavior or evo-psych
MadrasT
Jul 2012
#4
evo babble dismisses all of history for the first moment in time. they ignore conditioning, nurture,
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#16
see... this is exactly the crap i am talking about. you define it thru this period of time
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#29
there are many explanations about the issues with evo psych. here are 6 major, not even the minor
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#21
this would be a never ending process we do with women. but hell, lets not consider
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#31