Where Men See White, Women See Ecru
Neuroscientists prove what we always suspected: the two sexes see the world differently
- By Libby Copeland
- Illustration by Adam McCauley
- Smithsonian magazine, March 2013, Subscribe
If you’ve ever found yourself at a paint store with a member of the opposite sex trying to decide between, say, “laguna blue” and “blue macaw,” chances are you’ve disagreed over which hue is lighter or looks more turquoise.
Take comfort in the fact that the real blame lies with physiology: Neuroscientists have discovered that women are better at distinguishing among subtle distinctions in color, while men appear more sensitive to objects moving across their field of vision.
Scientists have long main- tained that the sexes see colors differently. But much of the evidence has been indirect, such as the linguistic research showing that women possess a larger vocabulary than men for describing colors. Experimental evidence for the vision thing has been rare.
That’s why Israel Abramov, a psychologist and behavioral neuroscientist at CUNY’s Brooklyn College, gave a group of men and women a battery of visual tests. Abramov has spent 50 years studying human vision—how our eyes and brain translate light into a representation of the world. He’s curious about the neural mechanisms that determine how we perceive colors.
In one study, Abramov and his research team showed subjects light and dark bars of different widths and degrees of contrast flickering on a computer screen. The effect was akin to how we might view a car moving in the distance. Men were better than women at seeing the bars, and their advantage increased as the bars became narrower and less distinct.
But when the researchers tested color vision in one of two ways—by projecting colors onto frosted glass or beaming them into their subjects’ eyes— women proved slightly better at discriminating among subtle gradations in the middle of the color spectrum, where yellow and green reside. They detected tiny differences between yellows that looked the same to men. The researchers also found that men require a slightly longer wavelength to see the same hue as women; an object that women experience as orange will look slightly more yellowish to men, while green will look more blue-green to men. This last part doesn’t confer an advantage on either sex, but it does demonstrate, Abramov says, that “the nervous system that deals with color cannot be wired in the exact same way in males as in females.” He believes the answer lies in testosterone and other androgens. Evidence from animal studies suggests that male sex hormones can alter development in the visual cortex.
While Abramov has an explanation for how the sexes see differently, he’s less certain about why. One possibility—which he cautions is highly speculative—is that it’s an evolutionary adaptation that benefited hunter-gatherer societies: Males needed to see distant, moving objects, like bison, while females had to be better judges of color when scouring for edible plants.
Someday, further studies could reveal whether these traits could have implications for how men and women perform in fields such as the arts or athletics. At the very least, Abramov says, women probably have an edge nabbing the ripest banana on the shelf.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (14)
You might want to double-check this research. John Barbur, Professor of Optics and Visual Sciences at the City University of London, protested these results. He says men generally have better color vision than women, and that while women might pay more attention to subtle differences in color, it doesn't mean he can actually distinguish between them better.
Posted by David on March 29,2013 | 06:38 AM
Finally, one more time it is checked that women are better than men.
Posted by on March 10,2013 | 06:16 PM
Part of the problem with society is the whole notion of gaining an "advantage" over someone or some group. These studies of vision point out how "differences" between individuals can contribute to more successful outcomes for the whole. If we can move our societal views toward utilizing the "different" abilities of all individuals to contribute to the success of the whole, rather than trying to pit "advantages" against one another we would be much better off. This applies across the entire spectrum of human activities from politics to religion to the arts to technology etc. We need to utilize all the "differences" we can gather to solve the myriad of problems we face in the world today.
Posted by Daniel Mitchell on March 3,2013 | 02:52 PM
I have often wondered what it is that produces different color perceptions between one eye and another in the same individual. My eyes definitely see "pure white" differently, one slightly blue and the other slightly orange. I'll definitely take the findings of this article into account when discussing my next artistic venture with the men in my family!
Posted by Robin Burns on March 3,2013 | 11:29 AM
So where does this all lead? We live in the age of feminism. The fundamental principle is that women are the superior sex and men just have to stand back and live by that proposition. The differences that have been identified in the study need to be spun into that proposition. Yeah, right. This type of study will invariably lead to more steotypical conclusions that women are superior to men in today's world. Is anyone looking out for the rights of men and the injustices that are being perpetrated against them? No way.
Posted by Lex on March 3,2013 | 11:28 AM
Wish I had known this 33 years ago.
Posted by Pam on March 3,2013 | 10:43 AM
It has long been known by those of us in the electro-optical community women have a better color acuity than men. It has been the source of many computer screen purple on purple design pranks to frustrate the men engineers. The causes also have been speculated on the evolutionary causes and the role of the sex hormones on eye/brain development. So this research is not new. What was disappointing was the dismissal of the woman's advantage achieved with this ability to correctly discern more shades of color. As anyone who has seen men who lack the ability to discern beyond blue who wear mismatched blues enter into the bar can attest. Those who cannot discern color well fare poorly in the mating process. Color discernment also is critical in painting, stain glass making, determining temperature in heat related activities etc. So while the exceptional male who can exhibit high color acuity function, do exist most female counterparts are better at selecting part with defects, judging temperatures based on optical qualities, identifying counterfeits, etc., etc. Color acuity is not just a nice curiosity while judging speed and distance are super advantageous. Both capabilities can be instrumented and compensated for, but the native talent is always a distinct evolutionary advantage.
Posted by Linda J.Vandergriff, D.Sc. on March 3,2013 | 09:33 AM
I notice that while this article mentions ways that each gender has an advantage, the title focuses on the women's advantage. In our society if you published an article suggesting that men were biologically better at something, a lot of people would get offended, but they don't show that anger when an article suggests women are biologically better at something. And to William below, yes it is possible that the differences in color viewing and viewing of objects flying across the screen might have had something to do with gathering and hunting, the whole asking directions stereotype is just a stereotype. The only reason people believe it is because it keeps getting repeated.
Posted by Hibernia86 on February 28,2013 | 07:13 AM
I do not think Abramov’s speculation about the origin of male/female perceptions should be entirely discounted. For years I have joked with friends and colleagues about the hunter-gatherer dichotomy and how it explains so many of the notions we have of alleged gender linked behavior. Going shopping? Women tend to shop around and look for deals. Men generally go for the bolt and nut and then bolt for the checkout line. The divergence in behavior is easily explained by the fact that meat spoils rapidly and it may be a long distance from camp, so our forebear hunters, stalked, killed and returned. Plucking fruit and nuts, however, involves inspecting and comparing various fields to ascertain ripeness and quality. How about asking for directions? This had to be anathema to primitive man while tracking a mammoth because a neighboring tribesman may not provide accurate information. On the other hand one’s own tribe gains substantial benefit and social harmony when women share knowledge. Respectfully submitted, William Hupy Menominee, MI
Posted by William Hupy on February 27,2013 | 04:18 PM
I'd like to see studies like these divide the populations tested into three groups: men, pre-menopausal women, and post-menpausal women, whose hormone balance is quite different from that of their younger sisters.
Posted by Rhubarb on February 26,2013 | 05:41 PM
Dear smithsonian, You are commenting on physiological sex, not gender. So why use men/women when you are not discussing the social construct of gender at all? Male/female is more appropriate.
Posted by Laine on February 26,2013 | 03:44 PM
how about some real numbers? how many tested? how many showed a difference... was it statistically relevant? these studies make great headlines and tell people what they want to hear thus get views...id like some real science to back it up.
Posted by john on February 26,2013 | 08:16 AM
"In one study, Abramov and his research team showed subjects light and dark bars of different widths and degrees of contrast flickering on a computer screen. The effect was akin to how we might view a car moving in the distance. Men were better than women at seeing the bars, and their advantage increased as the bars became narrower and less distinct." I finally understand why I never could see the flashing bar on a timing light!
Posted by Ivonne on February 25,2013 | 04:12 PM
Heh. It's funny that the researcher thinks in terms of evolutionary advantages being a cause of the difference, but then he only goes back as far as our "hunter gatherer" period. :P As if at no other point in our evolution could we have needed that distinction. It may in fact have been a difference that simply made no difference, "piggy-backing" as it were, as an unhelpful but non-hindering side effect of gender differentiation.
Posted by eric on February 25,2013 | 10:12 AM