If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   How do you explain color to an 11-year old?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 105
    More: Interesting, Flame Challenge, Alda Center, University Center, World Science Festival, National Space Society, childhood disease, Amanda Peet, Dean Kamen  
•       •       •

3772 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2013 at 9:20 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-12 12:58:21 PM

Space Station Wagon: hmmmm, instant cast point blank Prismatic Spray = Prismatic Burst (or maybe blast).
I like it!


It's like being it in the face with a Prismatic Wall.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself."
-Albert Einstein


I have the "explain it simply" version on my cubicle.  I've run afoul of it one or twice.
 
2013-12-12 01:02:45 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Why the heck do people spend so much time worrying about how to explain something to kids.  Just explain it.  Like you would to an adult.



This is what I do when dealing with my kids.  By now my kids and most of my nieces and neiphews know to ask if they do not know a term I used... I enjoy the heck out of answering their questions.  The sad thing is that I have only once in the past few years have seen an adult deal with a kid that way, just once.  I sat mesmerized as a dad was explaining how a mechanical toy worked to his 6ish year old boy.  Stopped in the middle of the store, kneeled down then perched the kid on his knee and pointed out what each part did and how it interacted with the others....  It was cool and I think I understand why my son and me get some wierd looks when out and about.
 
2013-12-12 01:02:51 PM

Bondith: It's like being it in the face with a Prismatic Wall.



It's like a rainbow in the dark!
\cue DIO
 
2013-12-12 01:08:36 PM

Hyjamon: all the mentions of Bill Nye and no one shows any love for this guy?

[www.zdnet.com image 404x318]



Because he's a dick?
 
DVD
2013-12-12 01:18:35 PM
I'm not much into Huffpost, but I do like this kind of initiative.

I also like that they helped me fall in love with Amanda Peet being the "un -Jenny McCarthy" for vaccination.  (bottom gallery,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-peet/
 
2013-12-12 01:18:48 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Why the heck do people spend so much time worrying about how to explain something to kids.  Just explain it.  Like you would to an adult.


Exactly.  They are 11 years old, not 2.
 
2013-12-12 01:18:59 PM
Sean Penn is a jerk the whole time, then Robert Duvall dies at the end.
 
2013-12-12 01:19:28 PM

Bondith: I have the "explain it simply" version on my cubicle. I've run afoul of it one or twice.


That was how I heard it first also. But when I Googled it, trying to ensure I got it right, it came up with "six-year-old". I dunno which is correct, now.

/I'm so confused!
 
2013-12-12 01:40:12 PM
 
2013-12-12 01:45:43 PM
Russ1642

Bolor is simply the inborrebt spelling of bolour.

// Silly bunt.
 
2013-12-12 01:57:37 PM
I would define the color "red" as what you see after you read the article on the sidebar of the link.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/ethan-couch-sentenced_n_442 67 22.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

"A 16-year-old avoided spending time in prison for killing four people in a car accident in June after the judge bought his lawyers' argument that he was the victim of wealth. "

"Psychologist G. Dick Miller testified for the defense that Couch suffered from "affluenza," a condition in which "his family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link between behavior and consequences,""
 
2013-12-12 02:07:49 PM

Saiga410: Son dont stare.  They just have a genetic trait where they produce more melanin.


I nearly destroyed a keyboard on that. +1
 
2013-12-12 02:38:58 PM
I think the hard part will be explaining that bluer colors have more energetic photons, using real-life graspable examples.

Sure, when you start to heat up metal it starts glowing red (low energy). But why when it gets hotter does it become white hot rather than blue hot?
 
2013-12-12 02:58:04 PM

homarjr: Step 1: Get high.
Step 2: Think about how the colours I see might be different than the colours you see, and there's no way of knowing. For example, we both know what the colour red looks like to ourselves, but if I looked through your eyes, I'd call that colour blue. You've just known it to be red forever.
Step 3: Eat doritos


As a little kid I skipped steps one and three and was brushed off by my family for asking a stupid question

/I still think it's relevant
//sparks one
 
2013-12-12 03:15:22 PM

Hyjamon: all the mentions of Bill Nye and no one shows any love for this guy?

[www.zdnet.com image 404x318]


Bill Nye never asked young kids to meet him in the park when it got dark.
 
2013-12-12 03:18:20 PM

HairBolus: I think the hard part will be explaining that bluer colors have more energetic photons, using real-life graspable examples.

Sure, when you start to heat up metal it starts glowing red (low energy). But why when it gets hotter does it become white hot rather than blue hot?


It will turn blue if you get it hot enough.  Blackbody radiation starts to get pretty blue above 20000 Kelvin.
 
2013-12-12 03:29:57 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Khellendros: At 11, you can recognize and decipher color (provided you don't have a genetic defect), but you don't know what color is.  You don't know why color matters, what causes its variation, or why you can see it.

When I was 11 I understood that color was caused by variations in wavelength in visible light, and I understood that the cones in our eyes let us see and distinguish color.  I understood that visible light contained all of the possible colors, and that you can prove this with a prism.

Granted, I watched a lot of Bill Nye when I was a kid, which is pretty much where I learned all of that stuff.


The real problem is that color doesn't actually exist in the sense that light of differing energies does exist.  Color is completely a mental construct, and there's nothing that makes this wavelength red or that one blue except in how your brain interprets inputs from your eyes.

Fun Fact:  We have almost no peripheral color vision, your brain merely suggests/fills in color on the fly where it expects it to be at the edges of your vision.
 
2013-12-12 03:43:52 PM
How do you explain color to an 11-year old?

Depends.

If the kid been stuck in the US public school system, show it a box of crayons.
If the kid's in a Euro, Asian, or home schooled, explain wavelengths and how our eyes work.
 
2013-12-12 03:57:22 PM

LrdPhoenix: HMS_Blinkin: Khellendros: At 11, you can recognize and decipher color (provided you don't have a genetic defect), but you don't know what color is.  You don't know why color matters, what causes its variation, or why you can see it.

When I was 11 I understood that color was caused by variations in wavelength in visible light, and I understood that the cones in our eyes let us see and distinguish color.  I understood that visible light contained all of the possible colors, and that you can prove this with a prism.

Granted, I watched a lot of Bill Nye when I was a kid, which is pretty much where I learned all of that stuff.

The real problem is that color doesn't actually exist in the sense that light of differing energies does exist.  Color is completely a mental construct, and there's nothing that makes this wavelength red or that one blue except in how your brain interprets inputs from your eyes.

Fun Fact:  We have almost no peripheral color vision, your brain merely suggests/fills in color on the fly where it expects it to be at the edges of your vision.


Since, ultimately, it is your brain that is responsible for color interpretation, we do indeed have peripheral color vision.
 
2013-12-12 03:57:25 PM

HairBolus: Sure, when you start to heat up metal it starts glowing red (low energy). But why when it gets hotter does it become white hot rather than blue hot?


It starts red, and just adds more energetic frequencies as it gets progressively hotter, so you end up photons being emitted across the full visual spectrum, which appears white.
 
2013-12-12 04:07:33 PM

Drexl's Eye: [i.cdn.turner.com image 188x141]


Thunder-thief. My response was hot and cold rocks,
 
2013-12-12 04:40:30 PM
My sky is plaid.
 
2013-12-12 04:46:36 PM

OnlyM3: How do you explain color to an 11-year old?
Depends.

If the kid been stuck in the US public school system, show it a box of crayons.
If the kid's in a Euro, Asian, or home schooled, explain wavelengths and how our eyes work.


actually if the child is home schooled in the US the answer may be "because Jesus."
 
2013-12-12 04:55:51 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Since, ultimately, it is your brain that is responsible for color interpretation, we do indeed have peripheral color vision.


No, because if something moves into your peripheral vision whose color you cannot predict, you will not see it as colored, or perhaps even as some random color.  It's only what the brain thinks the color might be based on prior experience and current input, and it can be wrong.  If it was always right then you'd be right, but since it can be wrong it is merely an illusion which can be played with and manipulated.  Only upon allowing whatever it is to stray far enough into your color vision does your brain realize its error and correct the illusion so that it better matches reality when it isn't far enough into your color vision.
 
2013-12-12 05:01:08 PM

homarjr: Step 1: Get high.
Step 2: Think about how the colours I see might be different than the colours you see, and there's no way of knowing. For example, we both know what the colour red looks like to ourselves, but if I looked through your eyes, I'd call that colour blue. You've just known it to be red forever.
Step 3: Eat doritos


False.

through effective communication we can describe colors and gradients.  We can agree that in a given picture where an item is smoothly shaded.  If you saw blue instead of red, it would stand out in harsh contrast.(playing with some of the color sliders in photoshop simply illustrates this)

The only true aspect of that is that we see colors only slightly differently(a lot of it based on how our eyes are acclimated in that moment), or if under impairment(color blindness) a lot but it's still identifiable.  We know that color blindess exists, they do see different colors(and/or lack therof) than other people, and we nailed that through effective communication.

If you saw blue in place of red, it would be no different.
 
2013-12-12 05:06:10 PM

Doc Daneeka: PC LOAD LETTER: try explaining it to a blind person.

I think you could do that by analogy to pitch in music.

Both color and pitch are properties resulting from the frequency and wavelength of waves (light and sound, respectively) that are then interpreted by our senses as falling along a spectrum.


You could do it a variety of ways based on a spectrum.  Exposure to temperatures(red = hot and blue = cold), smells (green/yellow spectrum assorted grasses or pines, lead into orange with assorted melons, into red with cherries, purple with lilac, into blue with blueberries, etc).
 
2013-12-12 05:08:32 PM

omeganuepsilon: Doc Daneeka: PC LOAD LETTER: try explaining it to a blind person.

I think you could do that by analogy to pitch in music.

Both color and pitch are properties resulting from the frequency and wavelength of waves (light and sound, respectively) that are then interpreted by our senses as falling along a spectrum.

You could do it a variety of ways based on a spectrum.  Exposure to temperatures(red = hot and blue = cold), smells (green/yellow spectrum assorted grasses or pines, lead into orange with assorted melons, into red with cherries, purple with lilac, into blue with blueberries, etc).


Enter the contest.  Do it.  Written or video, it doesn't matter, although there's less competition in the video category.
 
2013-12-12 05:18:16 PM

OnlyM3: How do you explain color to an 11-year old?
Depends.

If the kid been stuck in the US public school system, show it a box of crayons.
If the kid's in a Euro, Asian, or home schooled, explain wavelengths and how our eyes work.


I would have believed it, prior to living in the EU.  There are plenty of dumb kids, lazy parents, broken homes, educational b.s

omeganuepsilon: homarjr: Step 1: Get high.
Step 2: Think about how the colours I see might be different than the colours you see, and there's no way of knowing. For example, we both know what the colour red looks like to ourselves, but if I looked through your eyes, I'd call that colour blue. You've just known it to be red forever.
Step 3: Eat doritos

False.

through effective communication we can describe colors and gradients.  We can agree that in a given picture where an item is smoothly shaded.  If you saw blue instead of red, it would stand out in harsh contrast.(playing with some of the color sliders in photoshop simply illustrates this)

The only true aspect of that is that we see colors only slightly differently(a lot of it based on how our eyes are acclimated in that moment), or if under impairment(color blindness) a lot but it's still identifiable.  We know that color blindess exists, they do see different colors(and/or lack therof) than other people, and we nailed that through effective communication.

If you saw blue in place of red, it would be no different.


BUT LIKE - WHAT IF MY BLUE WAS LIKE YOUR RED MAN?!
 
2013-12-12 05:22:41 PM

omeganuepsilon: homarjr: Step 1: Get high.
Step 2: Think about how the colours I see might be different than the colours you see, and there's no way of knowing. For example, we both know what the colour red looks like to ourselves, but if I looked through your eyes, I'd call that colour blue. You've just known it to be red forever.
Step 3: Eat doritos

False.

through effective communication we can describe colors and gradients.  We can agree that in a given picture where an item is smoothly shaded.  If you saw blue instead of red, it would stand out in harsh contrast.(playing with some of the color sliders in photoshop simply illustrates this)

The only true aspect of that is that we see colors only slightly differently(a lot of it based on how our eyes are acclimated in that moment), or if under impairment(color blindness) a lot but it's still identifiable.  We know that color blindess exists, they do see different colors(and/or lack therof) than other people, and we nailed that through effective communication.

If you saw blue in place of red, it would be no different.


OK, without just describing objects that are red, describe to me the colour red.

Grass is "green" to all of us, but that particular colour might be very different to both of us. And it wouldn't be harsh, it's perfectly normal. We both know what green is, and have known our whole lives. The entire world might be different to you than me, but we don't know any better.

My point is, there is no secondary trait to colours. You can only explain colours by pointing at things that are that colour, and we have to associate the two.

Most adjectives don't work that way. It's easy to explain what soft, hard, clean, tough, dry, wet, etc are, because we can compare two different objects and use more than just our sense of sight to determine what they are. Smell, touch and taste go a long way in communication. Since colour is only determined by sight, and we can't see through someone else's eyes, we don't know exactly what they're seeing. We just know what "red" is by our own association to objects that are red.

/Spent hours thinking about this while smoking the reef
//Was probably only 10 seconds, but it felt like more....
 
2013-12-12 05:26:19 PM

Dust: Um, they're 11.  Shouldn't they have concepts like that sort of locked down by then?


I think the idea is explaining WHY they see different colors and what it means. Really, it just requires an explanation of light, using a prism or a rainbow as an example, but I can see where it's a kind of abstract concept for some. I like the other ideas in the story, What is a flame? and What is time?. Keep in mind that you are explaining something more than "A flame is what we see when something burns" to an 11 year old. Color would be the easiest of the 3.
 
2013-12-12 05:28:49 PM

a2revolver: [www.reoiv.com image 800x1021]


God, that can be fun... Doesn't even take kids. I once convinced a friend that I worked with that we had sent a shuttle mission to the sun, It helped that she was gullible, but what really helped wa my ability to roll with it and keep piling on. It was a truly inspired moment of improv.
 
2013-12-12 05:30:30 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: try explaining it to a blind person.


I've thought about that when bored... I don't see any way to do it if they've been blind since birth. Can't even think of a way to describe what anything looks like, even things they can touch, let alone colors.
 
2013-12-12 05:30:37 PM

Mikey1969: a2revolver: [www.reoiv.com image 800x1021]

God, that can be fun... Doesn't even take kids. I once convinced a friend that I worked with that we had sent a shuttle mission to the sun, It helped that she was gullible, but what really helped wa my ability to roll with it and keep piling on. It was a truly inspired moment of improv.


Good lord.  Everyone knows they went at night.
 
2013-12-12 05:44:36 PM

BafflerMeal: Mikey1969: a2revolver: [www.reoiv.com image 800x1021]

God, that can be fun... Doesn't even take kids. I once convinced a friend that I worked with that we had sent a shuttle mission to the sun, It helped that she was gullible, but what really helped wa my ability to roll with it and keep piling on. It was a truly inspired moment of improv.

Good lord.  Everyone knows they went at night.


That's exactly what I told her. I said that they could only land at night, and during the day they would orbit and do atmospheric studies... When she asked what they were currently doing, I pointed out that it was daytime, and that they would have to wait until about 6 pm to land, after the sun went down. Keep in mind, this was like '92, and schools were still teaching things like how the phases of the moon were supposedly from the Earth's shadow. I also almost had her convinced that stop signs outlined in white were 'optional'...
 
2013-12-12 05:46:38 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: BUT LIKE - WHAT IF MY BLUE WAS LIKE YOUR RED MAN?!


Actually kinda funny, my fiance and I argue over color sometimes. His purples are maroon to me (he seems to see more blue/green than I do), but I chalk it up to science that says that women do see more shades of red than men do.

One of these days I'd like to take him to a paint store and have us compare colors (are these the same shade?) to kind of tell for sure.
 
2013-12-12 06:07:35 PM

Drexl's Eye: [i.cdn.turner.com image 188x141]


Winner! Winner! Chicken dinner!!!

Came to post this explanation, I thought this was one of the most beautiful things ever to be put on film and the fact that it's true was the most beautiful thing.
 
2013-12-12 06:25:43 PM

LrdPhoenix: ArcadianRefugee: Since, ultimately, it is your brain that is responsible for color interpretation, we do indeed have peripheral color vision.

No, because if something moves into your peripheral vision whose color you cannot predict, you will not see it as colored, or perhaps even as some random color.  It's only what the brain thinks the color might be based on prior experience and current input, and it can be wrong.


If the brain can see it as some "random color" then it still sees it as color; even if it is wrong. As far as seeing it without color at all, I can't comment as I have never experienced this. Anecdotal, perhaps (I suppose my brain is smart enough to realize that I don't live in Pleasantville).

If it was always right then you'd be right, but since it can be wrong it is merely an illusion which can be played with and manipulated. Only upon allowing whatever it is to stray far enough into your color vision does your brain realize its error and correct the illusion so that it better matches reality when it isn't far enough into your color vision.

All
sight is an illusion. You can look directly at something and still get the color(s) wrong.

web.mit.edu

Squares "A" and "B" are the same color (shade, if you want to be pedantic).

brainden.com

Both dogs are the same colors (i.e., pick a location on one dog -- middle of an ear, for example; it will be the same in the corresponding location in other dog).


brainden.com

Ditto (if by "dogs" I mean "chess pieces"). (And, yes, I realize this is a "shade").


Not to mention all the line illusions.

Hell, the very fact that we see things right-side up is because the brain is the thing that is actually "seeing". Were it merely up to our eyes, everything would be upside down.

The brain is responsible for how we see everything, even if it is making shiat up on the fly.
 
2013-12-12 06:34:28 PM

omeganuepsilon: homarjr: Step 1: Get high.
Step 2: Think about how the colours I see might be different than the colours you see, and there's no way of knowing. For example, we both know what the colour red looks like to ourselves, but if I looked through your eyes, I'd call that colour blue. You've just known it to be red forever.
Step 3: Eat doritos

False.

through effective communication we can describe colors and gradients.  We can agree that in a given picture where an item is smoothly shaded.  If you saw blue instead of red, it would stand out in harsh contrast.(playing with some of the color sliders in photoshop simply illustrates this)

The only true aspect of that is that we see colors only slightly differently(a lot of it based on how our eyes are acclimated in that moment), or if under impairment(color blindness) a lot but it's still identifiable.  We know that color blindess exists, they do see different colors(and/or lack therof) than other people, and we nailed that through effective communication.

If you saw blue in place of red, it would be no different.


So long as the spectrum is smooth, it is equivalent.  For instance, if you reversed the spectrum, you would not be able to set up an experiment within which you could prove that any two people see the same colors, so long as they can see the entirety of the spectrum involved.  Any two colors you ask them to compare and measure they will tell you the same things about, because only the hue is changing and the luminosity,vibrance,saturation,etc. all stay the same.  None of the actual information is changed by changing the hue.

The thing with color blindness is that the spectrum that they see is not smooth, since they're missing some of it, so they seem some colors the same as other colors, so there's always at least two totally different hues that you can show them that they can't differentiate between.
 
2013-12-12 06:35:56 PM

ArcadianRefugee: The brain is responsible for how we see everything, even if it is making shiat up on the fly.


And you haven't even touched synesthesia.

/unfortunately, I don't have the color thing. I get taste/shape/texture/temperature fun.
 
2013-12-12 07:51:03 PM

Dust: Um, they're 11.  Shouldn't they have concepts like that sort of locked down by then?


Yep.  I even that the reason we see a specific color is that certain frequencies of light are absorbed by an object while others are reflected back (loved the science section of the library)
.
 
2013-12-12 08:54:40 PM

Doc Daneeka: PC LOAD LETTER: try explaining it to a blind person.

I think you could do that by analogy to pitch in music.

Both color and pitch are properties resulting from the frequency and wavelength of waves (light and sound, respectively) that are then interpreted by our senses as falling along a spectrum.



That's how I'd do it.  Tape colored paper to keys on a piano, and explain that  different wavelengths = different pitches and hues.  Our ears and eyes collect those, and our brain interprets them.

But how do I know what I see as "blue" is the same "blue" that you see?  Mrs. Orange and I certainly have vastly different opinions on what is "green" or "pink", so it's pretty obvious that people interpret colors differently.
 
2013-12-12 08:59:43 PM

LrdPhoenix: So long as the spectrum is smooth, it is equivalent.  For instance, if you reversed the spectrum, you would not be able to set up an experiment within which you could prove that any two people see the same colors, so long as they can see the entirety of the spectrum involved.  Any two colors you ask them to compare and measure they will tell you the same things about, because only the hue is changing and the luminosity,vibrance,saturation,etc. all stay the same.  None of the actual information is changed by changing the hue.


False rhetoric.  Hue is information, ergo, you are changing it if you change the hue.

Open any picture that's complex enough(ie not some monochromatic design) in photoshop.  Adjust only the hue.

This one for example, because I had it on my desktop(higher res, so ymmv) and don't want to bother uploading comparisons.

pictures.4ever.eu

Adjust the hue only, and certain features of the picture become jagged and contrasting.  Shift to +/-180 and look at the sun.  It's no longer smooth.  There you go, proof of concept.

It's tatamount to the question of religion.  You say "therefore god" and require negative proof before you'll shut your yap.  It's a concept that would never have been if not for people mistakenly thinking they're being deep and inquisitive.

Much like ICP, light and human perception, how the fark does they work?  Ya'll scientists be lyin', it's magic up in this biatch.

And revenge of the nerds before that(paraphrased):
What if dog was spelled C A T?
*Collective Whoa!!*

Come back when you have a clue.

Bondith: omeganuepsilon: Doc Daneeka: PC LOAD LETTER: try explaining it to a blind person.

I think you could do that by analogy to pitch in music.

Both color and pitch are properties resulting from the frequency and wavelength of waves (light and sound, respectively) that are then interpreted by our senses as falling along a spectrum.

You could do it a variety of ways based on a spectrum.  Exposure to temperatures(red = hot and blue = cold), smells (green/yellow spectrum assorted grasses or pines, lead into orange with assorted melons, into red with cherries, purple with lilac, into blue with blueberries, etc).

Enter the contest.  Do it.  Written or video, it doesn't matter, although there's less competition in the video category.


Meh, bringing sensation to the challenged is a very old and much covered topic.  People with no tastebuds get M&M's in their salads for texture(among a plethora of other strange things), blind children are encouraged to feel a plethora of different things.  If I were to put anything forth along those lines, it would ultimately be a re-hash of a re-hash.

Of course, as some mentioned, you couldn't really describe red specifically any more than you could describe it to a rock(kind of a "Thanks Captain Obvious").  But you could associate that person's image of the word with the same things we vision capable people do.  Red is passion(love or hatred) and warmth, pink is flesh(we're all pink in the middle)  Blue is fresh and cool, or desaturated and darkened it is depression, etc etc(as I noted above).

You can describe red, of course.  Science has had wavelengths down for a long time.  We've built electronics out of mundane materials that can "understand" and replicate reliably.  So in a sense, we have described it to rocks.

Rocks do not comprehend however, nor would blind people who've never been able to see(to include things like neuroscience and interfaces with the brain that give rudimentary vision senses).  Not that they are on par with rocks.

They're certainly capable of reason and rationality(unlike some many on fark).

It'd be fun if I were a humanitarian with the time.  Unfortunately I suffer from extreme apathy and a full time job.
 
2013-12-12 09:10:18 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: Doc Daneeka: PC LOAD LETTER: try explaining it to a blind person.

I think you could do that by analogy to pitch in music.

Both color and pitch are properties resulting from the frequency and wavelength of waves (light and sound, respectively) that are then interpreted by our senses as falling along a spectrum.


That's how I'd do it.  Tape colored paper to keys on a piano, and explain that  different wavelengths = different pitches and hues.  Our ears and eyes collect those, and our brain interprets them.

But how do I know what I see as "blue" is the same "blue" that you see?  Mrs. Orange and I certainly have vastly different opinions on what is "green" or "pink", so it's pretty obvious that people interpret colors differently.


Meh, you could possibly ascribe that to societies tendency to have male/female hobbies as well.  Isn't necessarily genetic.

It's not that men can't see as many shades, it's that they're not as practiced because they just don't care.(just phrasing a possibility.)

Sure, the difference is there, but it's young adults they tested, with years of habits in thinking to skew results.

Ask someone to tell me arrange the order of 20 different CPU's of different years into a chronological order, and some could do it....those that have a background in the area.  Others could manage a rough idea based on pin-count and size.  Others yet would be all, "WTF, I don't have time for this shiat, I only showed up for the free manny peddy".

Genetic?  Evolution?  Not likely.
 
2013-12-12 09:12:40 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: try explaining it to a blind person.


Blind people know color exists and it can be demonstrated for them. Conduct an experiment with different colored boxes labeled in braile. Have a blind person put an object in one of the boxes, then invite a normal seeing person into the room and tell them which colored box has the object. The person will pick the right box every time because they are privvy to information the blind person is not.

It's a good experiment because it illustrates that just because we can't observe something doesn't mean it can't be detected, but we must demonstrate it exists first. This is why all supernatural and paranormal claims fail because they can't pass that level of scrutiny.
 
2013-12-12 09:14:01 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: That's how I'd do it.  Tape colored paper to keys on a piano, and explain that  different wavelengths = different pitches and hues.  Our ears and eyes collect those, and our brain interprets them.


Except, if you get a bit further into music, you realize it's all one note, and the rest are ratios. . .

/interesting analog for light there. . .
 
2013-12-12 09:30:34 PM

omeganuepsilon: LrdPhoenix: So long as the spectrum is smooth, it is equivalent.  For instance, if you reversed the spectrum, you would not be able to set up an experiment within which you could prove that any two people see the same colors, so long as they can see the entirety of the spectrum involved.  Any two colors you ask them to compare and measure they will tell you the same things about, because only the hue is changing and the luminosity,vibrance,saturation,etc. all stay the same.  None of the actual information is changed by changing the hue.

False rhetoric.  Hue is information, ergo, you are changing it if you change the hue.

Open any picture that's complex enough(ie not some monochromatic design) in photoshop.  Adjust only the hue.

This one for example, because I had it on my desktop(higher res, so ymmv) and don't want to bother uploading comparisons.

[pictures.4ever.eu image 674x421]

Adjust the hue only, and certain features of the picture become jagged and contrasting.  Shift to +/-180 and look at the sun.  It's no longer smooth.  There you go, proof of concept.


The compression distortion (square sun,etc.) is obvious to me in any hue, including the original.  Try a better picture, something real and not lossy.  By the way, since you're shifting the colors a set amount, they're always the same distance from each other and also maintain the same distance from both white and black, the same luminosity, so the contrast by necessity is always equal when merely shifting hues.  If anything, any difference noticed may be that when you move over certain values, specific frequencies of light most closely corresponding to the ones that that make your cones respond are being produced, but someone who saw color with a shifted spectrum would notice it just as clearly at the same hue shift values, even if it appeared to them as a totally different color than it does to you.
 
2013-12-12 09:44:53 PM

homarjr: My point is, there is no secondary trait to colours. You can only explain colours by pointing at things that are that colour, and we have to associate the two.

Most adjectives don't work that way. It's easy to explain what soft, hard, clean, tough, dry, wet, etc are, because we can compare two different objects and use more than just our sense of sight to determine what they are. Smell, touch and taste go a long way in communication. Since colour is only determined by sight, and we can't see through someone else's eyes, we don't know exactly what they're seeing. We just know what "red" is by our own association to objects that are red.

/Spent hours thinking about this while smoking the reef
//Was probably only 10 seconds, but it felt like more....


Color is not exclusively an adjective in the way you want to imply.  It is a subcategory of "light" ie the visible spectrum of electromagnetic energy.

Here's a fun fact.  Not a one of you has been burned by the sun's heat.

We can't see out of other people's eyes?  Not even close?

MRI's and other assorted scans come amazingly close and technology is improving.

Want another proof of concept?

Here:
spectrum.ieee.org
One step closer to proving god doesn't exist, err, I mean, proving that human brains mostly function in very similar ways, leaving less and less room for "farking magnets, how do they work?" Or something.

Disclaimer:  All the images you see from that experiment are visually similar.  They are skipping the eyes completely and pulling the images from brain waves, interpreted by a computer program, the resulting red blobs are a conglomeration of similar shaped pictures taken from youtube stills all overlaid by a computer program.

As with TV's, a jump to color and then High Def is not really all that unlikely.

/and if you have no idea what experiment I'm talking about, you have no grounds coming in here telling me how it is, uneducated morans trying to preach...pardon me, teach how the world works....
 
2013-12-12 09:50:18 PM

omeganuepsilon: /and if you have no idea what experiment I'm talking about, you have no grounds coming in here telling me how it is, uneducated morans trying to preach...pardon me, teach how the world works....


You got a link? I'm sorry but your English was atrocious in that post and I barely understood a word of it.

/everything looked like it was spelled correctly, but boy was it hard to follow
 
2013-12-12 09:54:47 PM

omeganuepsilon: and if you have no idea what experiment I'm talking about, you have no grounds coming in here telling me how it is, uneducated morans trying to preach...pardon me, teach how the world works....


Dude....

You're not wrong in what you're saying, but dear jesus god take your meds before your next post. Calm down.
 
2013-12-12 10:02:54 PM

LrdPhoenix: Try a better picture


Why? When it demonstrates my point perfectly, even if you want to lie about it, on top of my admittance to not actually wanting to go through a lot of bother.

At 180, the sun has more highly visible rings around it.  It actually gets dark, then bright, then dark again.

You don't see that with the original, not as starkly.  The yellow blends better from the white.  When you shift hues, the percieved smoothness becomes a percieved contrast(ie the colloqual meaning, not the technical tv display meaning, douche). Purple, blue, red, they do not blend so well.  It's not about the eyes, it's about how the brain processes color.  In that specific instance, yellow blends the best with the white.  IF you saw blue or purple, it would not blend as well.

Ergo, I'm correct and you're a half-whit.

Square sun?  I think your eyes are farked.

/and speaking of a full time job, I've got to catch some ZZzz;s
//preach on reverends
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report