i scored 1. i thought i might score a 0 because i recognize more colors than anyone else i know, women included, but i missed something in the middle of the green part of the spectrum. still, not bad for a middle-aged man.
4, and the test picked up my bias against pink. Funny that.
Totally! That’s why we should keep them in the kitchen, where they belong, instead of letting them do things like go shopping.
But can she see octarine?
Bad idea. Not only this does not do anything with the source/cause of disappointment, you also couple it with your food supply.
What kind of helps is refusing to do color comparisons beyond the web-safe palette.
Here’s a better idea, then: take your sexist/misogynist “jokes” elsewhere.
Also, it apparently is possible to gain some degree of near-infrared vision by swapping vitamin A for vitamin A2, for the cost of limiting normal color vision.
You started. I only complained about the difficulties of being expected to see differences where there are clearly no visible ones.
I got a 3. I wonder how much monitor gamut comes into play with this test.
I wonder how this would affect states consciousness that induce synesthesia? if she dropped acid she’d taste way more colors then anyone else?
…Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?
I started? This is the fourth post in the thread, where you started with your sexist funnies:
well there’s your problem. even if you don’t have a level of colorblindness detectable on most screening tests you really do seem to be going through life with a somewhat limited ability to perceive gradations of color. rather than complaining about the greater abilities of others it would be more sensible to complain about your limitations. i wonder if focus and practice could improve your ability or if it’s a problem hardwired into you ocular system.
OK, how the hell do you test for that? Since the tests would likely be developed by “trichromats,” it’d be like us developing a cardio workout for a being that exists partly in the fourth dimension.
Then again, maybe this lady stumbled across this old Negativland gag.
I’m no expert on the subject but here’s how I understand it; you see red, green and blue colors with the long, medium and short rods in your eyes.
what she sees is completely different
she has the “Z” cone, which (I think) is shorter than short rods in your vision.
I believe it’s not quite like this. If you go much shorter than blue you get into Ultraviolet. Our cornea it designed to screen out UV because it would be damaging to the inside of the eye. If she did have a UV sensor it wouldn’t have much light to work with. Animals that see in UV are normally short lived. They die before the eye fails so it works fine for them.
What they believe would happen in a human is that you would get either two red sensors or two green sensors. They would not be identical, the two would be a little bit off from each other and this would give you more information about what you’re looking at. It is hard to say if this would improve your vision all along the line or if you would simply see red (green) in more detail than other people. The article suggests that she has improved vision in the red/yellow/orange range, so I would guess she has two red sensors.
I should mention that I am a little reluctant to take an article in a popular science magazine as 100% accurate, particularly about something that redefines people so radically as this. If you look at what Ms. Jameson (the scientist) says it is much more conservative than what Ms. Antico (the artist) says. I have seen these dramatic articles pop up in the popular press before and usually they fade away.
There was actually a very interesting article about a “bionic” eye restoring very limited vision in blind patients.
Disclosure: I tried this before when it came up on another thread and did well. But today… 0! I have perfect color vision!
Edit: A nice if slightly aged HP LP2465 monitor, fairly well calibrated.
I wonder how related those are in general, though. It’s definitely true most animals that see ultraviolet are short-lived, but then most animals are short-lived regardless, being insects and all. And the insects with the longest lives spend most of it underground.
As far as other groups go, though, there are enough vertebrates that do see ultraviolet - damselfish, salamanders, anoles, parrots, and reindeer to name a few. Some of these live for decades, and I’m not sure any are particularly short-lived compared to other relatives. Presumably they have found other ways to deal with the damage it causes.
I thought Astronomy. And by the way, this is how Alan Bean represents the lunar surface.
Our visual systems vary so much between individuals that the way we all see the same things differently may be a major root cause of conflicts between humans. It affects everything from engineering to social behaviour and aesthetics.
Maybe that was my problem. I’m staring at an HP L1908!