4 ms·

> At the end of the day it's important to determine if language really changes what we see, or only the modes of communication, styles, fashions and all the lay

> At the end of the day it's important to determine if language really changes what we see, or only the modes of communication, styles, fashions and all the layers piled on top of actual sensory experience. This study seems to show that language plays a role: "The Himba tribe from northern Namibia, for instance, does not classify green and blue separately, the way Westerners do, but it does differentiate among various shades of what we call green. And when tested, members of the tribe, who are likely to have trouble with blue-green distinctions that most Westerners make easily, readily distinguish among greens that tend to look the same to Western eyes."[0] [0]http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/its-not-easy-seeing-green/?_r=0 http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/its-not-easy-se...

jrapdx3 11y ago
Color me skeptical, I have some doubts about that NYT piece. I did take a look, and indeed I had trouble with telling shades of green as presented. However, the image of color patches was quite blurry, color mottled and totally ambiguous. The RBG explication was interesting, showing three greens, 80/186/15, 80/187/15, 97/192/4. To make sense of it, in a paint program I made patches with these RGB values. Seeing a difference between 97/192/4 and the others was easy, but telling 80/186/15 vs. 80/187/15 wasn't really possible. I have serious doubts anyone could reliably do so, regardless of ethnic background. But it's no surprise. Is a typical computer display reliably capable of rendering that small a difference in green representation? Furthermore, in a printed format, how reliably can inks/dyes reproduce such a small color distinction, let alone the variables introduced by ink thickness, paper characteristics and so on. To my mind, it's not convincing, there are just too many inadequately controlled variables. Determining the "nature vs. nurture" factors implicated in behavior as complex as color perception and discrimination capabilities requires a great deal more study to even know what it is we are studying.
- filoeleven 11y ago
  Huh, I checked out the RGB values in the linked Boingboing post[0] too, and didn't notice that one had green 187. I very much doubt that was intentional or what they were testing for. Interesting that you found the larger difference to be easy to spot--I saw the difference but only after looking carefully. What I found most fascinating was the screenshot in the Boingboing post of the person looking at green squares with one aqua. I suppose they could have a very high incidence of tritanopia, blue light insensitivity, and in fact the spectrum shown here[1] matches up rather nicely with what's in the screenshot. I'd be surprised if this wasn't taken into account, though. [0]http://boingboing.net/2011/08/12/how-language-affects-color-perception.html http://boingboing.net/2011/08/12/how-language-affects-color-... [1]http://www.color-blindness.com/tritanopia-blue-yellow-color-blindness/ http://www.color-blindness.com/tritanopia-blue-yellow-color-...

jrapdx3 11y ago

Color me skeptical, I have some doubts about that NYT piece. I did take a look, and indeed I had trouble with telling shades of green as presented. However, the image of color patches was quite blurry, color mottled and totally ambiguous. The RBG explication was interesting, showing three greens, 80/186/15, 80/187/15, 97/192/4. To make sense of it, in a paint program I made patches with these RGB values. Seeing a difference between 97/192/4 and the others was easy, but telling 80/186/15 vs. 80/187/15 wasn't really possible. I have serious doubts anyone could reliably do so, regardless of ethnic background. But it's no surprise. Is a typical computer display reliably capable of rendering that small a difference in green representation? Furthermore, in a printed format, how reliably can inks/dyes reproduce such a small color distinction, let alone the variables introduced by ink thickness, paper characteristics and so on. To my mind, it's not convincing, there are just too many inadequately controlled variables. Determining the "nature vs. nurture" factors implicated in behavior as complex as color perception and discrimination capabilities requires a great deal more study to even know what it is we are studying.

filoeleven 11y ago
Huh, I checked out the RGB values in the linked Boingboing post[0] too, and didn't notice that one had green 187. I very much doubt that was intentional or what they were testing for. Interesting that you found the larger difference to be easy to spot--I saw the difference but only after looking carefully. What I found most fascinating was the screenshot in the Boingboing post of the person looking at green squares with one aqua. I suppose they could have a very high incidence of tritanopia, blue light insensitivity, and in fact the spectrum shown here[1] matches up rather nicely with what's in the screenshot. I'd be surprised if this wasn't taken into account, though. [0]http://boingboing.net/2011/08/12/how-language-affects-color-perception.html http://boingboing.net/2011/08/12/how-language-affects-color-... [1]http://www.color-blindness.com/tritanopia-blue-yellow-color-blindness/ http://www.color-blindness.com/tritanopia-blue-yellow-color-...