3 ms·

Don't all women have 6 types but usually they all have very similar or even identical frequency response? Only when they have a colorblind gene are they notice

Don't all women have 6 types but usually they all have very similar or even identical frequency response? Only when they have a colorblind gene are they noticeably different.

fxtentacle 5y ago
I meant this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy "Tetrachromacy is the condition of possessing four independent channels for conveying color information, or possessing four types of cone cell in the eye." https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2191517 https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2191517 "12% of women are carriers of [..] anomalous trichromacy."
- galangalalgol 5y ago
  Yes, it says it is from carrying a colorblind gene, usually red-green. But they have six copies of rhodopsin encoding dna, usuall 3 of them are duplicates. In red green colorblind only two are duplicates, but there are other types of colorblind. Theoretically they could be hexachromatic
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  From the wikipedia page linked in your comment: One study suggested that 15% of the world's women might have the type of fourth cone whose sensitivity peak is between the standard red and green cones, giving, theoretically, a significant increase in color differentiation.[23] Another study suggests that as many as 50% of women and 8% of men may have four photopigments and corresponding increased chromatic discrimination compared to trichromats.[24] It's not just women.
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    Nor is color blindness exclusively a male phenomena; in Northern Europeans, 8% of males are colorblind while 0.5% of females are. Suppose a few more sexual dimorphic traits like this exist in the eyes; perhaps differences that have no practical effect on human vision and have consequently gone unnoticed by clinicians. If the ML model is picking up a few of these dimorphic traits, it could perhaps classify sex with more accuracy than anybody looking at a single trait could. This is pretty standard Bayesian stuff; it's the way basic "Plan for Spam" style Bayesian spam filters work.

Don't all women have 6 types but usually they all have very similar or even identical frequency response? Only when they have a colorblind gene are they noticeably different.

fxtentacle 5y ago

I meant this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy "Tetrachromacy is the condition of possessing four independent channels for conveying color information, or possessing four types of cone cell in the eye." https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2191517 https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2191517 "12% of women are carriers of [..] anomalous trichromacy."

galangalalgol 5y ago
Yes, it says it is from carrying a colorblind gene, usually red-green. But they have six copies of rhodopsin encoding dna, usuall 3 of them are duplicates. In red green colorblind only two are duplicates, but there are other types of colorblind. Theoretically they could be hexachromatic
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
From the wikipedia page linked in your comment: One study suggested that 15% of the world's women might have the type of fourth cone whose sensitivity peak is between the standard red and green cones, giving, theoretically, a significant increase in color differentiation.[23] Another study suggests that as many as 50% of women and 8% of men may have four photopigments and corresponding increased chromatic discrimination compared to trichromats.[24] It's not just women.
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  Nor is color blindness exclusively a male phenomena; in Northern Europeans, 8% of males are colorblind while 0.5% of females are. Suppose a few more sexual dimorphic traits like this exist in the eyes; perhaps differences that have no practical effect on human vision and have consequently gone unnoticed by clinicians. If the ML model is picking up a few of these dimorphic traits, it could perhaps classify sex with more accuracy than anybody looking at a single trait could. This is pretty standard Bayesian stuff; it's the way basic "Plan for Spam" style Bayesian spam filters work.