3 ms·

No, sorry that's just nonsense. We're less sensitive to blue light because there is less blue light. The black body spectrum of the sun peaks at green (which

No, sorry that's just nonsense. We're less sensitive to blue light because there is less blue light. The black body spectrum of the sun peaks at green (which is why plants are green) and tails of into red. Blue light is not only a proportionately small section of the energy output but blue photons have more energy per particle and so there are even fewer photons necessary to make up that section. That said while I've heard the women have better red resolution that doesn't necessarily mean they're more sensitive to the color number one. and number two explanations like "so they could gather berries" tend to come from a desire to see women barefoot and pregnant rather than solid science.

tesseract 18y ago
> The black body spectrum of the sun peaks at green (which is why plants are green) Plants are green because they reflect green light, i.e. they do not absorb it and use it to facilitate photosynthesis. Chlorophylls tend to have absorption peaks in the red and blue, which are (in the grand scheme of the electromagnetic spectrum) near the sun's blackbody peak but do not coincide with it.
- jballanc 18y ago
  To prevent overheating and excessive evaporation, of course...
teuobk 18y ago
Although the black-body spectrum of the sun does peak at green, that's not why plants are green. Consider this: they appear green to us because they are not absorbing the green light. So, then, why green? For that matter, why not black? Apparently, there's some speculation that early microbes were purple, which meant that they absorbed the green light. Chlorophyll might have appeared only in later microbes, so it would have needed to absorb what was left; namely, red and blue light.
- wlievens 18y ago
  This begs the question: why were the microbes purple?
philwelch 18y ago
The evidence does seem to suggest that in hunting-gathering communities, women engaged in more gathering and men engaged in more hunting. Claims that otherwise reasonable hypotheses "come from a desire to see women barefoot and pregnant" tend to come from a desire to justify the unquestioned a priori belief that men and women are mostly identical rather than solid science.
- Avshalom 18y ago
  HOWEVER many if not most cultures supplement their diet with roots, tubers, grains and insects. most edible plants are not red most fruits and berries are not red many poisonous things in nature are red many herbivorous animals are colorblind implying little advantage to strong color vision as far as eating plants go. all of which is to say: "It is also known that women can see more shades of red, probably in order to be able to more effectively gather edible berries." needs a hell of a lot of evidence to be more than mere speculation, because all of the non-speculation says absolutely nothing about the use of red-resolution. And as a side note the number of largely color blind apex predators implies that "When we lived in the wild discerning different shades of green would have been crucial." is unsupported as well.
  - philwelch 18y ago
    See? Basing an argument on actual evidence proves your point better than basing your argument on some political agenda. "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because many herbivores and apex predators are colorblind" is an actual argument. "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists" is just a politically charged ad hominem. It'll get you brownie points in the Women's Studies department, but it's still a crap argument.
    - Avshalom 18y ago
      Okay see I remember seeing the article that made the berry link. Like actual honest to god degree holding scientists (of some discipline) were willing to be quoted on that hypothesis. A hypothesis that I, completely out of my field, just poked a half a dozen major holes in. I didn't "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists," I said the berry explanation may have been made by misogynists. I suspect at the very least it was made by morons. But despite your seeming distaste for Women's Studies, academia has a well documented history of misogyny that needs to be remembered anytime an argument is made that is so close to "women are physically adapted to housework." Particularly when, like I said above, a lack of evidence for some claim is blatantly obvious.

tesseract 18y ago

> The black body spectrum of the sun peaks at green (which is why plants are green) Plants are green because they reflect green light, i.e. they do not absorb it and use it to facilitate photosynthesis. Chlorophylls tend to have absorption peaks in the red and blue, which are (in the grand scheme of the electromagnetic spectrum) near the sun's blackbody peak but do not coincide with it.

jballanc 18y ago
To prevent overheating and excessive evaporation, of course...

teuobk 18y ago

Although the black-body spectrum of the sun does peak at green, that's not why plants are green. Consider this: they appear green to us because they are not absorbing the green light. So, then, why green? For that matter, why not black? Apparently, there's some speculation that early microbes were purple, which meant that they absorbed the green light. Chlorophyll might have appeared only in later microbes, so it would have needed to absorb what was left; namely, red and blue light.

wlievens 18y ago
This begs the question: why were the microbes purple?

philwelch 18y ago

The evidence does seem to suggest that in hunting-gathering communities, women engaged in more gathering and men engaged in more hunting. Claims that otherwise reasonable hypotheses "come from a desire to see women barefoot and pregnant" tend to come from a desire to justify the unquestioned a priori belief that men and women are mostly identical rather than solid science.

Avshalom 18y ago
HOWEVER many if not most cultures supplement their diet with roots, tubers, grains and insects. most edible plants are not red most fruits and berries are not red many poisonous things in nature are red many herbivorous animals are colorblind implying little advantage to strong color vision as far as eating plants go. all of which is to say: "It is also known that women can see more shades of red, probably in order to be able to more effectively gather edible berries." needs a hell of a lot of evidence to be more than mere speculation, because all of the non-speculation says absolutely nothing about the use of red-resolution. And as a side note the number of largely color blind apex predators implies that "When we lived in the wild discerning different shades of green would have been crucial." is unsupported as well.
- philwelch 18y ago
  See? Basing an argument on actual evidence proves your point better than basing your argument on some political agenda. "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because many herbivores and apex predators are colorblind" is an actual argument. "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists" is just a politically charged ad hominem. It'll get you brownie points in the Women's Studies department, but it's still a crap argument.
  - Avshalom 18y ago
    Okay see I remember seeing the article that made the berry link. Like actual honest to god degree holding scientists (of some discipline) were willing to be quoted on that hypothesis. A hypothesis that I, completely out of my field, just poked a half a dozen major holes in. I didn't "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists," I said the berry explanation may have been made by misogynists. I suspect at the very least it was made by morons. But despite your seeming distaste for Women's Studies, academia has a well documented history of misogyny that needs to be remembered anytime an argument is made that is so close to "women are physically adapted to housework." Particularly when, like I said above, a lack of evidence for some claim is blatantly obvious.