Log in

Tue, Jan. 28th, 2031, 07:43 pm

This entry will be left hanging on top of this journal. Kindly comment to it for offtopic and such. All comments will be screened.
web trackerIf you wish them to stay screened, please specify so, since if I might unscreen them at my discretion later if I don't see anything I think is confidential otherwise.

Thank you for understanding.

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 12:18 am (UTC)
pretol: Re: Reality vs Perception

Well, now we're all on the same page, and there's no disagreement. This could turn into a long conversation about explicit vs implicit communication. And we could trace all the way back and find out who misunderstood what, and how this argument came to be... :) Perceive and see are synonymous to me, "see" is "perceive visually"

Without doing a study, I'd say (good assumption) male population knows fewer adjectives for colours than female population (just the nature of guys liking ugly trucks, and girls liking dolls from the early age; girl toys being more colourful than guy toys). And I think there have been enough studies done to show that penises make creatures like different stuff than vaginas by default (mysterious, but appears to be true)

Of course I'm not talking about colour blind folks. They'll see according to their disability. Although it doesn't have to be a disability. I'm sure that if you raise a child under a red light, they'll be disabled and won't be able to see other colors even though they have the sensors to do it (brain has a tendency to connect nervously to stimulating sensors, so even though sensors are there, the brain will learn to ignore the input from the inactive sensors). Similarwise you can argue that Northern people are more sensitive to blue shades and southern people are more sensitive to red shades (probably true to a very small degree).

But as far as your study goes, it has very little to do with the rainbow (if anything at all). It's more of a memory/linguistic test. Like observing people draw, and people will draw the same thing differently. Some people can draw/paint photorealisticly, others symbolically, yet others suck completely :)

And if one puts a character and asks a group of people to draw that character. Some might see sad eyes, beautiful figure, porous skin, happy wrinkles, hump, limp, small nose, kissable lips.... And another guy barely took a glance at the figure and drew a figure stick. Is he wrong? Well depends on the context.... But overall, there maybe some true proportion in the picture, but human body is definitely not a line.

So if all those people want to mark black and white as a part of the spectrum, well it's just plain wrong. There's no black and white (or gray or brown), that means they haven't devoted enough memory space to accurately describe a rainbow. It's only as true as to say that a rainbow is many colors in a circular fashion around an axis of a light source (I don't think most people would think the geometry either). But what defines a rainbow is not that is is "many colors", but that it is a particular sequence of colors (all from 400nm to 800nm, whatever the range is), and measured by our instrument (eyes) with a high enough precision to tell at least a 1000 of them apart, and be able to name at least 20 into our crude languages.

It is also similar to the way a white man says that all chinese people look the same. These are all similar "lack of dedicated memory" scenarios. People can only memorize a particular amount of detail about a subject, and they start by memorizing the most general details to the most complex.

So what your survey seems to measure is the ignorance of the human brain (I'm using "ignorance" with no negative implications, being ignorant is an ability to ignore an uninteresting feature or a feature too complex, so it might need revisiting to memorize)...

I could mumble for pages about my fascinations with human brain.

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 12:22 am (UTC)
talash: Re: Reality vs Perception

*standing applause*.

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 01:45 am (UTC)
pretol: Re: Reality vs Perception

that was not necessary... really :/

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 02:06 am (UTC)
talash: Re: Reality vs Perception

You just expressed my opinion better than I.

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 01:44 am (UTC)
pretol: Correction of analogy:

My analogy of people drawing a rainbow and people drawing another human.

Remembering colors that are not there is more similar to drawing a stick figure with 3 legs (which is not human as many children will point out, because 3 legged creatures are obviously either aliens or mutants). Because technically a stick figure (2 legged, normal kind) is still a correct representation of a human being, just greatly simplified. A stick figure equivalent in the rainbow colors context is more like what most people do and that is naming 7 colors from an the infinite gamut.

Of course, my above ramble is a very right-brain approach.

3 legged stick figures are still humans, they're just weird humans. Just as rainbows with strange colors inserted. And that is a more left-brained approach, and I don't want to discredit it completely either :)

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 03:54 pm (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Correction of analogy:

"But as far as your study goes, it has very little to do with the rainbow (if anything at all)."
Well - duh! Like I haven't been explaining this for two days now?

"Similarwise you can argue that Northern people are more sensitive to blue shades and southern people are more sensitive to red shades (probably true to a very small degree)."
Actually, hungry people are more sensitive to blue and fed people to red.

"So if all those people want to mark black and white as a part of the spectrum, well it's just plain wrong."

I wrote a really long answer to this one, involving Chinese people with long purple wings, which this correction made unnecessary. You got the point precisely right: what interests me is what kind of people draw "weird humans", and what kind of "weird humans" they draw, e. g. "do all fiftyish black male accountants draw stick figures with five legs?"

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 07:46 pm (UTC)
pretol: Re: Correction of analogy:

Yes yes... I'm sorry I have a tendency to ramble for pages.

Well the reason I got originally fired up is because you started with an the "authoritarian" slant, suggesting that people get brainwashed into believing that a rainbow is a certain way (kazhdyi ohotnik zhelaet... i td).

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 08:58 pm (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Correction of analogy:

They do. It's not actually that way. It's an infinity of ways. Or, rather, it has the potential to be perceived in an infinity of ways. But (for instance) if you know that there's nothing between blue and purple you may not notice the extra fifty shades of blue, and your experience will be poorer.

Fri, Oct. 12th, 2007 11:48 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Correction of analogy:

Define "NOT KNOW". Doesn't know what? The name of the color? Or the eye is physically incapable of seeing the color? What is "knowing a color"?

Sat, Oct. 13th, 2007 07:20 am (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Correction of analogy:

Well, I wasn't the one who brought up knowing the name of the color. Personally, I think that every respondent knew enough to name or describe the colors they saw.

Wed, Oct. 17th, 2007 08:15 am (UTC)
talash: Re: Correction of analogy:

#FF0000 is red, but so is #FE0000 and #FA0000 and so on and so forth. I can distinguish between them, but the name for all of them is still "red". There might be a few synonyms for darker or brighter shades, but clearly there are more colors the eye can distinguish than there are names for them.

Wed, Oct. 17th, 2007 03:35 pm (UTC)
mme_n_b: Re: Correction of analogy:

Yes, that's why I allow qualifiers :) There is nothing in nature that cannot be expressed.