Woman, primary colors, and hunting
william smyth
Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
spot things.
The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
This fruit hypothesis may explain why so many fruits have colors that are
"the primary colors" Afterall, nature could have divided up the spectrum
in
such a way that their were no red, blue, yellow, or green fruits. Fruits
easily could
have been magenta, mauve, chartreuse etc. But because HSS females had to
distinguish fruits, nature "adjusted" HSS's color vision to match the
primary colors.
Ron Blue
william smyth wrote in message <01bd3f31$7389ccc0$01472299@westside>...
>Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
>Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting.
>>>>>>>>
Color blindness helps hunters that is why cats and dogs are almost color
blind. Color blind helicopter pilots are preferred for the Army.
Color is recent. We are color blind relative to birds.
Ron Blue
Big Don
william smyth wrote:
>
> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> spot things.
> The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
> fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
> percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
> one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
Lips and skin of sexually-aroused women frequently blush or take on a
heightened red color (that phenomenon inspired the development of
lipstick...). So, back in whatever the cave-man equivalent of a singles
bar consisted of, color blind men were less drawn into the deadly fights
over hot babes, and thus survive disproportionately in today's
population??
Big Don
No LOOTers ~!!~
Adam Troy
Big Don wrote:
> william smyth wrote:
> >
> > Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
Color blindness is a genetic trait on the X chromosome. In order for
someone to be color blind, he or she has to have this trait on all their X
chromosomes. Men only have one X (Xy) and women have two X's (XX).
Therefore, it is more likely that a man will be colorblind, since only one X
has to have this genetic trait. Women are less likely to be colorblind
because they need to receive the color blind trait from both parents (two
colorblind X's). It's a matter of math, not hunting or sexual selection
matters, that have been proposed.
Donnie Chisholm
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 10:59:07 -0800, Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>william smyth wrote:
>>
>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
So. What are you saying?
Color blind men survived disproportionately in spite of not mating
with the hot babes.
Or,
Color blind men mated with the hot babes after the non-color blind
combatants were finished killing each other off.
I'm assuming of course that a 'hot babe' is one that looks like she
will be more successful than others passing on my genes.
Donnie
Big Don
A hot babe is one who just wants to screw.
Color-blind men, not being as readily able to distinguish the hot babes
to fight over, disproportionally mated with less-emotional more
level-headed women that provided a stable household (cave-hold?) in
which to successfully raise the children...
Big Don
No LOOT Babes ~!!~
Louann Miller
In article <01bd3f31$7389ccc0$01472299@westside>, westsid...@msn.com
says...
>
>Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
Because the gene for color blindness is on the X chromosome. Men (XY) only
need one copy of this gene to suffer the disorder, while women (XX) have to
get the whammy from both sides of the family.
I hate to ruin any discussion in sci.anthropology that isn't actively
cross-burning, but the answer really *could* be that simple. And I know
of no evidence to suggest that it isn't that simple. (If you do, by all
means post it here. Interesting.)
Not every trait in the genome actively helps or actively harms the
organism's chances of reproduction; quite a lot of stuff is just
along for the ride. Color-blindess quite probably fits into this
category.
>Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
>who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
>compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
>spot things.
>The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
>fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
>percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
>one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
Richard Dubielzig
> >> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> >> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> >> spot things.
> >> The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
> >> fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
> >> percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
> >> one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
>
> >heightened red color (that phenomenon inspired the development of
> >lipstick...). So, back in whatever the cave-man equivalent of a singles
> >bar consisted of, color blind men were less drawn into the deadly fights
> >over hot babes, and thus survive disproportionately in today's
> >population??
>
> she is faking it?
>
> >Big Don
> >No LOOTers ~!!~
>
I've heard somewhere that b/w vision is better than color vision for
spotting motion in a field...color-blind soldiers are used because they
can better spot enemy troops in camoflauge that's the same color as the
surrounding environment.
I also have first-hand experience with color vs. black and white with my
new digital camera. I'd taken a picture of myself in low light without
a flash, and the result was an almost-monochrome, sloppy mess until I
converted the whole thing to b/w, which really brought out some of the
detail in the contrast.
-Rich D.
Opinions are my own
David B. Greene
Anna Vidito
Ron Blue wrote in message ...
>
>william smyth wrote in message <01bd3f31$7389ccc0$01472299@westside>...
>>Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
>>Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting.
>>>>>>>>>
>Color blindness helps hunters that is why cats and dogs are almost color
>blind. Color blind helicopter pilots are preferred for the Army.
>
>Color is recent. We are color blind relative to birds.
>
>Ron Blue
>
>Color blindness is controlled by a sex-linked gene carried on the X
chromosome. Women have two X's and men have one. Thus if a man has a
defective X chromosome, the color blindness will be manifested. A woman
would have to have defects in both of her X chromosomes in order for her to
be color blind. She can have one defective x chromosome and one normal
and still see in full color. This heterogeneous combination will also make
her a carrier for this problem. She could pass it on to her children.
ave...@hotmail.com
In article <6d02du$r54$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
At the distances that primitive man (up to and including
Native Americans of the pre-firearm days) did their hunting,
the ability to detect _motion_ was considerably more useful
than color vision.
After all, what color is a deer? Fallen leaf color 8).
>Anyone
> >> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> >> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> >> spot things.
That's quite a bit due to culturation. Explorers who first showed
movies to the native people of New Guinea were astounded to find
that the natives couldn't ''see'' the motion pictures as
containing any recognizable information. Having no frame of
reference.
> >> The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
> >> fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
> >> percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
> >> one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
Color vision and distance vision probably are more useful in
avoiding becoming prey, oneself.
>
> >Lips and skin of sexually-aroused women frequently blush or take on a
> >heightened red color (that phenomenon inspired the development of
> >lipstick...). So, back in whatever the cave-man equivalent of a singles
> >bar consisted of, color blind men were less drawn into the deadly fights
> >over hot babes, and thus survive disproportionately in today's
> >population??
>
> So, Big Don, I guess lipstick is a modern woman's way of addmitting that
> she is faking it?
No, lipstick is a sign that, unlike their prehistoric sisters,
modern women have mirrors, and look at themselves frequently 8).
>
> >Big Don
> >No LOOTers ~!!~
>
> Dave Greene
>
>
a.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Julie Haugh
In article <6d1rj3$mme$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ave...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <6d02du$r54$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> da...@u.washington.edu wrote:
>> >> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
>> >> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting?
>
>At the distances that primitive man (up to and including
>Native Americans of the pre-firearm days) did their hunting,
>the ability to detect _motion_ was considerably more useful
>than color vision.
Color vision lives on the X chromosome. If your Mom is a carrier,
you have a 50-50 chance of being colorblind. For you to be a
colorblind woman you have to have a mother who is a carrier and a
father who is colorblind. Considering that colorblindness isn't
all that common to begin with, colorblind women are just naturally
rarer.
Ain't got nothing to do with hunting no deer ...
--
Julianne Frances Haugh
RS/6000 Security Development, C2 Tech Lead "Resistance is futile!
Bldg 905/2F002, 512-823-8817 (Tie 793) You will be evaluated!"
I-net: j...@austin.ibm.com -- C2 of Borg
NMS
Richard Dubielzig wrote in message <34F3AA...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net>...
>David B. Greene wrote:
>>
>> Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> >william smyth wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
>> >> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
>> >> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
>> >> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
>> >> spot things.
>> >> The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
>> >> fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
>> >> percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
>> >> one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
>>
>> >Lips and skin of sexually-aroused women frequently blush or take on a
>> >heightened red color (that phenomenon inspired the development of
>> >lipstick...). So, back in whatever the cave-man equivalent of a singles
>> >bar consisted of, color blind men were less drawn into the deadly fights
>> >over hot babes, and thus survive disproportionately in today's
>> >population??
But if they avoided mating combat, wouldn't that also mean that they don't
get to impregnate the women (the presumed result of mating combat triumph)?
Or are you suggesting that these color blind guys, like some other species,
use the "sneak up and grab 'em approach" That is, while the able males are
kicking the crap out of one another, the weak but clever ones high tail it
to the females and do the dirty deed. Then after the poor strong schmo wins
the fight, he gets to come on down, mates with the already impregnated
female, and then gets to take care of the smart but sneaky male's offspring,
stupidly thinking it's his own.
Hey, now, wait a second...
NMS
James Garrett
Hello,
True color bindness is a serious handicap. People (mostly men) who can only see
black and white have very little depth perception and have a tough time
functioning--I mean simple things such as walking around. I'm color deficient
(some shades of red and green) and was told that I could never be a pilot in the
military (maybe things have changed), but most people refer to my condition as
"color blindness." Actual color blindness is very rare; also, it is a recessive
trait passed down through the female.
Do you deny this? (I had to say this since it seems to be a popular rhetorical
phrase in this group.)
James Garrett
ave...@hotmail.com
In article <34F52560...@pacbell.net>,
mo...@SoCA.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> True color bindness is a serious handicap. People (mostly men) who can only
see
> black and white have very little depth perception and have a tough time
> functioning--I mean simple things such as walking around.
True, but in the prehistoric/primitive context of the earlier
part of the discussion, partial or full color blindness doesn't
seem to have hurt much in terms of hunting, recognizing something
that would like to eat you, and that type of stuff.
>I'm color
deficient
> (some shades of red and green) and was told that I could never be a pilot in
the
> military (maybe things have changed), but most people refer to my condition
as
> "color blindness." Actual color blindness is very rare; also, it is a
recessive
> trait passed down through the female.
Yep. Though I'm unclear what that means.
We also touched on something that might be called ''color inablity''
or ''color indifference.'' I wonder if that's physical (and
therefore genetic) or mental?
>
> Do you deny this? (I had to say this since it seems to be a popular
rhetorical
> phrase in this group.)
Me, I deny everything.
>
> James Garrett
Angilion
>Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>william smyth wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
>>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
>>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
>>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
>>> spot things.
False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
(e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
impact hunting in the slightest.
>>> The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
>>> fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
>>> percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
>>> one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
Given how many fruits warn of poison by using colour, that is
certainly possible.
>>Lips and skin of sexually-aroused women frequently blush or take on a
>>heightened red color (that phenomenon inspired the development of
>>lipstick...). So, back in whatever the cave-man equivalent of a singles
>>bar consisted of, color blind men were less drawn into the deadly fights
>>over hot babes, and thus survive disproportionately in today's
>>population??
No, false again for the same reason. Colour "blind" men would
would simply associate a different colour with the arousal, although
they would always see red as that colour so it wouldn't matter all
that much in a low-tech society.
>So, Big Don, I guess lipstick is a modern woman's way of addmitting that
>she is faking it?
Yeah, of course.
It's mainly sexed ID in this society at this time. Only women wear
lipstick, therefore women wear lipstick a) because they do and/or
b) to feel more womanly than usual (e.g. when they're on the pull).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich
Angilion wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
> Greene) wrote:
>
> >Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >>william smyth wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
> >>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
> >>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> >>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> >>> spot things.
>
> False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
> impact hunting in the slightest.
I don't think this is quite right, they simply cannot distinguish
certain colours. Years ago they had an optometrist come in and all the
floor techs were tested, one of our techs was color blind. He claimed
that he could see the frame buffer tests fine, but he could not see
what he could not see. I stayed after and looked through the entire
book, and could see all the colors.
<>
Rich
Emma
Rich wrote:
> Angilion wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
> > Greene) wrote:
> >
> > >Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > >>william smyth wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
> > >>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
> > >>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> > >>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> > >>> spot things.
> >
> > False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> > and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> > (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
> > impact hunting in the slightest.
>
> I don't think this is quite right, they simply cannot distinguish
> certain colours. Years ago they had an optometrist come in and all the
> floor techs were tested, one of our techs was color blind. He claimed
> that he could see the frame buffer tests fine, but he could not see
> what he could not see. I stayed after and looked through the entire
> book, and could see all the colors.
What does this mean? If there is any sense in this post at all, it escapes me. He
could not see what he could not see? Could he hear what he could not hear? If not
he may have been deaf too. If you could hear all that he could not hear, that
would mean that you were not deaf. God, this is bizarre. Pilchards anyone?
Amp
Angilion wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
> Greene) wrote:
>
> >Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >>william smyth wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
> >>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
> >>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> >>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> >>> spot things.
>
> False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
> impact hunting in the slightest.
Not true, a common color-deficiancy is red-green "blindness". A person with
said deficiancy selecting a camo outfit could select the wrong color-scheme,
making themselves easily visible.
> >>> The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
> >>> fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
> >>> percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
> >>> one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
>
> Given how many fruits warn of poison by using colour, that is
> certainly possible.
Which brings to mind another color-based warning method, traffic lights. There
are often times when all one can see of the signal is the currently lit lamp.
If one where red-green deficiant, could one mistake a red light for a green and
speed unsuspectingly into cross-traffic? Is there a DoT test for this?
> >>Lips and skin of sexually-aroused women frequently blush or take on a
> >>heightened red color (that phenomenon inspired the development of
> >>lipstick...). So, back in whatever the cave-man equivalent of a singles
> >>bar consisted of, color blind men were less drawn into the deadly fights
> >>over hot babes, and thus survive disproportionately in today's
> >>population??
>
> No, false again for the same reason. Colour "blind" men would
> would simply associate a different colour with the arousal, although
> they would always see red as that colour so it wouldn't matter all
> that much in a low-tech society.
It has been proven that colors can affect one's emotional state. If the red in
an aroused female's lips and cheeks were used to trigger similar emotional
effect in the male, could color deficiancy ultimately play a role in the failure
of procreation by color-deficiant humans?
>
> >So, Big Don, I guess lipstick is a modern woman's way of addmitting that
> >she is faking it?
>
> Yeah, of course.
>
> It's mainly sexed ID in this society at this time. Only women wear
> lipstick, therefore women wear lipstick a) because they do and/or
> b) to feel more womanly than usual (e.g. when they're on the pull).
Perhaps this is used solely to attract men? More often than not, lesbians don't
wear red lipstick. Any noticeable lipstick at all for that matter. Could this
instead be attributed to some non-activist derivation of the Women's Lib
movement?
> | IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
What about prejudice against prejudism?
--
Amp
Jonathan Magnus
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
>Greene) wrote:
>
>>Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>william smyth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
I think the gene for color vision is on the y chromosome and sometimes
it is missing from the x. Women get 2 ys so it is almost never a
problem. Men can get a good y from 'mom' and a bad x from 'dad. Men
who have it can give it to their sons.
>>>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
>>>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
>>>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
>>>> spot things.
Yes and no. Actually people got along quite well for a decades with
only black and white TV and b/w photography is still quite popular.
It turns out that we have about 3 times as many receptors for b/w as
we do color.
>False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
>and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
>(e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
>impact hunting in the slightest.
In low light our eyes can't see color very well. So if you were
hunting in the early morning or evening hours you would have no
disadvantage. Try going out in moonlight. There is not enough light to
see real color, but our brain fills it in anyway.
In my opinion the biggest advantage in hunting is the ability to see
movement, which is done exclusively with the b/w sensors.
<snip about color and poison foods>
>>>Lips and skin of sexually-aroused women frequently blush or take on a
>>>heightened red color (that phenomenon inspired the development of
>>>lipstick...). So, back in whatever the cave-man equivalent of a singles
>>>bar consisted of, color blind men were less drawn into the deadly fights
>>>over hot babes, and thus survive disproportionately in today's
>>>population??
>
>No, false again for the same reason. Colour "blind" men would
>would simply associate a different colour with the arousal, although
>they would always see red as that colour so it wouldn't matter all
>that much in a low-tech society.
I think it might be true that, without the extra sensitivity, those
that were color blind might have mistaken sunburn for arousal, but I
don't think they would have made that error more than once. :-)
>>So, Big Don, I guess lipstick is a modern woman's way of addmitting that
>>she is faking it?
>
>Yeah, of course.
>
>It's mainly sexed ID in this society at this time. Only women wear
>lipstick, therefore women wear lipstick a) because they do and/or
>b) to feel more womanly than usual (e.g. when they're on the pull).
I think it is to mask the truth. I mean, why is it that women refuse
to admit publicly when they want sex? What is the big deal?
Some anthropologists/sociologists think that if a woman looks 'ready'
she is more likely to win the protection of a male. It is a way to
keep him interested 'between times', not just when she can become
pregnant.
I think this is true. Why else would women go to *so* much trouble to
always look exactly halfway between "get lost" and "right here, right
now"? Women admit that this balancing act, when they get it right,
makes them "feel sexy." And why men get the "wrong idea" when they do
not.
Jonathan
Dave/Kristin Hall
: Angilion wrote:
: >
: > False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
: > and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
: > (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
: > impact hunting in the slightest.
if you're tracking a wounded animal, don't you think it would be nice
if you could see red blood on green leaves?
--
David Hall
Propulsion Performance Office (Code 4732H0D)
Naval Air Warfare Center - Weapons Division
China Lake, CA 93555
Dave/Kristin Hall
Richard Dubielzig (rdubielz...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: David B. Greene wrote:
: >
: > Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
: > >william smyth wrote:
: > >>
: > >> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
Just a comment from personal experience with absolutely no scientific
controls, but....
Every color blind person I ever known (read: all two of them) has had
*exceptional* night vision when compared to yours truely.
Matthew J Wilson
>>
>> >Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> >>william smyth wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
>> >>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
>> >>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
>> >>> spot things.
>>
>> and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
>> (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
>> impact hunting in the slightest.
How would one test for this sort of disorder? If the colour I see when
looking at a green object is the colour you see when looking at a red
object, but for all other intents and purposes the same, how can you tell?
And how is it going to disadvantage anyone?
--
Matt.
Jonathan Magnus
zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au (Matthew J Wilson) wrote:
>>Angilion wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
>>> Greene) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>> >>william smyth wrote:
>>> >>>
<snip>
>How would one test for this sort of disorder? If the colour I see when
>looking at a green object is the colour you see when looking at a red
>object, but for all other intents and purposes the same, how can you tell?
>And how is it going to disadvantage anyone?
Haven't you noticed the test? It is usually a bunch of white cards
with colored dots forming circles. Each card has dots that are 2 or 3
different colors. The dots are widely spaced, but buried in them are 2
numbers. One of the numbers will be in red, with disguising dots in
green. If you see red and green as the same, they blend together and
you can see the number made up of yellow dots.
If you can see color your eye finds the red number, and blends the
yellow into the white background before you notice it. If you can see
color and look at the cards long enough, you will be able to see the
other numbers. Is that confusing enough?
I think DOT tests for this by showing you colored numbers on a colored
background, if you have the wrong kind of colorblindness you cannot
read the numbers But I think most types of colorblindness are
acceptable.
When driving, color vision is not *really* necessary because the green
light is always on the bottom or right, etc.
Jonathan
>--
>Matt.
>
Matthew J Wilson
jma...@remove.this.net1.net (Jonathan Magnus) writes:
>zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au (Matthew J Wilson) wrote:
>>>Angilion wrote:
>>>>
><snip>
>>How would one test for this sort of disorder? If the colour I see when
>>looking at a green object is the colour you see when looking at a red
>>object, but for all other intents and purposes the same, how can you tell?
>>And how is it going to disadvantage anyone?
>Haven't you noticed the test? It is usually a bunch of white cards
>with colored dots forming circles. Each card has dots that are 2 or 3
>different colors. The dots are widely spaced, but buried in them are 2
>numbers. One of the numbers will be in red, with disguising dots in
>green. If you see red and green as the same, they blend together and
>you can see the number made up of yellow dots.
That's the colour blindness test, for people who can't distinguish between
two colours. It's not a test for the disorder under discussion - being
able to see all colours perfectly, but not percieving them as the same
shades as other people. (E.g a red rose. We both know it's red. But how
do we know that you're seeing red as the same colour that I'm seeing? How
do we know that our eyes/brains are interpreting the data the same way?)
So, whilst we were theoretically speaking about colour blindness, it's not
actually colour blindnessa - it's someone's misinterpretation of what
colour blindness is.
--
Matt.
Richard Harter
jma...@remove.this.net1.net (Jonathan Magnus) wrote:
>ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
>>Greene) wrote:
>>
>>>Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>>william smyth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
>I think the gene for color vision is on the y chromosome and sometimes
>it is missing from the x. Women get 2 ys so it is almost never a
>problem. Men can get a good y from 'mom' and a bad x from 'dad. Men
>who have it can give it to their sons.
You've got the x and y chromosomes mixed up which may explain a lot of
things.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
If we have not achieved the classless society
at least we have achieved a society without class.
Peter Ceresole
In article <34f4e799...@news.enterprise.net>,
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
>and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
>(e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
>impact hunting in the slightest.
That's not right. They would just call "green", "blue". Nobody would ever
know they had abnormal colour vision, including themselves. In fact, as
nobody can experience anybody else's subjective feelings, they would have
normal colour vision.
Colour blindness describes vision where someone has greater difficulty than
usual in distinguishing between, in your example, green and blue. More
commonly between green and red. In that case it can go from being able to
distinguish between them with more or less effort, to seeing both colours
as being identical. This is a well established condition which is tested
for by the standard charts. And in many circumstances it could severely
affect the ability to hunt.
--
Peter
Blue Daze
In article <#7#1qulQ9GA.94@upnetnews04>, "NMS" <nmst...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Richard Dubielzig wrote in message <34F3AA...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net>...
>get to impregnate the women (the presumed result of mating combat triumph)?
>Or are you suggesting that these color blind guys, like some other species,
>use the "sneak up and grab 'em approach" That is, while the able males are
>kicking the crap out of one another, the weak but clever ones high tail it
>to the females and do the dirty deed. Then after the poor strong schmo wins
>the fight, he gets to come on down, mates with the already impregnated
>female, and then gets to take care of the smart but sneaky male's offspring,
>stupidly thinking it's his own.
>
>Hey, now, wait a second...
>
>NMS
Actually research has shown that the shape and action of the human penis
during copulation works in a way that would "pump" out any semen from any
(recent) suitors. To simplify how this works, imagine an umbrella being used
as a crude pumping device where it is inserted point first into cavity, and
upon pulling it back out, the umbrella "opens" pulling whatever was inside,
out.
Of course, things in real life do get sloppy, and this is assuming that the
early bird's boys didn't get to the goal yet.
Just picturing the mechanics of this makes me realize that perhaps length and
girth are important to the man as well!
Blue Daze
Jonathan Magnus
zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au (Matthew J Wilson) wrote:
>jma...@remove.this.net1.net (Jonathan Magnus) writes:
>
>>zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au (Matthew J Wilson) wrote:
>
>>>>Angilion wrote:
>>>>>
>><snip>
>
>That's the colour blindness test, for people who can't distinguish between
>two colours. It's not a test for the disorder under discussion - being
>able to see all colours perfectly, but not percieving them as the same
>shades as other people. (E.g a red rose. We both know it's red. But how
>do we know that you're seeing red as the same colour that I'm seeing? How
>do we know that our eyes/brains are interpreting the data the same way?)
I don't understand the difference.
If I see green as orange and orange as green, other than disliking
some combinations of colors, how can anyone know?
Unless you can think of a way to get the signals from 1 person's eyes
into another person's brain I can think of no way to know.
"A rose by any other name.."
My understanding was that people can see about 12 million colors out
of a about 16 million. (That is why 24 bit color which gives 16.7 M is
called 'true color' because that is all that is need to display all
the colors we can see.) Now each person can see 12 of that 16 and for
each of us it is a different 12.
The second problem I see is that the brain can be easily fooled into
thnking one color is another based on colors around it, brightness,
colored light, etc. I am not sure *I* actually see the same color
every time I look at something. I have painted a room a certain color
and, once the furniture was in place, the walls seemed to change
color. I worked in one building where every evening the light grey
walls turned pink, until a customer commented on 'pink walls' and they
were repainted off-white.
>
>So, whilst we were theoretically speaking about colour blindness, it's not
>actually colour blindnessa - it's someone's misinterpretation of what
>colour blindness is.
>
It is my understanding that colorblindness is the inability to see
certain colors as different.
>
>--
>Matt.
>
Jonathan Magnus
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>In article <34f4e799...@news.enterprise.net>,
>ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>
<snip>
> More
>commonly between green and red. In that case it can go from being able to
>distinguish between them with more or less effort, to seeing both colours
>as being identical. This is a well established condition which is tested
>for by the standard charts. And in many circumstances it could severely
>affect the ability to hunt.
I would have to disagree that it would profoundly effect the hunt. I
know of no major game animals where not being able to distinguish
between these colors, say blue and green, would have any effect on
hunting effeciency. I can imagine of a blue animal that would be able
to hide in green grass and avoid that colorblind hunter, but the color
sighted hunter and natural preditors would quickly wipe them out.
Game animals often use color to hide, but the color is usually the
same as the background, or very closely matching. During WWII
colorblind spotters were used because they were not fooled by the
similair colors, or because they were more sensitive to the motion
beneath the cover, I do not know which.
Since the b/w sensors of the eyes are used to detect motion not having
the color information to confuse us *might* make us more sensitive to
motion and prey might actually be easier to spot.
The assumption is being made that most sucessful hunting is done by
sunlight. I disagree. I believe that most sucessful hunting is done in
early morning or late evening when there may not be enough light for
color vision to work.
I think color vision is much more important to the task of gathering
berries, where red may mean toxic.
I wonder if anyone knows if colorblindness could be dangerous to
people who mostly fish for food. Does anyone know if those living in
the south pacific suffer at the same rates we do or is it more rare?
>
>--
>Peter
Programmer Access
On 27 Feb 1998 02:49:29 GMT, zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au (Matthew J Wilson)
wrote:
>>Angilion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
>>> and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
>>> (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
I have a color-blind relative, so I'll give some input here.
Depends on the type color blindness. The majority of color-blind
people cannot distinguish between green and red. Both appear as gray.
A smaller number cannot distinguish blue/yellow. A very few people
cannot distinguish colors at all - every color is a shade of gray.
>
>How would one test for this sort of disorder? If the colour I see when
>looking at a green object is the colour you see when looking at a red
>object, but for all other intents and purposes the same, how can you tell?
It's not a different _color_. It's often _shades of gray_. Think of
watching a TV that doesn't show red or green. Everything that would
normally be red or green shows up as gray. Extreme case has every
color as a shade of gray.
A very common test is to have a bunch of pastel dots of different
colors and sizes (1/16 inch to 3/8 inch in the versions I have seen)
"randomly" scattered on a paper (sometimes overlapping). A color
blind person seeing _both_ the pastel red and pastel green as gray
would see an image. Usually a single letter or number. A person
seeing all colors would not see the image because they would be seeing
"independant" dots of red, green, yellow, blue, orange, etc.
A second common test also uses the pastel dots, but has an image that
a color-sighted person can see (red dots on a green background for
example), but the color blind person only sees gray dots.
>And how is it going to disadvantage anyone?
>
Sports: what if you couldn't tell the red uniforms from the green
uniforms? No sports for you.
Computers: if you have a color intensity on your monitor, try turning
the color all the way down, to where you only show black - gray -
white. Now load up your favorite game and try playing it.
Computers again: You've probably seen the "links" between internet
sites as a different color from the other words on the page. Imagine
all the words were gray. How would you know that there is a link to
another site? This is one reason that links are often underlined as
well as being a different color.
Traffic lights red/green. Smart color-blind people will not go
through an intersection unless they can see the _entire_ traffic
signal, since red is normally at the top on on the left (in the USA)
and green is on the right or bottom. If all they see is part of the
signal, they are _extremely_ cautious.
Electronics hobby. Many components have a color code to show the
electrical value of the part. Ex: the color code on the resistors
inside your computer. Resistors normally don't have a number value
printed on them, just the color code in bands around the body of the
resistor.
Medical field - _major_ problems for color blind people. Remember
"litmus paper" from junior high school chemistry? Turns either pink
or blue depending on whether the solution being tested is acidic or
alkaline? How about the home pregnancy tests that change color to
show results? Now imagine that your doctor could not distinguish
whether you have gone into ketosis or diabetic shock when (s)he looks
at the test strip.
Astronomy, chemistry, physics, optics, etc. Think of not being able
to "read" a spectogram. (Think "rainbow". The size and strength of
the various bands of color indicate which element is producing the
light which creates the rainbow.)
Here is an extreme example, but scary just the same. Think of your
best friend laying "asleep" on the couch across from you. Their face
is turning red from high blood pressure ( possible stroke), or red
from heat stroke, or turning gray from not breathing. A color blind
person might not know there was a problem.
Or for something really sad, think of never being able to see a
rainbow!
Shea F. Kenny
About to be doused with a lethal dose of radioactive reality,
jma...@remove.this.net1.net (Jonathan Magnus), says:
}I don't understand the difference.
}If I see green as orange and orange as green, other than disliking
}some combinations of colors, how can anyone know?
}Unless you can think of a way to get the signals from 1 person's eyes
}into another person's brain I can think of no way to know.
}"A rose by any other name.."
}My understanding was that people can see about 12 million colors out
}of a about 16 million. (That is why 24 bit color which gives 16.7 M is
}called 'true color' because that is all that is need to display all
}the colors we can see.) Now each person can see 12 of that 16 and for
}each of us it is a different 12.
}The second problem I see is that the brain can be easily fooled into
}thnking one color is another based on colors around it, brightness,
}colored light, etc. I am not sure *I* actually see the same color
}every time I look at something. I have painted a room a certain color
}and, once the furniture was in place, the walls seemed to change
}color. I worked in one building where every evening the light grey
}walls turned pink, until a customer commented on 'pink walls' and they
}were repainted off-white.
The simple reason for that is, the furniture absorbs photons,
leaving fewer photons for the walls to absorb.
Shea F. Kenny (Graveyard Chairman, M.I.B.)
This has been, Lunar Network News
(In the slave state of Washington)
Julie Haugh
In article <6d4iqn$tkq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ave...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <34F52560...@pacbell.net>,
> mo...@SoCA.com wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> True color bindness is a serious handicap. People (mostly men) who can only
>see
>> black and white have very little depth perception and have a tough time
>> functioning--I mean simple things such as walking around.
>
>True, but in the prehistoric/primitive context of the earlier
>part of the discussion, partial or full color blindness doesn't
>seem to have hurt much in terms of hunting, recognizing something
>that would like to eat you, and that type of stuff.
I doubt that -- not being able to see subtle shade differences
strikes me as a serious problem. Here is a web page which shows
what color blindness looks like --
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/web/color.html
But more to the point, we don't even know that color blindness
existed in prehistoric times. Not all genetic defects have
always been in existence.
>>I'm color
>deficient
>> (some shades of red and green) and was told that I could never be a pilot in
>the
>> military (maybe things have changed), but most people refer to my condition
>as
>> "color blindness." Actual color blindness is very rare; also, it is a
>recessive
>> trait passed down through the female.
>
>Yep. Though I'm unclear what that means.
>
>We also touched on something that might be called ''color inablity''
>or ''color indifference.'' I wonder if that's physical (and
>therefore genetic) or mental?
Are you referring to the difference between "lavender" and "fuscia"
in a woman's vocabulary and "purple" in a man's? Or is this some
other problem?
>>
>> Do you deny this? (I had to say this since it seems to be a popular
>rhetorical
>> phrase in this group.)
>
>Me, I deny everything.
This is a good policy ;-)
Kat Freyson
Matthew J Wilson wrote:
> How would one test for this sort of disorder? If the colour I see when
> looking at a green object is the colour you see when looking at a red
> object, but for all other intents and purposes the same, how can you tell?
No, colour blindness has to do with the condition that disables one
from seeing certain range of colours. For example, someone who is unable
to perceive the colour blue, would not only not see blue, but would also
see all green objects as yellow. All purple objects would appear red.
But, he would see yellow and red objects normally.
Kat Freyson
> I think the gene for color vision is on the y chromosome and sometimes
> it is missing from the x. Women get 2 ys so it is almost never a
> problem. Men can get a good y from 'mom' and a bad x from 'dad. Men
> who have it can give it to their sons.
Actually, you have yoru chromosomes mixed up. Women are XX and men are
XY. >g<
Richard Harter
Some odds and ends here. The only mammals with color vision are
primates. (No doubt there are some exceptions but I don't know of any
off hand.) The great advantage of color vision for primates has nothing
to do with hunting - it has to do with recognizing brightly colored
fruit. The carnivores, natures killing machines, don't use color vision.
Some, but not all, use scent much more than sight.
Color blindness is a handicap in humans because we have constructed a
civilization that makes use of the human ability to distinguish colors.
It is not a handicap of note in hunting. We (and most other higher
vertebrates) have very good visual systems. Recognition of game depends
far more on shape recognition against a natural background.
jma...@remove.this.net1.net (Jonathan Magnus) wrote:
>pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
KarenM
<<Clipping all Previous Debate>>
Color blindness is an X linked trait, meaning only a mother can pass it to
a son, because it is a recessive gene, women do not suffer colorblindness
unless both her x genes are affected. So man could not develop the trait in
response to anything, because the only way a man can pass on a colorblind
trait is to his daughter, if she does not suffer from color blindness there
is a 50/50 chance her sons will.
Most traits developed or mutated for a beneficial purpose would pass on
from one generation to the next.
Karen M.
The Ultimate Bitch.
averti
Programmer Access wrote:
>
> On 27 Feb 1998 02:49:29 GMT, zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au (Matthew J Wilson)
> wrote:
>
> >>Angilion wrote:
> >>>
>
> >>>
> >>> False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> >>> and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> >>> (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
>
> I have a color-blind relative, so I'll give some input here.
>
> Depends on the type color blindness. The majority of color-blind
> people cannot distinguish between green and red. Both appear as gray.
> A smaller number cannot distinguish blue/yellow. A very few people
> cannot distinguish colors at all - every color is a shade of gray.
>
> >
> >looking at a green object is the colour you see when looking at a red
> >object, but for all other intents and purposes the same, how can you tell?
>
> watching a TV that doesn't show red or green. Everything that would
> normally be red or green shows up as gray. Extreme case has every
> color as a shade of gray.
>
> A very common test is to have a bunch of pastel dots of different
> colors and sizes (1/16 inch to 3/8 inch in the versions I have seen)
> "randomly" scattered on a paper (sometimes overlapping). A color
> blind person seeing _both_ the pastel red and pastel green as gray
> would see an image. Usually a single letter or number. A person
> seeing all colors would not see the image because they would be seeing
> "independant" dots of red, green, yellow, blue, orange, etc.
When I was a kid we had those ''salami-slice'' tests: a round
thing that looked like a section of a big sausage, with the
dots arranged in such a way that if your color vision was
relatively normal, you'd see one thing (the number ''17''
for example) but if your red-green vision was flakey, you'd
see a different number. Same principle.
>
> A second common test also uses the pastel dots, but has an image that
> a color-sighted person can see (red dots on a green background for
> example), but the color blind person only sees gray dots.
>
> >And how is it going to disadvantage anyone?
> >
>
> Sports: what if you couldn't tell the red uniforms from the green
> uniforms? No sports for you.
Yeah. Or being in the Duke of Wellingtons' Army 8). Can
you imagine all the different color uniforms looking the
same, to a person armed with a musket? 8)
>
> Computers: if you have a color intensity on your monitor, try turning
> the color all the way down, to where you only show black - gray -
> white. Now load up your favorite game and try playing it.
>
> Computers again: You've probably seen the "links" between internet
> sites as a different color from the other words on the page. Imagine
> all the words were gray. How would you know that there is a link to
> another site? This is one reason that links are often underlined as
> well as being a different color.
>
> Traffic lights red/green. Smart color-blind people will not go
> through an intersection unless they can see the _entire_ traffic
> signal, since red is normally at the top on on the left (in the USA)
> and green is on the right or bottom. If all they see is part of the
> signal, they are _extremely_ cautious.
>
That's also why the lights are different sizes. (Stopping
at the correct time being, I suppose, more vital than
going.)
> Electronics hobby. Many components have a color code to show the
> electrical value of the part. Ex: the color code on the resistors
> inside your computer. Resistors normally don't have a number value
> printed on them, just the color code in bands around the body of the
> resistor.
>
> Medical field - _major_ problems for color blind people. Remember
> "litmus paper" from junior high school chemistry? Turns either pink
> or blue depending on whether the solution being tested is acidic or
> alkaline? How about the home pregnancy tests that change color to
> show results? Now imagine that your doctor could not distinguish
> whether you have gone into ketosis or diabetic shock when (s)he looks
> at the test strip.
Or not being able to tell liver tissue from pancreas tissue
during surgery 8(.
>
> Astronomy, chemistry, physics, optics, etc. Think of not being able
> to "read" a spectogram. (Think "rainbow". The size and strength of
> the various bands of color indicate which element is producing the
> light which creates the rainbow.)
>
> Here is an extreme example, but scary just the same. Think of your
> best friend laying "asleep" on the couch across from you. Their face
> is turning red from high blood pressure ( possible stroke), or red
> from heat stroke, or turning gray from not breathing. A color blind
> person might not know there was a problem.
>
> Or for something really sad, think of never being able to see a
> rainbow!
Indeed.
It's interesting how this thread, as they seem to do, has
mutuated from the hunting abilities of primitive man
to the desirability of playing computer games 8).
a.
Rich
The eyes are incredibly adaptive, you should read of the research done
by Kodak. But I think you have it wrong even then, the furniture reflects
light of different colours off the walls, which could be enough to cause
a perceptible color shift. BTW, everything absorbs photons, the key is
how they release them. LASERS tweak this effect and make all sorts of
important stuff possible.
Rich
Scott Russell
Angilion wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
> Greene) wrote:
>
> >Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >>william smyth wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
> >>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> >>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> >>> spot things.
>
> and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
>
Some colorblind people see in B&W. My mother's brother cannot
distinguish between a black and white (remember those) and a color TV.
I have a more limited color-blindness. _Some_ shades of red/green/brown
look the same to me as well as some shades of orange/yellow and
blue/purple. Often, I can tell that the colors are different, but could
not tell you which is red or green correctly. For example grass is a
different color than many leaves, but grass looks like what you call
red.
Traffic lights aren't a problem, in general, for me. The green actually
looks the same color as a normal streetlight (not traffic light) while I
do have trouble with the red and yellow ones. So if I see color, I
stop. When they are flashing, red or yellow, I have to slow down to
check whether it is the middle or top one that is flashing, or check for
stop signs if it has only a single position (rural highway
intersections). (Do not count on green being left in a horizontal
array, I have seen green on both sides, but it has always been bottom in
vertical lights.)
My night vision is better than normal and in some cases I see patterns
and shapes that people with normal color vision do not. It is my
understanding that in WWII, colorblind men were often selected as
bombardiers because they could spot regular shapes that were camouflaged
by color more readily than normal color vision men could.
The trait is carried on the X chromosome, so it can only be passed to
the son by the mother (he receives a Y from the father). A normal X
chromosome masks the colorblindness tendency, but a Y will not.
Therefore, daughters can only be colorblind if their father is
colorblind and their mother has at least one colorblind X chromosome,
which is passed along. A colorblind mother will have all colorblind
sons, but if the father is not colorblind, then the daughters will only
be carriers of the tendency.
Hope this clears things up a little.
> >>> The reason may be that color vision developed to help in picking
> >>> fruits and roots, and not for hunting. Primates are among the small
> >>> percentage of mammals with color vision. And this developed before
> >>> one species of primate, man, became a hunter.
>
> Given how many fruits warn of poison by using colour, that is
> certainly possible.
>
> >>Lips and skin of sexually-aroused women frequently blush or take on a
> >>heightened red color (that phenomenon inspired the development of
> >>lipstick...). So, back in whatever the cave-man equivalent of a singles
> >>bar consisted of, color blind men were less drawn into the deadly fights
> >>over hot babes, and thus survive disproportionately in today's
> >>population??
>
> No, false again for the same reason. Colour "blind" men would
> would simply associate a different colour with the arousal, although
> they would always see red as that colour so it wouldn't matter all
> that much in a low-tech society.
>
> >So, Big Don, I guess lipstick is a modern woman's way of addmitting that
> >she is faking it?
>
> Yeah, of course.
>
> It's mainly sexed ID in this society at this time. Only women wear
> lipstick, therefore women wear lipstick a) because they do and/or
> b) to feel more womanly than usual (e.g. when they're on the pull).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
> | IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
> |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com
Scott Russell <nom...@please.com> writes:
>Traffic lights aren't a problem, in general, for me. The green actually
>looks the same color as a normal streetlight (not traffic light) while I
>do have trouble with the red and yellow ones. So if I see color, I
>stop. When they are flashing, red or yellow, I have to slow down to
>check whether it is the middle or top one that is flashing, or check for
>stop signs if it has only a single position (rural highway
>intersections). (Do not count on green being left in a horizontal
>array, I have seen green on both sides, but it has always been bottom in
>vertical lights.)
If you're in the US you should complain to your state Department of
Transportation about any traffic light that's showing green (not red)
on the left side. Red-on-left for horizontal traffic lights is as
much of a standard as red-on-top is for vertical ones. (I have heard of
horizontal lights with red at both ends, however)
-Mike
Sherilyn
In article <34f639c9...@news.hal-pc.org>, Programmer Access
<programm...@group1.craftwrk.org> writes
...
>
>Here is an extreme example, but scary just the same. Think of your
>best friend laying "asleep" on the couch across from you. Their face
>is turning red from high blood pressure ( possible stroke), or red
>from heat stroke, or turning gray from not breathing. A color blind
>person might not know there was a problem.
>
should mention I'm genetically male and happen to be color blind; no
flames please.]
This is a real problem for people with red-green color blindness.
Somebody has to be blushing pretty heavily before I notice a thing
amiss. I can vaguely register a case of sunburn in a friend. Overall,
I think reaction to color is simply attenuated over the relevant range.
Despite what someone has said, the lost colors are not perceived as
shades of gray, but simply as an absence of distinction between objects
that are perceived by others as different colors. There is no such
thing as an intrinsic color--nothing a scientist will point to and say
"this is the boundary between red and orange--it's just how our brains
tend to see and distinguish light of different wavelengths. One of my
earliest memories is of the beautiful expanses of--to my eyes--red,
grass in my garden at home.
Because of the way we have evolved, we tend to see separate colors where
a distinction makes a life-or-death difference (those of us who haven't
have tended to die before reproducing). I should emphasize here that by
"we" I mean the animals in the line that led to homo sapiens, for the
evolution of our particular kind of color vision has probably taken many
tens of millions of years. Why do color-blind people survive, you might
ask? Because it doesn't matter _that_ much. Think of it as a none-too-
lethal genetic disorder. I also happen to have the rather more lethal
genetic disorder, myopia, or shortness of sight, which on top of
everything else, seems a trifle unfair. It's all blurry, and the wrong
color. ;)
--
Sherilyn
Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Sherilyn
In article <34F6B8...@please.com>, Scott Russell <nom...@please.com>
writes
...
>
>Traffic lights aren't a problem, in general, for me. The green actually
>looks the same color as a normal streetlight (not traffic light) while I
>do have trouble with the red and yellow ones. So if I see color, I
>stop. When they are flashing, red or yellow, I have to slow down to
>check whether it is the middle or top one that is flashing, or check for
>stop signs if it has only a single position (rural highway
>intersections). (Do not count on green being left in a horizontal
>array, I have seen green on both sides, but it has always been bottom in
>vertical lights.)
In Britain, where I live, I find the red and yellow (we call it amber)
lights easy to distinguish, and all three colors stand out a mile. But
I nearly failed a bicycle test as a child because the green light used
in the testing rig was a different shade from that used universally on
the roads.
When I visit a different country, the shades are different so I have to
grow accustomed to them before I feel totally confident. In Paris, for
instance, the green is more like yellow, whereas the green of British
roads seems to have a strong blue element. When your life and that of
others is at risk, you tend to avoid simple rules of thumb; I ask my
s.o. or one of my (all non-color blind) children, or stand back and
watch a few cycles.
karl_johanson
>pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>
>>In article [17]<34f4e799...@news.enterprise.net>,
>>ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>> More
>>commonly between green and red. In that case it can go from being able to
>>distinguish between them with more or less effort, to seeing both colours
>>as being identical. This is a well established condition which is tested
>>for by the standard charts. And in many circumstances it could severely
>>affect the ability to hunt.
>
>I would have to disagree that it would profoundly effect the hunt. I
>know of no major game animals where not being able to distinguish
>between these colors, say blue and green, would have any effect on
>hunting effeciency. I can imagine of a blue animal that would be able
>to hide in green grass and avoid that colorblind hunter, but the color
>sighted hunter and natural preditors would quickly wipe them out.
An orange stripped cat blended in well with fresh cut grass to my colour
challanged eyes once. The grass had a similar pattern to the cat's hair.
Sometimes I see animals which other's don't. For a communal hunters there
is an advantage to having some colour challanged members and some not.
>Game animals often use color to hide, but the color is usually the
>same as the background, or very closely matching.
Often they use unusual patterns such as stripes or spots. Pattern
recognition is important there.
>During WWII
>colorblind spotters were used because they were not fooled by the
>similair colors, or because they were more sensitive to the motion
>beneath the cover, I do not know which.
It may be a matter of pattern recocnition. For me, military camoflage
almost seems to glow where the colours meet. Distinguishing various
countries camoflage was quite easy also. Camoflage nets or camoflage
painted vehicles which were just a blur on the horizon were still quite
obvious to me.
>Since the b/w sensors of the eyes are used to detect motion not having
>the color information to confuse us *might* make us more sensitive to
>motion and prey might actually be easier to spot.
Possibly. When you become blind your hearing doesn't get any better but
often you pay more attention to it. Perhaps people like me may naturally
pay more attention to motion or patterns.
>The assumption is being made that most sucessful hunting is done by
>sunlight. I disagree. I believe that most sucessful hunting is done in
>early morning or late evening when there may not be enough light for
>color vision to work.
>I think color vision is much more important to the task of gathering
>berries, where red may mean toxic.
I used to let others pick out ripe berries & tomatoes & such. My vision's
getting better though & I'm moderately good at it now.
>I wonder if anyone knows if colorblindness could be dangerous to
>people who mostly fish for food. Does anyone know if those living in
>the south pacific suffer at the same rates we do or is it more rare?
>>Peter
Iv'e caught one fish in my entire life, in a fish farm & it took 2 hours.
Course I don't think it was my colour vision that makes me such a bad
fisherman.
--
Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada
-It's okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you're
wrong you're supposed to become enlightened & change your mind.
Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.
Anthony Youhas
Amp <a...@someplaceelse.com> wrote:
>Which brings to mind another color-based warning method, traffic lights. There
>are often times when all one can see of the signal is the currently lit lamp.
>If one where red-green deficiant, could one mistake a red light for a green and
>speed unsuspectingly into cross-traffic? Is there a DoT test for this?
I don't know about DoT testing, but I do know that traffic lights
aren't "pure" red and green - there's a some orange mixed in with the
red and some blue mixed in with the green. That way color blind
drivers can still see color differentiation between the lights.
Anthony
Ton Maas
>Despite what someone has said, the lost colors are not perceived as
>shades of gray, but simply as an absence of distinction between objects
>that are perceived by others as different colors. There is no such
>thing as an intrinsic color--nothing a scientist will point to and say
>"this is the boundary between red and orange--it's just how our brains
>tend to see and distinguish light of different wavelengths. One of my
>earliest memories is of the beautiful expanses of--to my eyes--red,
>grass in my garden at home.
A little off-topic maybe, but I remember leafing through a very elegant
coffee-table picture book with full-color shots of old B&W movie sets.
These sets were painted in the most bizarre color combinations imaginable.
Apparently, to get real nice and convincing greyscale images on B&W film
stock, the set designers had generated highly specialized knowledge about
the transference of color into grayscale. I wonder if any of that still
remains.
Ton Maas
Peter Ceresole
In article <B11F1F1A9...@stat13-153.dial.xs4all.nl>,
ton...@xs4all.nl (Ton Maas) wrote:
>Apparently, to get real nice and convincing greyscale images on B&W film
>stock, the set designers had generated highly specialized knowledge about
>the transference of color into grayscale. I wonder if any of that still
>remains.
Preserved in books maybe but not necessary any longer; they were working
with orthochromatic B&W film stock which was insensitive to red. Everything
red came out black and green and blue came out white. It was pretty awful
and and you had to choose your colours pretty carefully to get an
attractive result, which is what they were trying to do. Early TV makeup
was much like that too. Even now, you avoid fine vertical detail (as in
fine striped shorts) because it generates "pseudo colour" in the picture
which carries colour information in the picture signal.
However, with B&W film, after the introduction of panchromatic stock which
rendered colour information as a fairly accurate set of greys, the best
colours to use were the real ones.
--
Peter
Angilion
On 27 Feb 1998 01:11:43 GMT, theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Dave/Kristin
Hall) wrote:
>: Angilion wrote:
>: >
>: > False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
>: > and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
>: > (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
>: > impact hunting in the slightest.
>
>I beg to differ. My father in law can't tell red from green. Now,
>if you're tracking a wounded animal, don't you think it would be nice
>if you could see red blood on green leaves?
Okay, I was wrong.
Glenn Mrosek
Hi,
> >: > False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> >: > and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> >: > (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
> >: > impact hunting in the slightest.
> >
> >I beg to differ. My father in law can't tell red from green. Now,
> >if you're tracking a wounded animal, don't you think it would be nice
> >if you could see red blood on green leaves?
>
> Okay, I was wrong.
Not completely. I am partly red-green colour blind. For me red is red
and green is green, normally. In failing light a red car appears to be
a sort of brown, as does a green car. A very dark shade of green can
often be mistaken for black. Eg. a Heinz Big Soup label.
CU,
Glenn Mrosek
glenn....@minden.netsurf.de
Gre...@I-Memory.dame.de
++49 (0)571 508316
Christian Girard
Anthony Youhas (you...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
Also, at least here in Oz, the red light is always the top light,
the green one is always the bottom one, with an amber light inbetween. So
even if you are colourblind, the position of the lit light should be enough
to be able to tell if you can go or have to stop.
--
Christian Girard M.Sc. | Phone: | There comes a time when the
Programmer, AGBU, UNE | +61 2 6773 2607 | jewels cease to sparkle, and
Armidale NSW 2351. | 015 293 247 | the gold loses its lustre,
-------------------------------------------| and the throne room becomes a
cgi...@metz.une.edu.au | prison, and all that remains is
http://metz.une.edu.au/~cgirard/blade.html | a father's love for his child.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Ceresole
In article <6dd3aa$dte$1...@gruvel.une.edu.au>,
cgi...@anaphase.une.edu.au (Christian Girard) wrote:
>Also, at least here in Oz, the red light is always the top light,
>the green one is always the bottom one, with an amber light inbetween. So
>even if you are colourblind, the position of the lit light should be enough
>to be able to tell if you can go or have to stop.
The Swiss, who do these things properly, have different shapes for the
different colours. Not being colour blind I don't need to memorise them but
it's something like triangular for red, square for yellow and round for
green. Or maybe not... Anyway, when they introduced this scheme in the '50s
I remember asking a traffic cop why the overkill; red is always at the top
anyway. He said that in a thick fog a driver might see the light but not
its position in the stack.
Now *there's* careful... But very, very sensible.
--
Peter
Dr. Peter Kittel
In article <QE3HebAV...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <34f639c9...@news.hal-pc.org>, Programmer Access
><programm...@group1.craftwrk.org> writes
>>
>>best friend laying "asleep" on the couch across from you. Their face
>>is turning red from high blood pressure ( possible stroke), or red
>>from heat stroke, or turning gray from not breathing. A color blind
>>person might not know there was a problem.
>
>a distinction makes a life-or-death difference (those of us who haven't
>have tended to die before reproducing). I should emphasize here that by
>"we" I mean the animals in the line that led to homo sapiens, for the
>evolution of our particular kind of color vision has probably taken many
>tens of millions of years.
Good point. I seem to recall that I read sometime that chimps and other
apes don't have color perception at all. Can anyone confirm or deny
that? Or do I mix them up with cats (also big ones), where I am more
sure about it? If true, this should mean a disadvantage for their
hunting success and generally for food finding and identifying, especially
where apes do eat a wide variety of different food and have to be able
to identify it.
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: peterk @ pios.de
Yvonne Pawtowski
In article <6d6v00$q...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net says...
>
>
>Some odds and ends here. The only mammals with color vision are
>primates. (No doubt there are some exceptions but I don't know of any
>off hand.) The great advantage of color vision for primates has nothing
>to do with hunting - it has to do with recognizing brightly colored
>fruit. The carnivores, natures killing machines, don't use color
>vision.
Hmm... I'm *pretty* sure that housecats and wolves have color vision,
as well.
Kinda makes me feel sorry for a friend of mine's half dog/half wolf.
One eye reflects green, and the other red... I think she's color blind
in one eye, but not the other. *gotta* be confusing.
--
-Yvonne Pawtowski __/^-^\__ *Miya!*
ypaw...@pop.halcyon.com Resident Catbunny
"Pork! Pork! ... no, that's not right ... Help! HELP!"
-Pinky
Ray Burnette
Blue Daze wrote:
> Actually research has shown that the shape and action of the human penis
> during copulation works in a way that would "pump" out any semen from any
> (recent) suitors. To simplify how this works, imagine an umbrella being used
> as a crude pumping device where it is inserted point first into cavity, and
> upon pulling it back out, the umbrella "opens" pulling whatever was inside,
> out.
>
> Of course, things in real life do get sloppy, and this is assuming that the
> early bird's boys didn't get to the goal yet.
>
> Just picturing the mechanics of this makes me realize that perhaps length and
> girth are important to the man as well!
>
> Blue Daze
According to the author of "Sperm Wars", there's the matter of
"kamakaze" or killer sperm from the second suitor to consider
as well. Then when the boys finish their little game of king-of-
the-hill; the female can trump them all with her own selective
reproduction techniques.
Ray Burnette
Richard Harter
You've got it mixed up. Primates have color vision; most other mammals
do not. Color vision isn't particularly important in hunting; it is,
however, important for finding and eating fruit which is brightly
colored. Fruit in turn is (probably) brightly colored because birds have
color vision. Plants offer fruit in exchange for seed dispersion.
Shape detection and movement detection are much more important than color
vision for identifying active prey. A good nose is also critical for
most animals. Primates (which are mostly tree dwellers) depend less on
the sense of smell than most other mammals. Scavenging depends more on
locating other scavengers; again color vision is pretty much irrelevant.
IIANM lions have a very poor sense of smell and lose part of their hunts
by coming in from the wrong direction.
Color vision in mammals is a secondary development; primitive mammals
were small and mostly nocturnal. For them, color vision was a cost
rather than a benefit. Color vision is purchased at the price of lowered
sensitivity to dim light.
ave...@hotmail.com
In article <peter...@combo.ganesha.com>,
peterk @ combo.ganesha.com wrote:
>
> In article <QE3HebAV...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >In article <34f639c9...@news.hal-pc.org>, Programmer Access
> ><programm...@group1.craftwrk.org> writes
> >>
> >>Here is an extreme example, but scary just the same. Think of your
> >>best friend laying "asleep" on the couch across from you. Their face
> >>is turning red from high blood pressure ( possible stroke), or red
> >>from heat stroke, or turning gray from not breathing. A color blind
> >>person might not know there was a problem.
> >
> >Because of the way we have evolved, we tend to see separate colors where
> >a distinction makes a life-or-death difference (those of us who haven't
> >have tended to die before reproducing). I should emphasize here that by
> >"we" I mean the animals in the line that led to homo sapiens, for the
> >evolution of our particular kind of color vision has probably taken many
> >tens of millions of years.
>
> Good point. I seem to recall that I read sometime that chimps and other
> apes don't have color perception at all. Can anyone confirm or deny
> that? Or do I mix them up with cats (also big ones), where I am more
> sure about it? If true, this should mean a disadvantage for their
> hunting success and generally for food finding and identifying, especially
> where apes do eat a wide variety of different food and have to be able
> to identify it.
Cats hunt by scent and motion, almost entirely. Humans (pre-
long range weapons) hunted pretty much entirely by motion and
shape/size discrimination. (The latter being helped by our having
our eyes in the front rather than to the sides, monocular vision
being largely useless in terms of relative size.)
I can't help but think that vegetarian primates (apes, gorillas,
etc) don't often ''hunt'' as we define the activity. Whereas
carnivorous cousins like Baboons observably can see prey--or
enemies--much farther away than they can smell or hear.
Hunting is killing and eating living things that, for the most
part, don't want to be killed and eaten. Vegan-ism is a different
line of work 8).
>
> --
> Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
> Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: peterk @ pios.de
>
>
a.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Carl Fink
Note newsgroups trimmed, the previous list was so many my news server
rejected it.
On 4 Mar 1998 10:07:03 GMT, Yvonne Pawtowski
<ypaw...@pop.halcyon.com> wrote:
>In article <6d6v00$q...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net says...
>>
>>Some odds and ends here. The only mammals with color vision are
>>primates.
>
>Hmm... I'm *pretty* sure that housecats and wolves have color vision,
>as well.
All vertebrates have color vision. One of my undergraduate
instructors (Dr. Walter Courtenay, Florida Atlantic University)
pointed out that groups like the cartilaginous fishes (sharks and
allies) which diverged from us mammals very early have cones in their
retinas and can see color.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"Ready to begin speaking in technobabble, Sir."
Alien technician in "Buck Godot" by Phil Foglio
PZ Myers
> Note newsgroups trimmed, the previous list was so many my news server
> rejected it.
>
> On 4 Mar 1998 10:07:03 GMT, Yvonne Pawtowski
> <ypaw...@pop.halcyon.com> wrote:
> >In article <6d6v00$q...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net says...
> >>
> >>Some odds and ends here. The only mammals with color vision are
> >>primates.
> >
> >Hmm... I'm *pretty* sure that housecats and wolves have color vision,
> >as well.
>
> All vertebrates have color vision. One of my undergraduate
> instructors (Dr. Walter Courtenay, Florida Atlantic University)
> pointed out that groups like the cartilaginous fishes (sharks and
> allies) which diverged from us mammals very early have cones in their
> retinas and can see color.
No, many mammals do not. Nocturnal animals in particular wouldn't be
using cones anyway.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
In article <6dkvp8$1in$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>, ca...@dm.net wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:04:20 -0500, PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >In article <6djf1s$l1$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>, ca...@dm.net wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> >> All vertebrates have color vision. One of my undergraduate
> >> instructors (Dr. Walter Courtenay, Florida Atlantic University)
> >> pointed out that groups like the cartilaginous fishes (sharks and
> >> allies) which diverged from us mammals very early have cones in their
> >> retinas and can see color.
> >
> >No, many mammals do not. Nocturnal animals in particular wouldn't be
> >using cones anyway.
>
> Got a source? All vertebrates (that have eyes) have cones, according
> to a source that I can't find now but recall clearly. (Sorry, my
> books are in a storage locker right now.)
I should have been more careful. *Trichromatic* color vision is not
universal in mammals...most are dichromats. When I said "many mammals
do not", I meant have color vision, not have cones. As far as I know,
all vertebrates have cones. Some vertebrates are considerably more
sophisticated in their perception of color than we are -- many fish and
birds have four or more classes of cones.
Here's a useful recent reference for the evolution of primate color vision:
Nei M, Zhang J, Yokoyama S (1997) Color vision of ancestral organisms of
higher primates. Mol Biol Evol 14(6):611-618.
The article does touch briefly on some of these comparative aspects of
color vision.
--
PZ Myers
axel heyst
In article <6dkvp8$1in$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>,
ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:04:20 -0500, PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>In article <6djf1s$l1$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>, ca...@dm.net wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>
>>> All vertebrates have color vision. One of my undergraduate
>>> instructors (Dr. Walter Courtenay, Florida Atlantic University)
>>> pointed out that groups like the cartilaginous fishes (sharks and
>>> allies) which diverged from us mammals very early have cones in their
>>> retinas and can see color.
>>
>>No, many mammals do not. Nocturnal animals in particular wouldn't be
>>using cones anyway.
>
>Got a source? All vertebrates (that have eyes) have cones, according
>to a source that I can't find now but recall clearly. (Sorry, my
>books are in a storage locker right now.)
The consensus is that although they all have cones, not all mammals
use them. Researchers have connected electrodes to cats brains to verify
that they are capable of reacting to light of different wavelengths, and
there were some experiments where cats were taught to respond to different
colors. In one set the researchers found it took an average of 1500 trials
before the cats caught on. Since cats are not thought to be that stupid,
the feeling is that they either don't pay attention to color cues, having
evolved as nocturnal hunters, or perceive them at such a low level that
they no longer recognize them. Similar results have been found with dogs,
and other common mammals.
It's interesting that "lower" animals, such as birds and fish, have
very acute color sensitivity, but it's thought to be a consequence of
habitat and mating selection rather than intelligence. I'd have to dig up
the cites, but I have a high confidence level in what I mentioned above.
So you're both right. Nice for a change!
axel heyst
_________________across the 8th dimension__________
Carl Fink
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:04:20 -0500, PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>In article <6djf1s$l1$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>, ca...@dm.net wrote:
>
[snip]
>> All vertebrates have color vision. One of my undergraduate
>> instructors (Dr. Walter Courtenay, Florida Atlantic University)
>> pointed out that groups like the cartilaginous fishes (sharks and
>> allies) which diverged from us mammals very early have cones in their
>> retinas and can see color.
>
>No, many mammals do not. Nocturnal animals in particular wouldn't be
>using cones anyway.
Got a source? All vertebrates (that have eyes) have cones, according
to a source that I can't find now but recall clearly. (Sorry, my
books are in a storage locker right now.)
Jonathan Magnus
ypaw...@pop.halcyon.com (Yvonne Pawtowski) wrote:
>In article <6d6v00$q...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net says...
>>
>>
<snip>
>Kinda makes me feel sorry for a friend of mine's half dog/half wolf.
>One eye reflects green, and the other red... I think she's color blind
>in one eye, but not the other. *gotta* be confusing.
I used to run a portable video camera that was black and white and
covered only one eye. I was videotaping sports in low light. Basically
I ignored the color eye. The b/w was more 'comfortable', even when I
adjusted the zoom to be the same.
Although it *was* a cheap rush zooming one eye and not the other!
>--
>-Yvonne Pawtowski __/^-^\__ *Miya!*
>ypaw...@pop.halcyon.com Resident Catbunny
Jonathan
Peter Ceresole
In article <34f4e799...@news.enterprise.net>,
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
>and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
>(e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue).
This quite wrong. Read the rest of the thread; the real situation is set
out there, including contributions by colour blind people.
Very briefly, colour blind people don't see green as blue. If they did, how
would they (or anybody else) know? Blue and green are just names.
They see *less difference* than normally visioned people, between different
colours; most often green and red. Some see them as grey, some as colours
but of a similar shade.
As to whether it impacts on hunting, it seems that in some ways it does and
in others it may even be an advantage. See the thread.
--
Peter
rick...@ix.netcom.com
I agree! Colors should be left alone. Focus on other things...like,
love, hate, peace, war.
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:36:57 -0500, Rich <pay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Angilion wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
> Greene) wrote:
>
> >Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >>william smyth wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
> >>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
> >>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> >>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> >>> spot things.
>
> False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
> impact hunting in the slightest.
I don't think this is quite right, they simply cannot distinguish
certain colours. Years ago they had an optometrist come in and all the
floor techs were tested, one of our techs was color blind. He claimed
that he could see the frame buffer tests fine, but he could not see
what he could not see. I stayed after and looked through the entire
book, and could see all the colors.
<>
Rich
Barbara A. Meissner
> > >>>
> > >>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
> > >>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
> > >>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> > >>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> > >>> spot things.
> >
> > False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> > and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> > (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
> > impact hunting in the slightest.
>
> I don't think this is quite right, they simply cannot distinguish
> certain colours. Years ago they had an optometrist come in and all the
> floor techs were tested, one of our techs was color blind. He claimed
> that he could see the frame buffer tests fine, but he could not see
> what he could not see. I stayed after and looked through the entire
> book, and could see all the colors.
Color-blindness is not an advantage. However, not all genetically
controlled traits are an advantage. Color blindness is more common in
men because the gene involved is sex-linked. I'm not sure if I remember
the details correctly, and would hate to make a fool of myself (more
than I do anyway). I _believe_ that the gene in question does not have
an allele on the Y chromosome, so if the male inherits the defective
gene from his mother (his X chromosome) there is no normal allele on his
Y chromosome (from his Dad) to counteract it. It's something like that,
anyway.
It may very well have been a problem for hunters. But most of us have
ancestors that have been agriculturalists for several thousand years
now, so whether or not it is harmful to hunters is irrelavent to its
presence in the population today.
bam
amic...@earthling.net
"Barbara A. Meissner" <bme...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > >>> ...Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
> > > >>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> > > False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> > > and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> > > (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
> > > impact hunting in the slightest.
> > I don't think this is quite right, they simply cannot distinguish
> > certain colours. Years ago they had an optometrist come in and...
> Color-blindness is not an advantage. However, not all ...
> It may very well have been a problem for hunters. But most of us ...
There are different types of color blindness. Some just don't see
a color at all, (Color is black), Some see a wrong color (red is green),
and some see shades of grey (B&W Photo). The last type IS AN ADVANTAGE
to those people who interpret recon & sat photos and mono-chromatic
imaging (mono doesn't always mean B&W - landsat for ex.). These people
have a lifetime of experience in 'interpreting B&W' and can read it much
better than COLOR see'ers. Some color blindness CAN also be an ADVANTAGE
in hunting for several reasons. Dawn, Dusk, Darkness tend to be VERY
mono-chromatic in nature & the advantage is the same as for photo interp.
Also, some studies have shown that those people with color blindness have
better DARK sensitivity (night vision). However, this can only be measured
by disection of eyeballs of color blind people, at a young age (30 & under
or so). Since this population measure is so small, it has been argued that
any DARK improvements are due to better interpretation of the DARK environment
than better sensitivity to the dark environment. Also, in hunting, complete
color blindness IS AN ADVANTAGE. Because of the lack of color queues, the
brain better develops MOTION inconsistancies. Most game animals are COLOR
camouflaged and are MORE easily found by this method.
4 other things. First, untill fairly recently, women were the hunters.
There may not have been enough time for natural selection to work before it
was no longer a real issue. Second, if there is an OVERALL disadvantage for
early man to be color blind, I further question if it is sever enough to
supress reproduction of the trait. That means the effect has to be serious
enough to either kill those people off, or to keep them from mating
successfully. Third, it almost certainly is a trait, that there WAS true for
number 2, it would continue to be passed on if it doesn't kill BEFORE mating
occurs. This is the only way a bad trait can completely be removed from a
breed. The carriers must either die or be stopped from reproducing before
the trait takes effect. Fourth, there must NOT be carriers of a trait.
That is, people who can pass the gene on, but not have the trait
themselves. Blue eyes is a example. A child with blue eyes can have 2
parents with brown eyes, if BOTH parents carry the blue eye gene, and pass
it on to the child. Look at childhood MS, the onset is at such a early
age that most of the carriers are eliminated before they can pass it on. The
residual rate continues much higher (but still very low) because there are
carriers, those people who can contribute the gene defect, but do not exhibit
the trait.
James Buster
In article <35086E...@swbell.net>,
>chromosome, so if the male inherits the defective gene from his mother
>(his X chromosome) there is no normal allele on his Y chromosome (from
>his Dad) to counteract it. It's something like that, anyway.
I have seen claims that this is an advantage (and in more extreme
forums, proof of superiority) for women. I, however, strongly disagree.
Ideally, genetic diseases should be bred out of the population, because
those who inherit them usually die before successfully reproducing.
Unfortunately, if women are carriers but rarely suffer the disease
themselves, the opportunity to breed it out of the population is
eliminated. Thus, while the "X protection factor" is a net gain
for individuals, I believe it is a net loss for the population
as a whole.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
Laurel Halbany
On 13 Mar 1998 00:05:00 GMT, bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster)
wrote:
>I have seen claims that this is an advantage (and in more extreme
>forums, proof of superiority) for women.
"Superiority"? It's true that sex-linked diseases are more common in
men than women, because of the 'masking' effect of the double X, but
to make the jump that this is some kind of one-upmanship strikes me as
funky.
>Ideally, genetic diseases should be bred out of the population, because
>those who inherit them usually die before successfully reproducing.
Wrong. This is true only of diseases that cause those organisms to die
off. If a genetic disease is harmless, or sufficiently benign as to
have little effect on survival (as apparently colorblindness is), then
it won't affect reproduction. I realize you said ideally, but still.
Louann Miller
In article <3508c3a...@hermes.rdrop.com>, myt...@twisty-little-maze.com
says...
>
>On 13 Mar 1998 00:05:00 GMT, bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster)
>wrote:
>
>>I have seen claims that this is an advantage (and in more extreme
>>forums, proof of superiority) for women.
>
>"Superiority"? It's true that sex-linked diseases are more common in
>men than women, because of the 'masking' effect of the double X, but
>to make the jump that this is some kind of one-upmanship strikes me as
>funky.
I've run across this one too, and it's ludicrious. The fact that women and
men are in conflict *socially* in a badly-run society (read, most of them)
doesn't mean that women and men are, or can be, in competition genetically.
All populations include both, unless you're reading "Ethan of Athos."
You might as well try to decide which is superior, your left lung or your
right lung.
Barbara A. Meissner
Laurel Halbany wrote:
> Wrong. This is true only of diseases that cause those organisms to die
> off. If a genetic disease is harmless, or sufficiently benign as to
> have little effect on survival (as apparently colorblindness is), then
> it won't affect reproduction. I realize you said ideally, but still.
You are quite correct. We need as much variation as possible, including
some that are marginally problematic, such as color-blindness in the
gene pool. Variation is the key to survival when environments change.
bam
Barbara A. Meissner
we...@southeast.net wrote:
>
> Less than perfect color identification is not a problem for hunters.
> Since most animals have effective natural camouflage based on color,
> game is more often identified by silhouette, movement and sound. Color
> is rarely a factor.
>
> >bam
Most animal preditors are basically color-blind (in a much more absolute
since than the color-blindness we were discussing earlier). The
effectiveness of most camophlage is based on breaking the silhouette,
usually with shadings intended to confuse the eyes of the color-blind.
Colors are an important part of camophlage only for those hiding from
birds, who see color very well.
You are probably correct, though. Most types of human color-blindness
probably don't affect hunting ability more than marginally, though.
Rich
Well, my left ventricle is far stronger than the right, I should imagine that
it takes up more room in the left side of the chest cavity. If that is so
the right lung has more capacity.
Rich
Jeffrey Jay Babstock
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 rick...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I agree! Colors should be left alone. Focus on other things...like,
> love, hate, peace, war.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:36:57 -0500, Rich <pay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Angilion wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:10:02 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
> > Greene) wrote:
> >
> > >Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > >>william smyth wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Why is color blindness more prevalent among men?
> > >>> Wouldn't color vision be a great help in hunting? Anyone
> > >>> who has looked through a camcorder's black and white viewfinder
> > >>> compared to a color one, knows how much color helps one
> > >>> spot things.
> >
> > False analogy. People who are "colour-blind" don't see in black
> > and white. They see colours as different colours to the majority
> > (e.g. a colour blind person may see green as blue). It wouldn't
> > impact hunting in the slightest.
>
> I don't think this is quite right, they simply cannot distinguish
> certain colours. Years ago they had an optometrist come in and all the
> floor techs were tested, one of our techs was color blind. He claimed
> that he could see the frame buffer tests fine, but he could not see
> what he could not see. I stayed after and looked through the entire
> book, and could see all the colors.
>
It's got to do with opposite colours in the brain. You can wither be
red-blue colour blind or green-yellow colour blind. It is only either one
of these colour pairs that are missing when one is colour blind. All the
rest of the colours are perfectly distinguishable.
Randolph M. Jones
Jeffrey Jay Babstock wrote:
> It's got to do with opposite colours in the brain. You can wither be
> red-blue colour blind or green-yellow colour blind. It is only either one
> of these colour pairs that are missing when one is colour blind. All the
> rest of the colours are perfectly distinguishable.
I am color blind. This description is not correct (for me).
Matthew J Wilson
How does yours work? I've also heard og red-green colourblindness, but I
don't think that's what you're talking about either. Are you just unable
to distinguish colour?
--
Matt.
Douglas S. Caprette
In a previous article, rjo...@eecs.umich.edu (Randolph M. Jones) says:
>Jeffrey Jay Babstock wrote:
>> It's got to do with opposite colours in the brain. You can wither be
>> red-blue colour blind or green-yellow colour blind. It is only either one
>> of these colour pairs that are missing when one is colour blind. All the
>> rest of the colours are perfectly distinguishable.
>
>I am color blind. This description is not correct (for me).
>
Indeed, red-green color blindness is the most common, followed by
blue-yellow (not red-blue or green-yellow). But it is possible for
people to be completely color blind as well. Albinos are completely
color blind.
--
DS Caprette
"There's a little truth in all jive, and a little jive in all truth."
-- Leonard Q. Barnes
j
"Randolph M. Jones" <rjo...@eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>Jeffrey Jay Babstock wrote:
>> It's got to do with opposite colours in the brain. You can wither be
>> red-blue colour blind or green-yellow colour blind. It is only either one
>> of these colour pairs that are missing when one is colour blind. All the
>> rest of the colours are perfectly distinguishable.
>
>I am color blind. This description is not correct (for me).
Yea ... As far as *I* have ever heard, it's either
red/green, yellow/blue or total.
.
Steven Richardson
jma...@iu.net (j) writes:
There are three types of colour receptors.
Red, Green, and Blue.
If you are deficient in any of these receptors you will get a level of
colour blindness where the frequency of impulses coming from the rescptors
would be the same for the other colour frequency. Or something to that
effect.
/\ /\ /\
/ \ / \/ \
/ \/ /\ \
/ /\ / \ \
Red -> Blue
R G B receptors
Best ascii diagram of frequency of firing of receptors to frequency of
light that I can do.
Steven Richardson
>.
Randolph M. Jones
> >> It's got to do with opposite colours in the brain. You can wither be
> >> red-blue colour blind or green-yellow colour blind. It is only either one
> >> of these colour pairs that are missing when one is colour blind. All the
> >> rest of the colours are perfectly distinguishable.
>
> >I am color blind. This description is not correct (for me).
>
> don't think that's what you're talking about either. Are you just unable
> to distinguish colour?
Mine is called "red-green color blindness", but even that label is
of limited descriptive value. In my case, there are particular
shades of particular colors that I simply find hard or impossible
to distinguish. For example, I once had a textbook with a graph,
where points were plotted in green and red. Those particular
shades of those colors were nearly indistinguishable to me.
If I looked *really* closely, I could *sometimes* see the difference
between the two. It wouldn't be accurate to say that I saw both
of these as "green" or both as "red", they would kind of flip
back and forth. Sometimes a dot would look green, sometimes it
would look red (maybe sometimes it would look brown). In these
cases, I ask someone who is not color blind, and take their word
for whatever colors are "correct". Sometimes after I have done
that, I am correctly able to label those shades in the future.
Note that there are *many* shades of red and green that I have
no trouble at all identifying or distinguishing. Here are some of the
color pairs that I have trouble distinguishing for some shades:
green-red
green-brown
red-brown
orange-yellow
orange-red
purple-blue
green-yellow
yellow-red
If find the yellow-red pair particularly interesting. The *only*
time I have noticed problems with this particular pair of colors is
for traffic lights at night. If I am convinced the light is red,
it always turns out that I am right. If I am unsure of whether it
is red or yellow, it always turns out that it was yellow. I have so
far not been willing to take the leap of faith, though, that if I
am unsure, then the light must be yellow.
Note that both of my brothers are also color blind (1 in 8 chance
of that!). I have the impression that my younger brother's
color blindness is very similar to mine, but my older brother's
is much stronger. There seem to be *many* different shades
of green, red, and brown that he cannot distinguish.
Gregory Gadow
> >Jeffrey Jay Babstock wrote:
> >> It's got to do with opposite colours in the brain. You can wither be
> >> red-blue colour blind or green-yellow colour blind. It is only either one
> >> of these colour pairs that are missing when one is colour blind. All the
> >> rest of the colours are perfectly distinguishable.
Not quite. There are many different variations of color blindness, most
of which affect men in much larger numbers than women. In addition to
the red-blue and blue-yellow, many men like me cannot distinguish
between dark colors (brown, navy blue, and black are identical) while
others cannot perceive color at all. I'm told that there are close to a
hundred different varieties of color blindness.
My grandfather, a submariner during WWII, said that during the war, men
with total color blindness were much sought after as watchmen... at sea,
under a grey sky against a grey ocean and a hazy horizon, people used to
distinguishing between shades of grey could spot ships much quicker than
a color-reliant person could.
--
Gregory Paul Gadow - Queer Poly Pagan Humanist
Mail: tech...@serv.net
Web : http://www.serv.net/~techbear/
Elf Sternberg
In article <6eqcqr$4ae$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>
zzsr...@fox.uq.net.au (Steven Richardson) writes:
>jma...@iu.net (j) writes:
>>"Randolph M. Jones" <rjo...@eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Jay Babstock wrote:
>>>> It's got to do with opposite colours in the brain. You can wither be
>>>> red-blue colour blind or green-yellow colour blind. It is only either one
>>>> of these colour pairs that are missing when one is colour blind. All the
>>>> rest of the colours are perfectly distinguishable.
>>>I am color blind. This description is not correct (for me).
>> Yea ... As far as *I* have ever heard, it's either
>> red/green, yellow/blue or total.
>There are three types of colour receptors.
>Red, Green, and Blue.
>If you are deficient in any of these receptors you will get a level
>of colour blindness where the frequency of impulses coming from
>the rescptors would be the same for the other colour frequency. Or
>something to that effect.
I don't know if that's really the effect you're trying to describe.
"Colour-blind" is an overarching term that covers receptor functionality
the mechanics of the eye) as well as interpretive functionality (the
mechanics of the brain). My color-blind condition appears to be more
interpretive than mechanical as I cannot distinguish consistently between
pink and purple, although I can clearly identify both colors.
Elf
--
It is forbidden to laugh again Elf M. Sternberg
We maim our joys or hide them www.halcyon.com/elf
Horses are made of chromium steel
And little fat men shall ride them. - T.S. Eliot
Steven Richardson
e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>In article <6eqcqr$4ae$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>
> zzsr...@fox.uq.net.au (Steven Richardson) writes:
>>There are three types of colour receptors.
>>Red, Green, and Blue.
>>If you are deficient in any of these receptors you will get a level
>>of colour blindness where the frequency of impulses coming from
>>the rescptors would be the same for the other colour frequency. Or
>>something to that effect.
> I don't know if that's really the effect you're trying to describe.
>"Colour-blind" is an overarching term that covers receptor functionality
>the mechanics of the eye) as well as interpretive functionality (the
>mechanics of the brain). My color-blind condition appears to be more
>interpretive than mechanical as I cannot distinguish consistently between
>pink and purple, although I can clearly identify both colors.
> Elf
Fair enough. I was giving the most common cause of colour blindness which
is lack of the specific type of receptors (RGB). True other forms can
exist but are much less common.
Steven Richardson
John Hedtke
>> >Jeffrey Jay Babstock wrote:
>> >> It's got to do with opposite colours in the brain. You can wither be
>> >> red-blue colour blind or green-yellow colour blind. It is only either one
>> >> of these colour pairs that are missing when one is colour blind. All the
>> >> rest of the colours are perfectly distinguishable.
>
>Not quite. There are many different variations of color blindness, most
>of which affect men in much larger numbers than women. In addition to
>the red-blue and blue-yellow, many men like me cannot distinguish
>between dark colors (brown, navy blue, and black are identical) while
>others cannot perceive color at all. I'm told that there are close to a
>hundred different varieties of color blindness.
>
>My grandfather, a submariner during WWII, said that during the war, men
>with total color blindness were much sought after as watchmen... at sea,
>under a grey sky against a grey ocean and a hazy horizon, people used to
>distinguishing between shades of grey could spot ships much quicker than
>a color-reliant person could.
I have also heard that totally color-blind people were also sought
after for photo-recon work. Apparently (I repeat this from somethng I
heard once long ago), the standard camouflage netting used in jungle
encampments does not "read" the same to a color-blind person as to one
who sees colors. As a result, they can pick out the camo'd areas in
the jungle easily.
Yours Truly,
John Hedtke
www.hedtke.com
Mark Evans
John Hedtke (jhe...@oz.net) wrote:
:
: I have also heard that totally color-blind people were also sought
: after for photo-recon work. Apparently (I repeat this from somethng I
: heard once long ago), the standard camouflage netting used in jungle
: encampments does not "read" the same to a color-blind person as to one
: who sees colors. As a result, they can pick out the camo'd areas in
: the jungle easily.
Some of the standard test pages for colour blindness will only show
identifiable symbols to colour blind people.
Mark Evans
Elf Sternberg (e...@halcyon.com) wrote:
:
: I don't know if that's really the effect you're trying to describe.
: "Colour-blind" is an overarching term that covers receptor functionality
: the mechanics of the eye) as well as interpretive functionality (the
: mechanics of the brain). My color-blind condition appears to be more
: interpretive than mechanical as I cannot distinguish consistently between
: pink and purple, although I can clearly identify both colors.
The function of colour vision in humans involves comparing a specific
colour with all those in the visual field. The differences being
consistant over a wide range of light intensities and hues. So
it would appear to be the differences between pink and purple
that you have trouble with.
Jim Everman
Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> mechanics of the brain). My color-blind condition appears to be more
> interpretive than mechanical as I cannot distinguish consistently between
> pink and purple, although I can clearly identify both colors.
I'm curious - what sort of colors do you see when you view something
like a "Kelly Chart" or the C.I.E. Chromaticity diagram? I would
expect that you would see just a single band of colors....
--
Jim Everman mailto:eve...@Anet-STL.com
http://webusers.Anet-STL.com/~everman/
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity.
CWilson379
>I have also heard that totally color-blind people were also sought
>after for photo-recon work. Apparently (I repeat this from somethng I
>heard once long ago), the standard camouflage netting used in jungle
>encampments does not "read" the same to a color-blind person as to one
>who sees colors. As a result, they can pick out the camo'd areas in
>the jungle easily.
This is correct. It may also be true that totally colorblind persons have
superior distant vision, being able to accurately see objects far out of range
for normally sighted persons. A case of this (where the colorblindness was
caused by brain injury in a car accident) is detailed in the book An
Anthropologist On Mars by Oliver Sacks. The "eagle-eye" vision he describes
would undoubtedly be useful in a hunting society.
Tom Farrell
CWilson379 wrote:
> This is correct. It may also be true that totally colorblind persons have
> superior distant vision, being able to accurately see objects far out of range
> for normally sighted persons. A case of this (where the colorblindness was
> caused by brain injury in a car accident) is detailed in the book An
> Anthropologist On Mars by Oliver Sacks. The "eagle-eye" vision he describes
> would undoubtedly be useful in a hunting society.
Sacks also wrote a book specifically about people *born* colour blind -
"the island of the colour blind". Apparently total colour blindness (a
lack of cones) is also accompanied by an intolerance of bright light and
a difficulty in picking out detail (ie reading).
However, it apparently also leads to an improvement in picking out tone
and texture.
It's a nice little book by the way...
Tom