131–140 of 483 posts
"for you, turquoise is blue." Well no, it's turquoise, that's why we gave it a whole different word.
For example, things can be small or big, a mouse is small, if you refine the vocabulary to include 10 size words, and the mouse is now minuscule, it is still small.
I'm sure this isn't an original thought, but I wonder how others see colors. Irrespective of color blindness, is what I know as red appear as blue to someone else? How would you even know or describe it? "Red, like a strawberry, tomato, or apple." And they say, "Yes, exactly." But what they're truly seeing is what YOU know as blue. They see something different than you do, but to them that color has always been calle…
This makes no sense. It's like asking: "Alice is in Denver. Is Alice in (a) Canada or (b) Mexico?" - Your boundary between Canada and Mexico is at 40° latitude, more southern than 53% of the population.
How much does display calibration factor into this? I'm fairly confident it must impact the results, but unsure how much error it would introduce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP's point is that this isn't valid because neither of the answers are correct. If you're really trying to measure a spectrum then the answers should allow for fuzziness. That is, you have a range/confidence interval of where green ends and where blue starts and in between is neither/both.
correctness is not the point. binary choice is the whole point. because my blue may not be your blue...
A test that allows an answer of neither would deliver more information (transition points and an error bar) without failing to identify a distribution in the population taking the test.
The other week my wife and I were disagreeing over whether a house was green or blue. I was shocked when every passerby we asked agreed with her that it was green. I was absolutely 100% sure it was blue. Turns out according to this site, my boundary is greener than 95% of the population! Funny to see this proved out here!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your example would only be valid if "blue" and "green" had objective answers for when something is Blue and something is Green and have clear demarcated boundaries. You're switching to a literal boundary example where there are actual lines to be crossed. Colors are a fuzzy continuum; national boundaries, not including fought-over areas like the Sea of Japan, are easy to be in or not.
> Colors are a fuzzy continuum Denver is teal, the USA blue-green. Canada is Blue, and Mexico is green. Their analogy is pretty on point.
Countries are not a continuum, they start and end at some specific line defined by constitutions, mutually agreed by neighbours (or disputed through war and diplomacy) Colours have no such incentive for strict unified definitions, so there is no point at which blue ends.
"for you, turquoise is blue." Well no, it's turquoise, that's why we gave it a whole different word.
Should this be called "Is my monitor's blue your monitor's blue?"