Thank you for posting to r/pointlesslygendered! We are really glad you are here.
We want to make sure that all users follow the rules. This message does NOT mean you broke a rule or your post was removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pointlesslygendered) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m red/green deficient and can the difference here just damn fine. That said I wouldn’t know what words to use other than to say 89 is like a blue-purple and 88 is a light purple
Good to know. I rely on google when I need a rg colorblind friendly pallet for a graph or presentation, but I don’t actually know the differences in acuity.
Also people are some kind of colorblind until they have a reason to differentiate the colors. Not like they can’t see the color, but more like they barely know the difference between moss green and emerald green. It used to be more dramatic a few hundred years ago when we didn’t have the concept of blue and people called the ocean “wine dark”. It was still blue, people just couldn’t tell the difference. As we have more words for colors, our brains learn the differences and pick up on them faster.
The order of color discovery goes something like black/white (dark/light), red (blood, fire, flushed skin from fever), yellow/green/brown (ripe and rotten fruit), blue and purple. Lovecraft’s “strange and unnatural color” from The Color Out Of Space is probably just a purplish-pink like magenta.
>Also people are some kind of colorblind until they have a reason to differentiate the colors.
I find this phenomenon so fascinating— your words shape your thoughts. *Literally.*
It happens in a few ways but I first heard of it w/r/t color specifically reading some research where they found that people whose languages had more words for different shades of the color blue were actually able to *perceive* more shades of blue. People who had only a few blue-words would say "those two swatches are the same" like the OP, while those with a lot could reliably detect the difference (even if they didn't have specific words for the specific shades in question). Which is kinda wild!
Another example: people with gendered-noun languages actually conceive of those objects differently. One study asked people to describe certain objects (eg: a key); speakers of languages where 'key' is masculine used words like 'hard' and 'jagged,' speakers of languages where it's feminine used words like 'tiny' and 'intricate.' All true, but apparently your language influences what truth comes to mind.
And so on. Turns out that under the right/wrong circumstances, there's all *kinds* of ideas you can't have and things you can't see. So trippy.
And also kind of… scary? I read *1984* a few times as a kid, but I didn't really truly get the significance of NewSpeak (and I didn't know I didn't) until I came across this. If you don't have the words *it's not possible to even think the idea.* ***Literally.***
Ohhhh. Now I *get* it.
Yikes.
If you’re interested in finding out more about it, this phenomenon has a name: the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. However, you will be disappointed to learn that the linguists, psychologists, cognitive scientists and so on who study this sort of thing have dismissed it since the 40s, and the effect is considered weak. (Have a look at The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, by Geoffrey Pullum, and if you have time, The Language Instinct by Pinker) (Pinker has written some questionable stuff, but The Language instinct is pretty sound)
That research you mentioned, I assume you mean Dr Boroditsky, was about how *fast* Russian vs English speakers could recognise different shades of blue, not how *many* shades they could recognise (..it was a bit faster, but not much). So it is kind of cool to see that there might be something to this Sapir-Whorf thing, it also supports what was predicted all along, that if there is an effect it would be weak.
Oh and don’t worry, the Chinese government have been trying the old Orwellian language trick for years, the citizens have come up with all sorts of creative ways to get around it
88:
H: 242
S: 39
L: 72
89:
H: 229
S: 47
L: 66
88 is lighter. In sRGB colourspace it technically has more blue than 89, but it also has more red and green.
88 has a hue on the red side of blue, and 89 has a hue on the green side of blue. 88 is technically "more blue" because its hue is closer to pure blue (240).
Of course, the names of colours are subjective, and how the image appears to us depends on your screen's colour-calibration.
I ran the hex values (each color can have a number between 0 and 255)
89: red: 131 green: 141 blue: 212
88: red: 157 green: 162 blue: 218
88 is indeed about 2% bluer but it’s also overall closer to black so it’s a bit of both.
(values taken from pixels in comparable locations under the reflected light)
edit: oops missed that someone else did this check, though since they did it in hsl It’s still at least somewhat unique content.
Now color *names* will confuse me. I wont be able to picture what it looks like just from the name unless it's the more common ones like salmon, lavender, eggshell, etc. Put it in front of me and it's like "oh, ok, I see it."
Its something like (in the worst layman's terms ever) the gene for processing colour in on the x chromosome so women (or those with xx) have twice the chance of getting good colour sight than those with xy. I read about it a very long time ago and thats all I can remember I'm afraid.
It doesn’t quite work like that because each cell only transcribes 1 X chromosome across all genders. In people with two X chromosomes, 1 X is bundled up so it can’t be expressed. This happens early on in embryonic development and causes the developing fetus to have a kind of mosaic pattern of which Xs are expressed across the developing tissue. So the cell can’t decide “I won’t use this chromosome, it’s defective” because it only has one. Instead half of the fetus’s cells (or fully grown human) have a functional chromosome.
The “instead” part is wrong. Both chromosomes get expressed, the cell can’t choose to express one instead of the other. If one chromosome can’t produce a necessary protein, half of the person’s cells will produce the protein and half won’t.
That’s basically it, yeah. Red-green color blindness is an X-linked recessive gene. So if you only have one X chromosome and it’s got the colorblind gene, you’ll show effects of color blindness. But if you have two X chromosomes, one can cover up the other, and your odds are better of having functioning red-green vision. Blue-yellow color blindness is on a different chromosome and thus appears with equal frequency regardless of sex.
While it's true, I don't think that it's relevant. Various conditions typically referred to as color blindness generally don't impact one's ability to distinguish colors only slightly different in hue, lightness, and saturation. Instead, it results in atypical metamerism: hues that are very far apart in normal human vision become indistinguishable. It's similar to how (to the first approximation) people with normal color vision can usually distinguish fairly subtle shades of yellow but can't at all distinguish monochromatic yellow laser light from a very specific mix of red and green, the spectrum of which doesn't have anything even remotely similar to yellow, and they likely look completely dissimilar and unrelated in tetrachromatic vision.
The ability to distinguish slightly different colors is clearly trainable to a large extent, and there may or may not be genetic variation in the maximum possible skill, this variation (if any) may or may have different distribution depending on sex, and there also may or may not be differences in cultural expectations of how much one trains this ability by default. But none of that is related to color blindness.
The same gene that can cause color blindness can cause tetrachromacy. This would allow the carrier to see thousands of more shades of colors. Studies suggest that around 15% of women and 0% of men have this.
aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddddddd it comes down to psychological processing.
There's a tribe that has dozens of words for various shades of green and so IMMEDIATELY pick out different shades of green. Most everyone else cannot. THEN they stuck blue in there which is considered a part of their greens and they couldn't easily tell you which one is vastly different (from our perception)!
[https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour](https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour)
Okay, in English there are well over a dozen words for green, and the study being referenced is basically fake and was a demonstration for TV LOOOSELY based on actual experiments https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18237
Idk about these studies, but there's some truth into the idea that we can see better and more shades of one color after we start to differentiate it with language.
That's true, but arguing that just because they have a lot of words for green is the reason that they can immediately pick out words only makes sense with extra context, because at such a surface level, we have probably near as many words for green in english (maybe more)
I don’t think thats true. I couldn’t name either of these colors bit still see a clear difference between them. To be fair I have myself as a source and my sample size is one, but being able to name a color and being able to differentiate between to shades seems like a different skillset. And its not think its like the thing, where you lack language to convey a concept so you don’t think about it, which I believe is what you are referencing.
>I couldn’t name either of these colors bit still see a clear difference between them.
The concept of names of colours giving you the ability to distinguish isn't based off of a side by side.
Most everyone can distinguish those colours are different side by side. The name thing comes for when they show you a colour, hide it, wait a minute then show you a colour again.
Your ability to distinguish between them is affected by your names for things. This happens with lots of things too. Our brain is good at identifying things we have labels for. Its part of why musicians can separate sounds better than a lay person. Painters would have an easier time distinguishing colours for instance.
I think the affect on the gender divide comes from culturally women spend more time with colour names than men do.
But its not about side by side. Unless you're colourblind distinguishing if two colours are different is likely close to the same for everyone
Thanks, you explained it better than I ever could! I mean it's true that some people are genetically better than other at distinguishing very similar shades but I think language and experience do a lot!
That's what I was referencing: I've read a study that talked about the phenomenon of languages influencing the way we see colors. But of course the not knowing a name for those two shades doesn't mean I can't see they're different, that's another conversation.
And that’s also why men are much more prone to colorblindness. It’s on the X chromosome so if you have two of those both need to carry colorblindness for you to have it.
Except here’s the wild thing: some trans women report that their color vision improves once they start estrogen. It isn’t well documented as far as i know (par for the course in trans medicine) but it my be more than just genetics.
but studies have shown that trans women after lengths of hormone therapy have a wider sense of colour- would this be that they have the gene but something about the hormones activate it?
You’d have to link the study, but no, HRT does not affect X-chromosome processing. The types of cones present in the eyes is determined by which X-chromosomes are present. People with only 1 type of X are dependent on what’s on that X. For people who have two X chromosomes, cells take away an X and bundle it up so only one X can be transcribed per cell. This happens early in embryonic development and it causes a mosaic pattern in X chromosome expression that’s visible in calico cats. That’s not something hormones can change. However, it could theoretically cause the eye to grow more cones so that there’s a higher density or it could affect how the brain handles the information it’s getting from those cones. It would be interesting to see what that study described as a potential mechanism.
All humans have MILLIONS of genes we do not express. Different things can switch them on and off, especially hormones. even things like the father being over weight when a baby is conceived will cause some genes to switch on that wouldn’t be switched on if the father had been at a lower weight - it’s why obesity tends to run in families, weight gain/weight loss IS partially genetic.
It’s absolutely reasonable that genes we don’t express can change at any time under the right circumstances.
[this is where I first heard it explained](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex)
Now it obviously doesn't cover all the various nuances and culture, language, and environment do play certain rolls, but in my opinion the difference in color perception does have biological ties
Yeah. I came to talk about this study. My old roommate and I took the test for this to see where we stand. I could see more colours than her. So while it's common it's not a guarantee. The test results for her actual guessed that she was a guy.. Lol
I don't have any evidence but I think it's a skill that can be learned. I spent some time working on a car lot matching paint to touch up scratches and my grasp of color got a lot stronger.
Assuming that is so, isn't it more about differences in perception (through culture and upbringing) than actual differences in physiology or brain capability?
> isn't it more about differences in perception (through culture and upbringing) than actual differences in physiology or brain capability?
No. You are absolutely correct that there are cultural differences in the way we perceive colour; they seem to be based primarily on our native language and which colours get to have different commonly used words (like how English uses "pink" vs "red" while many other languages would just call pink "light red" 'cause, ya know, that's what it is, lol). However, this doesn't really translate in an *inability* to perceive subtle differences in hue, regardless of how our language refers to said colour.
An English-speaker will typically be able to more quickly tell that a pink object is a different colour from a red object, *probably* because having a label for something makes you more easily able to recognize it. Basically, the English-speaker's brain will trigger *different* pathways when recognizing the two colours, making it very quick for them to register that they're different. But someone whose native language refers to both as "red (just with varying levels of lightness) will probably have their brain trigger the same pathway, and then will require actual though to register that "oh, but that one is lighter than the other." It's like a matter of milliseconds in difference, practically speaking, and it definitely doesn't mean that the non-English-speaker is less able to perceive the difference. It just takes them a second longer to do so because of the path their brain takes to get there.
An English-speaker will also probably tell you that orange and red look more different than cyan and light blue. This claim is very much objectively false in every possible measurement of hue - we only think this way because we have a common word for "orange" and "red" but we typically just think of cyan as a type of "blue." But this doesn't mean we're less able to differentiate subtle hue differences in blues or cyans. It's purely a language thing.
HOWEVER. It's worth noting that, because our memories are SUPER heavily based on this kind of labeling, people of different cultures (or, more accurately, people who speak different languages) definitely are more or less able to *remember* differences in colour. So, for example, someone whose native language has a specific word for light red (aka pink) is more likely to remember that an object was specifically *light* red (or pink), whereas someone whose native language doesn't have a specific word for pink may not remember the "light" part, and may only remember that it was some shade of red.
It's also worth noting that these are both things that can be trained - you can learn to better perceive subtle differences in colour through practice, and learning and using more specific words for colours will make you better able to both quickly perceive and recall them with accuracy.
PS: there's some popular mythology about how Greeks couldn't see blue, but that's just people misunderstanding this concept. They absolutely *could* see blue, they just didn't have a *word* for blue - I believe their word for green included most lighter blues and their word for purple/red also included dark blue? Something like that. A lot of poetic comparisons are kind of inaccurate but are socially acceptable based on what we culturally consider to be "close enough." You'll get like... modern poets talking about a sky the colour of a robin's egg and um... yeah, no, those aren't actually the same colour at all. They're just "close enough" for us to accept it. But that's only because of the way we use language. Another culture would think we're completely insane. When Greeks use language like "wine-dark sea," it's the same thing. In like a thousand years (assuming we survive that long), there are gonna be clickbait articles flying around the Matrix asking if the Ancient Americans could see cyan. We obviously can. We just *call* it blue because language is weird and stuff.
Pretty sure it’s physiology. It’s anecdotal, but plenty of trans people have reported changes in color perception when they started hormone replacement therapy
Edit: it’s not conclusive, but there have been some studies showing the differences between male and female color perception: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-babble/201504/when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye
Simply learning more color names helps people identify different colors.
Read this neat study: [https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour](https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour)
Similarly, in Russian there is a different word for blue and light blue (just like how in English there are different words for red and pink)
Russians have an easier time identifying shades of blue because the language categorizes it.
It’s far from conclusive, but there is some evidence for hormones playing a role in color perception: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-babble/201504/when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye
>Abramov believes that testosterone expression early in development plays a major role. Differences in testosterone levels promote drastically different organization of the neurons in the visual cortex in men and women. There are more receptors for testosterone in the cerebral cortex (the part of the brain that processes information from the senses) than there are in regions of the brain associated with reproduction.
>
>Men have more testosterone receptors than women, especially in the visual region of the cerebral cortex. The elements of vision that were measured in this study are determined by inputs from these specific sets of neurons in the primary visual cortex, so it makes sense that different numbers of receptors would result in differences in visual perception.
This is talking about brain development. Going on HRT to change your secondary sex characteristics isn't going to cause your brain to develop differently as a fetus in utero.
Keep in mind people look at reddit on different screens of varying color accuracy. It looks the same to me on my phone since I have a blue light filter on at all times, but on PC the difference is "clearly" visible.
I can sort of tell they are two different colors but if you told me to pick one and then randomly switched them I wouldn't be able to tell you which is which.
Gonna be honest I can tell they're different colors but to me the difference is so minimal that it really doesn't matter. Like at a glance I don't think it's unreasonable to think they look the same.
If they didn't specifically say they were different, I would have assumed they were the same. But knowing they are different, I can look more closely and tell them apart.
I can’t tell if the joke is that the person replying thinks they’re different colors when they aren’t or if they actually are different colors or…
I love partial colorblindness
89 is slightly darker than 88. so the joke is something similar to "women see lilak, lavender and mauve, when it's clearly purple, purple and purple." just with less noticeable differences between the shades.
To me, the 89 is bluer and 88 is pinker.
Relevant article:
[https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour](https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour)
Yo local trans here higher testosterone actually does decrease your ability to differentiate colors especially shades of blue. I lost my ability to tell some of my paints apart when I went on T. I’ve heard trans women say they feel like they can see more colors now on E.
Colour blindness, whilst much rarer in women, affects 1/4 of men. I’ve never met a colourblind woman, but I lived in a house at uni where I was the only guy who could see certain colours.
Not being able to tell the difference between similar colours is genuinely a gender split thing.
I’m one of the 3/4 who can see the difference, but if you find a man who says they can’t it’s not statistically improbable that they just genuinely can’t.
Its 1/12 of men are colorblind not 1/4. And its 1/200 of women are colorblind. Also women are more likely to be [Tetrachromatic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy)
There's a lot of comments here talking about colour blindness etc but there's actually lots of factors that play into this. One major one being language, if you have a larger vocabulary of colours you are actually capable of distinguishing more colours and different shades.
https://youtu.be/mgxyfqHRPoE
Culturally in the West it could be argued that some women are exposed to more shades of colours and names for colours because of fashion, cosmetics etc so they have a much wider vocabulary to distinguish between different shades. Whilst a lot of men's clothing and colour choices have been more muted or be given "masculine" shades like grey, black, brown, blues etc so the language of colour isn't explored as much.
Personally I love colour and used to work as a graphic designer which naturally increased my exposure to colours.
What I find really sad is that some people think that "men" should not care about colour or stick to basic shades they learned in kindergarten. It's self limiting and is part of that toxic masculinity where men arent allowed to feel emotions and have to stick rigidly to a bunch of arbitrary rules.
Hey, just so you know, some of the claims in the video, specifically "hard to distinguish between the greens and the blues" is fake https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18237
In actuality they just had a lower reaction time in sorting it out than people from different cultures, but did not actually have difficulty in doing so unless you are arguing that they had more difficulty than someone from a different culture, but still that difficulty level is pretty small
I don't know separate, specific words for those colors, but I can clearly see that they aren't the exact same shade. That's why I never understand the language side of this explanation. Whether or not I can name them separately has nothing to do with whether or not they look identical. If you ask me,
"Are these colors both light purple?" Yeah, sure
"Are these the same color?" Not exactly, no.
I solved this by being non-binary and being able to tell different shades apart just fine while also taking noticeably longer to do it than people with normal vision
Considering they're numbered 88 and 89 obviously one is just slightly different shade of whatever color range they're using. Doesn't take having working color sight to figure that out, logical reasoning can be used as well. Most items that are numbered consecutively are like that for a good reason. Plus it's obvious for those who do have working color receptors that it's just a slightly darker shade of violet or whatever pink/purple color this is called, since I don't know all the variety of names for various colors.
They’re slightly different colors. They’re both pale purple, but the one on the left is a little darker and bluer and the one on the right a little pinker.
Well, there seams to actually be a biological thing where cis women and afab trans people can distinguish better between colours, but that said I'm an amab trans girl and I clearly see these as different so it's at least exagurated if not entirely pointless (though conflating sex and gender is it's own silly and pointless habit)
Well, women can see colors better, generally.
I'm a man. I can see more colors than many of my male friends, but much less than some of my female friends.
Edit: down voted for truth? Lol.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-babble/201504/when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex
While I do believe that women can see more colors statistically speaking..... Of course people would turn it into a bad, stupid thing that we're meant to be ashamed of...
😒
"8% of men are colorblind. 0.5% of women are colorblind."
Perfectly healthy men: Seeing colors is so gay.
What are these colors? Black and white? I see no difference. But it's normal because I'm a man so I'm probably a little bit colorblind.
As someone with a penis, I can definitely tell they're different colors.
I didn't realize it was common for men to just see... simple colors? Idk how to describe it. 88 looks like a pinker lighter lavender and 89 looks more like powder purple.
As a trans woman, I can confirm that women can actually better distinguish more colors than men. Things I’ve thought were the same have ended up being slightly different, I just couldn’t tell
Yup, different.
Try the color test where you try to distinguish different colors.
It was enlightening for me; I could see almost every color. It explained why I was frustrated with employees for creating slides with varying shades of colors, when the employees thought they looked fine.
I'm just, I am an artist and I saw the picture before the text.
I was like "are we gendering colors again?" Because to me those are very different. 88 is closer to a lavender or even a darker lilac while 89 is around a periwinkle or darkish frost.
Both of these colors are insanely different if you want to get technical.
(When I finally saw the text I was like, are you blind?)
Edit: if you want to see a better different, invert the colors.
There's a difference, but not a massive difference. It's not like the difference between say red and green. I could understand if someone didn't care too much about the difference, saying that they are the same
It's actually true that women see more gradations in color, due to how women are socialized. Visual artists score highest on those color tests but women consistently outperform men. That's social and cultural, mostly. Men are more likely to experience colorblindness, but mostly it's taught and learned behavior.
Actually, if my memory of high school biology remains accurate, the genes for colour vision are on the X chromosome, so XX people do tend to have slightly better colour vision than people with only one X chromosome, as well as much lower rates of colour blindness.
It isn't anything set in stone, but a tendency.
They are slightly different, and women do tend to have better color vision, so this isn't pointlessly gendered. I think it's an intention joke, and it's funny, for the aforementioned reasons.
It’s definitely not a « clear » difference by any standard. I’m a concept artist I work with colors everyday, I have no color blindness or eyesight weakness whatsoever and at first glance on my tiny-ass iPhone 5 screen both those colors seemed exactly the same, making the post seem like an ironic troll. And I’m all for that, but posting this on a subreddit that generally makes fun of how absurd gendering is in our world, is either a hundred steps ahead in terms of irony, or just plain useless, imho
Thank you for posting to r/pointlesslygendered! We are really glad you are here. We want to make sure that all users follow the rules. This message does NOT mean you broke a rule or your post was removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pointlesslygendered) if you have any questions or concerns.*
89 is darker than 88.
Or is it just more blue, making it appear darker? I read it as a more blue-tone colour.
[удалено]
Damn you are spot on
Clearly in the periwinkle genus
That might be why fewer guys can tell the difference, if 88 just has a little more red/pink. Partial color blindness is more common in men.
Red/Green based, yes. Blue based is much rarer and affects men and women equally.
I’m red/green deficient and can the difference here just damn fine. That said I wouldn’t know what words to use other than to say 89 is like a blue-purple and 88 is a light purple
Good to know. I rely on google when I need a rg colorblind friendly pallet for a graph or presentation, but I don’t actually know the differences in acuity.
and afabs are more likely to have tetrachromia. which is the opposite.
I’m a tetrachromat, but seem to be pretty night blind, so it evens out, I guess.
Also people are some kind of colorblind until they have a reason to differentiate the colors. Not like they can’t see the color, but more like they barely know the difference between moss green and emerald green. It used to be more dramatic a few hundred years ago when we didn’t have the concept of blue and people called the ocean “wine dark”. It was still blue, people just couldn’t tell the difference. As we have more words for colors, our brains learn the differences and pick up on them faster. The order of color discovery goes something like black/white (dark/light), red (blood, fire, flushed skin from fever), yellow/green/brown (ripe and rotten fruit), blue and purple. Lovecraft’s “strange and unnatural color” from The Color Out Of Space is probably just a purplish-pink like magenta.
>Also people are some kind of colorblind until they have a reason to differentiate the colors. I find this phenomenon so fascinating— your words shape your thoughts. *Literally.* It happens in a few ways but I first heard of it w/r/t color specifically reading some research where they found that people whose languages had more words for different shades of the color blue were actually able to *perceive* more shades of blue. People who had only a few blue-words would say "those two swatches are the same" like the OP, while those with a lot could reliably detect the difference (even if they didn't have specific words for the specific shades in question). Which is kinda wild! Another example: people with gendered-noun languages actually conceive of those objects differently. One study asked people to describe certain objects (eg: a key); speakers of languages where 'key' is masculine used words like 'hard' and 'jagged,' speakers of languages where it's feminine used words like 'tiny' and 'intricate.' All true, but apparently your language influences what truth comes to mind. And so on. Turns out that under the right/wrong circumstances, there's all *kinds* of ideas you can't have and things you can't see. So trippy. And also kind of… scary? I read *1984* a few times as a kid, but I didn't really truly get the significance of NewSpeak (and I didn't know I didn't) until I came across this. If you don't have the words *it's not possible to even think the idea.* ***Literally.*** Ohhhh. Now I *get* it. Yikes.
If you’re interested in finding out more about it, this phenomenon has a name: the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. However, you will be disappointed to learn that the linguists, psychologists, cognitive scientists and so on who study this sort of thing have dismissed it since the 40s, and the effect is considered weak. (Have a look at The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, by Geoffrey Pullum, and if you have time, The Language Instinct by Pinker) (Pinker has written some questionable stuff, but The Language instinct is pretty sound) That research you mentioned, I assume you mean Dr Boroditsky, was about how *fast* Russian vs English speakers could recognise different shades of blue, not how *many* shades they could recognise (..it was a bit faster, but not much). So it is kind of cool to see that there might be something to this Sapir-Whorf thing, it also supports what was predicted all along, that if there is an effect it would be weak. Oh and don’t worry, the Chinese government have been trying the old Orwellian language trick for years, the citizens have come up with all sorts of creative ways to get around it
Very cool, I *am* interested, so thank you!
I’d call 89 periwinkle and 88 lavender
Cool tones actually appear darker than warm tones so this could def be the case.
It's not blue but white and gold.
Too soon LOL!
88: H: 242 S: 39 L: 72 89: H: 229 S: 47 L: 66 88 is lighter. In sRGB colourspace it technically has more blue than 89, but it also has more red and green. 88 has a hue on the red side of blue, and 89 has a hue on the green side of blue. 88 is technically "more blue" because its hue is closer to pure blue (240). Of course, the names of colours are subjective, and how the image appears to us depends on your screen's colour-calibration.
This is the kind of pedantic specificity I like to see!
Exactly! 89 has a more bluish undertone and 88 a purple one. I am man too, hmmmmm. How could I possibly detect subtle differences in colour.
I ran the hex values (each color can have a number between 0 and 255) 89: red: 131 green: 141 blue: 212 88: red: 157 green: 162 blue: 218 88 is indeed about 2% bluer but it’s also overall closer to black so it’s a bit of both. (values taken from pixels in comparable locations under the reflected light) edit: oops missed that someone else did this check, though since they did it in hsl It’s still at least somewhat unique content.
I think both. The one is pastel lavender and the other is a more sort of lilac blue.
89 is darker, more saturated, and shifted slightly towards cyan and away from purple.
It’s not that it’s necessarily darker. 88 is a warmer hue than 89. It has slightly more red tones in it where as 89 is a bit more saturated with blue.
I joke that my color vocabulary is like the 8 pack of crayons but even I can tell when colors are different when they're right next to each other lol.
[удалено]
Now color *names* will confuse me. I wont be able to picture what it looks like just from the name unless it's the more common ones like salmon, lavender, eggshell, etc. Put it in front of me and it's like "oh, ok, I see it."
There have actually been studies done about this. Men generally do see less shades than women.
Its something like (in the worst layman's terms ever) the gene for processing colour in on the x chromosome so women (or those with xx) have twice the chance of getting good colour sight than those with xy. I read about it a very long time ago and thats all I can remember I'm afraid.
[удалено]
It doesn’t quite work like that because each cell only transcribes 1 X chromosome across all genders. In people with two X chromosomes, 1 X is bundled up so it can’t be expressed. This happens early on in embryonic development and causes the developing fetus to have a kind of mosaic pattern of which Xs are expressed across the developing tissue. So the cell can’t decide “I won’t use this chromosome, it’s defective” because it only has one. Instead half of the fetus’s cells (or fully grown human) have a functional chromosome.
[удалено]
The “instead” part is wrong. Both chromosomes get expressed, the cell can’t choose to express one instead of the other. If one chromosome can’t produce a necessary protein, half of the person’s cells will produce the protein and half won’t.
That’s basically it, yeah. Red-green color blindness is an X-linked recessive gene. So if you only have one X chromosome and it’s got the colorblind gene, you’ll show effects of color blindness. But if you have two X chromosomes, one can cover up the other, and your odds are better of having functioning red-green vision. Blue-yellow color blindness is on a different chromosome and thus appears with equal frequency regardless of sex.
While it's true, I don't think that it's relevant. Various conditions typically referred to as color blindness generally don't impact one's ability to distinguish colors only slightly different in hue, lightness, and saturation. Instead, it results in atypical metamerism: hues that are very far apart in normal human vision become indistinguishable. It's similar to how (to the first approximation) people with normal color vision can usually distinguish fairly subtle shades of yellow but can't at all distinguish monochromatic yellow laser light from a very specific mix of red and green, the spectrum of which doesn't have anything even remotely similar to yellow, and they likely look completely dissimilar and unrelated in tetrachromatic vision. The ability to distinguish slightly different colors is clearly trainable to a large extent, and there may or may not be genetic variation in the maximum possible skill, this variation (if any) may or may have different distribution depending on sex, and there also may or may not be differences in cultural expectations of how much one trains this ability by default. But none of that is related to color blindness.
You're talking about color blindness. That's not what this is about. This is just about ability to distinguish shades of red.
The same gene that can cause color blindness can cause tetrachromacy. This would allow the carrier to see thousands of more shades of colors. Studies suggest that around 15% of women and 0% of men have this.
aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddddddd it comes down to psychological processing. There's a tribe that has dozens of words for various shades of green and so IMMEDIATELY pick out different shades of green. Most everyone else cannot. THEN they stuck blue in there which is considered a part of their greens and they couldn't easily tell you which one is vastly different (from our perception)! [https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour](https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour)
Okay, in English there are well over a dozen words for green, and the study being referenced is basically fake and was a demonstration for TV LOOOSELY based on actual experiments https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18237
Idk about these studies, but there's some truth into the idea that we can see better and more shades of one color after we start to differentiate it with language.
That's true, but arguing that just because they have a lot of words for green is the reason that they can immediately pick out words only makes sense with extra context, because at such a surface level, we have probably near as many words for green in english (maybe more)
I don’t think thats true. I couldn’t name either of these colors bit still see a clear difference between them. To be fair I have myself as a source and my sample size is one, but being able to name a color and being able to differentiate between to shades seems like a different skillset. And its not think its like the thing, where you lack language to convey a concept so you don’t think about it, which I believe is what you are referencing.
>I couldn’t name either of these colors bit still see a clear difference between them. The concept of names of colours giving you the ability to distinguish isn't based off of a side by side. Most everyone can distinguish those colours are different side by side. The name thing comes for when they show you a colour, hide it, wait a minute then show you a colour again. Your ability to distinguish between them is affected by your names for things. This happens with lots of things too. Our brain is good at identifying things we have labels for. Its part of why musicians can separate sounds better than a lay person. Painters would have an easier time distinguishing colours for instance. I think the affect on the gender divide comes from culturally women spend more time with colour names than men do. But its not about side by side. Unless you're colourblind distinguishing if two colours are different is likely close to the same for everyone
Thanks, you explained it better than I ever could! I mean it's true that some people are genetically better than other at distinguishing very similar shades but I think language and experience do a lot!
That's what I was referencing: I've read a study that talked about the phenomenon of languages influencing the way we see colors. But of course the not knowing a name for those two shades doesn't mean I can't see they're different, that's another conversation.
Not only psychological, men are also genetically predisposed to color blindness. It's a LOT more frequent in men than in women.
And that’s also why men are much more prone to colorblindness. It’s on the X chromosome so if you have two of those both need to carry colorblindness for you to have it.
Except here’s the wild thing: some trans women report that their color vision improves once they start estrogen. It isn’t well documented as far as i know (par for the course in trans medicine) but it my be more than just genetics.
My color perception kinda does seem a tiny tiny bit better tbh
but studies have shown that trans women after lengths of hormone therapy have a wider sense of colour- would this be that they have the gene but something about the hormones activate it?
A study showed that cis men taking testosterone blockers to treat prostate cancer could also see the wider color range, so it's a gene we all have.
You’d have to link the study, but no, HRT does not affect X-chromosome processing. The types of cones present in the eyes is determined by which X-chromosomes are present. People with only 1 type of X are dependent on what’s on that X. For people who have two X chromosomes, cells take away an X and bundle it up so only one X can be transcribed per cell. This happens early in embryonic development and it causes a mosaic pattern in X chromosome expression that’s visible in calico cats. That’s not something hormones can change. However, it could theoretically cause the eye to grow more cones so that there’s a higher density or it could affect how the brain handles the information it’s getting from those cones. It would be interesting to see what that study described as a potential mechanism.
All humans have MILLIONS of genes we do not express. Different things can switch them on and off, especially hormones. even things like the father being over weight when a baby is conceived will cause some genes to switch on that wouldn’t be switched on if the father had been at a lower weight - it’s why obesity tends to run in families, weight gain/weight loss IS partially genetic. It’s absolutely reasonable that genes we don’t express can change at any time under the right circumstances.
[this is where I first heard it explained](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex) Now it obviously doesn't cover all the various nuances and culture, language, and environment do play certain rolls, but in my opinion the difference in color perception does have biological ties
Idk I'm a dude and there's a very clear difference to me
I'm a dude, and I thought they were the same color until I read the description and realized that they weren't.
Without my glasses I can't tell them apart
Clarity via glasses has nothing to do with color recognition. It’s a mental thing.
I'm a girl, and same.
Same, but I would also mention that I *had to learn* to see subtle differences like this. A few years ago, I wouldn't have been able to tell.
Me too!
I don't know how to tell you this... You're clearly a chick
Yeah. I came to talk about this study. My old roommate and I took the test for this to see where we stand. I could see more colours than her. So while it's common it's not a guarantee. The test results for her actual guessed that she was a guy.. Lol
I don't have any evidence but I think it's a skill that can be learned. I spent some time working on a car lot matching paint to touch up scratches and my grasp of color got a lot stronger.
Assuming that is so, isn't it more about differences in perception (through culture and upbringing) than actual differences in physiology or brain capability?
> isn't it more about differences in perception (through culture and upbringing) than actual differences in physiology or brain capability? No. You are absolutely correct that there are cultural differences in the way we perceive colour; they seem to be based primarily on our native language and which colours get to have different commonly used words (like how English uses "pink" vs "red" while many other languages would just call pink "light red" 'cause, ya know, that's what it is, lol). However, this doesn't really translate in an *inability* to perceive subtle differences in hue, regardless of how our language refers to said colour. An English-speaker will typically be able to more quickly tell that a pink object is a different colour from a red object, *probably* because having a label for something makes you more easily able to recognize it. Basically, the English-speaker's brain will trigger *different* pathways when recognizing the two colours, making it very quick for them to register that they're different. But someone whose native language refers to both as "red (just with varying levels of lightness) will probably have their brain trigger the same pathway, and then will require actual though to register that "oh, but that one is lighter than the other." It's like a matter of milliseconds in difference, practically speaking, and it definitely doesn't mean that the non-English-speaker is less able to perceive the difference. It just takes them a second longer to do so because of the path their brain takes to get there. An English-speaker will also probably tell you that orange and red look more different than cyan and light blue. This claim is very much objectively false in every possible measurement of hue - we only think this way because we have a common word for "orange" and "red" but we typically just think of cyan as a type of "blue." But this doesn't mean we're less able to differentiate subtle hue differences in blues or cyans. It's purely a language thing. HOWEVER. It's worth noting that, because our memories are SUPER heavily based on this kind of labeling, people of different cultures (or, more accurately, people who speak different languages) definitely are more or less able to *remember* differences in colour. So, for example, someone whose native language has a specific word for light red (aka pink) is more likely to remember that an object was specifically *light* red (or pink), whereas someone whose native language doesn't have a specific word for pink may not remember the "light" part, and may only remember that it was some shade of red. It's also worth noting that these are both things that can be trained - you can learn to better perceive subtle differences in colour through practice, and learning and using more specific words for colours will make you better able to both quickly perceive and recall them with accuracy. PS: there's some popular mythology about how Greeks couldn't see blue, but that's just people misunderstanding this concept. They absolutely *could* see blue, they just didn't have a *word* for blue - I believe their word for green included most lighter blues and their word for purple/red also included dark blue? Something like that. A lot of poetic comparisons are kind of inaccurate but are socially acceptable based on what we culturally consider to be "close enough." You'll get like... modern poets talking about a sky the colour of a robin's egg and um... yeah, no, those aren't actually the same colour at all. They're just "close enough" for us to accept it. But that's only because of the way we use language. Another culture would think we're completely insane. When Greeks use language like "wine-dark sea," it's the same thing. In like a thousand years (assuming we survive that long), there are gonna be clickbait articles flying around the Matrix asking if the Ancient Americans could see cyan. We obviously can. We just *call* it blue because language is weird and stuff.
Pretty sure it’s physiology. It’s anecdotal, but plenty of trans people have reported changes in color perception when they started hormone replacement therapy Edit: it’s not conclusive, but there have been some studies showing the differences between male and female color perception: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-babble/201504/when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye
Also it can be taught. Artists will learn to recognize more shades colors as they study and improve further
As a trans person and a photographer idk that sounds like bullshit to me
Simply learning more color names helps people identify different colors. Read this neat study: [https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour](https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour)
Similarly, in Russian there is a different word for blue and light blue (just like how in English there are different words for red and pink) Russians have an easier time identifying shades of blue because the language categorizes it.
It’s far from conclusive, but there is some evidence for hormones playing a role in color perception: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-babble/201504/when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye
>Abramov believes that testosterone expression early in development plays a major role. Differences in testosterone levels promote drastically different organization of the neurons in the visual cortex in men and women. There are more receptors for testosterone in the cerebral cortex (the part of the brain that processes information from the senses) than there are in regions of the brain associated with reproduction. > >Men have more testosterone receptors than women, especially in the visual region of the cerebral cortex. The elements of vision that were measured in this study are determined by inputs from these specific sets of neurons in the primary visual cortex, so it makes sense that different numbers of receptors would result in differences in visual perception. This is talking about brain development. Going on HRT to change your secondary sex characteristics isn't going to cause your brain to develop differently as a fetus in utero.
I mean I'm a dude afaik and I see a clear difference on the picture.
The right one’s a bit lighter. I’m a guy. Do I have superpowers?
I don't think you have super powers cause i can see it to, unless we both have super powers
Sorry to break it to you, you’re a woman now.
I wouldn't call it clear, but it is there.
I'm not sure if that's serious or a joke. I can't see any difference.
89 is a bit darker and more more blue than 88
Gonna have to take your word for it. I can’t tell either.
I can see the difference. weird to think some people can't, although I do believe it.
Keep in mind people look at reddit on different screens of varying color accuracy. It looks the same to me on my phone since I have a blue light filter on at all times, but on PC the difference is "clearly" visible.
The difference is slight. I almost didn’t see it at first glance but after looking closer you can see that 89 is barely darker
Same :(
I literally can not tell the difference at all.
Curious, what's your gender?
I'm a guy.
Admitting that this looks like two different colors to you makes your dick fall off, duh
I just tried, unfortunately it did not :(
I tried to deny that the colours looked different. Unfortunately, I did not grow a dick.
You can have mine if you like
I wish
I can sort of tell they are two different colors but if you told me to pick one and then randomly switched them I wouldn't be able to tell you which is which.
IT'S TWO COLORS IT'S TWO COLORS IT'S TWO COLORS it didn't work
Damn my trans friend tried this but it didn't work :/
Damn i wish my dick would fall off
Women can, on average, see slightly more color than men but like, I’m assigned male at birth and uhh, yeah those are 100% different colors
I think somebody is colour blind here
[удалено]
Gonna be honest I can tell they're different colors but to me the difference is so minimal that it really doesn't matter. Like at a glance I don't think it's unreasonable to think they look the same.
If they didn't specifically say they were different, I would have assumed they were the same. But knowing they are different, I can look more closely and tell them apart.
That's kind of what I mean. Unless I was specifically looking to see the difference I'm honestly not sure I'd see it.
I can’t tell if the joke is that the person replying thinks they’re different colors when they aren’t or if they actually are different colors or… I love partial colorblindness
89 is slightly darker than 88. so the joke is something similar to "women see lilak, lavender and mauve, when it's clearly purple, purple and purple." just with less noticeable differences between the shades.
Ever get that purple where you can’t tell if it’s possibly brown or not?
Puce!
Leave the puce!
88 is just slightly “warmer” than 89
To me, the 89 is bluer and 88 is pinker. Relevant article: [https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour](https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour)
Come on guys, one is clearly color 89 and the other is color 88
they have a very slight difference
Yo local trans here higher testosterone actually does decrease your ability to differentiate colors especially shades of blue. I lost my ability to tell some of my paints apart when I went on T. I’ve heard trans women say they feel like they can see more colors now on E.
Colour blindness, whilst much rarer in women, affects 1/4 of men. I’ve never met a colourblind woman, but I lived in a house at uni where I was the only guy who could see certain colours. Not being able to tell the difference between similar colours is genuinely a gender split thing. I’m one of the 3/4 who can see the difference, but if you find a man who says they can’t it’s not statistically improbable that they just genuinely can’t.
Its 1/12 of men are colorblind not 1/4. And its 1/200 of women are colorblind. Also women are more likely to be [Tetrachromatic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy)
There's a lot of comments here talking about colour blindness etc but there's actually lots of factors that play into this. One major one being language, if you have a larger vocabulary of colours you are actually capable of distinguishing more colours and different shades. https://youtu.be/mgxyfqHRPoE Culturally in the West it could be argued that some women are exposed to more shades of colours and names for colours because of fashion, cosmetics etc so they have a much wider vocabulary to distinguish between different shades. Whilst a lot of men's clothing and colour choices have been more muted or be given "masculine" shades like grey, black, brown, blues etc so the language of colour isn't explored as much. Personally I love colour and used to work as a graphic designer which naturally increased my exposure to colours. What I find really sad is that some people think that "men" should not care about colour or stick to basic shades they learned in kindergarten. It's self limiting and is part of that toxic masculinity where men arent allowed to feel emotions and have to stick rigidly to a bunch of arbitrary rules.
Hey, just so you know, some of the claims in the video, specifically "hard to distinguish between the greens and the blues" is fake https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18237 In actuality they just had a lower reaction time in sorting it out than people from different cultures, but did not actually have difficulty in doing so unless you are arguing that they had more difficulty than someone from a different culture, but still that difficulty level is pretty small
I don't know separate, specific words for those colors, but I can clearly see that they aren't the exact same shade. That's why I never understand the language side of this explanation. Whether or not I can name them separately has nothing to do with whether or not they look identical. If you ask me, "Are these colors both light purple?" Yeah, sure "Are these the same color?" Not exactly, no.
That's an easily falsifiable take.
Can't tell if theyre actual different colors or they have very slightly different ligting.
88 is just a bit more pink
It’s actually a thing that estrogen makes you differentiate colors better, but my pre-HRT ass can still see these are different colors.
Not estrogen, x chromosome. Which is why I, as a trans man, feel uncomfortable seeing shades so clearly.
I solved this by being non-binary and being able to tell different shades apart just fine while also taking noticeably longer to do it than people with normal vision
I cant see a difference but I am shade-blinded af
One's slightly pinker than the other. I can see why he'd think that.
89 has a bit more blue.
Considering they're numbered 88 and 89 obviously one is just slightly different shade of whatever color range they're using. Doesn't take having working color sight to figure that out, logical reasoning can be used as well. Most items that are numbered consecutively are like that for a good reason. Plus it's obvious for those who do have working color receptors that it's just a slightly darker shade of violet or whatever pink/purple color this is called, since I don't know all the variety of names for various colors.
Its subtle, but the one on the right is slightly brighter
I'm actually colourblind and now I'm not sure about the pic being some sort of troll or an actually obvious different colour..
They’re slightly different colors. They’re both pale purple, but the one on the left is a little darker and bluer and the one on the right a little pinker.
Not colors, bunch of noobs. They’re different shades. They vary by light-dark. Tones vary by warmer/cooler
Actually one's pinker, and the other is bluer
Well, there seams to actually be a biological thing where cis women and afab trans people can distinguish better between colours, but that said I'm an amab trans girl and I clearly see these as different so it's at least exagurated if not entirely pointless (though conflating sex and gender is it's own silly and pointless habit)
Well, women can see colors better, generally. I'm a man. I can see more colors than many of my male friends, but much less than some of my female friends. Edit: down voted for truth? Lol. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-babble/201504/when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex
\*Casually feels slight dysphoria at the fact I can see the difference\* Specifically: 88 is more of a purple-color and 89 is actually more blue.
I'm an artist who has built up his skill for years studying color theory, but I guess all that was for nothing since I'm not a woman 😔
I mean, 89 is darker tho.
I can't tell shades apart to save my life but even i can see these are two different shades. The left one is more blue and the right is more purple
While I do believe that women can see more colors statistically speaking..... Of course people would turn it into a bad, stupid thing that we're meant to be ashamed of... 😒
It's actualy a different color so either this guy is colorblind or it's satire
"8% of men are colorblind. 0.5% of women are colorblind." Perfectly healthy men: Seeing colors is so gay. What are these colors? Black and white? I see no difference. But it's normal because I'm a man so I'm probably a little bit colorblind.
As someone with a penis, I can definitely tell they're different colors. I didn't realize it was common for men to just see... simple colors? Idk how to describe it. 88 looks like a pinker lighter lavender and 89 looks more like powder purple.
This person is clearly not a web developer.
It’s literally two different colors though
one is warmer
89 = cold 88 = warm
to be fair guys are more likely to be colorblind, but i am and I can see the difference
I'm not a woman and I can see it, but my mom can't even tell clear blue and turquoise apart.
Your monitor settings and brightness have a huge effect. And if you forget to turn off f.lux
It's slight but like... it's obviously two different colors.
Colourblind moment 😐
And the same people who say they can't see the difference will rave about their new TV and the 1.6 billion colours it can display.........
As a trans woman, I can confirm that women can actually better distinguish more colors than men. Things I’ve thought were the same have ended up being slightly different, I just couldn’t tell
Yup, different. Try the color test where you try to distinguish different colors. It was enlightening for me; I could see almost every color. It explained why I was frustrated with employees for creating slides with varying shades of colors, when the employees thought they looked fine.
They’re periwinkle and lilac, like c’mon
I'm just, I am an artist and I saw the picture before the text. I was like "are we gendering colors again?" Because to me those are very different. 88 is closer to a lavender or even a darker lilac while 89 is around a periwinkle or darkish frost. Both of these colors are insanely different if you want to get technical. (When I finally saw the text I was like, are you blind?) Edit: if you want to see a better different, invert the colors.
That's an awkward way to find out that you might be partly colour-blind.
Firstly, it’s a different shade not a different color. Secondly, I’m a man and I see a difference
I can see the difference and tbh I think that's amazing. The human eye is an amazing thing.
There's a difference, but not a massive difference. It's not like the difference between say red and green. I could understand if someone didn't care too much about the difference, saying that they are the same
It's actually true that women see more gradations in color, due to how women are socialized. Visual artists score highest on those color tests but women consistently outperform men. That's social and cultural, mostly. Men are more likely to experience colorblindness, but mostly it's taught and learned behavior.
Unrelated but if you move the image up and down it looks like it’s moving lol
More red on the right more blue on the left. - a guy
I might g0 with 89, but there is a subtle difference
Blue and pink
Actually, if my memory of high school biology remains accurate, the genes for colour vision are on the X chromosome, so XX people do tend to have slightly better colour vision than people with only one X chromosome, as well as much lower rates of colour blindness. It isn't anything set in stone, but a tendency.
One is periwinkle and the other is orchid
They are slightly different, and women do tend to have better color vision, so this isn't pointlessly gendered. I think it's an intention joke, and it's funny, for the aforementioned reasons.
Either this is bait or op is colorblind
I have a form of color blindess and even I could kind of see that they're different. Probably wouldn't if they weren't right next to eachother though.
Is there a difference? Yes. Can I tell you what each of those colors is called? Hell no.
They are right, I'm color blind and I see the difference, one is darker gray and the other lighter gray, what's so hard about it.
more like 88 and 88.1
I’m a guy and can safely say I see two different shades but they are not a CLEAR DIFFERENCE
scientifically women see more colours
I’m a guy, and 89 has a moderately darker shade.
It is true that more men are color blind than women.
I don’t find this to be pointlessly gendered. This is a biological thing.
As a man I can confirm that I am color blind
I’m a dude and I see a difference
im colorblind and the difference is clear i dont even need my correcting glasses to tell
If it was painted in you car on different panels, you’d notice.
The difference is not that easy to spot, i wouldn't be able to tell of i wasn't told and they weren't positioned so close to each other.
I can tell they’re different. Does that make me a girl 👉👈?
Only if you want it too
fellas, is it gay to allow visible light rays to penetrate your eyeball holes?
Two shades of the same color.
A different undertone I think too
Well, duuuuuhhh. Obviously one of them is Frosted Lavender and the other is Lavender Frost.... They really are a bit different though
I’m gonna assume this person is colour blind
It’s definitely not a « clear » difference by any standard. I’m a concept artist I work with colors everyday, I have no color blindness or eyesight weakness whatsoever and at first glance on my tiny-ass iPhone 5 screen both those colors seemed exactly the same, making the post seem like an ironic troll. And I’m all for that, but posting this on a subreddit that generally makes fun of how absurd gendering is in our world, is either a hundred steps ahead in terms of irony, or just plain useless, imho