The Nine Irrefutable Laws of Colors

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So what you're writing is also sarcasm?...

It is context-specific, Andrew! 

[fdisilvestro]

This is why I argue with you at al... you use scientific complexity to muddy the waters for what is obvious to common people in everyday use. You are trying to shatter commonly accepted conventions, which, however imprecise, have served its purpose for the vast majority of us quite well so far.

Maybe the issue is using scientific complexity instead of easy to understand language, but if "commonly accepted conventions" are wrong, then I welcome every effort to shatter them, otherwise we would still be thinking that the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth.

Regarding the sky, I guess I'm part of that 1%, since I have seen it in almost every imaginable color. The "blue sky" reminded me of the recommendations included in color films: "from two hours after sunrise until two hours before sunset"

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Wow, Francisco, that is so smart... and cute... in a kindergarten kind of way!

[digitaldog]

Wow, Francisco, that is so smart... and cute... in a kindergarten kind of way!

You really do seem to be having a bad week.

[fdisilvestro]

Wow, Francisco, that is so smart... and cute... in a kindergarten kind of way!

I was tempted to respond with a nasty comment, but I agree with Andrew, you seem to be having a bad week.

[Farmer]

Slobodan - ask a colour-blind person what blue looks like and then tell me it's a constant.

You've got people patiently (and not so) explaining to you that you're wrong.  That's a fact - you ARE wrong.  Get over it, learn something, move on.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hi Phil - since I never said a color is "a constant" (whatever that means), what exactly I am wrong about? Other than arguing about anything non-literal with geeks, that is

Which is as foolish as arguing with Kardashians about... well, pretty much anything

There you go, I even included smileys - two to be literal - for all those humor-challanged.

[digitaldog]

Smileys are useful when we are not supposed to take you seriously. The Kardashians bit is therefore not to be debated expect if one wants to unnecessary argue it is or isn't funny.

Facts about color perception being dismissed, while using English words in an attempt to suggest they means the same thing to all humans when what is occurring is a complex process deep within our brains is neither funny or correct as several people here have attempted to point out. This IS after all the color management forum, not the The Coffee Corner! You stated:What I was trying to point out, in a humorous (sarcastic) way, is that there is a time and place for complex scientific debates, and this forum and this particular thread, isn't. to which I say Bullshite! Add all the smileys you wish, what you are stating is incorrect. I'm sorry you're still in such a piss-poor mood about this and more than once I suggested you move on. Take it to the Coffee Corner and add as many smileys and jokes as you wish about color but in this forum, what you're stating is simply flat earth nonsense and that's why you've been called out by numerous posters. Does that POV make any sense to you in the context of this forum, the topic, and what other's have written?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Facts about color perception being dismissed, while using English words in an attempt to suggest they means the same thing to all humans...

No, I did not dismiss that color is a perception. Nor I said "all" humans. Nor it is a matter of just English. Many other languages contain the same words for colors, at least in the Western world. So, how is it then possible that, given it is a perception, so many people have the same perception?

[digitaldog]

No, I did not dismiss that color is a perception. Nor I said "all" humans. Nor it is a matter of just English. Many other languages contain the same words for colors, at least in the Western world. So, how is it then possible that, given it is a perception, so many people have the same perception?

You can't dismiss that color is a perception. That perception has nothing to do with the English word "blue". And outside the western world, the cognitive perception is the same or different because they use different words to define their perception? The answer should be rather obvious. Mark explained the difference in languages used to speak of color, but you can call what you perceive of the sky "poop" or "Bacon" and it's just a word in whatever language you want to define and has nothing to do with what's happening inside our brains when we look at the sky. And you do not know how many people have this or that perception, you're guessing again as it was pointed out that we define color with perceptual experiments. And your study on that subject as far as I know is is yet unpublished right? Agreed, you didn't say all humans, just a huge percentage which again isn't correct.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I admit. I was WRONG. To argue with geeks about non-literal. Or Kardashians. Over and out.

[digitaldog]

I admit. I was WRONG. To argue with geeks about non-literal. Or Kardashians. Over and out.

Personally I think you were right about Kardashians. The rest, not so much. 

[Farmer]

You want to argue that we're ignoring language and don't know anything about it, because we're too literal?

Let me give you some light reading:

http://www.slideshare.net/berettag/understanding-color-2010

http://www.mostlycolor.ch/2013/04/color-naming-65274705768-pixels.html

http://www.mostlycolor.ch/2010/12/fun-with-collocates-orange-vodka-to.html

http://www.mostlycolor.ch/2012/07/colorful-language-results.html

http://www.mostlycolor.ch/2011/08/colorful-language.html

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Smileys are useful when we are not supposed to take you seriously.

Hi Andrew,

Really, honestly, what's wrong with you lately? You have started using an ad hominem style of response to react to certain posters, and honestly do a poor job at arguing sensibly (assuming you want to discuss, instead of just being condescending/patronizing). You attribute certain remarks to people that they never made, or seem to deliberately (?) (mis)interpret what they say when they never said or intended it? You are not doing yourself a favor if you carry on like that.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

You attribute certain remarks to people that they never made, or seem to deliberately (?) (mis)interpret what they say when they never said or intended it?

Examples? Assuming you think this is the place to bring this up.

[FMueller]

It is so nice to see a bloodletting discussion that manages to not fall into politics. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You want to argue that we're ignoring language and don't know anything about it, because we're too literal?

Let me give you some light reading:...

I know I said "over and out," and now I am back, so let's just assume it refereed to a particular style of debate, i.e., humorous arguing (or simply being a "nasty simpleton," depending on your perception).

Therefore, I will try to remain serious for the rest of the debate. But before we continue, let me just say that I never said my opponents are "ignoring language and don't know anything about it."

Whenever someone throws a book at me in a forum debate, without stating his point, I am puzzled. Especially links to 150 and 250 pages books. Am I supposed to read it all or publish a research paper on the subject in order to qualify for the debate? So, Phil, I do not know what your point is and do not want to speculate on your behalf. But feel free to state it yourself.

I did skim through the 150-page one though. And guess what I found:

In a survey of 36 different nationalities, speaking 26 different languages (including Arabic, Chinese, Japanese), when asked "What would you call this color?," between 85-90 % responded with a single word "blue." Now add to that those who used a variant of "blue" in their answer (e.g., "bright blue", etc.) and the percentage gets into the 90-99 % territory.

So, where exactly was I wrong?

[MarkM]

Slobodan,

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting with your post. If the study you referenced was a sample representing how the world's cultures named colors, would you really expect that 90% would answer with the English word 'blue'?

From the section on demographics:

"…this project is about colour naming in English…
…all of the respondents appeared to be fluent enough in English to complete the survey…"

It's an interesting study, but it might be worth taking a deeper skim to understand what she's doing and what it means.

Here's the link to the study for anyone who isn't sure where this comes from: http://eleanormaclure.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/survey-report.pdf

[Schewe]

Wait...are you guys still flailing away at each other? Don't you all see the futility in continuing this thread? Maybe the OP should do the honors and lock this thread (if they had any decency).

I keep checking the thread just to see the bodies along the side of the road...sorry, but I can't help myself from looking at crashes (and this is a full fledged multi-vehicle crash).

[Farmer]

Don't skim, Slobodan, read it.  If you have any interest in the subject, it's very bloody interesting material.  It confirms that it's all subjective and it confirms the way in which different cultures and societies influence their members and also how colour references change over time.