Ha ha, jokes on you. I'm colour blind, I didn't see it at all.....wait a minute, awwww.

@newtboy,
"Yeah, that's honest, move to a profession where one single specific type of performance is the entire job..."

Take any highly competitive field and you've got similar professional grading based upon excellence in the field. Legal, Medical, Engineering, the same kind of professionals can be found hunting for top tier talent in any of these, no different than the NBA. Their criteria can be every bit as colour blind and there is strong economic incentives to do so to boot.

"Side note: there have been some who suggested affirmative action in sports, requiring a certain number of white players on teams. Indeed, there were white leagues that fought tooth and nail to not let even the most talented non whites participate. Just sayin...."
And that would be racist, and it was wrong, and it's something we should be glad to be rid of.

Just sayin....

"Race is considered, period."
Reasonable, non-racist people are going to disagree with you. They are going to, correctly, call your policy racist.

Can you really not see the other side that thinks fighting racism with racism is the wrong approach?

I wear corrective glasses and am colour blind. I get about just fine with imperfect colour vision but would have a horrible time without my prescription glasses.
I think the prescription glasses cost is more justified as the lenses are unique to the wearer, whereas he enChroma lenses seem to be 'off the rack' from what I could tell on their website, I could be completely wrong however.

I wouldn't mind testing out a pair to see the difference, but from what I understand they simply enhance the difference between the hues you have difficulty distinguishing rather than actually improving your vision in any way.
For people like the Dad in the vid the price tag might be worth it, judging by his reaction, so it's all subjective.

I saw one of their booths and went to try it out. I'm Red/Green colour blind, but not all the way. I know it helped out my mom a lot, but it did little for me. I wonder what that feeling is like. =)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'vsauce, perception, color, blind, questions' to 'vsauce, perception, color, colour, blind, questions, qualia, explanation gap, language' - edited by messenger

I find this fascinating as someone who is colour blind; not that it affects my everyday life (grass is green, sky is blue, etc) but just that I cannot do specular tests.
The reason it is fascinating is that I struggle with the names of colours more than I struggle to see the colour. I know it's a colour. I know it's not the same as other colours. I just can't think of what the name of *that* colour is.
It drives my wife nuts as I often ask her "is this blue/green/whatever ?" and then I get The Look™ and told which colour it is.
This video is the first time that has made it make sense to me!

3:44 - Lucky bicyclist is lucky.
5:05 - Suicidal truck driver.

I'm also quite amazed at that in Russia:
Everybody speeds.
Everyone is Traffic light colour-blind.
UTurns and left turns are on impulse.
Getting a crash cam in your car gives you a 30% chance of being in an accident where you did nothing wrong.

(As a graphic Designer...)
I noticed the difference on both variations immediately, although the green/green variation were very similar.

I was surprised they couldn't decipher the variation in the blue/green scenario.

I don't think they have a "hereditary" colour blindness to blues as suggested above by Boise_Lib but a "learned" blindness as discussed in the study. Because they have a more limited category selection for classifying the differences, their brains meld the grouped colours as the same and their brains simply record them as being the same thing.

A variation of this study would be to develop a category structure which uses more categories than our norm and raise a study group of children using that new structure. The brains of these children would categorize and identify differently and possibly educated their brains to see a wider difference of colours within the spectrum. (Of course this would be next to impossible, as the children would need to be segregated from all of society and only exposed to people who could emulate the new proposed category system - something which may seem as abusive to a child's freedom of being).

His videos are great and don't seem completely random (unlike mine), his comments are topical, insightful and witty, his presence is always well-received... spoco2, you're the coolest Aussie I've ever had the pleasure of 'knowing'.

and mind you, I happen to know an ex-SASR-(Aussie special forces)-turned-businessman.
then again he is kind of an obnoxious jerk, so I guess that's not much of a compliment, really.

You have a nice dog. (Is it even yours though?) Why is he black&white? Is that some sort of symbolism for you being colour-blind? Or was that you trying to be artistic?

OK, I'll just shut up then, shall I?

[citation required]

Really, this is a lot of bullshit.

24 Million images over a lifetime? I'm saying that's really, really low... What do you consider an 'image'? Even if we take it down to movie frames, which occur far less frequently than the eye can process, we get... for an 80 year lifespan 24frames*60secs*60mins*24hrs*365days*80yrs = 60,549,120,000, or 60.5 BILLION images. (Or 60.5 thousand million as it should actually, correctly be known... but I digress).

And 24 images a second is a seriously low call.

2 Million working parts? By what measure? Cells? Actual, individual, identifiable pieces? If you're talking photo receptor cells... "The human retina contains about 120 million rod cells and 6 million cone cells" (wikipedia).

36,000 bits an hour? Oh for fuck's sake... less than 36Kb of info an hour? My ZX Spectrum can do better than that, what unmitigated bullshit.

'All babies are born colour blind'. Actually, this used to be thought to be true:

"In the past it was thought that babies were born colour blind and only developed the ability to view colours as they developed. Recent studies have proven this incorrect and it is now widely accepted that infants can distinguish colours and patterns at birth, and continue to hone this skill for many months."

(Source)

But again... not researched, and shit.


This video is one of MY MOST HATED THINGS ON THE INTERNET. Dickheads pulling together random shit and spouting it as if it's fact.

This person knows NOTHING about the eye.

I'm going to upvote in the hope that people view this sift, and read this comment and perhaps spend a bit more time critically thinking about things they see/read on the internet before they take it as fact.

In reply to your comment:
“I think you do not understand the principles of evolution. Nature did not *do* anyting and even if it did so, it would not do something "so that". Evolution is a process of natural selection, you make it sound like some nature-goddess like Gaia thought "Oh, let's make onions in a way that predators have to cry when trying to eat them."”

Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is 'designed' to pump blood. Karl von Frisch was led to investigate colour vision in bees (in the face of orthodox opinion that they were colour-blind) because he assumed that the bright colours of flowers were 'designed' to attract them. The quotation marks are designed to scare off mendacious creationists who might otherwise claim the great Austrian zoologist as one of their own. Needless to say, he was perfectly capable of translating the design stance into proper Darwinian terms.

-- Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion pg182

I think you do not understand the principles of evolution. Nature did not *do* anyting and even if it did so, it would not do something "so that". Evolution is a process of natural selection, you make it sound like some nature-goddess like Gaia thought "Oh, let's make onions in a way that predators have to cry when trying to eat them."

pragmatick, maybe you feel like you know evolution better than this guy, but I expect that you DON'T want to argue against this guy:

Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is 'designed' to pump blood. Karl von Frisch was led to investigate colour vision in bees (in the face of orthodox opinion that they were colour-blind) because he assumed that the bright colours of flowers were 'designed' to attract them. The quotation marks are designed to scare off mendacious creationists who might otherwise claim the great Austrian zoologist as one of their own. Needless to say, he was perfectly capable of translating the design stance into proper Darwinian terms.

-- Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion pg182

So there.