People are freaking out about this test like it’s some judgement of their character or something. I just picked “green” or “blue” without thinking.

The biggest problem here is that people have wildly uncalibrated monitors that often have color cast tints. I color calibrate my monitors and even my factory calibrated MacBook has a slight green tint.

People should also do hue differentiation tests like this one to see if they have any color deficiency: https://www.xrite.com/hue-test

That’s way more interesting.

This test is really using how English organizes color. In English, blue and green are basic color terms ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Color_Terms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Color_Terms)). You're right that we would have trouble with an orange screen if we were asked to call it red or yellow, but that's because orange is also a basic color term in English.

Other languages draw those boundaries in different places. For example, in Russian, light blue and dark blue are separate basic color terms (goluboy vs. siniy), so asking a Russian speaker to collapse those into a single category would feel just as wrong as collapsing orange into red or yellow does to us.

Cyan isn't a basic color term in English. So yes, the test is basically asking: if you had to assign this color to one of the basic English categories, what would it be?

The frustration you're describing is kind of the point. With something like orange, English gives us a clear category, so "rounding" feels wrong. With cyan, it doesn't, so people end up splitting it differently.

While "orange" did not exist as a single word in most languages, already in Old English or even in Latin or Ancient Greek one could find mentions about things that were "red-yellow".

Moreover, in ancient languages there were very few words that designed just a color, with no other meaning for the word, but it was very frequent to use words derived from the names of various things, which meant "of the color of the X thing".

For instance it was frequent to say that some things were "of the color of fire". Most likely this was intended to say that they were orange. For red objects one would have said "of the color of blood", while for yellow objects one would have said "of the color of sulfur" or "of the color of gold". "Of the color of saffron" is also likely to have meant "orange", though saffron may have many hues, from reddish to yellowish, depending on how it is prepared.

>As other commenters here have noted, I found this interesting but a little frustrating. The second color it asks about is clearly cyan (or turquoise). For me, this is like showing an orange screen and asking if it is red or yellow.

This, it commonly gets reposted on reddit and the colorblind sub, but it's basically worthless because most people acknowledge that there is a color between blue and green and forcing them to choose one or the other doesn't give you any valuable information.

I was having a discussion closely related to this recently because of my background in philosophy of language. Languages are functional, but not rigid. The rules and referents of "blue" become kind of pointless around the edges, and narrow words like cyan or turquoise -- even words borrowed from other languages -- are more functional. This is exaggerated further when the functionality becomes very important, which is where technical jargon starts to come into play. Languages should useful to the speaker; they do not define the constraints of the speaker. "Blue" is useful for the average English speaker, but completely useless for a graphic designer.

The current use of "cyan" for blue-green is a modern confusion caused by people who have used Greek words without bothering to check their true meaning.

In Ancient Greek, "cyan" was blue, not blue-green. More precisely, it was the color of the pigment "ultramarine blue", which has remained widely used until today. The name of this pigment was already used by the Hittites, long before the Greeks.

An example of a Latin author who distinguished consistently green, blue-green and blue in many places is Pliny the Elder.

Blue was referred to as the color of the sky or the color of the blue pigments used in painting, like ultramarine blue.

Green was referred to as "green like grass", "green like tree leaves" or "green like emeralds".

Blue-green was referred to as "green like the littoral sea", "green like turquoise" or "green like beryls".

This is especially obvious in the discussion about emeralds and beryls, which are identical but for their color, the former being green and the latter blue-green.

Similarly, in Latin "red" was used for both red and purple, but the two colors were distinguished as "red like crimson dye" (beetle-based dye) and "red like purple dye" (snail-based dye).

My daughter was watching Blue's Clues. They were doing color combinations (red + blue = purple, yellow + blue = green, etc). They then also did a further step, blue + green = cyan, and did green + yellow = chartreuse. Now maybe its my male engineer brain, but I haven't heard of that color in 36 years, but it does make sense and it is rather distinct.

Logically I understand that cyan is directly between green and blue, but my brain believes it's 100% blue.

orange is a subset of brown.

The whole point is to measure where you draw the line between blue and green, which is going to be in turquoise territory.

When you finish the test it even tells you if you consider turquoise blue or green.

That's very funny to have my exact reaction present in the first comment, I was thinking "that's turquoise" but I do also feel like turquoise is green, like you'd call the Copenhagen copper domes green, and the word verdigris comes from green

I have no idea when the words entered the languages, but I find it quite interesting that the color Orange in Thai is literally the color of the fruit (สีส้ม) whereas in Hungarian it is the same fruit as a shade of yellow (narancssárga).

There are no "cyan-receptors" on your retina so it's not a cultural thing, it's a bio-physics one. Plus as many mentioned the calibration of you display has propably a way higher impact on this than anything else.

So don't be upset, it's just for fun :)

I mean, that's the whole point of this exercise. In reality there is no hard line between green and blue, and if you make someone pick, their line is going to be entirely subjective, and different than others.

It does seem like more of a test of if you consider turquoise to be "a green" or "a blue"

Pink isn't real

This makes me realize that one of my formative childhood experiences was seeing the Crayola 64 crayon pack and thinking "huh, I guess there is NO limit."

Came here to say the same thing.

Like, I'd be interested to see if where my boundaries between blue and cyan, or cyan and green, are compared to the rest of the population.

But there's a whole other color between blue and green! A color that is primary under the subtractive CMYK model.

And it's an even bigger difference than with orange, because while red and yellow are 60° apart on the color wheel so that orange is 30° from each, blue and green are a full 120° apart on the color wheel, with cyan being 60° from each. So it's actually even worse -- it's as bad/nonsensical as showing yellow and asking if yellow is red or green.

Not only that but once you pick green or blue it's going to skew your results in that direction. I got a higher level of blue as my result but it's only because that's what I picked since I had to pick one of them.

the question is if you think this shade of cyan is more green than blue

I’m aware of cyan, of course, but it never occurred to me while doing this quiz, because the point was clearly to choose between blue and green. Of course there’s cyan, turquoise, teal, sky blue, etc., but the point is to make the potentially difficult choice between only blue and green.

Also, as it happens, I feel like cyan is just not really in our everyday vocabulary if you’re assigning colors to everyday objects. Maybe it’s because it’s rare to see something truly that bright and saturated. I feel like in practice I would end up just saying “blue-green” more than cyan, turquoise, teal, etc.

It's a false dichrotamy.

let's be honest, orange is really a burnt yellow

This was exactly my issue. There was no perception issue I could clearly identify the intermediate color as neither truly blue or green.

This is the point, isn't it?

Why does 'turquoise' or 'orange' being labeled as a distinct colors, mean that they are not on the scale between two other colors?

> As a side note, I do wonder how differently a child would perceive color if they were taught more than 7 colors in preschool.

Just as all other modern schooling, the teaching of colors is done deliberately order to dumb down children and starve them from their natural ability to learn.

A child will learn at least dozens, if not hundreds of colors, if they are allowed to and taught. This has a real impact, because unless you learn this, it can be very difficult as an adult to be able to actually see the difference between colors.

But instead idiots make toys with only simple prime colors, and even playgrounds. Even though children themselves prefer more diverse and interesting color schemes.

Although after a few dozen color names, I think children are more benefitted by learning more about color theory such as physical paint mixing, digital mixing like RGB and HSL, and physical light effects on colours.

it's either blue, or it's green. pick a side, coward

It's almost like color is a spectrum of light and we just arbitrarily slice it and decide "this has a name" because we are finite being who demand order from things that are not ordered and then demand further order from that order and get REALLY mad.

[dead]

[dead]

Taught by whom? I hear parents are wonderful teachers.

Also, lots of kids don't even go to preschool.