this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
156 points (96.4% liked)

Cool Guides

4221 readers
992 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 1 year ago
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago (2 children)

A few things to note here. It is comparing deuteranomaly to protanopia. The first is anomalous trichromacy, the latter dichromacy - meaning the first type has all three cone types but one is malfunctioning, the latter is completely missing a (different) cone type. So this is not really a good comparison.

Second, as far as I know, no good anomalous trichromacy simulations exist. They all work by (usually linearly) interpolating between normal vision and dichromacy, but this is not supported by empirical evidence.

Third, this does not seem to take into account the lightness differences caused by missing cones.

Finally, while there are multiple types of “total colourblindness”, most if not all suffer from severe acuity problems as well, and usually many other vision problems. The final picture is very unrealistic.

Source: several years of an amateur’s interest in the topic.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It still visually conveys the fact that there are different types of colorblindness and a rough approximation of the differences in a way that is understandable to the general population even if it isn't 100% accurate.

It is high level, like "mammals don't lay eggs".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I agree - I wish it were more accurate, but anything raising awareness is nice.

[–] Broken_Monitor 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The deuteranopia has to be at least somewhat accurate because it looks exactly the same as the “normal” picture to me. I know that the nature of malformations in the cones means that other people with deuteranopia will see it slightly differently too, but for me this seems spot on.

[–] saddlebag 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I also have deuteranopia and the top two look similar but I can clearly see the orange, red, pink on the right. I’ve never understood these diagrams and think they’re nonsense.

[–] Broken_Monitor 1 points 2 months ago

I’ve always been a little confused about it too because I seem to have trouble with reds, but every time I take a color blindness test they just tell me I’m weak on greens. It’s weird.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To me, the first 3 do look the same.

But I have a diagnosis that explains it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

So stupid they only make this meme for people that can see all colors, why don't they also make one for colorblind people, so they can see what non-colorblind people see!?


[–] Potatos_are_not_friends 6 points 2 months ago

I'm pretty sure I don't have color blindness. But that's how I knew I had shit vision.

Someone pointed to a sign in a distance. I said, "Lol stop fucking with me. There's no sign." And everyone in the group gasp that I couldn't see it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Yeah magic mushrooms will do that

[–] Zehzin 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Tritanopia probably looks kinda cool

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have a friend with that type. He said he mostly sees shades of red. Graphs and charts are very hard for him to interpret.

[–] Zehzin 4 points 2 months ago

My color blind friends have the opposite problem (no reds) but they also complain about graphs and charts.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

tritaniopiacs, untie! /s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I've always been a bit fascinated by colorblindness. To me, a "normal"-seeing person, green and red are so VASTLY different that mistaking them feels so bizarre to me.

Would human blood look the same as xenomorph blood? This suggests it would.