Color Cognition And Pre-Frontal Cortex (Pfc) "exhaustion"

[Turtle]

Context is everything. :)

[JMJones0424]

You know what, that red sign was posted as a joke.

 

Don't take yourself so seriously, you might give yourself a big Red heart attack.

Thank you for your concern.  I am more concerned with the veracity of your claims.  You have yet to provide an explanation of how the color red is a warning indicator that cannot easily be shown to be false.  Perhaps my fault is that I am taking you seriously.

[OceanBreeze]

Thank you for your concern.  I am more concerned with the veracity of your claims.  You have yet to provide an explanation of how the color red is a warning indicator that cannot easily be shown to be false.  Perhaps my fault is that I am taking you seriously.

 

 

You are "concerned" about my statement that the color RED is a warning indicator?

 

Seriously?

 

You think you have shown that to be false?

 

Ok then, how about you show the all of the following to be false, and when you are done with those, I can post a hundred more for you:

 

1) Why are warning signs red? . "One physicist's answer is that red colours are scattered least by fog or smoke, and hence can be seen from furthest away. Another physicist's answer is that the receptors for red colours in the eye are clustered in the area near the centre where the sharpest images are formed. A biologist's answer is that nature uses red as a warning colour because it stands out most vividly against a green background. Other answers are that we associate it with danger because it is the colour of fire and blood"

 

2) Why is red colour used in the danger signals? Is there any scientific reason for this? "Also, red is a color we inherently perceive as one that is associated with danger. I guess it has been genetically programmed as hot objects are red in color and also red is the color of blood. These reasons make danger signals the most effective when they are painted in red."

 

3). Red Color and Risk-Taking  "in many situations red is associated with hazard and danger as reflected, for example, in the color of human blood or glowing embers. Consequently, red is typically used as a universal signal of warning such as in traffic lights. Experimental studies even suggest an implicit association between red color and danger; that is, subtle presentations of red color cues automatically activate danger-related cognitions . As a consequence, in competitive interactions seeing red enhances the perception of threat and thus tends to impair one’s performance . Due to the association of the color red with threat, red color was found to affect the processing of persuasive health messages"

 

So, Please falsify all of the above, OR, you can just concede you are being silly and just  

 

[JMJones0424]

1) Warning signs are red because we make red warning signs.  Not all warning signs are red and not all red signs are warning signs.

 

2) See #1

 

3) You claim, "in many situations red is associated with hazard and danger as reflected, for example, in the color of human blood or glowing embers."  And then you claim, "Consequently, red is typically used as a universal signal of warning such as in traffic lights."

 

1 and 2 are simply a tautology.  Red is a warning signal to you because the color of the warning signal you know is red.  You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that such a broad claim that red is a universal warning signal can be accurately made for humans.  I have provided numerous counter examples of such a ludicrous claim.

 

3 Is unsupported as there are many dangerous non-red things.  And there are many non-dangerous red things.  You are cherry-picking.

 

Please stop relying on just-so claims.  I have already given evidence that contradicts your claims.  "Apples that are red are not indicative of danger."  This one factual statement is all that is needed to refute your claim that red is a universal signal of warning.  If you wish to dispute the meaning of "typically", then please define your terms.

Edited July 15, 2017 by JMJones0424

[OceanBreeze]

Oh, FFS, give it up already!

 

Red Color Psychology and Meaning:

 

• Associated with energy, war, danger, strength, power, determination as well as passion, desire, and love.
• Enhances human metabolism, increases respiration rate, and raises blood pressure.
• It attracts attention more than any other color, at times signifying danger.

Danger

Considering that it draws attention, it’s easy to see why it’s so often used in warning signs. Red has to do with the body’s fight-or-flight response, so too much red leaves the person feeling not just alert, but also stressed out.

 

Link: https://www.colorpsychology.org/red/

 

But, thanks for playing, anyway.

 

 

 

 

[JMJones0424]

No, I won't give it up.  What falsifiable tests can you link to that determine that the color red is, in humans:

• Associated with energy, war, danger, strength, power, determination as well as passion, desire, and love.
• Enhances human metabolism, increases respiration rate, and raises blood pressure.
• It attracts attention more than any other color, at times signifying danger.

The first bullet point is nearly useless, as all the examples are subjective.  The second bullet point contains falsifiable claims that you have not yet shown to be accurate.  The third bullet point could be, in an appropriate test, shown to be correct.  

 

It seems to me that you are taking data points that support your claim as reliable and data points that refute your claim as unimportant.  This is how just-so stories work.  The link you provided does not give any actual data points, instead it just asserts the same claims that you are making.  As such, I refute your claims by simply stating, "No."

Edited July 16, 2017 by JMJones0424

[petrushkagoogol]

To summarize the discussion :

 

Colors at either end of the visible spectrum have noticeable effects (RB) i.e. (255,0,0) and (0,0,255).

 

Colors at the mean i.e.green (0,255,0) have average energy (physics) and moderate stimulating effect (physiological).

 

There appears to be consensus on this.

[OceanBreeze]

 

  

 I refute your claims by simply stating, "No."

 

Well, That settles it, then!

 

[OceanBreeze]

 

To summarize the discussion :

 

Colors at either end of the visible spectrum have noticeable effects (RB) i.e. (255,0,0) and (0,0,255).

 

Colors at the mean i.e.green (0,255,0) have average energy (physics) and moderate stimulating effect (physiological).

 

There appears to be consensus on this.

 

 

There most certainly is a consensus, but some people are too color blind to see it.

[JMJones0424]

 

To summarize the discussion :

 

Colors at either end of the visible spectrum have noticeable effects (RB) i.e. (255,0,0) and (0,0,255).

 

Colors at the mean i.e.green (0,255,0) have average energy (physics) and moderate stimulating effect (physiological).

 

There appears to be consensus on this.

 

I'd propose a distinctly different summary.  You and OceanBreeze continue to assert that the above claims are correct without providing any evidence to support your claim.  Notably, you have also failed to even attempt to provide support for your original claim that the color red causes pre-frontal cortex exhaustion.

[JMJones0424]

There most certainly is a consensus, but some people are too color blind to see it.

You claimed-

 

Red Color Psychology and Meaning:

• Associated with energy, war, danger, strength, power, determination as well as passion, desire, and love.
• Enhances human metabolism, increases respiration rate, and raises blood pressure.
• It attracts attention more than any other color, at times signifying danger.

The fact that you have yet to support your claim has utterly nothing to do with the fact that I see colors differently than you do.  However, the fact that I see colors differently than you do and that contradictory examples made by people that presumably do see colors the same way that you do can easily be used to show that your claims are at least not entirely accurate.  I maintain that your claims are simply false, but I am open to argument supported by evidence.  You made a few claims that could be supported by evidence, but you have yet to provide any evidence that leads me to believe that I should hold your claims as any more valid than the null position.  Science works because we always assume the answer to any question we might ask is "no", and then we gather evidence that the answer of "no" is incorrect.

 

Your first bullet point is subjective, as such I don't expect you to be able to provide evidence.  If you maintain your position based on the first bullet point without removing the subjective nature, then your claim becomes a belief.  Belief has no part in science.  Your second and third bullet points could be supported by evidence.  You have yet to provide such evidence.  You have yet to provide any evidence that I should take the null hypothesis to be false.

 

I implore you to drop the argument of consensus, as reality is not determined by consensus.  This is despite the fact that the only support for your claimed consensus is your claim that your position is the consensus position.  Claims of consensus are not evidence, though evidence may lead to consensus.  As you've provided no evidence whatsoever, I find no reason to accept your claimed consensus.

 

Instead, and especially because this is a science forum, I invite you to use the scientific method to determine the veracity of your claims.

 

You might start by providing evidence that the color red "Enhances human metabolism, increases respiration rate, and raises blood pressure". Of course, I must insist that you provide actual evidence for such a claim rather than an internet site that simply parrots your claim.

Edited July 18, 2017 by JMJones0424

[petrushkagoogol]

I think JMJones0424 and OceanBreeze are right in their own way -

In space, blue is hot and red is cool. (based on frequency).

On Earth, the roles are reversed primarily through evolutionary hard-wiring of our brains to reflect our experiences with everyday objects, rivers and lava, for instance. (blue and red).

Here the thermal sensors kick-in, and change the perception, from the one based purely on a physics based interpretation.

[JMJones0424]

 

 

In space, blue is hot and red is cool. (based on frequency).

On Earth, the roles are reversed primarily through evolutionary hard-wiring of our brains to reflect our experiences with everyday objects, rivers and lava, for instance. (blue and red).

I don't think there's any reason to believe that physics is any different in space than it is on Earth.  When you were in chemistry and you were using a Bunsen burner, did you not try to manipulate the fuel to air ratio in order to produce a blue flame in order to make it hotter?

 

Your claim is not only unsupported by evidence, but it is demonstrably false.  It seems to me that you are stretching ever further to maintain your just-so story.  OceanBreeze offered some testable claims regarding human perception of the color red.  I do not have any data to support those claims, but at least they are falsifiable.  I still don't know what your claim of pre-frontal cortex exhaustion means, and you've yet to provide any explanation.

 

On top of this, you have provided no reason to believe that the EM radiation that the human eye recognizes as blue and the EM radiation that the human recognizes red is different depending on if the source is terrestrial or extra-terrestrial.  Were your claim to be true, then a significant portion of known and repeatedly verified physics must be false. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by JMJones0424

[JonFlippen]

Oh, it interested me. I started to write one essay about thermal sensors clicking but I had enough info. Now I've collected info from the different forums and I almost ready.