Notice only 20 shades of gray
It’s been proven that women actually have an acute ability to pick up subtle differences in colors
In response to that last comment^^
Yes. It comes from the Hunter-Gatherer days.
Women were the gatherers. They had to be able to discern between the different shades of colors to know which plants were poisonous and which were not.
Men were out hunting, so they didn’t have to worry about that.
Which is why women see “Blood orange” and “crimson” and “scarlet” etc while guys just see “red”.
I’M A COLORBLIND WOMAN HALF OF THESE LOOK THE SAME AS THE ONE NEXT TO THEM THIS IS INFURIATING
The hunter-gatherer explanation is total bullshit FYI. You think gatherers (women or not) relied on close color differentiation over the shape of the leaves/flowers/etc.? You think hunters (men or not) didn’t rely on close color differentiation to spot camouflaged prey?
It’s not even that men aren’t always able to tell that two similar colors are different in shade or hue. It’s just that men, unlike women, generally aren’t exposed to thousands of beauty products every year/month/week, each with a UNIQUE color name.
How many times have you seen a man ridiculed for wearing colors or shades that don’t match well enough? How many men have had to stand in an aisle at Walmart and make a conscious choice between orchid and amethyst?
If you think for a second that women being able to differentiate and assign names to varying hues is due to some pseudoscientific ancient human adaptation bullshit and not due to the fact that women have to survive being bogged down daily and from childhood by ridiculous beauty standards and expectations and products, then I will personally papercut your shins until you can tell me whether your sexist blood is crimson, scarlet, or ruby.
Not to disagree with the last post completely, as I believe that the biggest reason for the difference is exposure, as they said, and not to reinforce the stereotype of hunter man and gatherer woman, which was not likely always so distinct but I feel it should be pointed out that colour blindness might not actually be such a bad thing for a hunter. There are reasons why it might actually help to see through camouflage, since camouflage is fundamentally a colour based disguise. I mean, if colour vision were important for hunters, canines and felines would probably not be colour blind by human standards. Further, primates probably did evolve 3 colour vision (‘normal’ colour vision) for foraging fruit. To quote:
“Human dichromats have especial difficulty in detecting coloured fruit against dappled foliage that varies randomly in luminosity; it is suggested that yellow and orange tropical fruits have co-evolved with the trichromatic colour vision of Old World monkeys.”
Thus, if it were true that men did all the hunting, and women did all the gathering, then the evolutionary pressure probably would be towards men being colour blind, and women having normal colour vision.
That said, most men and most women have ‘normal’ colour vision, with little if any proven difference between the two, so yes, the reason men tend to lump colours together, and women tend to know more names for different shades is probably social.
But let’s not forget that men are also 16 times more likely to be colour blind in some way than women. And that tetrachromacy (super colour vision) may exist, and may even be not exceptionally rare. If it does exist, this super colour vision would present either mostly or exclusively in women. This could perhaps explain some of the myth, or at least some of the social forces at play.
PS Also I found this one study that suggested female peripheral colour vision is slightly superior to men’s, and though not particularly relevant, I thought it was interesting and thought I’d share.