Some of you may have noticed that Wendy and I have debated the color of her hair currently.

While I admit up front her profile pic shows red highlights, we have gone back and forth on her current color.

This weekend, watching Heroes of Cosplay, my other half commented on the "red hair" one of the players had... and we got into a debate on that....

I knew this :
www.livescience.com

n one part of the study, the researchers asked the volunteers to describe different colors shown to them. They found that the guys required a slightly longer wavelength of a color to experience the same shade as women and the men were less able to tell the difference between hues

What I learned, looking for that, was this :
www.post-gazette.com

The link I saw this morning found as many as 50% of the women in their study had the fourth type of color determining rod. The separation in the degree of red-sensitivity of the two red cones determines just how useful the fourth cone is.

digitaljournal.com

According to Discover Magazine, in 2007, Jordan, now at Newcastle, developed more powerful methods for identifying women with tetrachromatic vision. She chose 25 women all of whom had a fourth cone and tested them for tetrachromatic vision. She identified one woman tagged cDa29, who got all questions designed to detect an extended range of color vision correct. Jordan told Discover Magazine: “I was jumping up and down." After 20 years of search she had finally found a true tetrachomat.
Discover Magazine reports that Jay Neitz, vision researcher at the University of Washington, believes that all women with four cones have potential for tetrachromatic vision but most need to develop or awaken the ability. Neitz said: “Most of the things that we see as colored are manufactured by people who are trying to make colors that work for trichromats. It could be that our whole world is tuned to the world of the trichromat.”
Neittz also suggested that the natural environment may not have sufficient hues of colors to harness the full potentials of tetrachromatic vision. He said that people with four cones may be helped to develop full tetrachromatic vision if they regularly visit a lab where they are exposed to vision experiences that will help then develop the cognitive skills to identify a richer variety of hues.



So officially, while I cannot see the red in Wendy's hair, I must concede that doesn't mean it isn't there (and it is yet another example of male inferiority)

So my carrier as a graphic artist is all a shame. Damn Y chromosome, just hope my costumers don't find out.

No, it doesn't mean you can't do it. It does mean it is unlikely you will be the best on the planet.

Genetic advantages mean we shouldn't be surprised if most of the best graphic artists / interior designers / art athenticators (I suspect that advantage makes spotting a fake a lot easier, especially if a man without it did the fake) etc are female. It doesn't mean we cannot also do it, nor should we be barred from trying.

Women also have superior senses of smell, which explains why Herself routinely asks me "what that smell is" and I look at her blankly, and likely explains why the "Women's team" on Hell's kitchen routinely beats the Men's team on the blind palate test ("Taste" actually being largely scent based). That doesn't mean we can't be chefs either.

Mostly a joke, mostly, these kinds of studies usually raise a fuschia flag with me. The reporting of science in the media tends to go with hip science over well tread material that you can draw a solid theory out of. Not to say it's defiantly false, but given what I've read on subject before there is probably more difference between how I and any random person sees colors, then the averaged difference between a selection of women and men.

It's auburn

---

Rymaus Liena “Ellie” Dax

No, this is biology. It's part of the same reason Men make up 92% + of the colorblind community.

Color blindness, or color vision deficiency, is the inability or decreased ability to see color, or perceive color differences, under normal lighting conditions. Color blindness affects a significant percentage of the population.[1] There is no actual blindness but there is a deficiency of color vision. The most usual cause is a fault in the development of one or more sets of retinal cones that perceive color in light and transmit that information to the optic nerve. This type of color blindness is usually a sex-linked condition. The genes that produce photopigments are carried on the X chromosome; if some of these genes are missing or damaged, color blindness will be expressed in males with a higher probability than in females because males only have one X chromosome (in females, a functional gene on only one of the two X chromosomes is sufficient to yield the needed photopigments)

Women have significantly more color receptors.
Men have more that react to periphial vision, and you can make meaningful arguments about evolution causing that for the disposable gender, if you want.
Further, the color sense deficiency may have been helpful hunting in the jungle :

Evolutionary arguments
Any recessive genetic characteristic that persists at a level as high as 5% is generally regarded as having some sort of evolutionary advantage over the long term, such as better discrimination of color camouflaged objects especially in low-light conditions.[4][13] At one time, the U.S. Army found that color blind people could spot "camouflage" colors that fooled those with normal color vision.[14] It is worth noting, however, that the effect is frequency dependent, because, if the majority of people were dichromats, camouflage dyes would be selected on the basis of deceiving dichromats instead.

"A study showing gender differences is frequently followed by a better study that doesn't. Repeating a study with slightly modified conditions often completely reverses the findings. In studies showing a gender difference, the difference can sometimes be erased by offering a financial incentive for doing well.

Dr. Harriet Hall, Skeptic Volume 18-2 pg 22"

The colorblindness statistics are something to consider, but the evolutionary "finding" you referencing is still hotly debated. Like trying to connect the dots when you only have haft the dots, there no evidence to show that only or even primarily females gathered. We have no active records dating back past 3000BCE(when the Vadas and the Enuma Elish are suppose to have been written), so "facts" about a time tens of thousands of years before that(pre-agricultural revolution) are a tricky proposition. Finding remains can tell us much, but what sex held what position in the tribe is likely not one of them. That said, all of this assumes gender (and sex for that matter) as a binary, it's not it's a slider.

Indecently the first artificial in the above issue pertains to the misplaced trust we put in scientific reporting, such as main stream media outlets, pop science sites and of course Wikipedia.



Edited 2 times. Last edit at 08/27/13 10:26AM

There are things that are independent of biology. Like most things from a classroom.

Then there are things completely dependent on biology.... like rod and cone distribution in eyes, coming from the X chromosome.....

The tetra vision is exclusively female, because for it to be even possibly present, you need two X chromosomes. The improved distinction has been noted, repeated, and is statistically significant.

The first study on this came out in 2007 :

E-mail this article For Immediate Release
July 7, 2004
Contacts: Ellen Ternes, 301-405-4621 or eternes@umd.edu
Men and Women May Literally See the World Differently



COLLEGE PARK, MD. - So you're having that discussion about what color to paint the living room. She says "How about something in an Iced Mauve?" He says "You mean there are colors besides beige?" It could be you've encountered an ancient gender color divide that can be chalked up to evolution.

It's long been known that color blindness is caused, usually in men, by changes in the red and green opsin genes, the genes that enable humans to perceive color. But a University of Maryland study of randomly selected people from geographically diverse populations shows that normal variation in the red opsin gene may have been maintained by natural selection to give humans, especially women, a better perception of color.

In a study to be published in the September edition of The American Journal of Human Genetics (http://www.ajhg.org/journal/), Brian Verrelli, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland and now an assistant professor at Arizona State University, and Sarah Tishkoff, assistant professor of biology at the University of Maryland, found that one of the genes connected to color vision has maintained an unusual amount of genetic variation, possibly for millions of years of human evolutionary history.

Verrelli and Tishkoff studied the DNA of 236 men originating from various global populations from Africa, Europe, and Asia. They specifically looked at genetic variation of OPN1LW, the gene located on the X chromosome, which codes for an opsin protein that detects the red spectrum of light. This gene sometimes exchanges amino acids with a neighboring color vision gene, which codes for an opsin protein that detects the green spectrum of light.

The exchange of genetic material between the red and green color vision genes results in large amounts of genetic variation. However, this exchange can also sometimes go awry and result in color blindness. In fact, eight per cent of the world's men are color blind.

"We found 85 variants in this gene," Tishkoff said. "That's approximately three times higher than what you see at any other random gene in the human genome. Usually, it's a bad thing to have too much change in a gene, and natural selection gets rid of it. But in this case, we're seeing the reverse. Genetic exchange, or conversion, between the red and green opsin genes has created a greater number of variations than we typically see, and natural selection is acting to maintain that variation."

Those variations may have been especially important, Verrelli and Tishkoff speculate, in a time when humans were hunter-gatherers. Enhanced color perception would have allowed women, who were traditionally gatherers, to better discriminate among colored fruits, insects and background foliage.

The X Factor

The chromosomal difference between women and men is the key to why variation of the OPN1LW gene may have different results in women and men. Women have two X-chromosomes; men have only one X-chromosome and one Y-chromosome. Because this color vision gene resides on the X-chromosome, rare detrimental changes at this gene cause color-blindness in males, whereas females are likely to have at least one good copy of the gene.

However, Verrelli and Tishkoff show that color vision changes can be beneficial too. Because females can have two different versions of this gene, but men can have only one, females may be able to perceive a broader spectrum of colors in the red/orange range. "Men and women may be literally seeing the world differently," Tishkoff said

newsdesk.umd.edu

tl / dr It's not self reporting surveys only, and it's not pop science, unless you consider The American Journal of Human Geneticsa pop science publication.

I'm excited by the possibilites of someone being able to do this. It doesn't have to be me, for it to benefit all of us.

All right, I still remain skeptical, but lets take all of that at face value for now. Now the next questions come into it:

Is it beneficial? In what way? And how great is the benefit?

I get the whole "yay science" aspect. I suspect most of use wouldn't be alive today without it, but there's a difference between nifty and useful to consider along with that "yay".

Synesthesia, Supertaster, Dermo-optical Perception, ect fall into the nifty category. They don't carry a lot of vocational benefit, or even show offy benefit. A Supertaster doesn't necessarily make a better chief, primarily because they taste things so differently that there costumers almost certainly wouldn't taste what they taste. That is admittedly a subjective example and as it happens a personal one. I am a Supertaster(extraordinarily rare for a Caucasian male by the by) and I did work as a cook for about two years and often got comments that I under spiced the food. The point is that it's difficult to take some one who experiences thing differently and have them convey it to others in a subjective media like taste or the attractiveness/appearance of color. Just ask Vincent Van Gogh.

Whether or not I become "the best in the world" will likely have no correlation to this ability as it seems as if it might be a hindrance.

Pertaining to your message, I hadn't planed to say anything about about YXX, XXX, ect, because that was part of my gender/sex is not a binary statement above. In my experience the average America depiction of gender comes more from sitcoms then reality. And from my own studies of physiology I can't help but think there were more women with spears and men with berries then Victorian sensibilities(something we still live in the shadow of) would have been able to handle.

I also see it as irreverent: Take two people:
Person A has no natural talent for running, but has participated in cross country for several years

Person B has a natural talent for running, but does not run, jog or exercise regularly.

You don't need a study to know who will win a foot race.

But now lets say person A is smaller and has a higher body fat ratio then Person B.

The odds still favor the trained, that might not have always been the case, but we've gotten very good at training/teaching over the millennials, but one thing we're still pretty new at is figuring out genetics.

This kind of thing is the essence of nature vs nurture. Even if you gain a befit from haveing "better" eyes it's pretty meaningless without training and countless other factors that make up the task(s) in question.

Science is about asking questions, but more pertinently it's about asking the right questions.

For an example of the wrong question see Toshi Kanazawa of Psychology Today. This "professional" has put out such work as "studies into find out into why black women are so much less attractive" and "why smart females are evolutionary dead ends". This is a rather extreme example and thankful he is no longer taken very seriously by actual scientific publications, but he's pretty sincere about this tripe.

Gender is still a charged topic and it's not unfair to ask how many studies by even legitimate research institutes are tainted by the bias the we are all surrounded by daily. I'm not even sure if these kind of things can be tackled in an objective way.



Edited 2 times. Last edit at 08/27/13 12:48PM

Ok... this is thread drift.

But since we drifted.

There are objectively different things :
Men are, on average, taller, physically stronger (you can make a list, but lets stop)

There are women who are stronger and taller than the average man, and probably a few that are taller and stronger than most men. But the statistical likelihood of a woman being the stongest individual alive is near nil.

Women have better balance, are more flexible, and have higher endurance... also among other things.
There are men that care very flexible, and can balance themselves well. but...
The best gymnasts in the widest range of events will be women. They have one VERY overwhelming advantage : A lower center of gravity. There's a string of bar bets that plays on male ego, and puts "anything she can do, I can do" where it belongs, in the trash. Men cannot do everything women can do. Anything where a lower center of gravity is required, for instance, men will fail at every single time (unless they cheat, of course)

Desire, interest, and training trump disinterest everywhere. Everyone should be allowed to do, or at least attempt, any occupation they want. And why shouldn't they; the planet has what, 7 billion people? The best person at any one occupation likely isn't going to be able to take care of everyone. But given the "best in the world" candidates should all have the training, desire, and interest to try, it is reasonable to suspect that any and all advantages will benefit then,.

The memory advantages of the leads on Unforgettable and Suits are amazing (and I believe somewhat fictionalized for advantage) and its hard to think they wouldn't be better at almost any occupation where memory was important.

I don't know what use tetracolor vision may have. I don't have it, so it's hard to say. I know full color vision is useful, and yet if I were colorblind, I might wonder how big a deal it was to differenciate colors. Obviously it's helpful, so I suspect that kind of enhancement might detect things we can't otherwise.

I do know I can't see the red in Wendy's hair, despite being assured its there, and despite testing normal on all colorblind tests.

Growing up I had a friend named Chris who was very athletic, every sport we played they shined in. Chris loved football, played it all the time, before to long the middle school tryouts were upon us, only Chris made the team. Chris had what is usually considered the perfect body for football tall, muscular, but also a little heavy. Near, every game Chris's team cleaned up and that was something our town was proud of, because the boys football team rarely won.

I suspect most people knew where I was going with that, but Christine had to stop playing her junior year because that's when the program ended. Girls sports tend to end up on the budgetary chopping block more often then they should, in this case the excuse that one girl got hurt was used(a minor leg injury in football, shocking I know).

Statement like men are generally stronger, women more flexible are true in isolation, but we don't live that way. The fact that the best gymnasts are women are women says no more then then the best baby sitters being women, it might just because women are considered as best and are often the only ones considered for the job first. It can be about opportunity, but more often it's the limits we place on ourselfs, or rather our children and can have really bad results.

I think Chris really did have a chance of being amazing, the best, maybe not, but she had no opportunity. Even if the program had continued there's almost no way she could have played in college or tried out for a professional team. Possibly worse then that is the way other people tried to "help" her get over it: "Well it was fun for a while, but it really is a boy sport". Why? Who gets to decide that?

We put people in these boxes marked male or female and expect them to fill gender roles that are often hilariously fictional. Born of a time when science was in it's infancy and female hysteria was a real medical illness. Said roles start so young that it is a literal impossibility to say how much of you, me, anyone is our imposed gender role and how much is really what we would do without those expectations. Behave can change the way our bodies turn out, DNA is mostly stagnate, but RNA is not, hence why twins raised apart develop differently.

The male and female body is almost completely the same, both have corresponding parts, even the sexual organs, the very aspect that "should" make us different is largely the same, just in a different shape to reflect it's function. When potential is stated as fact based on noting more then these limits it's stretching the data past it's rational limit. The fact that men are general better then something, does not mean a women will not be born, or more importantly raised who is greater then all who came before. It just means we haven't seen it yet.

I think it's a disservice to the species to put people in societal role based on the shape of there genitals, humanities so much more diverse then that and any small difference caused by sex can quickly disappear in a ocean of individuality.

I amend my statement above maybe Chris could have been the best, in a world where she was told she could.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 08/28/13 08:48AM

I'm not advocating putting anyone in roles at all, and absolutely she could and should be allowed to try and compete in anything she wants.

But no, the bodies are very different.

And (just to be clear here) most of the advantages go to the female form. The male gender, like the males of most species, is the disposable gender in species survival. We're not as bad off as those males that die as a result of reproductive acts.

Males die more during gestation; they get ill more easily, they die younger, they are more prone to a myraid of illnesses. I'm not going to do the whole list; it'll only depress us both.

Men have more upper body strength. A lot more, on average. Still more than that, at the huge upper end of the bell curve.

Current male bench press record : 1075 pounds
The current women's record is 600 pounds.
Same woman holds most of the records : en.wikipedia.org
www.beccaswanson.com

None of that means a woman couldn't get on a football team, and it certainly doesn't mean she shouldn't try . She can lift out-bench me by a laughable margin. She might be able to outbench some of the NFL.

The very best weightlifters (to keep the stat obvious) will be male. It's a long way from 600 to 1075.
That doesn't mean 600 isn't amazing, or that she shouldn't do power-lifting as a career. I'm never going to bench 600 because I don't have the genes for it. My body frame can't pack on that much. I'm 5'10" and medium framed for a man.

We could do this with height, too. It's closer there, and height is not the only key to success in, say, basketball. The tallest confirmed male is about 10" taller than the tallest confirmed female.... and there are many more examples of exceptional heighted men than women (again, not me, I'm 5'10")

en.wikipedia.org

And (broken record) this doesn't mean a shorter person of either gender shouldn't try and excel at basketball. It just shouldn't surprise anyone if most of the players in the NBA are very tall.

With women, it mostly "it is unlikely you will be the best, due to genes." It doesn't mean they can't be very good, or better than the average man. With men, it is more likely "Your center of gravity prevents you from being able to do this well, if at all." Sometimes its "Your height / weight / weight to muscle ratio" makes this much harder for you."

The best gymnasts are women because they have a lower center of gravity, which makes much of the events easier, rotating around the middle of the body, not the upper body.