infants were quicker to recognize a color from a new category if it appeared in their left visual field, which sends inputs to the right hemisphere of the brain. Adults, on the other hand, were quicker to recognize a new color category if it appeared in their right visual field, which corresponds to the left hemisphere, where the language centers reside.
It means that the word people would use to describe what we would call red in each language means pretty much the same range of colors (which isn't true for other colors).
Sometimes, blue and green are different shades of the same colour, sometimes light blue and dark blue are two different colours, some languages consider pink to just be lighter red etc.
So, the title claims that the colour red is always red, regardless of the language.
I believe it's so in russian
> some languages consider pink to just be lighter red
This is interesting. Here in the UK pink is generally described and accepted as light red, but I've always considered it to be a separate colour, and I met someone who mentioned he though the same, so it's not just me.
There's light red but to my eyes that is qualitatively different to this https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/shock...
Any other views? Perhaps someone with knowledge of chromatics can better resolve the question.
thanks
But looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_pink it appears to lump your magenta (red/purple) into the same category as red/white. So really we've got 2 categories with the same name of 'pink'? 2 different things?
“Pink and magenta have the same hue. What distinction there is to be found between magenta and pink lies along other axes than that of hue [i.e. saturation and value]. All pinks are magenta and all magentas are purple, and by extension, pink is a purple. However, it does not work the other direction: it does not mean that all purples are magenta nor that all magentas are pink, let alone that all purples are pink.”
(Visit the link for a more detailed picture of the differences)