Color Neutral walkthrough

[qqwref]

this being said, nobody is truly color neutral, because no matter how much you train your mind, black will still offer quicker recognition on the cube than yellow.

This is pseudoscientific BS. Besides, who the hell puts black on their 3x3?

pardon my language, but you're an idiot for thinking that. it's a basic fact -- common sense, even -- that certain colors (usually very dark or very bright) are seen before others by the human eye. this technique has been used by artists to emphasize certain parts of a painting for centuries.

and yes, i put black on my 3x3. why on earth would you have a problem with that?

If very dark or very bright colors are such an obstacle to you being color neutral, don't use them! It's perfectly possible to have all the colors be about the same darkness, while still having clearly different hues. And as for "black will always offer quicker recognition than yellow" - actually yellow is near the peak of the human visual response curve (the peak is yellow-green, about the same color as a tennis ball), so it is one of the EASIEST colors to recognize. In cubing, though, anything with high enough contrast is easy to recognize... just keep your colors distinct, and don't have any that are overpoweringly dark or bright, and color neutrality will be very possible indeed.

Oh, and apparently you didn't understand what I was saying about black. Putting black on your 3x3 is pretty rare, so it's very silly on your part to say that "nobody is truly color neutral because ... black will still offer quicker recognition on the cube than yellow", as if everyone was forced to have black and yellow on their cube.


PS: There's a big difference between "most color-neutral crosses are <5 moves" (which is false) and "on average, the best color-neutral cross is <5 moves" (which is true). Stop with the fail.

 

[Johannes91]

i shouldn't have said before that it's impossible to be color-neutral. it's just very difficult.

It's only difficult if you've already spent a lot of time being non-neutral, because then you have to unlearn it. When you were doing your very first solves, would using some other color than white for cross have been any harder?

 

[holypasta]

in an attempt to conserve screen real-estate, i shall use @s rather than quotes.

@ellis: 1) please justify.
2) obviously, i bent the fact, but did you even look at my link? the statistic is that most neutral crosses are 4.81 moves. 4.81 is less than 5.

@vault: same thing i said to ellis. 5.81 is less than 6.

@ethan: relevance, please?

@shelley: my point is that the eye is drawn to certain colors, not that those colors literally appear first.

@vault: please, give some evidence rather than just contradicting me. and yes, there are three colors on every pair, but only one color is on every pair. (lol, very badly worded. do you get it?) and sorry, but i'm not going to "stop before i get farther behind." i stand by my opinion.

@qqwref: fair enough.
P.S.: refer to the reply i wrote to ellis.

@johannes: i actually agree, now that i've tried to become neutral myself.

 

[Ellis]

ughh... 4.81 moves is NOT less than 5 in terms of move count. Why not? Because you can't do .81 moves. Your link says exactly the same thing Stefan's did but with less information. Go ahead, add up the numbers from Stefan's link. I'm sure you'll find that there are less cases that are 4 and below than 5 and above. What you're saying is exactly this: Most color neutral crosses can be done in less than 5 moves. It's a false statement and you have the numbers to prove it. The correct statement would have been more like "Most optimal color neutral crosses can be done in 5 moves or less", or the alternative qqwerf gave.

Edit- just looking again quickly at Stefan's link, it looks like there are more optimal cases that are exactly 5 moves than there are for less than 5 moves. So you can even disregard any cases over 5 moves and your statement is still false.

As for your other point. You said black is always recognized faster than yellow no matter how much you train yourself. I just think that is false, or at least something you can't really prove. Same idea with no one is truly color neutral. In other words, pseudoscientific bs.

edit2- I don't know why you asked me to justify this when you've already accepted qqwerf's argument. Or were you actually asking my to justify why he isn't an idiot, which is the only other thing I said.

 

[holypasta]

ughh... 4.81 moves is NOT less than 5 in terms of move count. Why not? Because you can't do .81 moves.

yes; i've already admitted that i bent that fact. and what's with the ''ughh''? at least have some poise in your arguments.

As for your other point. You said black is always recognized faster than yellow no matter how much you train yourself. I just think that is false, or at least something you can't really prove.

fair enough.

Same idea with no one is truly color neutral. In other words, pseudoscientific bs.

i believe i've already taken back that statement.
...wow. you really like the phrase, ''pseudoscientific BS,'' don't you?

I don't know why you asked me to justify this when you've already accepted qqwerf's argument. Or were you actually asking my to justify why he isn't an idiot, which is the only other thing I said.

i meant that you, in particular, should have justified your statement. you should have told me why he was right. don't just type random stuff without giving your reasoning.

 

[Ellis]

I was really only looking at what you said to me. You asked me to "justify", and I did. Maybe you should have said- "I see the point, but next time you should justify your statements".

I felt the need to clarify the 4.81 because it didn't seem like you ever learned the mistake you made. Your first response was "obviously, I bent the fact". What does that even mean... to bend a fact? You mean you said someone failed and justified it with a false statement? And no it didn't seem like it was obvious to you because at no point did you say that you had made a mistake. It looked like you still hadn't learned anything when you replied to vault- "same thing i said to ellis. 5.81 is less than 6." That doesn't mean you didn't claim something false to be true, no matter how many facts you bend.

"you really like the phrase, ''pseudoscientific BS,'' don't you?"
Not really. I only said it once, and I only chose that particular wording because it was what qqwerf said. I was trying to back up his words after all.

 

[spdqbr]

*snip* The "basic fact" is light in the same medium travels at the same speed regardless of wavelength. How can one color be seen before another?

<threadJack>
It's been a while since optics, but doesn't chromatic aberration in refracting telescopes and the fact that prisms work show this to be true? Different media can have different refractive indices based on wavelength, and refractive index determines the amount of slowing a wave undergoes when entering a new medium. I never fully got the difference between the phase velocity and the group velocity of waves though, so it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.
</threadJack>

And I'm pretty sure that being color neutral hurts me more than it helps me. I just can't pass up the easy crosses!

 

[DavidWoner]

http://www.cubezone.be/crossstudy.html

51.16% of single color crosses are exactly 6 moves. That means its mathematically impossible for "most single color crosses to be <6 moves"

55.41% of color neutral crosses are exactly 5 moves, which also mean that its mathematically impossible for "most color-neutral crosses to be <5 moves"

Now do you see why you were wrong?

And so what if only one color is on every pair? Its not the pairs that matter, its the pieces. Each of the 5 f2l colors occurs on 4 different pieces. So it doesn't matter if you have great recognition for one color, you will still only be able to rapidly find half the pieces of your f2l.

Also, lose the attitude.

 

[JLarsen]

holypasta any respect I had for you previously is gone. Just because you're a student at Oxford doesn't mean you know **** after a few short months of cubing. FYI.

 

[blah]

holypasta any respect I had for you previously is gone. Just because you're a student at Oxford doesn't mean you know **** after a few short months of cubing. FYI.

Ouch. I thought you were just enjoying the thread along the sidelines?

 

[Kian]

holypasta any respect I had for you previously is gone. Just because you're a student at Oxford doesn't mean you know **** after a few short months of cubing. FYI.

oxford academy, not university. he's 13.

 

[blah]

oxford academy, not university. he's 13.

Now that makes sense.

 

[brunson]

And I'm pretty sure that being color neutral hurts me more than it helps me. I just can't pass up the easy crosses!

<threadhijack>
Shout out to mah home boi!!! Whazzup, Daniel? Nice license place.
</threadhijack>

I think I would have probably gotten as fast as I am sooner than I did without being color neutral, but I have too many other bad habits that affect my speed. I went a month only solving white cross and it did nothing for my times. I finally gave it up couldn't pass on my 100th sub 5 move cross.

I'm pretty burnt out on these discussions, so I'm pretty much falling back on my stance with the eternal emacs vs. vi debate. Everyone I know that uses emacs can use vi and thinks emacs is better. No one that I know that thinks vi is better than emacs knows how to use emacs well. If you have never been color neutral, then your opinion on the subject doesn't matter a fat rat's a** to me.

 

[JLarsen]

holypasta any respect I had for you previously is gone. Just because you're a student at Oxford doesn't mean you know **** after a few short months of cubing. FYI.

Ouch. I thought you were just enjoying the thread along the sidelines?

I enjoyed the first couple pages...especially the video. These last couple pages the stubborn people who are arguing against the benefits of color neutrality have stopped giving arguments, and just started attempting to mock the pros that have infinitely more knowledge on the subject by quoting posts in pieces, and trying to come up with snappy insults for every thing they've said instead of making valid arguments, and that pisses me off. I mean who the **** thinks Gottlieb is an idiot? In my mind someone who is so new should not have any confidence in any of their ideas. If I am new to subject, and find myself often asking questions, then I don't think my "opinion" is more valid than someone many times better than me, nor do I think a "yo moma is fat" kind of mindless insulting response is necessary when someone corrects an apparent mistake.

 

[spdqbr]

And I'm pretty sure that being color neutral hurts me more than it helps me. I just can't pass up the easy crosses!

<threadhijack>
Shout out to mah home boi!!! Whazzup, Daniel? Nice license place.
</threadhijack>

I think I would have probably gotten as fast as I am sooner than I did without being color neutral, but I have too many other bad habits that affect my speed. I went a month only solving white cross and it did nothing for my times. I finally gave it up couldn't pass on my 100th sub 5 move cross.

I'm pretty burnt out on these discussions, so I'm pretty much falling back on my stance with the eternal emacs vs. vi debate. Everyone I know that uses emacs can use vi and thinks emacs is better. No one that I know that thinks vi is better than emacs knows how to use emacs well. If you have never been color neutral, then your opinion on the subject doesn't matter a fat rat's a** to me.

Eric how's things in the north? Perhaps I'll try going color un-neutral for a while to see if I have a similar experience. Also, I love vi... but I've never tried emacs. I'll add it to my list of things to try.

 

[holypasta]

you know what i just realized? i don't really care anymore. we aren't even really arguing about color neutrality anymore; everybody is just trying to flame me based on poor word choice.

i surrender.

--EDIT: just a few things.

@panda dude: did i imply that i know everything because i go to oxford?

@kian and blah: i'm not sure what you mean by, "now that makes sense." oxford academy is the second-highest ranked high school in America.

 

[Gparker]

you know what i just realized? i don't really care anymore. we aren't even really arguing about color neutrality anymore; everybody is just trying to flame me based on poor word choice.

i surrender.

--EDIT: just a few things.

@panda dude: did i imply that i know everything because i go to oxford?

@kian and blah: i'm not sure what you mean by, "now that makes sense." oxford academy is the second-highest ranked high school in America.

well it obviously hasnt helped you any. the 2nd highest ranked school cant even teach you and your failing powers

 

[Kian]

you know what i just realized? i don't really care anymore. we aren't even really arguing about color neutrality anymore; everybody is just trying to flame me based on poor word choice.

i surrender.

--EDIT: just a few things.

@panda dude: did i imply that i know everything because i go to oxford?

@kian and blah: i'm not sure what you mean by, "now that makes sense." oxford academy is the second-highest ranked high school in America.

i'm not saying anything about your school, i'm saying that the person misinterpreted where you were in school. i know nothing about oxford academy.

but yeah, you need to calm down on these threads, you're being really really aggressive.

 

[JLarsen]

Here is the specific moment were YOU, not others here like qqwerf and stefan started flaming based on word choice.

"i believe i've already taken back that statement.
...wow. you really like the phrase, ''pseudoscientific BS,'' don't you?"

The only one here that's done that is you. Another thing. You very will did imply that you knew everything, because you insisted that there was nothing wrong with anything you've said, even though the ENTIRE community argued against you, and you called the professionals all idiots when they pointed out what was wrong with your "opinion". You can have your "opinions" but when they conflict with fact, they're no longer valid.

 

[Stefan]

2) obviously, i bent the fact, but did you even look at my link? the statistic is that most neutral crosses are 4.81 moves.

Sorry I'm late but I have to thank you so much for making me laugh loud and long like I haven't in weeks (cause, well, not "most" but *zero* neutral crosses are 4.81 moves). And thanks to Panda for his collection of these threads.