(As far as I can tell, I am not even slightly colorblind.)
I really want this linguistics thing to be known, because I think it's a sufficient explanation that _people just name colors differently and that's fine._
It also doesn't impact much one's life... unless you have to read resistor values every day.
They may not be trustworthy as they are selling something.
However, I took some of the tests (I've never been diagnosed with color blindness by a medical professional) and the results were interesting.
The first couple of tests show a partial ring in a different background, like a rotated "C" and ask you to click on the gap as the contrast gets fainter.
The red-green gap test was easy for me, and I got 100%.
The "Tritan (Blue)" test which might be the relevant one to what you are talking about, was difficult, and it said I was "severely" deficient.
However, after you take that test, it shows two spectrums and says if you are color blind in this sense they should look the same. They look very different to me, no question.
So then I looked further and saw there is another test for the same type of deficiency, which is called the "mosaic" test, I think, where there is a small square made up of a few "tiles" that is a different color and you have to click on it. This one I got mostly right, and it ended up saying I was "slightly" deficient.
It occurs to me, that with LED lights everywhere, and the LED screens on phones, the color deficiency in online tests could be coming from a compromised spectrum of light, not from one's eyesight.
I don't quite understand how disagreeing about what to call colors on the spectrum from blue to green can be a deficiency. A rose by any other name... If you can differentiate between colors that are more blue and ones that are more green, then what significance is a label?
As I say, lighting is important not to overlook.
My first car was basically turquoise, and I tended to think of it as blue or blue-green. Other people did call it green, but for me, there was nuance due to seeing it under many different settings. Under sodium lights, it would look quite blue and not green, and unpleasant to my eye. Under indirect sunlight, it would be blue-green and jewel like.
For reference, while it was a Honda color from many years ago that isn't easy to find good pictures of now, pictures from a GIS for "bmw atlantis blue" show cars that look like exactly the same color to me.
On the other hand "porsche lizard green" does not look blue to me in the least.
"Jade green" seems to me predictably a blue-green color that is greener than turquoise, but still perceptibly bluish.
Colors called "chartreuse" generally look to me like green with a hint of yellow.
For comparison here's what an "almost passing" image looks like: https://www.colorlitelens.com/images/test/T1.jpg -- the blue section should look a bit darker on the bottom spectrum, and it's a bit more "pastel" in general (but yeah, monitors can confound this a lot).
If they don't look the same to you, it's because something got wrong on the test, and you should discard the result.
I can attest that those kinds of tests work well even on a screen, maybe not this one (I failed it in approximately the same way I fail every one, so it probably does). If you are in doubt, just show the test (or that color spectrum at the last page) to another person and ask if they can solve it. It is really disconcerting discovering that you don't see colors that everybody else does, and doubting the test is the reaction that nearly everybody has.
Anyway, it may be the case that you just see different colors. I know I can see some UV light that most people can't.
(Oh, and if the spectra looked different, that probably means you made mistakes in the test, getting an error on some image that you could see.)
So I took a photo and looked up the RGB values of the pixels to see if it was more green or blue. Turned out it was basically equal values for both. I found that very interesting.
That's why you hear all those stories about men arguing with their wives about blue vs. green.
No, its not.
It is, on the other hand, well-established that, on average, female brains are better at distinguishing shades within and between “blue” and “green" (and, really, fine distinctions in colors in general) than male brains are on average. (Similarly, male brains are better at perceiving distinctions in brightness than female brains.)
They feed signal in to the brain.
You wouldn't say your nostrils or mouth or skin or ears are part of the brain. Why would eyes be different?
> In vertebrate embryonic development, the retina and the optic nerve originate as outgrowths of the developing brain, specifically the embryonic diencephalon; thus, the retina is considered part of the central nervous system (CNS) and is actually brain tissue.[2][3]
From https://www.britannica.com/science/retina
> Retina, layer of nervous tissue that covers the inside of the back two-thirds of the eyeball,
Anyway. I'm still not convinced eyes = retina = brain so ill leave it there.
That said, I expect you weren't meaning to restrict consideration to the physical eyes (the distinction does not seem relevant to the previous discussion) and using "eyes" as synecdoche for the entire visual perceptual system seems entirely reasonable (making dragonwriter's a potentially interesting clarification but not a disagreement).
I think your previous comment didn't quite do its job, and including this would've been a big improvement, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯