By question two I had to close out. I refuse to categorize teal as a binary blue or green, it is simultaneously both and neither. This is rage bait for designers lmao
By question two I had to close out. I refuse to categorize teal as a binary blue or green, it is simultaneously both and neither. This is rage bait for designers lmao
Sure but it isn't classifying actual hues it's figuring out the "boundary" between blue and green. I apparently nailed the population median (174). interestingly I retook it on my iphone and I got...
Sure but it isn't classifying actual hues it's figuring out the "boundary" between blue and green. I apparently nailed the population median (174).
interestingly I retook it on my iphone and I got 175 as my boundary. Kind of obviously the quality of a screen is gonna change these results.
I know it isn't but like "gun to your head" is this blue or green? I guess I've had enough experiences where someone was something was blue and I disagreed that it was clearly more of a green...
I know it isn't but like "gun to your head" is this blue or green? I guess I've had enough experiences where someone was something was blue and I disagreed that it was clearly more of a green shade.
Another example is a business I worked for had a product that was supposed to be red, but the plant kept sending us something that looked pink. It took a lot of back and forth to get a a true red color.
I've literally never argued with someone on whether something was blue or green or red or pink. If my customer sent something pink, I'd make it pink 🤷♀️. Perhaps it's my autism, but I don't...
I've literally never argued with someone on whether something was blue or green or red or pink. If my customer sent something pink, I'd make it pink 🤷♀️. Perhaps it's my autism, but I don't understand why people have such strong attachment to labels? All conversations require some adjustment of language to adapt to how the other person defines certain words. If red is pink, then I'd ask questions about how they define pink, or use other words like 'dark' and 'light' to convey whatever meaning is necessary to address some red/pink confusion.
I said argument, but I mean minor disagreement. And not in a professional setting, more like a sister saying she liked the "blue" flowers on her dress and me saying "hmm they look more green to...
I said argument, but I mean minor disagreement. And not in a professional setting, more like a sister saying she liked the "blue" flowers on her dress and me saying "hmm they look more green to me."
The "red" snafu was with our plant in Korea, we were a small business and we began producing a "red" coolant. Many of us stateside were like "yeah I guess that's kind of red, but it's pretty light." So we asked the plant to make it more red, it came back more pinkish. It was an odd situation that took quite a bit of back and forth before is was like vibrant red.
I mean, at a certain point the color boundary exists arbitrarily. You're just adding extra steps. If I asked you where the boundary between red and white is, and you said "there is none, that's...
I mean, at a certain point the color boundary exists arbitrarily. You're just adding extra steps. If I asked you where the boundary between red and white is, and you said "there is none, that's what pink is", the obvious next question is "where's the boundary between pink and red". You could give me some other name for a hue that sits there, but then I could ask where's the boundary between that and red. At a certain point you just have to make an arbitrary call, because color is a physical property that's continuous, not discreet; there are literally infinite colors, so at a certain point we just have to make an arbitrary distinction of where that boundary is, because we don't have, nor would we really want to have infinite words to describe them.
I don't view colors as a boundary, but rather a descriptor. Calling something fast can beg the question of how fast, and even cause the creation of words to describe varying levels of fast, but...
I don't view colors as a boundary, but rather a descriptor. Calling something fast can beg the question of how fast, and even cause the creation of words to describe varying levels of fast, but ultimately there is unlimited fastness just like there is unlimited color. We do not need to have distinctions of where that boundary is, even when we must make decisions along that boundary - we can simply use other words like "I like the redder one", so long as we have established which one is redder (the left one, the first one, and other language is probably more appropriate when we are approaching two very similar items). In short, I disagree, and cannot answer your question of where the boundary is between any two colors.
I bring this up not because I think it’s a gotcha and counters your point (it doesn’t) but just to point out your example has flaws and a different example might be worth considering... There...
but ultimately there is unlimited fastness just like there is unlimited color
I bring this up not because I think it’s a gotcha and counters your point (it doesn’t) but just to point out your example has flaws and a different example might be worth considering...
There isn’t unlimited fastness, because the speed of light introduces a literal unsurpassable upper boundary.
Having said that, there are uncountably infinite speeds between “at rest” and “the speed of light” so maybe that’s closer to your point, and I just misinterpreted?
Yes, but they're still considered shades of blue. So I wouldn't say that pink is a shade of red (at least not always), but I'd still say that light blue is blue, even in Russian where it has a...
In Russian they consider lighter and darker blues to be different colors
Yes, but they're still considered shades of blue. So I wouldn't say that pink is a shade of red (at least not always), but I'd still say that light blue is blue, even in Russian where it has a separate name.
It's also interesting that the colors of the rainbow in English go "blue - indigo (dark blue) - violet", while in Russian it's "light blue - blue - violet", so there's a difference in which color of the rainbow is considered the default blue one.
Indigo is only in there because Isaac Newton was a weirdo and thought 7 was a holy and powerful number and he was the most influential guy playing with prisms at the time.
Indigo is only in there because Isaac Newton was a weirdo and thought 7 was a holy and powerful number and he was the most influential guy playing with prisms at the time.
I am a native English speaker (albeit one who does not have an internal monologue), and I don't think of "light blue" and "blue" as being different shades of the same color, either. They feel like...
I am a native English speaker (albeit one who does not have an internal monologue), and I don't think of "light blue" and "blue" as being different shades of the same color, either. They feel like two different (though adjacent) colors that are simply referred to by the same name in casual speech. When I want to be more exacting, I would call them "cyan" and "blue".
I think this is part of what's frustrating about this quiz. I suspect many, or even most, people intuit that cyan and blue are pretty fundamentally different colors (as different as yellow and green, with yellow and cyan both being primary pigment colors, and blue and green both being secondary colors that are created by a mix of two primary colors) so we have come up with a lot of words like "teal" and "turquoise" to try to capture that difference.
Likewise, we have come up with words like "pink" and "purple" to try to capture the difference between red (secondary color) and magenta (primary color).
I'm not even a designer and it annoyed me. But I decided to go with, "is this more blue or green" to make my answer though I was like that's not either!
I'm not even a designer and it annoyed me. But I decided to go with, "is this more blue or green" to make my answer though I was like that's not either!
Here are the color names most disproportionately popular among men:
Penis
Gay
WTF
Dunno
Baige
I … that’s not my typo in #5—the only actual color in the list really is a misspelling of “beige”. And keep in mind, this is based on the number of unique people who answered the color, not the number of times they typed it. This isn’t just the effect of a couple spammers. In fact, this is after the spamfilter.
Me, my wife, and kid, multiple tries on multiple devices and room lighting, all consistently scored between 172 and 175, with no more than a point or two deviation. My hunch is that this is the...
Me, my wife, and kid, multiple tries on multiple devices and room lighting, all consistently scored between 172 and 175, with no more than a point or two deviation.
My hunch is that this is the 'correct' answer, as my wife grew up in a family framing shop and was taught to identify very subtle color differences from a very young age. It is everybody else who is wrong :)
I find it really interesting to hear about people's consistent results here. I'm colour blind, but the common type. Taking the test a couple of times I'm basically guessing to be honest at some of...
I find it really interesting to hear about people's consistent results here.
I'm colour blind, but the common type.
Taking the test a couple of times I'm basically guessing to be honest at some of the shades on the border which skews my results every damn time.
Thing is I have no idea why I don't have consistency in colour. You'd think that if I saw things in a different shade I'd learn them the same as the rest of the world but here we are!
I disagree. Especially since you’re colourblind, everyone else is evaluating colour based on three strong, trustworthy signals in their eyeballs. If you’ve got two that overlap or send weaker...
Thing is I have no idea why I don't have consistency in colour. You'd think that if I saw things in a different shade I'd learn them the same as the rest of the world but here we are!
I disagree. Especially since you’re colourblind, everyone else is evaluating colour based on three strong, trustworthy signals in their eyeballs. If you’ve got two that overlap or send weaker signals, I don’t think you’re being fair to yourself to expect the same outcomes.
I’m not sure if you have a maths background, but I imagine it like trying to identify a location on graph — if everyone else has three dimensions and three values, it’s easy to identify an exact point in space. But if someone asks you to identify that point when you only know the values along two of the dimensions, you can narrow it down to a small set of options, but without that third dimension you can only guess.
Bringing it back to this test in particular — if you’re red-green colourblind, even mildly, then trying to guess how much green is in a teal or cyan colour is just not going to work in your favour.
No, you're right that makes a lot of sense! Thanks for explaining that. I have read about the science behind being colour blind before but I won't lie, its not my strong suit and I don't fully...
No, you're right that makes a lot of sense! Thanks for explaining that.
I have read about the science behind being colour blind before but I won't lie, its not my strong suit and I don't fully understand how it all works. I'm more of physics/math guy so yeah, that does help a lot!
My score was 187 (apparently, 97% "bluer" than general population.) I'm told by this that "for you, turquoise is green." In and of itself, interesting. Where it dovetails into my thought...
My score was 187 (apparently, 97% "bluer" than general population.) I'm told by this that "for you, turquoise is green." In and of itself, interesting.
Where it dovetails into my thought processes, though, is the idea of "is my blue your blue," because even with this information, we have no Earthly idea. Let's say that you have a weird vision disorder, where your visual spectrum is shifted... red is green, green is blue, blue is red. Someone says to you that blue is the color of the sky. You see red, but everything people have ever described as blue is also red to you. So to you, yes, the sky is what people have always called blue, but without being able to see it through another person's eyes, you'd have no idea that the color you see is what they see when they accidentally open a blood vessel.
I guess what I'm getting at is, reality is a a lot more shared subjectivity than hard objectivity than we like to admit.
We have lots of idea, actually. Things like complimentary colors amd camouflage wouldn't hold up unless people had very similar color perception. This can be shown by people with measurably...
We have lots of idea, actually. Things like complimentary colors amd camouflage wouldn't hold up unless people had very similar color perception. This can be shown by people with measurably different color perception (colorblind spectrum) having a different experience with those concepts.
Except what works with camouflage isn't the exact wavelength of color, but the patterning and similarities to the desired environment. Purple and teal camouflage would be very obvious... unless...
Except what works with camouflage isn't the exact wavelength of color, but the patterning and similarities to the desired environment. Purple and teal camouflage would be very obvious... unless the plant life were also purple and teal.
I think they are referring to qualia, not to which wavelengths your eyes are physically capable of detecting. We can test the latter, but not the former.
I think they are referring to qualia, not to which wavelengths your eyes are physically capable of detecting. We can test the latter, but not the former.
The lines we draw between color names are culturally and linguistically variable, so I would hesitate to blame much on human color perception differences. There's a lot more variation worldwide in...
The lines we draw between color names are culturally and linguistically variable, so I would hesitate to blame much on human color perception differences. There's a lot more variation worldwide in color terms than you'd think. Plenty of languages use a single term to cover both blue and green, and that's one of the less exotic ways color terms can be divided differently. There are languages that don't have words for blue or green at all, but studies have shown speakers of these languages are still perfectly competent at sorting beads by colors they don't verbally distinguish -- the language we use for colors isn't strictly determined by our ability to perceive those colors (or vice-versa).
Well, that's kind of my point, is that the color of blood is different from the color of grass and the color of sky, but if someone truly perceived differently (but consistently), I don't think...
Well, that's kind of my point, is that the color of blood is different from the color of grass and the color of sky, but if someone truly perceived differently (but consistently), I don't think they or we would ever know. Which is the ultimate question, really: is a difference that no one knows is a difference really a difference?
Put another way... a person completely blind from birth has no concept of the color blue at all, but in the end, is that significant at all?
Yeah, I kinda understand what you're describing, but ultimately I don't think that color theory and the ways that color is used in art would look the way they do if people with normal color vision...
Yeah, I kinda understand what you're describing, but ultimately I don't think that color theory and the ways that color is used in art would look the way they do if people with normal color vision had wildly different qualia when it comes to perceiving color. The differences that exist, I think, would have to be pretty small and subtle to not be noticeable even just qualitatively, you know?
Which does lead into another avenue of thought... blue is a soothing color, red is a turbulent color, but really, isn't that due to the things that are colored that way? If blue were the color of...
Which does lead into another avenue of thought... blue is a soothing color, red is a turbulent color, but really, isn't that due to the things that are colored that way? If blue were the color of blood, of fire, of the face of someone enraged, would it still be as soothing?
There's no point to this line of thought, by the way, it's just something that's been rambling around in the back of my head for years now, and this seemed a good opportunity to let it out for a little air.
I'm getting 176, and my wife is getting 175, so close enough for us to continue to live harmoniously together. :) As an aside, this is a young enough domain that my default new domain blackholing...
I'm getting 176, and my wife is getting 175, so close enough for us to continue to live harmoniously together. :)
As an aside, this is a young enough domain that my default new domain blackholing initially blocked me getting to it.
Your wife is right, I also got a 175 >.> Now, I have partial color blindness, so I'm not sure I'm actually a good corroboration... but still, you're outvoted!
Your wife is right, I also got a 175 >.>
Now, I have partial color blindness, so I'm not sure I'm actually a good corroboration... but still, you're outvoted!
I’ve noticed wildly different results performing this on an iPhone indoors vs. outdoors. Presumably this is due to the automatic color calibration performed on the screen in response to ambient...
I’ve noticed wildly different results performing this on an iPhone indoors vs. outdoors. Presumably this is due to the automatic color calibration performed on the screen in response to ambient lighting conditions.
In Japanese, they have a word with no real distinction between the 2 colors (Ao or 青). It's really interesting topic, and if anyone is curious this article talks more about it.
In Japanese, they have a word with no real distinction between the 2 colors (Ao or 青). It's really interesting topic, and if anyone is curious this article talks more about it.
For more context, 青 means blue-green like the ocean. The "green" things it's used for are traffic lights and natural phenomenon (grass, vegetables, growth). Sky-blue (青空) is the classic blue and...
For more context, 青 means blue-green like the ocean. The "green" things it's used for are traffic lights and natural phenomenon (grass, vegetables, growth). Sky-blue (青空) is the classic blue and of course green (緑) is green.
I guess I'm the only one in this comment section who's heavily leaning towards the green side. I don't remember the exact score but apparently I'm "greener than 97% of the population". Most likely...
I guess I'm the only one in this comment section who's heavily leaning towards the green side. I don't remember the exact score but apparently I'm "greener than 97% of the population". Most likely a language thing, of course.
I got 176 on my monitor. So lean towards blue. The more middling examples shown I would normally just describe as turquise if asked in a normal setting though.
I got 176 on my monitor. So lean towards blue. The more middling examples shown I would normally just describe as turquise if asked in a normal setting though.
By question two I had to close out. I refuse to categorize teal as a binary blue or green, it is simultaneously both and neither. This is rage bait for designers lmao
Sure but it isn't classifying actual hues it's figuring out the "boundary" between blue and green. I apparently nailed the population median (174).
interestingly I retook it on my iphone and I got 175 as my boundary. Kind of obviously the quality of a screen is gonna change these results.
That's not how colors work!!! 😭
I know it isn't but like "gun to your head" is this blue or green? I guess I've had enough experiences where someone was something was blue and I disagreed that it was clearly more of a green shade.
Another example is a business I worked for had a product that was supposed to be red, but the plant kept sending us something that looked pink. It took a lot of back and forth to get a a true red color.
I've literally never argued with someone on whether something was blue or green or red or pink. If my customer sent something pink, I'd make it pink 🤷♀️. Perhaps it's my autism, but I don't understand why people have such strong attachment to labels? All conversations require some adjustment of language to adapt to how the other person defines certain words. If red is pink, then I'd ask questions about how they define pink, or use other words like 'dark' and 'light' to convey whatever meaning is necessary to address some red/pink confusion.
I said argument, but I mean minor disagreement. And not in a professional setting, more like a sister saying she liked the "blue" flowers on her dress and me saying "hmm they look more green to me."
The "red" snafu was with our plant in Korea, we were a small business and we began producing a "red" coolant. Many of us stateside were like "yeah I guess that's kind of red, but it's pretty light." So we asked the plant to make it more red, it came back more pinkish. It was an odd situation that took quite a bit of back and forth before is was like vibrant red.
I mean, at a certain point the color boundary exists arbitrarily. You're just adding extra steps. If I asked you where the boundary between red and white is, and you said "there is none, that's what pink is", the obvious next question is "where's the boundary between pink and red". You could give me some other name for a hue that sits there, but then I could ask where's the boundary between that and red. At a certain point you just have to make an arbitrary call, because color is a physical property that's continuous, not discreet; there are literally infinite colors, so at a certain point we just have to make an arbitrary distinction of where that boundary is, because we don't have, nor would we really want to have infinite words to describe them.
I don't view colors as a boundary, but rather a descriptor. Calling something fast can beg the question of how fast, and even cause the creation of words to describe varying levels of fast, but ultimately there is unlimited fastness just like there is unlimited color. We do not need to have distinctions of where that boundary is, even when we must make decisions along that boundary - we can simply use other words like "I like the redder one", so long as we have established which one is redder (the left one, the first one, and other language is probably more appropriate when we are approaching two very similar items). In short, I disagree, and cannot answer your question of where the boundary is between any two colors.
I bring this up not because I think it’s a gotcha and counters your point (it doesn’t) but just to point out your example has flaws and a different example might be worth considering...
There isn’t unlimited fastness, because the speed of light introduces a literal unsurpassable upper boundary.
Having said that, there are uncountably infinite speeds between “at rest” and “the speed of light” so maybe that’s closer to your point, and I just misinterpreted?
If it was showing like a box, it's almost impossible to get good red printed on cardboard.
My score was 179 on my phone and 175 on my big monitor. I'm not entirely sure I wasn't picking reasonably, though.
haha, same! We came up with words like teal, cyan, and turquoise for a reason!
In Russian they consider lighter and darker blues to be different colors, just as we do in English with pink and red.
Yes, but they're still considered shades of blue. So I wouldn't say that pink is a shade of red (at least not always), but I'd still say that light blue is blue, even in Russian where it has a separate name.
It's also interesting that the colors of the rainbow in English go "blue - indigo (dark blue) - violet", while in Russian it's "light blue - blue - violet", so there's a difference in which color of the rainbow is considered the default blue one.
Indigo is only in there because Isaac Newton was a weirdo and thought 7 was a holy and powerful number and he was the most influential guy playing with prisms at the time.
I am a native English speaker (albeit one who does not have an internal monologue), and I don't think of "light blue" and "blue" as being different shades of the same color, either. They feel like two different (though adjacent) colors that are simply referred to by the same name in casual speech. When I want to be more exacting, I would call them "cyan" and "blue".
I think this is part of what's frustrating about this quiz. I suspect many, or even most, people intuit that cyan and blue are pretty fundamentally different colors (as different as yellow and green, with yellow and cyan both being primary pigment colors, and blue and green both being secondary colors that are created by a mix of two primary colors) so we have come up with a lot of words like "teal" and "turquoise" to try to capture that difference.
Likewise, we have come up with words like "pink" and "purple" to try to capture the difference between red (secondary color) and magenta (primary color).
But light blue is not always cyan!
That and learning that brown doesn't exist.
ah, a fellow individual of culture! I didn't even need to click the link. :)
I'm not even a designer and it annoyed me. But I decided to go with, "is this more blue or green" to make my answer though I was like that's not either!
The best color name analysis writeup ever, from the author of XKCD
I have done this several times and get 173 every time.
I treat it as if I only knew the words blue and green in a language, which would I use.
Me, my wife, and kid, multiple tries on multiple devices and room lighting, all consistently scored between 172 and 175, with no more than a point or two deviation.
My hunch is that this is the 'correct' answer, as my wife grew up in a family framing shop and was taught to identify very subtle color differences from a very young age. It is everybody else who is wrong :)
Robins Egg Blue is carrying a lot of water in this for me I think
Yeah! I’m at 169, and I think this should be called a language test versus a color test.
I find it really interesting to hear about people's consistent results here.
I'm colour blind, but the common type.
Taking the test a couple of times I'm basically guessing to be honest at some of the shades on the border which skews my results every damn time.
Thing is I have no idea why I don't have consistency in colour. You'd think that if I saw things in a different shade I'd learn them the same as the rest of the world but here we are!
I disagree. Especially since you’re colourblind, everyone else is evaluating colour based on three strong, trustworthy signals in their eyeballs. If you’ve got two that overlap or send weaker signals, I don’t think you’re being fair to yourself to expect the same outcomes.
I’m not sure if you have a maths background, but I imagine it like trying to identify a location on graph — if everyone else has three dimensions and three values, it’s easy to identify an exact point in space. But if someone asks you to identify that point when you only know the values along two of the dimensions, you can narrow it down to a small set of options, but without that third dimension you can only guess.
Bringing it back to this test in particular — if you’re red-green colourblind, even mildly, then trying to guess how much green is in a teal or cyan colour is just not going to work in your favour.
No, you're right that makes a lot of sense! Thanks for explaining that.
I have read about the science behind being colour blind before but I won't lie, its not my strong suit and I don't fully understand how it all works. I'm more of physics/math guy so yeah, that does help a lot!
My score was 187 (apparently, 97% "bluer" than general population.) I'm told by this that "for you, turquoise is green." In and of itself, interesting.
Where it dovetails into my thought processes, though, is the idea of "is my blue your blue," because even with this information, we have no Earthly idea. Let's say that you have a weird vision disorder, where your visual spectrum is shifted... red is green, green is blue, blue is red. Someone says to you that blue is the color of the sky. You see red, but everything people have ever described as blue is also red to you. So to you, yes, the sky is what people have always called blue, but without being able to see it through another person's eyes, you'd have no idea that the color you see is what they see when they accidentally open a blood vessel.
I guess what I'm getting at is, reality is a a lot more shared subjectivity than hard objectivity than we like to admit.
We have lots of idea, actually. Things like complimentary colors amd camouflage wouldn't hold up unless people had very similar color perception. This can be shown by people with measurably different color perception (colorblind spectrum) having a different experience with those concepts.
Except what works with camouflage isn't the exact wavelength of color, but the patterning and similarities to the desired environment. Purple and teal camouflage would be very obvious... unless the plant life were also purple and teal.
I think they are referring to qualia, not to which wavelengths your eyes are physically capable of detecting. We can test the latter, but not the former.
The lines we draw between color names are culturally and linguistically variable, so I would hesitate to blame much on human color perception differences. There's a lot more variation worldwide in color terms than you'd think. Plenty of languages use a single term to cover both blue and green, and that's one of the less exotic ways color terms can be divided differently. There are languages that don't have words for blue or green at all, but studies have shown speakers of these languages are still perfectly competent at sorting beads by colors they don't verbally distinguish -- the language we use for colors isn't strictly determined by our ability to perceive those colors (or vice-versa).
Well, that's kind of my point, is that the color of blood is different from the color of grass and the color of sky, but if someone truly perceived differently (but consistently), I don't think they or we would ever know. Which is the ultimate question, really: is a difference that no one knows is a difference really a difference?
Put another way... a person completely blind from birth has no concept of the color blue at all, but in the end, is that significant at all?
Yeah, I kinda understand what you're describing, but ultimately I don't think that color theory and the ways that color is used in art would look the way they do if people with normal color vision had wildly different qualia when it comes to perceiving color. The differences that exist, I think, would have to be pretty small and subtle to not be noticeable even just qualitatively, you know?
Which does lead into another avenue of thought... blue is a soothing color, red is a turbulent color, but really, isn't that due to the things that are colored that way? If blue were the color of blood, of fire, of the face of someone enraged, would it still be as soothing?
There's no point to this line of thought, by the way, it's just something that's been rambling around in the back of my head for years now, and this seemed a good opportunity to let it out for a little air.
I'm getting 176, and my wife is getting 175, so close enough for us to continue to live harmoniously together. :)
As an aside, this is a young enough domain that my default new domain blackholing initially blocked me getting to it.
Your wife is right, I also got a 175 >.>
Now, I have partial color blindness, so I'm not sure I'm actually a good corroboration... but still, you're outvoted!
The key thing is we're all close enough to agree on paints at the paint store, lol!
I’ve noticed wildly different results performing this on an iPhone indoors vs. outdoors. Presumably this is due to the automatic color calibration performed on the screen in response to ambient lighting conditions.
Yeah this is called "TrueTone"; you can turn it off in your phone settings!
In Japanese, they have a word with no real distinction between the 2 colors (Ao or 青). It's really interesting topic, and if anyone is curious this article talks more about it.
For more context, 青 means blue-green like the ocean. The "green" things it's used for are traffic lights and natural phenomenon (grass, vegetables, growth). Sky-blue (青空) is the classic blue and of course green (緑) is green.
I guess I'm the only one in this comment section who's heavily leaning towards the green side. I don't remember the exact score but apparently I'm "greener than 97% of the population". Most likely a language thing, of course.
I think this is very dependent on your screen. I got very blue on my first go on my laptop, then showed my kids using my phone and got very green.
Apparently 180 is the nominal boundary between blue and green. So I'm on point 😆
184 for me - I'm pretty close.
173, greener than 63%
Turquoise I can confirm is blue(In most pictures).
(On an iPhone 13 Mini screen)
I got 176 on my monitor. So lean towards blue. The more middling examples shown I would normally just describe as turquise if asked in a normal setting though.