Based on the question about energy and light, I added an explanation of how energy is applied to brightness, color temperature, and the standard hue-based color spectrum. Thanks for the question, as it helped me see that this is a point of confusion, that I need to sort out.
Many color consultants (IACC) use Mahnke's pyramid to explain the effects of color: a pyramid where the biological reactions to a chromatic stimulus take first place in the chromatic experience, followed by the perceptions of the collective unconscious, to arrive at associations of ideas and colors. Such a hierarchy is illusory, an invention in the style of Maslow's pyramid of needs. What do you think about it?
Hey @federicoperin4161. From my experience, psychological models for practice are usually truthful enough to be helpful, even if they distror the science a bit. Typically, they prioritize simplicity over accuracy. I sort of like it, but I find the concepts messy. I'm using some similar approaches, but I'll keep the concepts more closely aligned with neuroscience and behavioral design. Popular biological models get over used for years, even when there's better science to inspire practice. They still teach Maslow in many universities, though there are better motivational models today. I stopped using Maslow's pyramid a few years back, in favor of a neurobiologically based variation that fits with the same motivational systems of mamals in general: Kenrick, D.T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S.L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292-314. However, I discovered that the color associations are light based (not hue per se), but present a shocking systematic pattern when structured by those motivational levels. So I think that framework is onto somethiing. I don't want to sound arrogant, but I believe that I've nailed in far more detail. I like their general direction, but as I'll show, there's a stronger pattern, better tied to the science.
Very helpful and well explained, thank you. Especially important to a colour psychology newbie like me!
Thanks Debs. This is just the start, and hopefully, the system will help you go much faster.
Based on the question about energy and light, I added an explanation of how energy is applied to brightness, color temperature, and the standard hue-based color spectrum. Thanks for the question, as it helped me see that this is a point of confusion, that I need to sort out.
Many color consultants (IACC) use Mahnke's pyramid to explain the effects of color: a pyramid where the biological reactions to a chromatic stimulus take first place in the chromatic experience, followed by the perceptions of the collective unconscious, to arrive at associations of ideas and colors. Such a hierarchy is illusory, an invention in the style of Maslow's pyramid of needs. What do you think about it?
Hey @federicoperin4161. From my experience, psychological models for practice are usually truthful enough to be helpful, even if they distror the science a bit. Typically, they prioritize simplicity over accuracy.
I sort of like it, but I find the concepts messy. I'm using some similar approaches, but I'll keep the concepts more closely aligned with neuroscience and behavioral design.
Popular biological models get over used for years, even when there's better science to inspire practice. They still teach Maslow in many universities, though there are better motivational models today.
I stopped using Maslow's pyramid a few years back, in favor of a neurobiologically based variation that fits with the same motivational systems of mamals in general:
Kenrick, D.T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S.L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292-314.
However, I discovered that the color associations are light based (not hue per se), but present a shocking systematic pattern when structured by those motivational levels.
So I think that framework is onto somethiing. I don't want to sound arrogant, but I believe that I've nailed in far more detail.
I like their general direction, but as I'll show, there's a stronger pattern, better tied to the science.