auraithx @ auraithx @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

1

Comments

363

Joined

6 mo. ago

The brain doesn’t just read raw brightness; it interprets that brightness in relation to what it thinks is going on in the scene.

So when someone sees the dress as white and gold, they’re usually assuming the scene is lit by cool, natural light — like sunlight or shade. That makes the brain treat the lighter areas as a white-ish or light blue material under shadow. The darker areas (what you see as black) become gold or brown, because the brain thinks it’s seeing lighter fabric catching less light.

You, on the other hand, are likely interpreting the lighting as warm and direct — maybe indoor, overexposed lighting. So your brain treats the pale pixels not as light-colored fabric, but as light reflecting off a darker blue surface. The same with the black: it’s being “lightened” by the glare which changes the pixel representation to gold, but you interpret it as black under strong light, not gold.

What facts

Looks like a sunny background and that the dress is in the shade

Not because I don't care, I care because I'm making a point & winding you up. Doesnt mean there needs to be emotions involved. Detached is my default.

Thank you for continue to demonstrate your lack of critical thinking.

If you recall my original comment

It is interesting it’s only the black and blue people who don’t seem to get it and get emotional over it.

So I figured you'd be a good example of someone who doesn't 'get it' (even when explained with clear logic). Something in that maybe.

I'm emotionally invested in my daughters this is nothing. Emotions don't factor in here.

On the day of the wedding, Caitlin McNeill, a friend of the bride and groom, performed with her band at the wedding. Even after seeing that the dress was "obviously blue and black" in reality,[3] the musicians remained preoccupied by the photograph. They said they almost failed to make it on stage because they were caught up discussing the dress.

Yeah nothing wider here because some people on Tumblr for a day didn't know. Not like its still being discussed and studied a decade later.

Can't kid a kidder wee man.

You don't have a monopoly on bad faith arguments, ad hom doesnt equal emotional it just means I've disregarded your input as valuable and I'm winding you up.

You struggled to grasp pretty much any of it.

The wikipedia page details how it's been studied for over a decade since, and how it was never 'unknown' so you check the wikpedia page ig

Not emotions, just objectively you are struggling to grasp really basic stuff. Either wilful ignorance or just half daft.

That isn't what happened. Your entire life is a skill issue.

Yes, or you're just really thick and incapable of higher levels of thought and analysis.

Funny how “visual talent” doesn’t come with reading comprehension. I sense this is important to you because you lack actual skills.

Everyone agrees the physical dress is black and blue. That was never the actual debate. The reason this became a global phenomenon is because the photo is so overexposed and lacking in lighting cues that different people genuinely perceive different colors. It’s not about being literal or mistaken — it’s about how the brain interprets visual ambiguity.

Saying black and blue viewers “see” white and gold but just know better doesn’t line up with the research or lived experience of the people who see it differently. Many white and gold viewers don’t consciously override anything — they see pale blue and brownish gold as stable, consistent colors. And those are close to the actual pixel values. So in terms of what’s present in the image, their perception is just as grounded as anyone else’s.

The whole reason The Dress became a phenomenon is because there’s just enough visual ambiguity to make multiple interpretations plausible. That doesn’t mean your perception is more accurate — it just means your brain committed quickly to one version and stuck with it. Congrats, but calling it a skill issue only shows a lack of understanding about how perception works. If this were about raw visual ability, neuroscientists wouldn’t still be studying it. You didn’t “solve” anything — you just landed on one of two stable percepts and assumed it was the only correct one. And funnily enough, seeing it as white and gold might actually reflect a system tuned to compensate more for low-light environments, possibly allowing better function in situations where light is limited. So if anything, you might be the one running on default settings.

The image has a strong yellowish tone, but there’s no clear source of light, no visible shadows, no specular highlights, and no environmental cues like windows or lamps. The background is a blown-out mess of overexposure, and the lighting direction is totally unclear.

Some people’s brains interpret that yellow cast as warm lighting falling on a blue and black dress. Others interpret it as cool shadow across a white and gold dress. That’s why it’s ambiguous — the image lacks the kind of contextual clues we usually use to judge lighting. What you see as a scene bathed in golden light is your brain choosing one of two plausible explanations and running with it.

If the lighting were actually obvious, this would never have gone viral.

It is a picture of a dress. It’s not a real dress. It’s a digital representation. Any question posted alongside it is regarding the digital representation obviously as it is not a real dress in front of us.

You doubled down on lacking the depth to understand what’s actually going on and why you cannot see the true pixels displayed when others can.

It’s not though, it’s about the picture. We don’t have access to the dress only a digital representation which objectively is a very pale blue and brown, not black and blue.

I gave some of the reasoning as to why this happened in my original comment, but given you’ve doubled down on ‘interpreting the lighting correctly’ and that people are just ‘bad at looking at things’ I guess it’s a bit above your pay grade.