I’m the exact opposite. When somebody first showed me the picture, I thought “is this some kind of trick question? It’s obviously black and blue”. And still to this day, after many arguments with (friends and family) as what I can only perceive as stubborn defensiveness, I can still only ever perceive it as black and blue.
I literally cannot override my color perception to trick myself into seeing white and gold and it feels like a mistake a lot of people made (to see white and gold) and then just stuck with and argued for (“it’s an optical illusion!” or “look at the pixels!”).
I literally cannot override my color perception to trick myself […]
If biology had intent, I’d think this is intentional. You’re not supposed to be able to do that.
Once your brain decides on a context, that becomes the (percieved) truth, and it’ll take a lot of new information to change your mind because your brain will invent reasons why what you’re seeing is correct. Your brain makes up a story, that story seems to make sense, and so new perceptions not only need to make sense but also disprove the story it has.
Take, for instance, this silhouette. It has no lines to indicate depth, but I bet you’ll settle on a mental 3D model—you’ll be able to see where the hips end, which leg is doing what—and it’ll be really hard to switch perception from spinning one direction to spinning the other.
No see, with that, I can switch back and forth. It’s trippy, but I can. Which is why the dress thing is so weird: I’ve tried many times (over the last…shudders decade).
That’s why I find the dress kind of an outlier and actual doubt. It just doesn’t add up to me because I can’t seem to switch to white-gold.
But then, also, going off the different people here, I also find it hard to believe there would be what looks like 40-45% of people who still are the exact opposite, in only being able to see white-gold, rather than blue black.
Like I get how technically, “the pixels…”, but that doesn’t explain to me how there’s like a near-50% of people (at least the English-speaking internet demographic) that are… To put it bluntly, seemingly deficient. It would be one thing if there was no definitive proof of what color the dress actually is, or if it was just “some people see it start out one way and other people see it the other way, but then both people could switch between”, but it’s evidently NOT that - it’s that some people are just stuck unable to interpret the color in a shitty picture correctly, and that other people are unable to interpret it wrongly (and maybe a smaller chunk of people who are able to go back and forth, but then that presents even more discussions).
There’s a lot going on here, both psycho-optically, psychologically, and socially, and I don’t think internet forums/social media that can’t isolate, drill down, and then research the different sections of the blue-black/white-gold dress phenomenon should be bringing it up (though good luck with that) and basically just flaming and trolling each other in such a… Cognitively shallow way.
It’s worth examining, absolutely. But absolutely not in this format.
I’m the exact opposite. When somebody first showed me the picture, I thought “is this some kind of trick question? It’s obviously black and blue”. And still to this day, after many arguments with (friends and family) as what I can only perceive as stubborn defensiveness, I can still only ever perceive it as black and blue.
I literally cannot override my color perception to trick myself into seeing white and gold and it feels like a mistake a lot of people made (to see white and gold) and then just stuck with and argued for (“it’s an optical illusion!” or “look at the pixels!”).
If biology had intent, I’d think this is intentional. You’re not supposed to be able to do that.
Once your brain decides on a context, that becomes the (percieved) truth, and it’ll take a lot of new information to change your mind because your brain will invent reasons why what you’re seeing is correct. Your brain makes up a story, that story seems to make sense, and so new perceptions not only need to make sense but also disprove the story it has.
Take, for instance, this silhouette. It has no lines to indicate depth, but I bet you’ll settle on a mental 3D model—you’ll be able to see where the hips end, which leg is doing what—and it’ll be really hard to switch perception from spinning one direction to spinning the other.
No see, with that, I can switch back and forth. It’s trippy, but I can. Which is why the dress thing is so weird: I’ve tried many times (over the last…shudders decade).
That’s why I find the dress kind of an outlier and actual doubt. It just doesn’t add up to me because I can’t seem to switch to white-gold.
But then, also, going off the different people here, I also find it hard to believe there would be what looks like 40-45% of people who still are the exact opposite, in only being able to see white-gold, rather than blue black.
Like I get how technically, “the pixels…”, but that doesn’t explain to me how there’s like a near-50% of people (at least the English-speaking internet demographic) that are… To put it bluntly, seemingly deficient. It would be one thing if there was no definitive proof of what color the dress actually is, or if it was just “some people see it start out one way and other people see it the other way, but then both people could switch between”, but it’s evidently NOT that - it’s that some people are just stuck unable to interpret the color in a shitty picture correctly, and that other people are unable to interpret it wrongly (and maybe a smaller chunk of people who are able to go back and forth, but then that presents even more discussions).
There’s a lot going on here, both psycho-optically, psychologically, and socially, and I don’t think internet forums/social media that can’t isolate, drill down, and then research the different sections of the blue-black/white-gold dress phenomenon should be bringing it up (though good luck with that) and basically just flaming and trolling each other in such a… Cognitively shallow way.
It’s worth examining, absolutely. But absolutely not in this format.