Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Black and Blue

37 (42.5%)

White and Gold

21 (24.1%)

Other

14 (16.1%)

Both! It changes!

15 (17.2%)

Total Members Voted: 83

Voting closed: April 02, 2015, 10:16:30 pm

[Putnam]

I can think of a comparable situation (and it's a better illustration imo):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

[Micro102]

No, you don't get to post a comic and call that evidence that it's the light. I have surrounded the dress in that blue color and I still see blue and black. I have seen the color change in real time without any lighting changes. You are wrong, plain and simple.

You, sadly, do not get to act condensing while you're denying reality. I mean, in the OP you mention seeing a video where you saw the dress changing, and guess what it did, it changed the background chromatic saturation.

I mean, you see that xkcd picture right? Both of the drawn dresses are the same colour, so unless you see them on both sides as the same, I consider my argument proven. It might not always work with the actual dresses, because your brain will try to maintain consistency of detail before giving up at random moments. The actual mechanic is described in the article.

Why is this still a thing

Because no one can explain it! People have thrown out hundreds of explanations, but not have actually been demonstrated as working. I can't even think of a comparable situation.

This is thus, factually and completely wrong.

The correct statement, is that you don't want to accept any explanation. Feel free to go on and believe, but don't try convince others without something approaching actual evidence.

Holy crap you are oblivious. Let me point out the huge flaws in your post.

- You have no idea what video I was watching. There was not a background color change. If you want to check yourself, it was the REACT channel on youtube, very first few seconds once the dress appears. I also mentioned that after rewinding the video to look at it again, it was still black and blue. But no, you ignored this entirely and imagined a situation in which your explanation was true.

- And again, you do not get to post a picture of a comic manufactured to create an illusion and then say it applies to a real life picture! If you want to do this, surround the ACTUAL PICTURE in the different colors and use THAT to prove your explanation. But you cannot, because it doesn't work.

- An article saying that this is how it works does not mean this is how it works. There are many articles with many explanations. You chose one and stuck with it without evidence other than a hand drawn comic panel.

I can think of a comparable situation (and it's a better illustration imo):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Yep it's anecdotal, but I have explained a method to determine this for yourself. Surround the dress in different colors. All I can say is that it's still black and blue, but what I'm not saying is "I know the answer, it's X and anyone who disagrees is just mistaken".

[10ebbor10]

You have no idea what video I was watching. There was not a background color change. If you want to check yourself, it was the REACT channel on youtube, very first few seconds once the dress appears. I also mentioned that after rewinding the video to look at it again, it was still black and blue. But no, you ignored this entirely and imagined a situation in which your explanation was true.

Yup, that's your brain suddenly deciding to reinterpret the colours. The fact that you can't revert is because it will try to maintain consistence of detail. Same reason that your brain won't always switch at will due to background colour.

- And again, you do not get to post a picture of a comic manufactured to create an illusion and then say it applies to a real life picture! If you want to do this, surround the ACTUAL PICTURE in the different colors and use THAT to prove your explanation. But you cannot, because it doesn't work.

Yes I do. The picture is manufactured to easily demonstrate the mechanism that causes this to happen. In fact, open the xkcd picture in paint, and mess with the background colours. Interestingly, the colour of the dress also won't change, because the brain really likes it's conversation of detail if it can.

Proving my explanation with the actual dress is easy. Open it up in paint, and look at the RGB values of the actual pixels, you easily see the actual colors. Paint them somewhere else, you see the true background colors. Easily proving that the brain will interpret color differently depending on the surroundings, and then will try to maintain that detail.

- An article saying that this is how it works does not mean this is how it works. There are many articles with many explanations. You chose one and stuck with it without evidence other than a hand drawn comic panel.

And you have provided exactly zero evidence to the contrary.

The article provides quotes by an actual neuroscientist explaining what is happening. You're not a neuroscientist, yet you seem very convinced you're right. Claiming that someone else's argument is not perfect doesn't mean you're right.

Edit: I mean, your only argument is that changing the background color doesn't work for you, and not only is that an argument which can't be proven, it's also already explained. Your brain will see what it expects to see, and maintain that detail even in changing conditions.

[Putnam]

Yep it's anecdotal, but I have explained a method to determine this for yourself. Surround the dress in different colors. All I can say is that it's still black and blue, but what I'm not saying is "I know the answer, it's X and anyone who disagrees is just mistaken".

When I do it, it switches from blue and black to white and gold.

Therefore, your test fails when reproduced, unlike the thing you're arguing against. This is basically straight-up disproving what you're saying, just as the Pinwheel Galaxy was proven to be galaxy-sized when it was shown that one could not witness it rotate in a human lifetime. Calling someone else oblivious because their perception is not the same as yours is horribly presumptuous.

[Micro102]

It's sort of hard to refute "your brain is tricked due to background color and this can't be tested because your brain wants to maintain consistency, O and you're lying". So far you have made assertions with no evidence except a comic that explains A mechanism with a claim that that mechanism also applies to the dress.

You say that my brain will try to maintain consistency so it will constantly interpret blue and black, but this falls apart when I see the dress in white and gold, and then my brain suddenly decides that consistency can suck it and changes how it interprets color.

If you want to use this example of a real dress being affected by this illusion, you don't draw a dress fit for the illusion. You take the actual photo of the dress and surround that in a color that changes perception. Have you even tried this? GO ahead and open up that comic. Take the blue color that is suppose to make the dress look white and gold and surround the picture of the real dress in that color and tell me what you see. Mess with the color a little if you have to. Heck if it works post the image so I can be convinced.

Saying "O look this neuroscientist said this so fact" is ridiculous and an argument of authority fallacy. I literally googled neuroscientist and why the dress is white and came up with a bunch of different articles, with different neuroscientists saying different things. Here http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/that-dress-isnt-blue-or-gold-because-color-doesnt-exist/

I am not claiming I am right about anything. I don't know what causes the change. I'm saying your argument is not only not perfect, and therefore you have no right to assert you are right, but that your argument contradicts my experiences, therefore I have reason to believe that you are wrong. My brain may try to maintain color in changing conditions, but if you change the color significantly enough than you will start to see the dress change color. Why isn't surrounding the actual dress in blue coloring like the one in the comic enough to make me interpret the color differently, like the one in the comic?

Yep it's anecdotal, but I have explained a method to determine this for yourself. Surround the dress in different colors. All I can say is that it's still black and blue, but what I'm not saying is "I know the answer, it's X and anyone who disagrees is just mistaken".

When I do it, it switches from blue and black to white and gold.

Therefore, your test fails when reproduced, unlike the thing you're arguing against. This is basically straight-up disproving what you're saying, just as the Pinwheel Galaxy was proven to be galaxy-sized when it was shown that one could not witness it rotate in a human lifetime. Calling someone else oblivious because their perception is not the same as yours is horribly presumptuous.

Great! Show me! I would love to see the color(s) that make this work. But I have the sneaking suspicion that you are bullshitting and don't understand that "science" is not filled with assertions and no tests. Simply pointing to a common illusion and saying "this seems reasonable to me" is not science. Posting an image where the dress looks white and gold due to the background color is science, and if it works, I will gladly admit I am wrong.

[My Name is Immaterial]

IDK why this is still a thing; the actual dress is black and blue. The photo image just looks wierd, probably due to shitty lighting in the store and a shitty phone camera.

[miauw62]

Monty Hall Problem 2: Chromatic Boogaloo.


Some people will always deny facts because they are counterintuitive, I don't see a point in arguing with them.

[anzki4]

I mean, you see that xkcd picture right? Both of the drawn dresses are the same colour, so unless you see them on both sides as the same, I consider my argument proven.

I see them both as exactly the same color. Well the stripes appear lighter/brownish gold in the left one, but there is no way in hell that resembles white.

[Sebastian2203]

And this is how the WW3 has started.

[Antioch]

I vote RGB (131,140,195) and RGB (93,76,50)

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Leafsnail]

Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.

The experiences you are presenting here do not contradict the (completely correct) claim that it is based on the surrounding lighting.  I'm not even sure how you could suggest it's nothing to do with perception unless you think the dress is literally magic.

When your brain sees an image like that it tries to automatically take into account the lighting of the image and correct the colours to what it thinks they should be in reality.  You can see a clear example of this in the optical illusion that you're quoting - A and B are the same colours, but your brain sees them as different because it thinks one of them is in a shadow.

Now, due to the overexposed nature of the dress photo the lighting is ambiguous.  There are multiple interpretations your brain could arrive at - it could be a gold/white dress if it's dark, or a black/blue dress if it isn't.

When your brain is presented with an ambiguous situation like this it is sometimes possible for it to go back and forth on interpretations.  Consider the vase/two faces picture, or this rather famous spinning lady.  If you try hard enough you can switch back and forth between the two interpretations - that doesn't mean that magic is going on, it just means that the image is effectively presenting your brain with a puzzle that has two solutions.

You'll have to go into detail on what you mean by "people have altered the surrounding light and it does not work" by providing examples where it has not worked for you, but it could just mean your brain was set in one interpretation and refusing to change it when you viewed those images.  Alternatively it could just mean those particular graphics were poorly made and do not in fact go far enough in making the image unambiguously one lighting level or the other.

[forsaken1111]

When my wife showed me this 'controversy' and asked me what color it was, I pulled the color codes and told her that "In this image it appears to be (insert colors)". She was annoyed because she thought she'd be able to mess with me as I am color blind.

[10ebbor10]

There is no reason for this to exist other than one or two people denying the fact that it's a damn optical illusion and we know how it works. Could we just lock this and move on?

Agreed, moving on.

[Micro102]

Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.

The experiences you are presenting here do not contradict the (completely correct) claim that it is based on the surrounding lighting.  I'm not even sure how you could suggest it's nothing to do with perception unless you think the dress is literally magic.

When your brain sees an image like that it tries to automatically take into account the lighting of the image and correct the colours to what it thinks they should be in reality.  You can see a clear example of this in the optical illusion that you're quoting - A and B are the same colours, but your brain sees them as different because it thinks one of them is in a shadow.

Now, due to the overexposed nature of the dress photo the lighting is ambiguous.  There are multiple interpretations your brain could arrive at - it could be a gold/white dress if it's dark, or a black/blue dress if it isn't.

When your brain is presented with an ambiguous situation like this it is sometimes possible for it to go back and forth on interpretations.  Consider the vase/two faces picture, or this rather famous spinning lady.  If you try hard enough you can switch back and forth between the two interpretations - that doesn't mean that magic is going on, it just means that the image is effectively presenting your brain with a puzzle that has two solutions.

You'll have to go into detail on what you mean by "people have altered the surrounding light and it does not work" by providing examples where it has not worked for you, but it could just mean your brain was set in one interpretation and refusing to change it when you viewed those images.  Alternatively it could just mean those particular graphics were poorly made and do not in fact go far enough in making the image unambiguously one lighting level or the other.

Ok I will make this clear. Unlike the illusions, I cannot see both situations. I have seen white and gold only once, not in a situation where surrounding light would have an effect and had it change before my eyes. Take the dress and surround it in whatever color you like, it does not change color (don't know if this is the same for white/gold to black/blue people). The only thing anyone has done, is post pictures of these illusions without actually demonstrating that this happens with the actual picture of the dress.

Simply get a picture of the dress, and surround it in different lights. Like the xkcd comic being thrown around, if you surround the drawn dress with blue, you can make it look white and gold. Do the same for the actual picture of the dress, and you cannot. But hell, if you can, post it and let me see too.

Taking the xkcd comic as an example, it is not at all difficult to tell it is an illusion. Change the background color (and remove those colored stickfigures) and you can see the dresses differently. And even when the dress looks whiteish/goldish in the comic, it in no way compares to the crisp white that I once saw. I can barely even see blue in the actual picture, so I don't see how this can be the same situation as the comic at all.

There is no reason for this to exist other than one or two people denying the fact that it's a damn optical illusion and we know how it works. Could we just lock this and move on?

Agreed, moving on.

Fact: The illusion you are talking about exists.
Fiction: The illusion has been presented with the dress to show this happening.

You are the one here that is declaring your hypothesis is right without any decent evidence. If the same standards were followed for all scientific studies done so far, we would be decades behind.