Who remembers this?
-
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.
Raw visual ability is funny. You're a silly guy.
It's a skill issue, sorry.
-
Yeah, buddy, sorry. You're wrong. The debate was solved when the store selling the dress came out and said it was black and blue. You, and maybe some other people who have particularly literal interpretations of things, may have misunderstood the debate entirely from the beginning. It seems that's the case.
I already established that I wouldn't argue against pixel values on the picture matching white and gold. I believe you.
People that are arguing that they see black and blue DO SEE THE WHITE AND GOLD that is literally present in the picture DUE TO THE EXPOSURE. They just know it's obviously black and blue, because they can look at it and interpret it correctly.
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.
-
I looked at this a few hours back when the sun was shining. Obviously white and gold, no question. Looked at it again just now after the sun went down and the house was darker. It's blue and black. I can't see how it could be white and gold. I'm not sure if this is some joke and I'm being fucked with here, so I've downloaded the image and I'll take another look when the sun's shining again.
Another fun trick is being able to flip which way you think the ballerina is spinning. I used to be able to do it. Helluva time right now, though.
-
It's white/gold if you recognize that it's lit from behind. So the dress appearing darker is due to there being much less light on it than the stuff behind it.
I can't see it as blue/black because I can't make my brain ignore the fact that it's backlit. But if your brain never recognizes that, then I suppose it would look blue.
They established that its blue and black. I see white and gold but the actual colour was never the debate.
-
Raw visual ability is funny. You're a silly guy.
It's a skill issue, sorry.
Funny how “visual talent” doesn’t come with reading comprehension. I sense this is important to you because you lack actual skills.
-
Just asked my kids (Not around for the first time). One says blue and black/gray and the other said purple and green/gray. I've never known anyone who actually saw it as white and gold. Only heard that people do.
It's so fucking white and gold I think there's something wrong with you and your children
-
Just asked my kids (Not around for the first time). One says blue and black/gray and the other said purple and green/gray. I've never known anyone who actually saw it as white and gold. Only heard that people do.
It's white and gold to me
-
Funny how “visual talent” doesn’t come with reading comprehension. I sense this is important to you because you lack actual skills.
Lol, you sense this is important to me? Skill issue.
-
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.
First two sentences in. You're wrong. When the store owners came out and told everyone the correct colors, the debate ended. Sorry. That's what happened.
Don't need to read the rest of your narrative based on a faulty premise.
Skill issue btw.
-
Lol, you sense this is important to me? Skill issue.
Yes, or you're just really thick and incapable of higher levels of thought and analysis.
-
First two sentences in. You're wrong. When the store owners came out and told everyone the correct colors, the debate ended. Sorry. That's what happened.
Don't need to read the rest of your narrative based on a faulty premise.
Skill issue btw.
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.
Aw, sorry, I didn't expect you to get so emotional.
-
Aw, sorry, I didn't expect you to get so emotional.
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.
Check the wikipedia page ig? That is exactly what happened lmao.
-
older than 10 years, more like 12 or 13. I remember arguing about this damn dress at the ad agency I was working at in 2012.
Yeah but 2012 is like 5 years ago, right? Right?
-
Not emotions, just objectively you are struggling to grasp really basic stuff. Either wilful ignorance or just half daft.
Idk, you pretty clearly are and have been using ad hominem attacks.
What was I struggling to grasp again? Which part? The idea that it was ambiguous?
-
Check the wikipedia page ig? That is exactly what happened lmao.
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.
Btw, quick note, idk if your perception is just so malformed that you can't tell, but the first mention of "skill issue" was about where I started trolling you. I'm letting you know because you are clearly quite vulnerable to feeding the troll.
-
Idk, you pretty clearly are and have been using ad hominem attacks.
What was I struggling to grasp again? Which part? The idea that it was ambiguous?
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Btw, quick note, idk if your perception is just so malformed that you can't tell, but the first mention of "skill issue" was about where I started trolling you. I'm letting you know because you are clearly quite vulnerable to feeding the troll.
Can't kid a kidder wee man.
