Please choose what colors you see on the dress, no matter what the real colors of the dress are.
tumblr_nkcjuq8Tdr1tnacy1o1_1280.jpg
Please choose what colors you see on the dress, no matter what the real colors of the dress are.
tumblr_nkcjuq8Tdr1tnacy1o1_1280.jpg
When I first looked at the photo, I saw black + blue, and thought the entire thing was a hoax.
Last night I took a look at this link http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1...._620/image.jpg
I saw it as pure white + gold. But when I changed tabs and went back to the image, it changed back to black + blue! At times it has literally morphed
colours right in front of my eyes. It's fascinating.
Without reading the thread, I, specifically, see periwinkle and brown. I did a search to find those two colors together and it matches. I guess this is a trick image or something?
Edit: I don't see black, white, or gold. I hope my brain is not broken. :/
Thanks to crayola I knew what periwinkle looks like. I am just wondering what this debate is about now. Maybe I need to calibrate my monitor. I am so logical.
Last edited by Aylen; 02-28-2015 at 02:59 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Same as Aylen
Looks both. First blue/brownish then the same as Aylen.
I am still wondering what this question was asked for?
Me too - off white and diarrhea brown. Do we have defective eyes/brain???
I would say there is no "correct" answer, just the "right" answer - just as in the real dress is indeed blue+black. The dress could have been wite+gold and look the same in different condition. Science tells this depends on each one's background, what we don't know yet is in what concrete respect the two types of viewers are different (well three, if we include those who see both ways).
Is this dress bleached or the photo overexposed?
Seems there are more than two/three kinds of viewers. Where does science come in, in relation to the picture of this particular dress? What I have seen about it seems to be about whether or not it is knockoff and the lighting of the image. Do others really see a royal blue like the original?Science tells this depends on each one's background, what we don't know yet is in what concrete respect the two types of viewers are different (well three, if we include those who see both ways).
I find it interesting that people, looking at the same image as I am here, see it as having black, white, or gold (I could see a gold sheen) in it because no matter how many times I look at the image, the empress has no black/white/gold dress.
[I am just rambling today]
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Well of course there is black. Not pitch black, just like almost everywhere, and it simply shines in brown/gold whatever. Let's not nitpick more than necessary.
Very good point. The op asked a question based on his two options and I didn't see either in the dress. I have had this kind of debate on color before with others. It always ends up with me thinking I am seeing the color "as it really is" and the other person is somehow distorting it in their heads. I know a few color blind people, even in my own family, and I am still fascinated when they don't see what I see. I have debated color for hours before.
If I had factored in that it could be a washed out photo, over-exposed or that the dress had faded over time I might have made the connection but the original dress was not even posted. Op asked to tell what we saw regardless of the real colors of the dress. I thought it would end up in a discussion about different perceptions.
Not related but you and another person (I recently typed LSI) are giving me a new perspective on LSI. I admit mine was rather limited having an LSI mother. I am starting to give her more credit for her strengths.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I'm wondering how all these people are seeing black and blue. I can maybe see a faint blue for the white stripes but I would mostly just see white. Black I can't see at all.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
I don't get how anyone can see blue and black
I see it blue and black right now.
I have not seen Black or anything near it. White or blue depends on whether its shade making it look blue or sunlight making it look white. But yeah, never had any sort of shift In color ever. 20/10 vision yall.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Indeed. People correct saturation differently. For some person the brain does it automatically and they see the dress as how it is naturally: blue and black. Others it takes time for the brain to "correct" it, the dress "changes" colour for them. Others the brain doesn't correct the overexposition and the dress stay white and gold.
blue/gold
http://www.dogonews.com/2015/3/6/whi...t-dress-debate <--it doesn't mention blue/gold either.
also, what colors are this? white/brown or blue/black ???
Last edited by marooned; 03-25-2015 at 07:51 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
"In the third study, Bevil Conway, a neuroscientist from Wellesley College, asked more than 1,400 people what colors they saw when they looked at the dress. Included in their sample were 300 people who had not seen the dress before. He found that people fell into not only the two warring groups, “blue and black” and “white and gold,” but also a third group: “blue and brown.” He also found that older people tended to see white and gold while younger people saw blue and black."
"He noted that the trimming on the dress, which some people perceived as gold or black lace, also posed a problem. When he and his team analyzed the pixels of the stripes, they found that they appeared to be brown, not gold or black. But because people could not tell what material it was made out of, some people’s brains assumed it was shiny and perceived it as gold." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/sc...ess-color.html
So those of us who saw blue (periwinkle) and brown were closer it seems.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung