>A study carried out by Schlaffke et al. reported that individuals who saw the dress as white and gold showed increased activity in the frontal and parietal regions of the brain. These areas are thought to be critical in higher cognition activities.
Sorry brainlets, you never had a chance.
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
myredditnudes.com
twitter.com
i saw it white/gold first time but later blue/black
how could you not see it as white and gold?
but the real color of it is blue and black
I always see it white gold and I'm genius tier intelligent.
Am I half retard cause it just looks blue and gold to me desu senpai
>Those who saw it wrong are smarter
Is that picture modified? I see light blue gold.
Based blue/gold master race
>no imagination
>no critical thinking abilities
>take things for granted
yeah i'd say they are desu senpai
the top looks gold to me ive never seen it as gold before this. is it just a shitty version of the pic?
Nah you just became more schizo after the years.
I guess photoshop is retarded then.
I used to be able to see both (not at the same time of course), which was pretty nice because you understood both sides of the coin. Now I'm just seeing the blue version tough.
>people don't know the difference between the color of light and the color of the object the light is being cast on
i've never been able to see it as white and gold help
ive never seen anything but very light sky blue and gold.
zoom in and its sky blue and brown
I think the only reason anyone saw white and gold is because this photo is an over exposed shitty picture.
Also fucking this. I was absolutely baffled when people thought the actual dress was white and gold, but not suprised at all when people saw either one. The lighting is clearly creepy department store blinding light though.
science is pretentious cringe science on my board reeee
It's over user.
Only 140+ IQ's get that privilege.
I can see it as both, from a quick glance I thought white and gold.
t. Afraid of doing any sort of iq test because I think I'm very likely to score under 100.
ok, but it's clearly light blue and golden brown, so you are all brainlets
analysis on one of the most commonly shared photos confirms
I actually see it as blue and gold guys help
I always so it as gold and white, but yea i checked on PS the real color back when this was a fad
I see it as white/gold, actually slightly off white (to a very very faint blueish)
but my KL-VS gene had already told me all I needed to know about my cognition; sadly it is useless with females...
shit tier reddit meme to spot the brainlets.
every person that knows how photos work instantly knows the lightning in this picture is shit and that the dress is blue/black.
actual brainlets are people who actually believe it to be any other color than blue/black.
the white is white, it looks slightly blue because the white balance is off.
that will be all.
have sex incel "photographer"
that photographer doesn't know how photography works just ignore him
spotted the brainlets, unironically kys as as soon as possible
"Thedressitself was confirmed as a royalblue"Lace BodyconDress" from the retailer Roman Originals, which was actuallyblue-and-blackincolour"
see more pale blue and brownish/gold
It's not about the dress. It's about the way different people perceive light and color.
White and gold masterrace are just smarter than you brainlets. You can cope all you like.
This is bait but this actually brings up an interesting point. We all see a bluish color and we all see a dark golden / brownish color. I guess the question is the real question. Were people trying to figure out the ACTUAL color of the dress, or just explaining what they see in the picture? If everyone saying white and gold actually thought the true color of the dress was white and gold that seems like a problem, but if people were just saying they see white and gold that makes complete sense because everyone should be able to see all of the different colors and shades in the photo.This feels like a big ass miscommunication.
>imagination
Insisting grass is red doesn't mean you display any critical thinking ability or mental acuity, it just means you're objectively wrong.
Spoken like a true imbecile.
Make a food comparison next time, should be on your level.
You're in no position to be criticising the intelligence of virtually anyone when you're completely incapable of recognising colour.
If you think colour is objective and not subjective you are, quite literally, a mouth breathing retard.
In order for that dress to seem brighter, it ought to be in shadow. But nothing about the image indicates to me that it is. The background looks bright as fuck. If it were a picture of a woman wearing it in a gloomy nightclub or something, and the pixels were the exact same RGB values, then I'd see it as white/gold.
There is no subjective here. The dress was created and designed to be blue and black, if you see it any other way then you have a debilitating mental defect.
>reeee mommy told me I'm an intelligent boy why is science saying otherwise
It's alright, you don't need to spout your own insecurities back at me. Just accept you have a low IQ and can't recognise any colour.
same here. Always did. Guess we're ultra retards.
It's always been black and blue.
People who see it as white and gold, are fucking colorblind.
I always just assumed it was based on your monitor/screen's calibration settings mixed with your ambient light.
I originally saw white and gold, and see it now. but I literally had the colour shift before my eyes, and I want to know what that means.
What interests me most about this is that I was working on the very boat that would have carried the owner of this dress to the wedding location it was worn at. A 50/50 chance I was on shift, and that intrigues me. Such a small world.
It means you're trans.
I see it in gold and white and it always looked to me like the background is under harsh light, but the foreground -- including the dress -- isn't.
Maybe the fact that creativity is closely associated with the frontal lobe, which people like me apparently have increased activity in, might have something to do with it. But keep in mind that I'm talking about artistic rather than scientific creativity, there's a difference. So people like this are just more likely to see things differently. In typical Jow Forums fashion you could just call us delusional though.
How could you not see it as blue and black?
By not being a brainlet, you brainlet.
How does it make sense that it would appear so deeply blue in a shady area like this? I see where the gold comes from but the white is just too far-fetched
It means you had a mild stroke
I can't help the way I was born.
How do I know your red is my red?
How do you know we've been seeing completely different colours all of pur lives, but we've also been taught that grass is green.
Can you describe to me what the colour green looks like? That way we can confirm we're looking at the same colour.
Once I heard this question, I could never go back.
Sunlight and UV light can make white objects seem blue. Also, phone cameras can perform some very interesting trickery to the colors of the scene/object you're trying to capture (especially if the light source is behind the object), so it's not a particularly far stretch to me. If I saw the same sight in real life I probably wouldn't be able to see it in gold and white anymore.
WHO TF SEES IT AS BLACK? BLUE I GET BUT BLACK?????????????
>people still falling for this meme
reminder that there were 2 fucking pictures
>but the foreground -- including the dress -- isn't.
Difference of perspective I guess. Your mind is so creative that it can come up with a reason for the upper part of the dress to simultaneously have reflections and get washed out, while also being in shadow.
>tfw when you realise they show two completly different dress by ip adress
it would be fun
Me too I guess I was a genius after all
Yes. I never implied there was zero light in the foreground, just that the harsh light is in the background.
Am I the only one that sees blue and brown?
Sauce on the study? Nice on baiting on the brainlets tho kek.
You're all fucking retard.
The original dress is blue and black white lace which allows the background to me seen through it. The image itself had it's colour temperature adjusted to a fine point between Cold and Warm in order to allow for that optical effect to pop up.
Pop the fucking image in Photoshop or any other image editing program and try changing the colour temperate, you'll see that the colder you make it, the dress will become all the more black and blue and the warmer you make it, the more you'll see it as being white and golden.
There is a way to circumvent this cognative block by rating colors on their brightness. That is to say we can all agree that black is black and white is white for their brightness. No other colors (even if black isn't a color stfu) get as bright or dark. So to say yellow is one less bright than white would then give us a baseline comparison. If your yellow isn't one than white then we have been seeing different colors all along, or you're just retarded and never learned what yellow was. It gets trickier the further in you get across the spectrum, but if we were able to build a proper map based on brightness then we'd be able to convey those thoughts a little easier. Whenever humanity runs into issues like this we are reminded at just how inferior and lowly we truly are. Or perhaps it's the language that is inferior, afterall it is pretty fucking old and riddled with almost cave-man like words of description. For example: Wheelbarrel. Absolute fucking caveman.
This thought process is coming to you from someone who sees ops image as white and gold with a tiny of blue.
brainlet tier
How do you know that my green is your green? We could be seeing two completely different colors, we just call them the same name.
No, retard. It was based on the brightness of your screen. Nice bait, I guess.
Everyone knows that already. Doesn't change the fact that the things that make other people see the photo in question differently are interesting.
>I never implied there was zero light in the foreground
Don't give me that equivocating bullshit. "In shadow" doesn't mean "zero light". I never implied that you implied there was "zero light".
The only way that dress could appear to be in shadow compared to a bright background is if the source of light were behind it. But it clearly isn't.
What source of light can simultaneously illuminate shit in the the background from the front, while illuminating the dress from the back, while causing the dress to cast shadows on itself as seen around the shoulder/sleeve area? Overhead lighting that's bright enough to illuminate the background like that would not cause the front of the dress to look like it's in shadow.
>Schlaffke et al
thank god it's white and gold. i wonder if I was like horribly sleep deprived if I'd see it as blue
he cited the authors you could just look it up
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
user, I'm not trying to argue that a single light can do all that. See . And the harsh light isn't necessarily pointing right at the dress either, I was offering that as an explanation for why the background is so bright. Even in this case it is still oversaturated thanks to it being a photo taken by a (assumingly phone) camera.
You're a retard if you think that's the same dress. Notice that the dress you posted is lacking these parts.
that's a fucking mini jacket that you wear over the dress lmao. it's sold separately
So your argument is that the dress and the background are illuminated by different light sources? weak.
You finally got it, nice.
>mini jacket
That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Girls are retarded
Just showed it to my co-workers without changing the angles or lighting. Your theory is false.
Ok then post it. Retarded cunt.
blue/ brown but i'm on so money drugs my brain is fried
Finally got it? No, you just made excuses along the way to fit your conclusion. If that ways what you thought all along, you would have been the one to bring it up, not me.
The context of a department store, outdoor market, whatever, none give any indication of a bright light source located behind the dress, pointed away from it.
>blue and black is literally the actual color
>somehow if you get it right youre a brainlet
COPE lmao
I thought it was obvious enough, but apparently not. In two separate posts I mentioned two different light sources; the harsh one in the background and one in the foreground that is making the "white" parts look blue.
I see blue black, I'm also schizo, so schizo brainlet
Nigger it's literally because of different screen calibrations
Link the posts where you said "two different light sources".
If you mean , I dispute that as a valid example.
>the foreground -- including the dress -- isn't.
This does not imply a second light source. Neither does In this post you only explicitly brought up the possibility of different lights after I framed the question as a single light doing contradictory things.
Sweet, thanks user kek
Because if you aren't seeing the same colour then you clearly have a condition that causes you to visualise it the exact same way everyone with the same condition does, in which case you're mentally deficient and the legitimacy of your own view of what exact colour an image is remains void.
>the harsh light is in the background.
and in a post a little earlier
>Sunlight and UV light can make white objects seem blue
as an answer when another user asked why the front part of the dress partially looks blue. Two light sources: the (possibly UV) light in the front that is making the white parts look blue, and the harsh normal light in the back.
This was before you finally realized that for my assumption to make any sense there would have to be two light sources.
>This was before you finally realized that for my assumption to make any sense there would have to be two light sources.
You mean before you back rationalized your incoherent bullshit. If UV from the sun caused the shirt to look blue, there is no secondary light source.
Look at this handsome man stock photo.
I don't think you understood. I'm not saying the other light is necessarily from the sun. And even if it was and the dim sunlight came from a sort of a window or something, the harsher light would illuminate the inside area in the background regardless.
yes im convinced we are being trolled, how is it anything but white & gold...wtf
So there's not only a very bright light, conveniently behind and pointed away from the dress, but also a UV light source illuminating the dress. Very obvious and very likely.
>normalfag memes
gross.
Why are you boxing in this discussion with your autistic parameters?
All that matters is that there is some commonly found set of lighting conditions that could allow a white and gold dress to look bluish.
That's as easy as being in a large department store 100feet away from the front tinted windows with a very bright dressing room behind you and dimmer flouresent lights above you.
I see blue, black and gold, but no white
Lighting can be a very complex thing, user. And yes.
>explains a solution mankind has sought throughout the ages
>goes completely ignored
Why am I in this daycare full of retards. God I miss Babylon.