/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16054191
If you think the question was about the colour values of the jaypeg and not the actual dress itself you may have a mental disability
It might just be high-functioning autism though, you can live with that easily

>>16054257
BRO IT WAS NOT.
IT WASN'T.
THEY LITERALLY SAW IT AS WHITE/BLACK.
THERE IS SO MUCH VIDEO EVIDENCE FROM THAT ERA PROVING IT.

>>16054264
Are you all right? The dress IS blue and black.

>>16054265
It doesn't matter what it is in real life.
The dress in the picture is light blue and brown.
People saw it as dark blue/black or white/gold.
Some would even have their perspective shift to one or the other after looking at it a couple times.
There was NEVER a real explanation as to why people couldn't just see the real colors in the fucking image.

>>16054268
what makes you think the colors on the image represent a real dress?

>>16054268
>It doesn't matter what it is in real life.
That is what the question was. You do have a mental disability. The obtained results do not prove what you think they do because you do not understand how they were produced.

>>16054191
It might have looked different in person, i dont know how a camera could change colour that much but the other explainations are even more stupid

>WHY DO PEOPLE SEE A PIPE???
ok René

>>16054272
>That is what the question was
NO IT WASN'T.
THEY REALLY DID SEE IT LIKE THAT.

The fact that the background is blown the fuck out like a nuke is going off exposure wise should give you a hint that the colors aren't accurate and your brain should account for that if it works right, meaning that you should be able to tell that it's blue and black

>>16054273
It's the lighting, not the camera
>>16054276
No, they did not. That is a flawed assumption on your part because you misunderstand the question. Other people understood the question and answered what colour they thought the actual dress was in real life based on the image in front of them. The question is "what colour is the dress" and not "what colour is this jpeg"
If this is really bothering you then print out some papers with those hex values, no dress, put them in front of people in a well-lit room, and ask them what colour they see. The vast majority will tell you blue/violet/purple and brown/gold (the rest may be colourblind). There. You've disproved your hypothesis.
It's like pic related. A and B have the exact same colour value. But if you ask people what colours they are, they'll say one is white and the other is black.

>>16054191
These are the same people that would later make you imagine an apple or argue about inner monologue.

>>16054281
NO YOU DUMBFUCK.
THE QUESTION WASN'T
>"What do you think this might look like under normal lighting conditions?"
IT WAS WHAT COLOR IS THE DRESS. LOOK AT ANY VIDEO FROM THAT ERA.
THEY LITERALLY SAW IT THAT WAY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLxVZ8W-aHY

>>16054291
>IT WAS WHAT COLOR IS THE DRESS.
Yes. Normal people understand that as "what is the actual colour of this dress when it is not subject to an optical illusion"
For fuck's sake how do you function? If saw someone in this dress walking along the street late at night, passing street lights, and someone asked you what colour it was, would you answer "pitch black - now black and blue - now pitch black again - now black and blue - now pitch black again" etc. as the person crossed from light into darkness and back again? No, of course not. Normal people understand colour as an intrinsic property of an object that may APPEAR to be diffferent under specific lighting conditions, but does not change in actuality.
The question is asking, therefore, what is the intrinsic property of colour that the dress has.

If you're interpreting "I see white and gold" as "my eyes are literally receiving visual stimuli that objectively correspond to a wavelength that is assigned to white and gold on the visual spectrum of light" then you are more autistic than I thought. What they are saying is that they perceive those to be the actual colours. It is, fundamentally, a question about interpretation.

>>16054191
The question was always what color was it in person, not the literal colors in the jpg retard

>>16054302
ha, your eyes are autistic and tricked by the RGB flutter of the screen. Imagine being so genetically inferior.

>>16054302
why are you trying to redefine language you fucking jew?
millions of people wouldn't have shared this if it was a retarded hypothetical like you are trying to gaslight

>>16054302
>Noooo you don't get it she just mean she can't hypothetically imagine the dress under neutral lighting conditions in real life as anything resembling blue! That's what she means! Stop questioning it goy!!!!

>>16054302
>It HYPOTHETICALLY fried his eyes!!! He didn't mean it changed colors in the literal sense you schizo fuck!!!!!!!!

>>16054302
WHEN THEY SAY THEY SEE THOSE COLORS THEY DON'T MEAN THEY SEE THOSE COLORS!

>>16054336
>>16054350
>>16054354
>>16054367
Okay, I take it back, you're clearly not (just) austistic, you're a schizophrenic

>>16054354
RIP this guy's eyes because language is always literal and true

>>16054437
>>16054439
their eyes are seeing hypothetical colors chud

>>16054442
Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
>aaaah I failed to comprehend this question in the same way as the majority of the neurotypical population and now their answers make no sense to me! I'm being gaslit by Jews! Save me niggerman!

>>16054191
because white can look blue when it is in shade on bright day. It isnt that they cant tell it is blue, it is that they think it is an optical illusion

it is white and gold btw

>>16054191

Colors are subjective.

>>16054451
read what the people are typing you stupid fucking nigger
when the image first came out we asked our grandmother, not in English language, "what color is this?" it's the most literal sense of the words and she just said it's white and gold

interesting enough I was watching this channel earlier about how laundry was done in the colonies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To3ZW0fntfU&list=UULFxr2d4As312LulcajAkKJYw&index=26&pp=iAQB

and they used blue cobalt as a bleach. The reason given was because white is not a color, it is the absence of color and white tends to try to become yellow over time and to counter it you use blue to make it white again.

>>16054461
Your point? That your grandmother is a mentally ill Jew?
Tracks with the statistic that women and the elderly were more likely to view the dress as white and gold

it around 16:00 btw where she starts discussing the cobalt

>>16054456
The original dress has been confirmed to be black and blue, you can easily confirm this on google.
Statistically speaking you are an elderly woman.

>>16054468
there is nothing black on that dress, you are delusional

>>16054454
It is an optical illusion. That's the whole point. Optical illusions exist whether you're aware of them or not, and are often more effective when you aren't.

>>16054454
>it is that they think it is an optical illusion
created by the camera btw, as it is behind the dress which is blocking out the very bright sun in front of it.

>>16054471
>Schizophrenic fascist declares reality delusional in favour of his own actual delusion
It's like poetry

>>16054460
Interesting. Framed like this I can see it, kinda like the chessboard one.
Not able to perceive any illusion in the original one though, I've always just seen the brown and blue straight up.
And there's also the question of how groups of people can see it differently.

>>16054468
literally the exact opposite btw, many times in life my mother and I have argued over what color things are

>>16054480
stfu schzio and snort some mustard gas

>>16054480
the dude literally has the hex codes of the colors on the image btw you retarded fucking schizo

>>16054475
What makes you decide that the sun is "in front" of the dress and the camera behind, when it is far more natural to speak from the perspective of the camera?
>>16054483
I am referring to the actual statistics posted earlier ITT that showed that women and the elderly are more likely to see white and gold. Also, what a dumb thing to repeatedly argue with your mother about.
What a specimen you are lol

>>16054488
wtf are you on about? You can see in the photo that the camera angle is in the back facing up with a bright sun in front of it

>>16054486
That you agree with OP only proves that he's a schizophrenic autist. They should do a followup study where they correlate the answer with mental health.

>>16054490
You realise "back" and "front" are relative? Jesus what fresh autism is this lmao

>>16054488
you can see that the front of the image is out of focus and that this red object has obviously been "dulled" and in reality is a much brighter red than is being shown here. You can clearly see this camera is distorting the colors. Or maybe you cant see because you are fucking stupid and details about reality escape your 80IQ mind which is why you are always being called out for distorting reality as a schizo fucktard, because you do not perceive context

>>16054492
you are legitimately fucking retarded my guy. unfathomable levels of idiocy on display

>>16054482
the 11% who see the brown and blue
we are the ubermensch archons of a new world order
the only real people
this image was a test by the matrix operators to clue us in on who are the NPCs and who are real human beings

>>16054497
Not even sure which side you're trying to argue for at this point. Do you even know? You referred to OPs hex codes, you're referencing the real dress, you refuse to look up the actual colour of the real dress... what are you arguing, at this point, that the answer is to the question "what colour is the dress"?
>you are always being called out for distorting reality as a schizo fucktard
? Coming from you, to an anonymous poster?

>>16054499
literally the exact opposite, if you say blue it is because you missed the context of the photo showing the camera is distorting the colors. You said what you saw rather than being able to intuit that what you are seeing is not the real color. You failed the matrix test faggot

>>16054499
That is how people on the spectrum often perceive themselves.

>>16054191
bro you think photos capture reality?

Is some idiot larping as bodhi itt because he's making even less sense than usual

>>16054507
>>16054508
you do not have souls
you are computer algorithms

how the fuck do you people turn even the fucking dress meme into a schizo fuckfest

>>16054513
This is how they keep you trapped in the matrix. You are unable to perceive what is below the surface and attack the chads who can see the true essence of reality beyond the illusion.

>>16054513
you failed and got everyone killed, game over faggot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_v2eZ9dQE0

>>16054515
then why are 90% of respondents using your answers

>>16054514
schizos love babbling on about their perception and how the bugs in their walls are better than everyone elses

The actual dress photographed under ideal conditions

>>16054523
The optical illusion in action.

>>16054523
doesnt matter what it looked like originally
under those lighting conditions translated to image form its brown
your screen is literally emitting brown color and you cant see it
you cannot perceive reality

>>16054528
I can see it (obviously), but that's not the question. No one cared about that. Again, see >>16054275. See >>16054281. You're answering the wrong question and that is the ONLY reason your answer isn't in alignment with mine.

>>16054528
What colour is the dress? That is the question. Not "what colour is your screen emitting right now?" What. Colour. Is. The. Dress. Normal people understand a photograph to be a representation of an object in real life, and it is the real-life object that the confusion is about. Everone is receiving the same visual input of light blue and brpwn and that is precisely WHY the confusion arises; because those hues can be interpreted as representing different REAL LIFE colours depending on how one interprets the lighting conditions.

That you misinterpreted the question is one thing but the wild rationalisation of the conflicting data is really something else.

BEHOLD

A PURPLE WOMAN

>>16054540
If you know the color is being distorted then guessing thee actual color is just that .... a guess .... you schizo fucktard

>>16054550
Gee, maybe that is why people gave different answers? Yet by framing it as "a guess" you are ignoring the fact that you do have information. You have information that the colour is being distorted, you have visual information about the dress, and you can use these to deduce the real colour. The interesting part about the optical illusion is the difficulty some people had reconciling the various inputs. But a "guess" would be to ask you what colour shirt am I wearing. What we are dealing with here is an optical illusion. To throw your hands up and claim the answer is therefore unknowable is asinine, especially considering the majority of people got it right. That's better than random chance. If people were making random guesses, why didn't we see, say, orange and yellow among the answers?

How is it that every time you open your mouth you reveal a completely warped perception of the world down to the smallest details?

>>16054561

>>16054562
tl;dr it's not a guess retard

if you're trying to draw a connection between phenomena and some material reality, you already failed

>>16054575
Nice science board we got here

>>16054191
I thought about this too and couldn't figured it out until read about some experiments which are done by a real genius (Goethe) in which he concluded it with a theory of colors.
His theory is the only way which I could've explained it and made sense to me.

>>16054191
It was a psyop. They were testing those conformity / peer pressure effects in an openm setting. This allowed them to add susceptibility to peer pressure to the psych profiles they were already gathering via DARPA Lifelog.

The conformity experiments basically just put a normal person in with a bunch of actors. Eventually they get to a point where the actors are giving answers that are obviously false, and they see what it takes to get the normalo guy to go along with it. To submit to the group.

>>16054735
Probably also some occult symbolism shit too. Gold and silver vs black and blue. Sun and moon vs darkness and the sea, don't know.

Which number is definitely blue & black?
Which number is definitely gold & white?

key: yellow level

>>16054759
It never becomes blue and black for me. I can force it, just like the spinning ballerina illusuions, but it defaults to white and gold.

>>16054676
So... are you gonna explain it?

The interesting thing about the dress, to me, isn't the optical illusion itself or how it breaks down along demographic lines. That's obscure trivia for psychologists and neurologists. What's interesting here is how there is a straightforward interpretation and actual verifiable facts, and people just dismiss those in favour of spontaneously generating weird conspiracy theories and choose to die on the dumbest hills.
Consider the implications. When people can be this obstinately wrong about trivial shit that is easily googled, how do they fare with the harder questions that really matter, the big questions of life, questions of morality and ethics, purpose and meaning, etc.? Or, more practically speaking, economics, governance, society?

>>16054925
This except for I'm looking down on the world from far above, including you.

>>16054927
You're precisely who I'm talking about

>>16054938
I know, that's why I replied. I'm a superset.

>>16054542
Perfect color for fellatio

Colors aren't real

Only light is real

Humans can't handle the truth

>>16054191
I knew I was right about the dress

>>16054523
Does anyone have a video of a beautiful woman putting on and taking off this dress?

>>16054191
blackpill
>it was just 200 iq AD campaign for the dress manufacturer

>>16054973
>300 IQ pill
>It was a higher being working through humans who did as they were told thinking they just came up with a marketing campaign

>>16054191
I still can't comprehend how people saw white and gold.

>>16054759
All of these look obviously and clearly blue and black, except the last two where the nuke in the background obscures the blue to the point that it could have been green or teal instead or something. Still, if i had to guess, I'd guess blue in that last pic as well.

>>16055007
It's white and gold.

>>16054191
normal people interpret the question "what color is the dress" to refer to the dress itself and not to the picture of the dress. pictures can reliably convey color but, just as in real life (not pictures), lighting levels much be taken into account. people who replied blue/black correctly interpreted the question and correctly used the ambient lighting in the picture to deduce the true (real life) color of the dress. people who answered white/gold correctly interpreted the question but failed to use the ambient lighting correctly - correlation with older people and women might suggest the ability to effectively use that information requires more advanced abstract/fluid intelligence. people who interpreted it to mean pixel RGB values misunderstood the question entirely and likely have the least abstract/fluid intelligence.

>>16054191
>le gigabrainiactard
no one asked what colors you see in the pic, otherwise everyone would be right, but what color the dress actually *is*.

>>16054540
ur actually so fucking stupid dude just stop

>>16055328
he isnt stupid, he is a cluster B NPD. He will never admit to being wrong or saying stupid shit, he can never be wrong and will fight you to the death with the most absurd mental gymnastics you can conceive of.

>>16055328
well I take that back, he is also stupid, but that isnt the main problem here. people can be stupid and be wrong but not aggressively retarded. NPDs are aggressively retarded, they are not only stupid, they cannot learn to stop being stupid

>>16055328
>>16055344
>>16055347
>The alliance of autistic schizos

>>16055344
A quick search through the archives reveals that you make this accusation at the drop of a hat. Now, which is the more likely explanation? You're surrounded by narcissists on all sides? Or you just pull a DARVO whenever someone disagrees with you?

The namefag who spends days on end telling people he's better than them, it's always the ones you least expect

>>16055344
>He will never admit to being wrong or saying stupid shit
You said the dress was white and gold btw

>mods shadowbanned this thread
holy fuck it's actually real

>>16056025
I just saw the thread at the top of first page with your comment, dumbass
sage

>>16056013
>surrounded
it is only one moron, you, you are just always trying to act like you are more than one person

>>16056043
Well, the same archive search also reveals that you've definitely been saying this to other people as well, not that you'd ever admit that your judgement is less than infallible... the irony is that you've constructed this amalgam of anons in your head into one person who is obsessed with you, but really it looks like you're obsessed with this person. Who does not exist.

>>16054482
>And there's also the question of how groups of people can see it differently.

Experience.
Like, when are you most likely to see a dress on display? Probably in the city in a display window. Most people would look at the image and think "Oh, this dress must be under intense, incandescent yellow showroom lights. The yellowness is dulling the deep blue into a dull cool gray, and making the black velvet laces shimmer with a brassy color".
However, if you are in the demographic that goes to a lot of outdoor markets and saw the picture, you would think, "Oh, this dress must be outdoors in the shade on a clear day. The blue reflection of the sky is making the white parts into a dull cool gray, and dulls the gold lace into a brassy color"
I wouldn't be surprised if people from the country saw it as white and gold

>>16056141
>I wouldn't be surprised if people from the country saw it as white and gold
That would be an interesting angle to examine. The research mentioned by the OP just sorts them by age and gender.

>>16056023
>He's ignoring this post

>>16056141
In that case the really interesting thing is that women were more likely to see white and gold. They are a lot less likely to be colour blind and more likely to spend time staring at shop windows. You'd think they would be able to adjust to the lighting conditions.

>>16056134
stfu schizo, eat a bullet and do the world a favor

>>16056321
You forgot your name

You guys are legit fucked in the head when somebody asks "what color is this?" and shows you an image they aren't asking you to deduce what it might look like in real life under different lighting conditions.
There are thousands of accounts of people where they state clearly that they perceive the image in front of them as being white and gold like in pic related >>16054460.
Just fucking go and ask somebody IRL who sees it like that to clarify.

>>16056442
>You guys are legit fucked in the head when somebody asks "what color is this?" and shows you an image they aren't asking you to deduce what it might look like in real life under different lighting conditions.
That is precisely what they're asking. It's definitely the question people are answering, anyway. If you think it isn't, what do -you- think is going on? The image is an infohazard hypnotising people to see different wavelengths? There is no natural explanation for what you seem to think is happening here. Yet if you assume you simply misinterpreted it, the answer is so straightforward.

The Dress 2.0 is going to be interesting to neurolinguists isn't it

>>16056449
>what do -you- think is going on?
Look at that >>16054460 image. That is what is happening. The color is objectively brown and blue yet I'm perceiving it as white and gold/black and dark blue.
There is something with the background of the original dress image that is triggering that type of reaction in people's brains.
>why
"There is no scientific consensus on why the dress elicits such discordant perceptions.[31]"

>>16056495
>The color is objectively brown and blue yet I'm perceiving it as white and gold/black and dark blue.
Okay, so what is still unclear about this?

>>16056514
What is this response even meant to convey

>>16056521
It's a question. I'm asking you what is still mystifying you about this situation. It's pretty clear isn't it? Some people interpret it as a dark dress overexposed by stark lighting, others as a backlit white dress in the shade. The part where like, whoa, dude, neither of those are objectively the hue of the picture itself, that's not really very interesting, artists have known this for centuries.

>>16056531
I do not interpret it. I literally see it that way in that >>16054460 image.
I could not tell those were the same color without a digital sample tool.

>>16056544
Yes, that's how this optical illusion works. But it is, in fact, a matter of interpretation. You're interpreting context cues.

>>16056549
I don't understand what you're even trying to argue.

>>16056557
Well, likewise, friend. I've literally told you already how it works and that's also what the picture shows. White dress in the dark and blue dress in the light can be represented by the same hue. Whether your brain interprets that hue as representing white or blue depends on the surrounding context. The reason the original image proved so divisive is that there is little to go on in terms of context.

>>16056568
It's not a conscious interpreting process.
When people look at the original dress image and say they see white and gold they mean it. They literally cannot tell the image is actually brown and blue without machine assistance.

>>16056577
No, this is where I think you're making an error in interpreting their answers. They mean they perceive the dress to be white and gold. If you pressed them about the hue of the image itself, I am 100% confident that practically all of them would admit that it's brown and light blue. Like I said, this is a skill that pretty much every artist trains. To register what you actually see and not what your brain thinks it sees.

>>16056585
That is simply not true.
>Source:
Just look at these >>16054350 >>16054354 >>16054367 posts.
It could not be stated more clearly.

>>16056598
If you interpret these posts as talking about their perception of the dress itself they still make perfect sense. Conversely, if we interpret them to be about the picture, it makes no sense at all. So there's really only one valid interpretation.

>>16056620
Please go and find someone who responded white and gold to the query and have them clarify.
You will see they are not making it up.

>>16056622
I'm not saying they're making it up. I'm saying they're talking about their perception of the dress. They may lack the vocabulary to properly express what is happening but that doesn't mean we have to assume a nonsensical alternative. After all, the whole point of an optical illusion is that perception is flawed.
So when they say things like "I don't see blue" they mean "I can't imagine the dress being blue" and when they say "the dress changed colour" they mean "my perception of the actual colour of the dress has changed".

>>16056641
That is not what is happening.
Go and find someone who sees white and gold and press them on it down to the semantic level.

>>16056655
You do it, if you think there's something weird going on. I'm perfectly satisfied with my explanation. I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept.

>>16054191
poor people monitors

I swear, this is a misunderstanding of the same type that leads people in aphantasia threads to ask "wait, when you imagine things you're actually seeing them in front of you with your eyes???"

>>16056663
It's already been done.
It isn't a conscious process.

>>16056655
I'm right here. See: >>16054765

>>16056678
I never claimed it was a conscious process. Just that it was a matter of perception. Your image explains the same (and also speaks of people "assuming" all without ascribing conscious, deliberate action to anyone). Their brain is compensating for what it interprets the lighting conditions to be.

>>16056684
All right, so, when you say you see white and gold, do you mean that you perceive the dress to be made of white and gold fabric, or that the pixels of the image themselves are white and gold?

>>16056686
The cognitive dissonance in your argumentation far surpasses the one caused by the dress. Scientists should study you instead.

>>16056688
The question doesn't make sense. It's not processed as a sampling of the absolute vs some sort of relative sensory overlay. I see it as white and gold. If I sample the pixels themselves it's whiteish blue and brown, basically white and gold.

>>16056326
yah I post on other boards too little faggot

>>16056691
I'm sure the cognitive dissonance resides entirely in your perception as well, that is, you are misinterpreting me as badly as you are everyone else. The problem rests with you. I have been entirely consistent and any perceived contradiction lies with your flawed assumptions.
>>16056694
>I see it as white and gold.
What does that mean? What do you mean by "see"? What, precisely, are you talking about? The colour of the dress?
>If I sample the pixels themselves it's whiteish blue and brown, basically white and gold.
Are you adjusting for the perceived colour of the dress?

>>16057221
>What, precisely, are you talking about?
I look at the dress and perceive it as shadowed white and gold, against a background with high contrast.

>Are you adjusting for the perceived colour of the dress?
I'm taking the color picker tool, setting it to take a 3x3 average, and sampling regions that are representative of the whole. Then looking at the result.

>>16057228
>I look at the dress and perceive it as shadowed white and gold, against a background with high contrast.
Exactly. So you're talking about your perception of the dress in context, not the objective colour wavelengths, which are blue and brown to you.

>>16057231
They're white-blue and gold-brown. The base color is still perceived as white and gold.

>>16057232
>The base color is still perceived as white and gold.
By which you mean the colour of the dress?

>>16057235
It's irrelevant. There is no dress. It's a grid of colored phosphors with a backlight that my brain turns into a scene and infers depth from. It remains the same whether I process it as a flat grid, or a 3D scene with objects.

Pic related is faintly blue, but just looks like white in a shadow or with diffuse blue light elsewhere in the scene.

>>16057245
>Pic related is faintly blue
Yes.
>looks like white in a shadow
Which is objectively blue. Your brain is just trying to provide context.

It does look very white in those scraps you cut from the picture.

>>16054439
And for kikes everything is relative.

>>16057351
I guess anti-Semitism is correlated ith brain problems huh

>>16054191
the 5head reasoning is so stupid. yes obviously the picture is skewed but healthy brains can discern some of that and can tell the exact color of the dress. ??????? who made this

>>16057876
You'd think it's the sort of misunderstanding that's easily cleared up but he refuses to accept that there was a misunderstanding in the first place

>>16054460
woah..

>>16054257
youve made me realize that i mustve always been autistic thanks anon

Everybody insisting on a single variant is ultra dumb and shouldn't post here. It's completely obvious that whether the light is hitting the dress or whether it's in the shadows is completely ambiguous from the perspective. Y'all a bunch of midwit plebs.

>>16054881
Just go read about Goethe's Color theory. It's better that way. My explanation would be not relatable in a discussion in here

>>16054191
Are you brainlet? It's simply the Subjectivity of color perception, human eye perception of color depends heavily on the context in which the perceived object is presented. Just like how we can see color when the shades of light is darker we contextualize the image, that's why some people see it back and some people see it white, it depends how they contextualize the image in their brain

>>16059129
The following statements are correct:
>The colour of the dress is ambiguous from the image
>The actual dress has been confirmed to be blue and black
>The objective colours of the image itself are easily verified and were never in dispute

Apparently people see greens, yellows, and oranges with this pic
I just see red, pink, white, and grey.