this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
704 points (90.6% liked)
memes
15744 readers
3981 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ITT: people telling other people they're trolling rather than accepting that humans can perceive reality differently, and the own perception is never objective.
It is interesting it’s only the black and blue people who don’t seem to get it and get emotional over it.
Probably bcos the white and gold people are strictly wrong and it's incredibly obvious to black and blue people but for some reason there's a stupid debate because some people are bad at looking at things?
That take only works if you ignore how visual perception actually works. White and gold viewers aren’t wrong—they’re seeing the same pixel values as everyone else, but their brains interpret the lighting differently. The photo has no clear cues about illumination, so the brain fills in the blanks. Some people assume shadow or cool lighting and perceive the colors as lighter, others assume warm light and see them as darker. Both are valid perceptual outcomes given the ambiguity. But here’s the kicker: the actual pixel values in the image are pale blue and a brownish gold. So in terms of what’s literally in the image, white and gold viewers are actually closer to the raw data, regardless of what color the physical dress is in real life. The idea that black and blue people are just “right” misses that distinction completely. What’s especially funny is how often that group doubles down like they’ve uncovered some grand truth, when in reality, they’re just less able—or less willing—to grasp that perception isn’t about facts, it’s about interpretation. It’s like watching someone shout that a painting is wrong because it’s not a photograph.
Ig what you're failing to understand is that since I, ykno, interpret the lighting correctly? I know I'm right? And everyone that's wrong is... Bad at looking at things.
If the question were literally referring to the pixel color codes, I wouldn't argue. But the question refers literally to the physical dress.
Can you explain why people see the lighting differently?
It’s not though, it’s about the picture. We don’t have access to the dress only a digital representation which objectively is a very pale blue and brown, not black and blue.
I gave some of the reasoning as to why this happened in my original comment, but given you’ve doubled down on ‘interpreting the lighting correctly’ and that people are just ‘bad at looking at things’ I guess it’s a bit above your pay grade.
Nonononono, you are wrong. The question has always been "is this DRESS this color or this color?" NEVER EVER has the question been "Is this PICTURE of the dress this color or this color?
I doubled down on... being correct? I mean. That's what happened. I interpreted the lighting correctly. So... go ahead and argue against that?
What do you mean you gave your reasoning? You're talking about how you explained how some people interpreted the lighting incorrectly because they are bad at looking at things?
It is a picture of a dress. It’s not a real dress. It’s a digital representation. Any question posted alongside it is regarding the digital representation obviously as it is not a real dress in front of us.
You doubled down on lacking the depth to understand what’s actually going on and why you cannot see the true pixels displayed when others can.
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.
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.
Sorry, forgot to clarify in my last post:
How, exactly, is the lighting ambiguous? The entire picture is covered in golden light.
The image has a strong yellowish tone, but there’s no clear source of light, no visible shadows, no specular highlights, and no environmental cues like windows or lamps. The background is a blown-out mess of overexposure, and the lighting direction is totally unclear.
Some people’s brains interpret that yellow cast as warm lighting falling on a blue and black dress. Others interpret it as cool shadow across a white and gold dress. That’s why it’s ambiguous — the image lacks the kind of contextual clues we usually use to judge lighting. What you see as a scene bathed in golden light is your brain choosing one of two plausible explanations and running with it.
If the lighting were actually obvious, this would never have gone viral.
Well, except, there is an objective perceivable reality. And we all see it. If you saw the dress in the correct lighting, you wouldn't have trouble discerning the color unless you had a malformed perception in the first place.
No this is exactly incorrect. We do NOT perceive objective reality. All perception is subjective, and then goes through a further filter of interpretation. If someone says something is blue, there is no guarantee they perceive it the same as someone else. On top of societal pressure itself being able to change perception.
This is why in every scientific endeavor we try to take humans out of its as much as possible.
Right, we may not perceive objectively, but there is an objective reality and it is perceivable.
The reality is that this dress is blue and black.
If you see it as white and gold, either there is a lighting issue manipulating your perception or your perception is malformed in the first place.
Your eyes should be automatically accounting for the exposure and you should be perceiving this objective reality correctly. If you aren't, you are objectively wrong, and so is your perception.
Hope that clarifies for you!
Do you realize we could both look at a red surface, both call it "red", but for me it may look like blue looks to you? We would never know, because we grew up pointing at something and calling it red.
You are calling it "malformed perception", but thats exactly my point: ALL perception is malformed. Humans are not capable of perceiving objective reality and the belief that we can is an issue at the root of many of societies problems.
Right, so why does what you just said matter, exactly?
You do know that we know the scientific reason for why we see what colors, right? And that we can check things to determine what color they are because of that?
So... again... that doesn't matter. There is an objective reality. We might not perceive that reality the same or in an objectively correct way, but we do tend to perceive it in a CONSISTENT way.
The people that are wrong about this aren't wrong because they "see different colors" because of some "subjective perceived reality". That's not how it works. If that were the issue, it would be indiscernible and unknowable. Because we would have no idea that we are seeing different things. People know they're seeing different things, and we can explain why (like I already did. It's lighting). Context is an important part of perceiving, ykno.