Show Hide image

The dress of many colours: is it blue and black or white and gold?

A recent debate on the colour of a dress has broken the internet. But is it all just a visual illusion? 

The infamous dress, in all its variety. Photo: swiked/Tumblr

The internet went Armageddon last night over the colour of an (let’s face it) ugly dress which Tumblr user swiked uploaded. The disagreement in colours divided the social media world: is it blue and black or white and gold or something in between?

Photo: swiked/Tumblr

(By the way, it’s clearly blue and black.)

When things start to question our existence we turn to science to tell us things are going to be ok. Let’s turn to how our brains translate colour through our retinas:

Visible light can be broken down into various wavelengths which correspond to different perceivable colours. This all depends on what colour(s) the object is reflecting. This reflective light enters through the eye lens and hits a light sensitive layer of tissue called retina in the back of the eye where a cascade of neural messages are sent to the visual cortex – the part of the brain that processes visual information. However, the quality of light that penetrates into our retina plays a big part.

Luminance is the intensity of light emitted from a surface per unit area of light travelling in a given direction. So the brain has to work out how much of the luminance (or lack thereof) is caused by the colour of the square and how much is caused by the shadows. “In the case of the dress, some people are deciding that there is a fair amount of illumination on a blue and black (or less reflective) dress. Other people are deciding that it is less illumination on a white and gold dress (it is in shadow, but more reflective),” said Cedar Riener, an associate professor of psychology at Randolph-Macon College in a BuzzFeed interview.

An example is the famous Adelson checkerboard optical illusion, in which square A and square B are same shade of grey: 

 

 

So why do different people’s brains interpret light differently? Humans have evolved to see in the daylight. Typical daylight extends from blue-white at noon to pinkish-red at dawn. Bevil Conway, a neuroscientist who studies colour at vision at Wellesley College told Wired: “What’s happening here is your visual system is looking at this thing, and you’re trying to discount the chromatic bias of the daylight axis. So people either discount the blue side, in which case they end up seeing white and gold, or discount the gold side, in which case they end up with blue and black.”

Conway also suggests that the white-gold or blue-black bias could be linked to whether we prefer daylight or night time. So those who perceive the dress as white-gold might be interpreting it as though it's in blue natural lighting, and those who perceive it as blue-black might be interpreting it as though it's in yellow artificial lighting. “I bet night owls are more likely to see it as blue-black,” Conway says.

Based on correct white-balancing, we can confirm that the dress is blue and black (sorry white and gold die-hards), but ultimately, visual perception is in the eye of the brain holder.

Luckily for the New Statesman, Ed Miliband established Labour's position on the blue-black and white-gold spectrum: 

Tosin Thompson writes about science and was the New Statesman's 2015 Wellcome Trust Scholar. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The science and technology committee debacle shows how we're failing women in tech

It would be funny if it wasn’t so depressing.

Five days after Theresa May announced, in her first Prime Minister’s Questions after the summer recess, that she was "particularly keen to address the stereotype about women in engineering", an all-male parliamentary science and technology committee was announced. You would laugh if it wasn’t all so depressing.

It was only later, after a fierce backlash against the selection, that Conservative MP Vicky Ford was also appointed to the committee. I don’t need to say that having only one female voice represents more than an oversight: it’s simply unacceptable. And as if to rub salt into the wound, at the time of writing, Ford has still not been added to the committee list on parliament's website.

To the credit of Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP who was elected chair of the committee in July, he said that he didn't "see how we can proceed without women". "It sends out a dreadful message at a time when we need to convince far more girls to pursue Stem [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] subjects," he added. But as many people have pointed out already, it’s the parties who nominate members, and that’s partly why this scenario is worrying. The nominations are a representation of those who represent us.

Government policy has so far completely failed to tap into the huge pool of talented women we have in this country – and there are still not enough women in parliament overall.

Women cannot be considered an afterthought, and in the case of the science and technology committee they have quite clearly been treated as such. While Ford will be a loud and clear voice on the committee, one person alone can’t address the major failings of government policy in improving conditions for women in science and technology.

Study after study has shown why it is essential for the UK economy that women participate in the labour force. And in Stem, where there is undeniably a strong anti-female bias and yet a high demand for people with specialist skills, it is even more pressing.

According to data from the Women’s Engineering Society, 16 per cent of UK Stem undergraduates are female. That statistic illustrates two things. First, that there is clearly a huge problem that begins early in the lives of British women, and that this leads to woefully low female representation on Stem university courses. Secondly, unless our society dramatically changes the way it thinks about women and Stem, and thereby encourages girls to pursue these subjects and careers, we have no hope of addressing the massive shortage in graduates with technical skills.

It’s quite ironic that the Commons science and technology committee recently published a report stating that the digital skills gap was costing the UK economy £63bn a year in lost GDP.

Read more: Why does the science and technology committee have no women – and a climate sceptic?

Female representation in Stem industries wasn’t addressed at all in the government’s Brexit position paper on science, nor was it dealt with in any real depth in the digital strategy paper released in April. In fact, in the 16-page Brexit position paper, the words "women", "female" and "diversity" did not appear once. And now, with the appointment of the nearly all-male committee, it isn't hard to see why.

Many social issues still affect women, not only in Stem industries but in the workplace more broadly. From the difficulties facing mothers returning to work after having children, to the systemic pay inequality that women face across most sectors, it is clear that there is still a vast amount of work to be done by this government.

The committee does not represent the scientific community in the UK, and is fundamentally lacking in the diversity of thought and experience necessary to effectively scrutinise government policy. It leads you to wonder which century we’re living in. Quite simply, this represents a total failure of democracy.

Pip Wilson is a tech entrepreneur, angel investor and CEO of amicable