Pascal, Kiki Palmer, Michael Karlovic discussed on ICYMI



That? Why would different people have different priors about what they likely light is? As you can probably tell by now, Pascal does not ask rhetorical questions. He's always got an answer. And the answer to this was our sleep patterns. So a long time ago, almost 25 years. I did sleep research, but I got tired of it because it's very exhausting to hear people sleep to be honest with you. But what I remembered from that is that people have a chronotype. You have a strong preference, genetically, whether you're going to be on boarding person or the way you're going to be a night person. Your colloquially called owls, owls and lyrics. And that's the final piece you need to understand Pascal's theory of the dress. Okay, so the theory is as follows. We see the dress differently because faced with an ambiguous image, we color correct according to our prior experience as a lark or owl. More specifically, Pascal expected larks. People exposed to more daylight to assume the light hitting the dress was daylight and daylight is bluish. That means they'd subtract blue light from the image, leaving a white and gold dress. Meanwhile, he expected owls who theoretically spend more time under incandescent lights, to subtract their orangish illumination. Thus leaving a blue and black dress. This whole theory, everything that we've explained so far came to Pascal quickly. Like the night he saw the dress quickly. That evening he wrote a piece that contained many of these ideas and posted it on his blog. The next day it was republished by slate, about a week later, he wrote a follow-up for slate that also contained a survey to test his theory. We asked if I was sunlight or artificial light, we asked if they are hours of larks. And we asked a lot of other things that we didn't think was going to matter. People couldn't accuse the vicious fishing for correlation. 8000 people replied, a year later, working with his colleague, Michael Karlovic, they ran a follow-up and got another 5000 responses. And what they found was consistent with their theory. Larks were more likely to see white and gold. An owl's were more likely to see blue and black. The stronger you identify as large strong effect was there were a couple of interesting additional findings. Though the color was stable for most people, about 1% could flip back and forth. And a good number of people flipped from seeing white and gold to blue and black after learning what color the dress really was. People including Pascal myself and Robin Roberts. But now I see black and blue. You do? Yeah, no, I do not. No, yes. I still like it. And then there was a group who didn't see blue and black or white and gold at all. For what I found to be the most mind bending reason of all. You really look under like a photometer that real color is neither blue black or white and gold is actually blue and gold that make sense. What? I would actually like pixels that blue and gold, which might also about 10% of the people see. So some people are like photographers. They could see how it actually is. They just actually blue and gold. 90% of us looked at this picture and saw our priors. What we brought to this image was more powerful than what was really there. And you don't have to be a neuroscientist to wonder what else we're seeing this way. Though, being a neuroscientist doesn't hurt. You know, there's a deeper reason. I mean, interesting this, because I suspect that this is not just going on with the dress, yes, or with perception, but in general. How big does the dress really get? Can it reveal something about why we believe the things that we do? That's right after the break. Hey everyone, our girl Kiki Palmer have a hilarious new podcast, baby. This is Kiki Palmer on Amazon music and you're going to want to check it out. Kiki has a lot of burning questions that keep her up at night. For instance, you remember Tom from MySpace. Remember that guy with a smile and that little white T-shirt? What happened to him? She's putting Friends, family and some of the dopest experts in the hot seat. To ask them the real questions we want to know. Like, is only fans only bad? How is dating changed in the digital age? Where would former child stars be if they weren't actors? These are the questions running through Kiki's mind, and she's letting us in on it all. Because on baby, this is geeky Palmer, no topic is off limits. Listen to baby, this would keep Palmer exclusively on Amazon music. Download the Amazon music app now. Do you remember when the dress went viral? Not only do I remember it, it's one of those things where if I try to talk about it in a lecture or mention it, I'll often try to open with if you've never heard of this and then I start to explain it and no one has ever not heard of it. David mcraney is a science journalist podcaster and author of the book, how minds change, which contains a whole chapter about the dress. It's a dress. It's a picture of the Internet. Very quickly it ramps up to being very existential and it's marvelous in that way. For his book, David spent time with Pascal Wallace, and he thinks the existential meaning of the dress is all tied up with a term Pascal taught him. He introduced this word into my vocabulary, disambiguation. Disambiguation describes a process we mentioned earlier. That moment your brain sees something uncertain and instead of communicating that uncertainty to you, says I got this a 100%. And it's that false certainty that excites me. There's another word for this kind of false certainty. Night realism. It's the idea that your main lining reality basically it's the idea that what you experience subjectively is a one to one representation of what's going on out there. Naive realism is the idea that your opinions and beliefs and observations are not interpretations. They're objectively true that you see strawberries in the photo as red because they

Coming up next