Talk:Spinning dancer

clockwise, or anti-clockwise?

No matter how hard I look at it, it is obviously spinning clockwise. Dengero (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Try blocking out the top part of the dancer (till the waist), whilst concentrating on the lower part. Then imagine it spinning the other way, and it will. Great illusion. Right? Muhammad(talk) 10:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Same for me at first, always counterclockwise. The above advice helps; focus on mentally forcing one leg to go in front of the other even though it seems not to.--Nate Martin (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow this thing is amazing. At first it seemed impossible to visualize the dancer spinning counterclockwise. But once I visualized it, it is extremely hard to see it turning clockwise again. Just amazing! --Marsbound2024 (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The trick

The illusion is in her legs, more specifically her knees. If you stare at the dancer's chest or head the illusion becomes much harder to see (change direction). When the dancer brings her leg in front of the other, it's impossible to tell whether shes facing you or facing away from you (since you can't see her breasts - and the image is completely black). One way to make the dancer change direction is when she faces you and brings her leg in front of the other, deliberately blink and imagine she is turned away from you. With a bit of practice you can make her turn back and forth. Hope this info helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemoe (talk • contribs) 11 February 2008

Maybe you're stupid... maybe this inference is

In the below link this guys says that those who are not able to see her spin both ways are probably not geniuses. I can see her spin both ways so I tend to agree, but I'd love to see someone with an actual background in this stuff confirm or deny this.

http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html

Arthurian Legend (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, then Im a genious! All you are under my control now! Mwahahahahahahahahaha. --Fixman (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You might want to reconsider that, since you've made a logical error called denying the antecedent. <g> ("if not able, then not genius" is not the same as "if able, then genius") - dcljr (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

Why does this have its own article? Its a great illusion, although I can't seem to make it spin counterclockwise, but does it really merit an article? I first heard about it here, so... 81.96.160.6 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a thing and Wikipedia is a bunch of articles of things. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Another tip for changing direction

The only way I could get myself to see the "opposite" direction (for me, at first I could only see clockwise) was to twirl my finger counterclockwise directly between my eyes and the dancer's foot. The third-dimensional visual cue provided by my finger helped my brain to make the switch. - dcljr (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Objections to bobbing motion and lighting

Some people have objected to the bobbing motion and odd lighting effect in the image. I believe this was done so the shadow would (possibly) appear to be in the right place whether you're seeing clockwise or counter-clockwise spin. If the figure were not moving vertically and were simply lit from directly overhead, the shadow's motion on the floor would give away the direction of spin. - dcljr (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook application

On Facebook, there's an application called "The Brain Test." It tells the user if they are right or left brained.. with one single test: The Spinning Dancer. I'm not sure if that's notable since it's an application which isn't made by Facebook. --staka (T ・C) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Pseudo Science

A few months ago, the illusion appeared on an Australian tabloid television show called Today Tonight. Unfortunately, the presenter said nothing but absolute nonsense about it. Now it is conceivable that the same nonsense had been repeated around the globe on equally despicable television shows ('trash TV shows' as some people might call them). So maybe the article should focus more on how an alarming number of people have been successfully fooled into believing that the spinning dancer illusion is a test of brain function and the fact that the potentially dangerous hoax created by the media is not widely known. 122.105.144.11 (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is an illusion test but not the one that everyone thinks it is. From what I can figure out the question isn't about how the figure is spinning but how she would be spinning if it was standing still (like a photograph). The animation spinning around is actually meant to you fool you. It is programed to flip rotation so if you block out the upper half you're a bit of an idiot (blocking out the up half means you miss the programming and assume the animation is the "illusion" causing your eyes to flip the rotation) However that isn't the illusion. The test of brainpower comes by looking at the actual figure not the animation. The figure never flips her rotation on her own thus you aren't looking for a motion change only a preception change. The figure is clearly standing on her left foot. The question (and thus the illusion) is if the right foot pulls toward the left(ie the figure is captured going counter clockwise) or if it pulls away from the left(suggesting a clockwise rotation). What direction the animation is spinning and what angle the figure is at will change the persective of what way the figure is rotating. My theory, she is standing still.24.252.49.221 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The best proof that is figure is standing still (rotating niether clockwise or counter clockwise) is one of the few points the left foot is flat on the ground (ie when she is facing away from the viewer) Nice or in evil (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Virtually everything 24.252.49.221 said is completely wrong. Nothing is "programmed to flip". It is simply an orthographic silhouette of a rotating shape. She is also not "clearly standing on her left foot" or her right foot for that matter. Her chirality is simply not knowable. Even that still image you've placed here can be a girl standing on her left foot facing away from us (Her left toe is on the ground pointed away from us and slightly to her right.) Or it can be a girl standing on her right foot facing towards us. (Her right toe is on the ground pointed towards us and slightly to her left (our right).)

This is at the core of the illusion. Because the image is a silhouette and not a shaded image there is no way of knowing if any feature is pointed towards or away from the viewer.

Finally, If you are imagining her standing on her left foot but rotating clockwise you are imagining a girl whose joints bend the wrong way. Painful. APL (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The foot that's on the ground confused me for a while. It seemed to me that it had to be backwards (with the toes facing away) if that leg was her right leg and she was facing the viewer. But if you see the image as showing her foot with the toes raised, so that only her heel is touching the ground, then it makes sense as her right foot. Oi; quite a brain/perception-twister RedSpruce (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The arch in her back comfirms that she is facing away from us, also she must have like the most deformed nose on the face of the planet to be facing towards us.211.28.54.73 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay hit me I finally caught the left foot/right foot switch but its not the left brain right brain trick every one thinks it is. All you have to do is visualize that rotation (clockwise or counter clockwise and the foot will flip). Odd though from what I read is actually is flipping back and forth not rotating 24.252.49.221 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I disagree with User:Scapler's statement that "Numerous other notable psychological illusions have all meet the notability guideline, this one is no different." This animation was created in 2003, according to Kayahara's website, but has only recently received attention due to its circulation as an internet meme. I'm not sure whether coverage in the New York Times' "Well" Blog and Dr Novella's blog sufficiently satisfiies WP:N. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No lack of visual cues...

The illusion isn't, as the article states, from the lack of visual cues for depth. The illusion is that there are conflicting visual cues. Specifically, the dancer is spinning clockwise, while her shadow is spinning counter clockwise. First look at the shadow. Note when you see the shadow of her extended leg. She would have to be spinning counter clockwise to cast that shadow, otherwise the shadow would be moving further back on the floor while her leg was closest to you. To put in another way... assume she is spinning clockwise. Note the point where her she is nearly touching the ground. Her extended leg would be furthest away at that point, and closest to the floor, but you can't see it's shadow? So the shadow must be of the dancer spinning counter clockwise. In fact the easy way to make her spin counter clockwise is to focus on the shadow.

However, ignoring the shadow, the dancer is clearly spinning clockwise. Again the key is with the extended leg. Imagine if there was no up and down motion... as she spins, and her leg moves further away from you, her leg would move toward the horizon, which is vertically higher up on the screen (unless the camera was below her feet, which it clearly is not). If she was spinning counter clockwise, when her leg was furthest away, it would be at its lowest point on the screen, despite the fact that she is at her highest point in the up and down motion. - Indecision (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's all in your mind. You're seeing the shadow rotate in a different direction, which is perfectly acceptable, because it's a separate object. This goes to show just how powerful the illusion is. She is not "spinning" in any direction, nor is her shadow. She is a black 2-dimensional collection of pixels, constantly changing shape. Because your mind perceives this shape as a familiar 3-dimensional object - a woman rotating-, your brain wants to assign a rotation to it. The problem is that there is no shading on the 2-dimensional object to indicate 3-dimensional depth (ie, lack of visual cues) so the rotation is subjective. Once your brain makes a choice about which rotation (CW or CCW) it perceives, it sticks with that rotation. It is only when you stare at the bottom foot, reducing the amount information and assumptions, that you can make yourself believe it is rotating in the opposite direction. The shadow is just a copy of this same 2-dimensional object, rotated 180 degrees, and colored gray instead of black. As such, the same rules apply. However, because only the foot is shown in the shadow, it is easy for one to get into the situation you are in - seeing one object rotating one way, while its "shadow" is rotating another way. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-07 14:46Z

Well, yes, obviously it's just a "2-dimensional collection of pixels," but that's not the point. The point is there are visual cues that indicate motion in both the CW and CCW directions, the main one being the shadow (though technically it is a reflection, its hard to imagine it not as a shadow). It would be simply impossible for a shadow to go off the bottom of the frame and not be moving towards you, which would mean rotation CCW. Focus on the shadow, or better yet, block off everything but the shadow, and tell me if there's any way you can imagine it rotating CW. - Indecision (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not taking into the account the facts that a) she is bobbing up and down, and b) technically, when you see here spinning one way, you are looking at her from a slightly different height than when you see her spin the other way (note how the varying slope of the foot on the straight leg). You're also assuming that the reflection/shadow is a true representation of reality and is at the proper visual angle with respect to the primary object. That's not the case at all. It's just the same animated object, rotated 180 degrees, and colored gray. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-11 13:17Z

But, She's closer to the ground when the "shadow" is visible. APL (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hot

That girl is hot :D 92.80.63.37 (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, right! I just wonder if this would have nearly as much interest if the 'rotating body' wasn't so, um, 'endowed'... --Jmeden2000 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

She doesn't stop spinning to the right

Seriously, I've tried for like ten minutes, tried applying all of the hints in this page, it is impossible for her to just magically start spinning in the opposite direction! She spins to the right, not to the left, otherwise her boobs and hair would appear on the other side of her body, anyone who has claimed to see her dance to the left needs a powerful set of glasses.211.28.54.73 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You fail, sir. If you back urself up and read the above posts, maybe you can see her rotating the other way. Good day.82.36.244.186 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same, sir. But then I drank a glass of whiskey and suddenly there were two rotating in opposite directions... --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you concentrate on the bottom left and imagine it to spin left it does and vice vesa. Daz.

When I first take a look at this article, the dancer was sometimes spinning to the left, sometimes spinning to the right, but now she keeps on spinning to the right... What helped me to regain both views were these pictures below and imagining that they show two dancers rotating symmetrically, in opposite sense of rotation. (Without whiskey...) --Cyfal (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a great way to visualize them both at once - just put them side-by-side! :) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-07 23:51Z

But you have edited those pictures to give her lines at the visual break of her legs, thus creating an illusion. There were no lines in the actual picture.211.28.54.73 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The point was not to keep the illusion. The point was just to show that there are indeed two different rotations, and they were both accomplished using the same exact animation. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-11 13:18Z

I have no problem problem picturing the dancer rotating clockwise. But I had to use the animation with added lines to picture her dancing counter-clockwise. However there is still one part of the picture my brain refuses to see rotating counter-clockwise: her foot (the one touching the ground). I don't know why, everything rotates counter-clockwise but her foot is rotating clockwise. After a few seconds, my brain resolves the issue by seeing the whole model rotating clockwise. It seems to me, that with the suggested perspective (especially with the shadow) the way her right foot moves (if you see the model going counter-clockwise) is very unnatural, if not impossible.

Explanation for apparent discrepancy in reflection

When rotating CCW, the reflection of the outstretched foot is seen only when the foot is away from the viewer. On the other hand, when rotating CW, the reflection of the outstretched foot is seen only when the foot is closer to the viewer. Furthermore, the latter of the two cases seems unnatural because one would probably expect to see a reflection only when the foot is away from the viewer.

Fortunately, there is a simple explanation. The image submitted by the image's author to Wikipedia has the reflection cutoff prematurely, and as a result it is not visible in the aforementioned half-turns. The original image on the author's web page does not have this issue. If only the author had submitted the image without the reflection at all, or without the reflection cutoff as such, the issue wouldn't have arisen. I have emailed the author about this concern. --AB (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)