Talk:Spinning dancer

message: The article dismisses the "right brain vs left brain" theory but doesn't actually offer any actual evidence to support that claim...other than claiming it's 'just an illusion'...which apparently in Bizzaro World magically equates to scientific analysis...or a Q.E.D. fallacy in the real world.
There is hard scientific proof that it *DOES* show which side of your brain you normally use and anyone can prove it to themselves.  How?  Is the dancer spinning right?  Okay, start doing math problems in your head.  Don't focus on the image at all, just start analytically doing math problems in your head.  Oh, hey, look at that, she suddenly starts spinning to the left.  Neat how that works.  You can do it the opposite way by thinking creatively instead of analytically.  No need to focus on any particular points, no need to try "imagine" one appendage magically moving one way or the other, no need to try and decipher visual cues, no, just do some math problems...or make up a story or something creative like. --OnideusMH (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What Evidence?

message: A pirouette has to be on pointe or demi-pointe, which this is obviously not.
So somebody ought to correct that foolishness, ASAP, if you will please sir.
Vygraf (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT!  You seem to know all about it. APL (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: That is not a pirouette

message: I did this yesterday, hopefully uncontroversially.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean McHugh (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I revised the explanation slightly

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

message: 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
:I was unable to switch directions (clockwise only), until holding it up to a mirror. When I held my laptop in front of mirror, I saw it still moving clockwise. Once I removed it from the mirror I saw it spinning anti-clockwise. After doing this, I only need to think of a mirror for it to switch directions every 180 degrees. By thinking of the mirror over my couch I can change the direction of the rotation. This is a very strange and cool experience.--24.147.48.94 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The trick

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maybe you're stupid... maybe this inference is 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's a thing and Wikipedia is a bunch of articles of things. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another tip for changing direction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Facebook application 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation for apparent discrepancy in reflection 

message: The same illusion can occur with a real life spinning object (for example a RADAR dish) if it is transparent.  In reality, the dish only spins in one direction, but it can appear to reverse direction on itself when seen side-on.  This is despite the visual cues that occur when the receiver assembly passes behind the dish structure.  Because it is transparent, it is impossible to tell if it is passing behind the structure or not.86.168.116.203 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RADAR Dish Illusion 

message: The three thumbnail images on this page are over 800k in file size.  This makes the page load quite slowly. The higher quality originals are compressed to 200k.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.90.239 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inefficient Compression 

message: To Spinning Dancer.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil  06:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a redirect to this page from Spinning Dancer.  -download ׀ sign! 04:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: There seem to be too many visual clue to say that she is spinning in anything but clockwise.  Her hair, the outstretched leg and hand, and even her breasts all point to spinning clockwise.  I can't conceive how she could be viewed as spinning in the other direction (contrast with the hollow face illusion).--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In silhouette, her hair, leg, and breasts would look exactly the same regardless of which direction she is spinning in.  The illusion is so powerful that it is making you think there is structure in the image that isn't actually present. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Check out this illustration here.  Start by looking at her legs.  Left left one has been altered so that her legs can only be seen as going clockwise, the right one has been altered the other way, the one in the middle is unaltered.   I find that if you look at one of the altered ones then look at the middle one (perhaps covering the other with your hand?) the illusion is unmistakable. APL (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, now I see it.  This would be a good picture to put in the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't get it 

message: "When she is facing to the left or to the right, her profile is unambiguousher breasts and ponytail clearly define the direction she is facing."
This statement that keeps being reinstated is nonsense.  Regardless of which direction she is facing, the leg that's vertical might be either her left leg or her right leg, and the leg that's at an angle might be either her right leg or her left leg, depending on whether she's spinning clockwise or anticlockwise.  Hence my correction:
"When she is facing to the left or to the right, her breasts and ponytail clearly define the direction she is facing, although there is ambiguity in which of her legs is which."
— Smjg (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  APL (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left/right profile not unambiguous 

message: Recently a user moved the outline versions to the very top of the article, before the lede and primary image even!
I've reverted this twice because I think it's pretty obvious that it's poor form.  The lede and primary image should always come first, and explanitory images should go in the body of the article.  For example Checker shadow illusion.
ApLundell (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outlined versions 

message: Is this a variation or another effect?
https://49.media.tumblr.com/87423d97f3fbba8fa491f2f1bfbb6893/tumblr_o1jdiqp4TC1qabbyto1_500.gif
--CuriousMind01 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The WikiCommons media of the day shows this effect as well: :File:Human skull - animation 02 bright.gif.  Other than the PET scan image, there is no mention in the article that this is one example of a larger category of ambiguous rotation illusions. --Lasunncty (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  a spinning figure? Comment 

message: The article asserts that there is a "lack of visual cues for depth".  But, while there are fewer visual cues for depth than a typical image, there's hardly a complete lack of them.  If we assume some assumptions that are normally the case in the world, several visual cues for depth appear.  Let's assume the dancer is human and is rotating about a vertical axis above a horizontal ground plane, and that in her own frame of reference, she is not moving.  
:Well, first, an aside: Several things are unrealistic: the dancer would fall over: She is off balance; this is most evident if one looks at frames 15 and/or 33, in which her feet point toward or away from the viewer, it seems impossible that she would not fall to the side. (In many frames by contrast, her leg is a plausible counterbalance.)  She is also rising and falling as if by magic; her feet never touch the ground and the one foot that comes closest to the ground and the leg it's attached to never make a jumping motion; I wonder why Kayahara has that happen.  
How far above the ground is the viewer? I)If she's moving CW (from above), the movement of the lifted leg suggest we are looking down toward her from a height above her head: then it makes sense that when the lifted foot is closest to us, it crosses her other leg at the ankle, while when it is furthest from us, it crosses the ankle.  II)If she's moving CCW (from above), the movement of the lifted leg suggests we are looking up toward her from below ground level: only then does it makes sense that when the lifted foot is closest to us, it crosses her other leg at the ankle, while when it is furthest from us, it crosses the calf.  Well, there's an alternate explanation: from the dancer's own frame of reference, her raised leg is moving - specifically, the raised leg moves much closer to the vertical leg when passing behind it; this explains the way it passes by the ankle when farther away. --GeniusBarman (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lack of visual cues for depth?  Not really. 

message: Now that I've stared at this for a while, it just looks like she's always facing forward and just swinging her leg from side to side. Anyone else get that effect? 2001:14BB:140:33F1:4D42:6DA3:5643:C27A (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not spinning?