So you see what, a gradient? That fades to black?
If I take a colour picker, I can see that the darkest part of the dress is that colour with less luminance.
I think a big part of this discussion is going to revolve around a difference of interpretation at this point. Both types of people will hear "What color is this dress in this photo?"
Some will interpret that as "What color is the dress...that is in this photo." That's currently me. So I can see a picture of something that's black, and even when the picture is all washed out, even when that means the actual pixel no longer has a value of 'black', I know that the dress in the photo is black, so I say black.
Others will interpret it as "What color is the dress as it appears in the photo?" Those people (me previously, I think) saw it as white and gold. Because the actually values of the colors of the pixels are white and gold. Regardless of what the color of the dress actually is, in the photo, it looks like white and gold to these people.
I'm wondering if this distinction of "what color is the dress v. what color are the pixels" has to do with people getting different colors. I mean, I saw white and gold for most of the thread, but when I saw the corrected version, suddenly it switched to blue and black. Is that because, now that I know what color the
dress actually is in reality, my mind won't let me see it how the pixels
actually are in the photo? I don't know. I'd have to do more tests.
My hypothesis still wouldn't explain why some people see black&blue immediately, and white some see white&gold, even after exposure to the corrected image.