Lessons Since 'the Dress': In Search of Connection in a "Post-Truth" Era

Hi. Welcome to Bloom Anywhere. I'm Gwen Moran, a writer, editor, author, and problem-solver. My goal is to share information, ideas, and resources to help you overcome obstacles, reach your goals, and get more joy out of life, even when things are messy. Thanks for joining me. (If you got this from a friend, subscribe here: Bloom Anywhere.) I'd love your feedback and suggestions for future topics. Please send me an email: connect@bloomanywhere.com.

Do you remember the “dress” photo that went viral a decade ago? Some people looked at the photo and saw a gold and white dress. Others swore the dress in the photo was blue and black. A few could see both color schemes, but for the most part, each side thought the other was bonkers for not being able to see the dress the same way they did.

The dress was, as it turned out, blue and black. The photo itself was reportedly overexposed, and that was the reason some people saw different colors. One researcher who specializes in cognition and perception looked into the reasons why people saw different colors and found that it had something to do with their assumptions about the light source in the photo. Another neuroscientist told USA Today that the dress meme was helpful to scientists in understanding how we perceive color: "It really did emphatically teach us that the brain contributes a lot of the heavy lifting to interpreting the light that enters the eye and telling us what color it is (we're seeing)."

A Matter of Perception?

At the time, I remember marveling at the fierce arguments that erupted over the dress. People got angry. It reminded me of the emerging arguments over politics and even basic facts. It felt like people were looking at two different photos and trying to convince each other of what they saw.

We see that in many areas of life today. Family members and friends are divided. People are turning on each other. Increasingly, we seem to be living in our own realities that are shaped by our experiences, worldview, and information (of varying quality) that we take in. Human beings are vulnerable to various cognitive and social biases, including confirmation bias, negativity bias, availability heuristic, and social desirability bias, among others. We often filter information based on our own preconceived notions, as well as factors that range from what we’ve seen most recently to our desire to be liked and build community. These are the foundations on which we build our version of “truth.” (Who among us hasn't been encouraged to "do our own research" by someone whose single source of truth was a sketchy website declaring it had information that the government or whomever didn't want you to know?)

This is problematic and leads to deep divisions in interpreting current events, science, and even basic facts. What one group sees as undeniable evidence, another may dismiss as propaganda or bias. The rapid spread of misinformation and the decline in shared sources of information—like newspapers or nightly news—mean fewer people are encountering the same set of facts.

More and more, people seem to be living in their own realities, shaped by the information they consume, the communities they belong to, and the personal experiences that guide their worldview. With such a wide variety of perspectives amplified online, individuals often filter what they see and hear through their own lenses, reinforcing what they already believe rather than questioning or expanding those beliefs. The result is not just differing opinions but fundamentally different versions of "truth."

This divergence is particularly evident in how people interpret current events, science, and even basic facts. What one group sees as undeniable evidence, another may dismiss as propaganda or bias. The rapid spread of misinformation and the decline in shared sources of information—like newspapers or nightly news—mean fewer people are encountering the same set of facts. Instead, algorithms deliver content tailored to existing preferences. So, we’re not operating from the same basic information and disagreement leads to distrust and acrimony. That’s not exactly a strong foundation for bridging divides.

Rebuilding Trust and Goodwill

So how do we rebuild trust and encourage discussion when we can’t agree on core facts? Some experts say that we need to bolster education in media literacy, civics, and history so people can choose their sources wisely and put the information they’re receiving in proper context. Others encourage a renewed emphasis on critical thinking and transparency in reporting, which can help people recognize the difference between evidence-based information and opinion or misinformation. We are awash in propaganda, which makes these efforts increasingly difficult.

Suddenly, the whole world is not only blue dress vs. gold dress, but adding in purple, red, yellow, and green dresses. Or maybe it’s not a dress at all, even though that is one thing that the photograph clearly shows. To paraphrase George Orwell, we are often told to “reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." In the case of the dress, finding out the “truth” was as simple as revisiting the actual dress and looking at a photo that wasn’t overexposed. What happens when we can’t even agree that such a simple and straightforward fact-check is the way to resolve the argument?

Lately, when I’ve started feeling myself getting angry or feeling hopeless because I can’t understand why others hold the beliefs they have, I am trying to ask questions:

• What background or influences have led to these beliefs?
• Could I be wrong or benefit from seeing this situation differently?
• Are either of us hobbled by biases or beliefs that get in the way of understanding? (It’s usually easier to identify these in the other person.)
• Do we have any common ground?

Sometimes, these questions can lead to a better understanding of how our views diverge. It may be that we’ve had different experiences, and these people haven’t been exposed to the same things I have. Sometimes, they (or I) belong to social groups with similar views, so they’re not challenged to think beyond what they have accepted as truth.

Of course, sometimes the questions don’t lead to anything but more frustration or disappointment. Sometimes, it makes me sad when the questions reveal that the other person has no interest in deeper understanding or making the world better for everyone. Sometimes, cultivating common ground feels like unfair labor, and it’s easy to throw up our hands and walk away. Sometimes, fighting the disinformation machine feels overwhelming and impossible.

I struggle with how we move forward from this deeply divided time. But I know humans are not meant to battle those around us constantly. If we don’t try to connect, we’re creating an environment where loneliness, distrust, and hate will continue to thrive.

How Are You Creating Connection?

I would love to hear how you’re bridging differences in your world. Have you found ways to inhabit common ground and find peace in a divided time? Send me your thoughts: connect@bloomanywhere.com.

Bloom Drops

Things I want to share with you.

Acting kindly: Like volunteering, engaging in small acts of kindness has been linked to a range of benefits from reduced stress and anxiety to improved self-esteem and sense of purpose. And the beneficiary of your kindness feels loved, supported, and may even get some health benefits. The ideas don’t have to be big or bold. The Random Acts of Kindness Foundation has resources and videos. And I wrote up some ideas, too.

​Discussing: NPR host Anna Sale wrote an excellent book about having difficult conversations. Let’s Talk About Hard Things helps readers broach topics like death, sex, money, family, and identity. You might pick up a few skills that can help in your quest to bridge differences.