How Many Holes You See in This Skirt Determines if You’re a Narcissist?

There are certain optical illusions that seem to reveal something about the way we think.

A picture appears to contain one object, yet someone else sees something completely different. You insist there are four shapes. Your friend sees six. Someone in the comments claims there are eight.

Suddenly, a harmless visual puzzle becomes a personality test.

One of the latest versions of this idea asks a deceptively simple question:

How many holes do you see in this skirt?

At first, the answer may seem obvious.

Then you look again.

And suddenly you're not so sure.

Some people count only the obvious openings in the fabric. Others notice holes created by tears, gaps, or missing sections. Some even count the background visible through the damaged areas.

The result can be surprisingly different depending on what you consider a “hole.”

And that's where the internet takes the puzzle one step further.

According to the viral claim, the number of holes you see supposedly reveals whether you're a narcissist.

But is there actually any truth behind that?

Not exactly.

There is no established psychological test that can determine whether someone is a narcissist based on how many holes they see in a photograph of a skirt.

Nevertheless, the puzzle raises some genuinely interesting questions about perception, attention, assumptions, and why different people can look at exactly the same image and come away with completely different answers.

The Viral Question

Imagine you're shown a photograph of a skirt.

It appears to have several holes or openings.

You are asked to count them.

At first, you might identify the most obvious ones.

Perhaps you see two large holes.

Then you notice smaller tears.

Then you realize that one opening may continue through the fabric.

Then you notice that you can see the background through another section.

Suddenly, counting isn't as simple as it seemed.

The disagreement usually isn't caused by someone's inability to count.

It's caused by a more interesting problem:

What exactly qualifies as a hole?

That's where visual perception becomes involved.

Two people can examine the same object while applying different rules to what they see.

One person may count only actual openings.

Another may count every visible gap.

Someone else may count the spaces where the background is visible.

And someone else may interpret the question literally and count openings in both layers of fabric.

The puzzle therefore becomes less about arithmetic and more about interpretation.

So How Many Holes Are There?

This is where viral versions of the puzzle become tricky.

Depending on the particular image being circulated, different answers can be argued.

One person might say 2.

Another might say 4.

Someone else might answer 6.

And an especially observant viewer may come up with an even larger number.

The reason is that the image itself may contain multiple kinds of openings.

There could be:

• Holes intentionally present in the fabric.
• Tears in the material.
• Openings through both the front and back layers.
• Areas where the background can be seen.
• Gaps created by folds.
• Missing sections of fabric.

So before declaring someone right or wrong, you have to establish the rules.

That's an important lesson about visual puzzles generally.

Counting depends on definitions.

Why Do People See Different Numbers?

Our brains don't simply photograph reality.

They interpret it.

When you look at an object, your visual system receives information about color, shape, brightness, edges, depth, and movement.

Your brain then organizes those signals into something meaningful.

This happens so quickly that we usually don't notice the process.

You don't consciously think:

“Here are several patches of dark pixels. Now I will calculate their boundaries and decide whether they represent holes.”

You simply see a skirt.

Your brain identifies the object and its features almost instantly.

But when an image is ambiguous, different interpretations become possible.

That's why optical illusions are so fascinating.

They expose the difference between seeing and interpreting.

The Brain Loves Shortcuts

Human perception is remarkably efficient.

We don't analyze every visual detail from scratch.

Instead, the brain uses patterns and expectations to make sense of the world quickly.

This is generally helpful.

If you see a familiar object from an unusual angle, you can usually recognize it immediately.

If part of a chair is hidden behind a table, you don't assume the chair has disappeared.

If a person's face is partly obscured, you can still recognize them.

If an object is photographed in poor lighting, you can often identify it anyway.

These shortcuts help us function efficiently.

But they can also create disagreements when an image is ambiguous.

Your brain may decide that two sections belong together.

Someone else's brain may separate them.

Neither person necessarily has “better vision.”

They may simply be interpreting the visual information differently.

Does Your Answer Really Reveal Narcissism?

This is where the viral headline goes too far.

Narcissism is a psychological concept, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a diagnosable mental health condition.

It cannot be determined by a single optical illusion.

A person's answer to a visual puzzle doesn't establish that they have NPD.

It doesn't measure empathy.

It doesn't measure entitlement.

It doesn't measure grandiosity.

And it certainly doesn't replace a professional psychological assessment.

In everyday conversation, people often use “narcissist” to describe someone who seems self-centered, arrogant, or obsessed with themselves.

Clinical psychology is much more precise.

A diagnosis involves persistent patterns of thoughts, emotions, and behavior and requires professional evaluation.

So if you see a social-media post claiming:

“If you see six holes, you're a narcissist!”

don't take it literally.

It's entertainment, not a diagnostic tool.

Why the Claim Is So Appealing

If the claim isn't scientifically valid, why does it spread?

Because personality quizzes are irresistible.

People love discovering something about themselves.

“Which type are you?”

“What does your answer reveal?”

“Only highly intelligent people can see this.”

“Your choice exposes your personality.”

These headlines create curiosity.

They also encourage people to compare themselves with friends.

If you see four holes and your partner sees six, suddenly you have something to debate over dinner.

That's exactly what makes these puzzles so shareable.

They're easy to understand.

They require almost no effort.

And they create disagreement.

Social media thrives on that combination.

The Psychology of the “Right Answer”

Another reason these puzzles are interesting is that people often become emotionally attached to their answer.

Suppose you confidently say there are four holes.

Then someone explains why there are actually six.

You may immediately look again.

You might defend your original interpretation.

You may even think:

“No, that's not a hole. That's just a tear.”

But notice what happened.

The disagreement isn't necessarily about what your eyes saw.

It's about how you defined what you saw.

This is an example of how assumptions influence perception.

Before you can count something, you need a category.

What counts as a hole?

What counts as a tear?

Does a hole have to pass completely through the material?

Does an opening count if it is created by a fold?

Does a visible gap count if it isn't technically part of the fabric?

Those questions change the answer.

The Puzzle Can Reveal Something—Just Not Narcissism

Although the skirt puzzle cannot diagnose narcissism, it can illustrate genuine psychological concepts.

For example, it can demonstrate how attention works.

Two people looking at the same picture may focus on different features.

One person notices the largest openings immediately.

Another notices the edges.

Another pays attention to the background.

Another examines the construction of the garment.

Your first impression can therefore influence what you notice next.

This phenomenon isn't unique to puzzles.

It happens constantly in everyday life.

Two people can attend the same meeting and remember completely different details.

Two friends can watch the same movie and focus on different characters.

Two witnesses can observe the same event and later describe it differently.

Human perception is not a perfect recording device.

It's an active process.

Expectations Influence What We Notice

Imagine being told:

“Find the four largest holes.”

You'll probably search for large openings.

Now imagine being told:

“Look carefully for every tiny gap.”

Your attention changes.

Suddenly, details that seemed irrelevant become important.

This demonstrates a basic principle of perception:

What you expect to find can influence what you notice.

The skirt puzzle takes advantage of exactly this phenomenon.

Once someone tells you there may be hidden holes, you start looking for them.

And once you find one, you become suspicious of everything else in the image.

“Wait—is that another one?”

Suddenly, the picture seems completely different.

The Difference Between Seeing and Counting

There's another interesting distinction.

Seeing a hole and counting a hole aren't the same thing.

You may notice an opening immediately without consciously labeling it.

But when someone asks you to count the holes, you have to establish a system.

Do you start from left to right?

Do you count overlapping areas separately?

Do you count holes that pass through multiple layers once or twice?

Do you count damage that isn't technically an opening?

Counting forces you to turn perception into a rule-based process.

That's why two intelligent people can produce different answers.

They may simply be using different counting rules.

Why “You're a Narcissist” Makes People React

The word “narcissist” is emotionally loaded.

Nobody wants to be told they are one.

So when a harmless puzzle claims to reveal narcissism, people immediately become invested.

Someone might say:

“I saw four. What does that mean?”

Another responds:

“Six. Apparently I'm a narcissist!”

And another person says:

“I only saw two, so I must be the nicest person here.”

The joke works because the label creates a social hierarchy.

People start wondering which answer is supposedly “good.”

But that's precisely why we should be cautious.

A visual answer isn't a measure of moral character.

Seeing more holes doesn't make you selfish.

Seeing fewer doesn't make you more empathetic.

And noticing an unusual detail doesn't make you psychologically superior.

What Actually Matters More Than the Number

If you're genuinely interested in whether someone has narcissistic traits, there are far more meaningful questions to consider.

How do they respond when someone else succeeds?

Can they accept criticism?

Do they take responsibility for mistakes?

Can they empathize with other people's feelings?

Do they consistently need admiration?

Do they exploit relationships?

Do they believe they're entitled to special treatment?

Can they respect boundaries?

And, importantly, are these patterns persistent and causing meaningful problems?

Those questions are much closer to the territory of actual psychological assessment.

A photograph of a skirt isn't.

The Danger of Internet Diagnosis

There's a broader lesson here.

Social media has made it incredibly easy to turn ordinary behavior into supposed psychological evidence.

Someone doesn't text back immediately?

“They're emotionally unavailable.”

Someone likes attention?

“They're a narcissist.”

Someone prefers sleeping alone?

“They're falling out of love.”

Someone sees six holes in a skirt?

“They have narcissistic traits.”

The problem is that human behavior is complicated.

A single action almost never tells us everything about someone's personality.

Context matters.

Frequency matters.

Intent matters.

And professional diagnosis requires far more information than a viral quiz can provide.

What Your Answer Might Actually Say

If anything, your answer to the skirt puzzle may tell us something about how you approached the puzzle.

Perhaps you looked quickly and counted the obvious openings.

Maybe you're highly detail-oriented and searched every corner.

Maybe you interpreted “hole” literally.

Maybe you thought about the physical construction of the garment.

Maybe you were influenced by someone else's explanation.

Maybe you simply guessed.

None of those possibilities translates into “narcissist.”

But they do demonstrate how differently people approach ambiguous information.

And that is genuinely interesting.

Try This With Your Friends

If you want to turn the puzzle into a fun experiment, don't tell your friends that the answer reveals narcissism.

Instead, ask them three questions:

First: How many holes do you see?

Second: What exactly did you count as a hole?

Third: Did your answer change after someone explained another interpretation?

You'll probably discover something fascinating.

People often disagree less about what they see than about how they define what they see.

One person might say:

“I counted the actual openings.”

Another might respond:

“I counted every place where I could see through the skirt.”

A third might say:

“I counted the layers separately.”

Now the disagreement makes sense.

Everyone was following different rules.

The Bigger Lesson About Perception

The skirt puzzle is a small example of a much bigger phenomenon.

We often assume that seeing something means everyone should see the same thing.

But perception is influenced by attention, experience, expectations, context, and interpretation.

That doesn't mean reality doesn't exist.

It means our access to reality is mediated by the brain.

Most of the time, this works remarkably well.

But ambiguous images expose the machinery.

They remind us that our first interpretation isn't necessarily the only interpretation.

And that's a useful lesson far beyond optical illusions.

So, Are You a Narcissist?

If you looked at the skirt and saw two holes, you're not automatically anything.

If you saw four, you're not automatically anything.

If you saw six, you're not automatically anything.

And if you counted every possible opening and came up with a number nobody else considered, congratulations—you may simply have spent more time inspecting the picture.

The number of holes you see cannot diagnose narcissism.

What it can do is start an entertaining conversation about perception.

And perhaps that's the better way to enjoy these viral puzzles.

Don't ask:

“Does my answer prove something is wrong with my personality?”

Ask:

“Why did I interpret the picture this way?”

That question is far more interesting.

Final Thoughts

The next time you encounter a headline promising to reveal your personality from a photograph, a color, a sleeping position, or an optical illusion, pause before believing it.

These puzzles can be fun.

They can spark conversations.

They can demonstrate fascinating aspects of human perception.

But they are not substitutes for psychological science.

Narcissism isn't determined by how many holes you see in a skirt.

It isn't hidden in a number.

It isn't revealed by a ten-second internet quiz.

Human personality is much more complicated than that.

So look at the picture again.

Count the holes.

Argue with your friends.

Change your mind if someone gives you a convincing explanation.

And most importantly, enjoy the puzzle for what it actually is:

a fascinating little test of perception—not a diagnosis of your personality.