cavelamb himself writes:
If you see this lady turning in clockwise you are
(supposedly) using your right brain.

If you see it the other way, you are (supposedly)
using left brain.

I'd be very suspicious of those claims without some reference backing
them up.

Some people do see both ways, but most people
see it only one way.

If you can see it turning both ways, your IQ is
(supposedly) above 160 -- which is almost a genius.

I can see her turning both ways. Does that make me a genius? I doubt
it. Lots of other responses see both directions too. I think the claim
"both ways == near genius" is rubbish.

For the record, I am right-handed and right-eyed.

Looking at the figure only, I'd guess that it was rendered using either
orthographic projection or a long focal length "lens". With a real
rotating figure, the outside foot would get larger and smaller as it
went around, providing a direction cue, but this one seems to stay the
same apparent size.

However, there *is* one clue to direction: the "reflection" of the higher,
outer foot is visible for only about half the time. This indicates that
she is really rotating, not just ping-ponging between facing left and
facing right. And if this "reflection" is an accurate reflection from a
horizontal surface underneath her, then the reflection will be visible
only when that foot is further from us if it's only visible part time.
That means the figure is rotating counterclockwise.

If I pay special attention to that reflection, everything looks "right"
when the figure seems to be rotating CCW. I still sometimes see her
rotating CW instead, but then the reflection just looks wrong.

However, all this assumes that the image is physically plausible.
It could be an image that is not possible, and was merely generated to
trick our eyes.

Dave
reality.