Guy #1 lacks the ability to internally visualize things, and also lacks the ability to internally vocalize speech, and thought that these things were normal. Guy #2 has just broken the bad news that the first inability isn’t normal, and is now realizing that he’s going to have to break the bad news that the second inability isn’t normal either.
When I first saw this comic, I looked up aphantasia, and was a little confused as to whether I have it. Actually, I guess I’m still a little confused about that.
The next thing the face-making guy will say is something along the lines of, “Yeah, no, I hate to break it to you but that’s also a real thing.”
So, I guess the question is — CDIU Bill — when YOU picture an apple in your head, do you actually see a picture of an apple? And, when you’re having an internal monologue, do you actually physically hear a voice? If you don’t, that would explain why you’re not understanding the joke.
chemgal, thanks for that link. I especially liked the facebook post it linked to.
ianosmond: What does it mean to see a picture of an apple in your head? Is it actually just like seeing a real apple, with colors and shapes as if photons were hitting your receptors? Like I said, now I’m not sure if I have aphantasia.
As someone without an internal monologue I found this weird, in that it seems very weird to me to imagine people can’t visualize an image in their head (is that a thing?) and the voice over in movies *is* supposed to be literary narrative device. Yes, the character *could* have an internal monologue but that’s not why the film director put it in. Most jokes of this type are misconception of something common is the setup, and the punchline is misconception of something *extremely* common. In this case setup is bizarre and weird but the punchline is barely a misconception at all. (At least to me.)
Or does the cartoonist, who apparently *does* have an internal monologue, imagine that those of us who don’t have one, *can’t* have one.
I can and often do have an internal monologue but it is something I purposely and conciously create. And I do the same when I picture an apple in my head.
So… um… are there people who *can’t* picture things in their minds. Are there people who *can’t* do internal monologues?
I do sometimes do a silent monologue as if I were rehearsing explaining something. It’s for my own amusement or to think about a subject more deeply but not my normal thought process.
Winter Wallaby.
I think Aphantasia is the *in*ability to picture. Not the lack or necessarily needing to visualize. The issue I think is *can* you imagine a picture of an apple with color and texture and shapes. I imagine you *can*. I suppose a secondary question is if told “picture an apple” do you *have* to add all the colors.
The *inability* might be a “condition”. But I would imagine the *necessity* to is just as much so.
Then again maybe I have a weird condition and everyone else has it differently.
…..
And I imagine the cartoonist, who does have an internal monologue, is incorrectly assuming the lack of one is aphantasia which I presume it absolutely is not.
The voice in my head is telling me to set fire to my teacher, but everyone has that, right?
I can visualize better with my eyes open.
Closed visualization only works as a sleep aid, when I’m near sleep anyhow.
Go figure.
I was a music student, and I can read a score and hear the music in my head. My roommate found this out, and told his friends “He can hear music in his head” as if he were saying I can turn straw to gold or something. But can’t you all hear music in your head? Don’t you ever get a song stuck in your head? I believe we even talked about “earworms” here not too long ago.
Such an interesting topic! I picture things complete with colors, and ALL of my thoughts are internal monologues. I didn’t know anyone else was different. It took me years to learn to turn the thoughts off so I could go to sleep quickly. Even writing this, I’m dictating to myself.
woozy: “The issue I think is *can* you imagine a picture of an apple with color and texture and shapes. I imagine you *can*.”
Can I? I don’t know if I can. I can think about what an apple looks like. I can recall apples that I’ve seen, and “design” new apples in my head that I’ve never seen before. But I wouldn’t say that a picture appears in my head that I can look at in the same way that I “see” an apple when I dream. Not sure if this is just semantics, or I have a genuine difference with what you’re describing.
I can internally monologue. I find it difficult to assess what fraction of the time I internally monologue, since any time I think about whether I’m internally monologuing. . . “bam, I am!”
Like most things about the human brain, there are degrees. Aphantasia is at one extreme, presumably people with eidetic memory are at the other. I can visualize, but I end up with an abstraction more than a concrete representation. I have a super-present internal monologue, though.
woozy: “The issue I think is *can* you imagine a picture of an apple with color and texture and shapes. I imagine you *can*.”
I’m not sure. Can I?
I can remember what an apple looks like, or think of a new apple that I’ve never seen before. But I don’t “see” an image of apple like I do when I’m dreaming. I’m not sure if this is a genuine difference in ability from what you’re describing, or just a difference in how we describe it.
I can definitely internally monologue. It’s hard to assess how often I do it, since any time I think about whether I’m internally monologuing . . . bam, I am!
Ugh, thought my first comment was just gone, it didn’t look like it was in moderation.
“Can I? I don’t know if I can. I can think about what an apple looks like. I can recall apples that I’ve seen, and “design” new apples in my head that I’ve never seen before.”
Then, from what the description is, you are not aphantasic. People with Aphantasia can not do that. At all apparently. If you ask them to imagine an apple they can not do it at all. I think your, and admitted my, problem is we can’t comprehend how anyone possibly *can’t*; it’s so basic to us.
I guess if I think of it, I can think of places or situations where there are a *lot* of details that it’s impossible to notice them all at once or remember them all (a victorian parlor in a busy movie where *every* shelf and mantle piece has at least a dozen different knick-knacks, or the living room of the Addams family television show, or a bookcase with over many different book titles and covers) and guess the difficulty of bringing up that complicated an image… I can imagine. SO I *guess aphantasia must be like that but for *all* images no matter how simple.
You can try this test. https://aphantasia.com/vviq/ Unfortunately its completely subjective but it gives you an idea of what can potentially be visualized. For me imagining a storm cloud with lightening over a lake was pretty vague and cartoonish but going to a counter at a store or imagining my mothers face and posture was a clear as seeing it.
Mark in Boston – I have earworms all the time; I sing a lot, I can hear a song and join in by the second verse (if I’ve got words). However, I look at a music score and it’s a bunch of dots on a page. I can, laboriously, say “this dot is a whole C and this one is a half-note D and this is a half-note E” – and all that tells me is that the music goes up slowly there. I have no idea what note a C is, without a reference. If I look at a music score, I most definitely do _not_ hear music in my head. My mom is in our church choir; she discovered (a few years ago) that some of the other singers can do that – see an unfamiliar song in musical notation and “hear” (or just hear) the music directly, and we were goggling over this weird ability. Do you have perfect pitch, too? or anything close to it? I can make clear tones (by voice), but I have no idea what note name belongs to that tone. Nor, given a note name, can I generate that tone. With an instrument I can do it, but it’s because I know what fingering belongs to what note, not what the note sounds like.
I can visualize things, but it’s somewhere between 3 and 4 from the first panel – I see the idea of a something (apple, whatever) rather than the clear object (roundish, crunchy, apple-smelling, tart, red or green or stripey or…). Which makes it really annoying to try to draw something that’s not physically right in front of me for reference.
I do internal monologue – but it’s usually conversations between two people, either me and someone I talked to or need to talk to, or between two characters in a story I made up. Huh, I guess I mostly internal dialogue rather than monologue… I’m more likely to _see_ a word than to hear it, actually. Which makes sense – I can remember something I’ve seen written a heck of a lot better than something I’ve heard. Just the way I’m wired, I guess.
I see pictures in my head, but I wouldn’t call it a “realistic apple” – it’s a lot more shadowy and vague than a real apple I actually see. I have a STRONG internal monologue, and sometimes put myself to sleep by “hearing” music and “seeing” things. I can dope out a melody from a music sheet, but that’s work, and something I’ve learned to do, not something that came naturally (learning Gregorian chant really helps develop this ability, BTW).
I mostly comport with ignatzz’s description.
I found the quiz linked by woozy to be frustrating (and not just because I couldn’t get results without putting in my personal information). I just don’t understand the difference between the different levels of visualization.
woozy: It seems to me that there’s a difference between what I said I can do (think about/recall what an apple looks like), and being able to visualize an apple. If aphantasiacs were unable to think about/recall what an apple looks like without actually seeing one, the test would be very simple and objective: “Q: What colors do apples come in? A: I have no way of knowing, there are no apples here.”
You say my problem may be that I can’t comprehend not being able to visualize an apple, but my problem is more at the other end. e.g. the test that you link to has a rating for “5. Perfectly clear and lively as real seeing.” I can’t understand something in my imagination being as clear and lively as real seeing, unless it’s a dream or a hallucination. I’m not even sure that ratings 3 and 4, “moderately clear and lively,” or “clear and lively” make sense to me.
Actually, the more you describe what we “can all do,” the more I feel that I’m at least far on the aphantasiac spectrum. (As Carl says, it’s presumably a matter of degree.)
So reading up on it.
…..
I wonder do people distinguish or not distinguish between visualizing and thinking about. If you ask me to *think* of a peanut butter sandwich I won’t visualize anything, I’ll think of the *concept* of a peanut butter sandwhich with visualizing any components. If you ask my to *visualize* a peanut butter sandwich I will do so in great but not complete detail. A photorealistic peanut butter sandwich will have hundreds if not thousands of air bubble pockets in the bread but my image those will be glossed over to merely texture.
And I have an internal monologue that never stops but it’s about composing letters or a thinking about whether I liked the television show I watched last night and exploring theoretical ideas. If I have to think about whether I need to go shopping or have to brush my teeth I certainly *never* hear a voice say “I need to brush my teeth”.
…..
I’m a bit surprised to find how common it is to have an imperfect visualizing ability and how those who have it find it hard to believe others have good visualizing skills. And I’m surprised to find that, apparently, my visualization skill are…. quite good.
There was a test
where you were asked to identify what you visualize when asked to visualize a red star. One commentator found it hard to believe that a “whopping” 39% claimed to visualize a 6, and was pretty sure people tended to over exaggerate to vividness of their vision and that people probably saw the chart *before* visualizing.
It would never have occurred to me that anyone on the planet wouldn’t visualize at a six, it’s just a color and a shape after all, and I’m utterly floored it is as low as 39%. Even learning this condition exists I’d have assumed at least 91% of people would always be a 6.
I really don’t think I have hyperphantasia, but I read one article about a woman who was considered an extreme and as an example when asked to visualize a baby climbing in a chandelier imagined the baby and clothing and the individual chrystal prisms getting tangled and french ballroom style windows and opening staircases. And I …. don’t find such details to be surprising or unusual. I imagine if this woman does have hyperphantasia she probably imagines the view through the windows and individual knick-knacks on a dozens or so display cases.
ww ignatz,
Look at those apples in the cartoon. What level do you visualize. When I first posted I assumed that everyone would have done a 1 and would have thought it was very strange that there might be anyone who wouldn’t do a 1.
Now, that I’ve read up, it would seem it would be around a 3. If you do a 4 or 5 I’d say you might be aphant. Early on you asked “s it actually just like seeing a real apple, with colors and shapes as if photons were hitting your receptors? ” and I guess I didn’t quite understand you question because the answer, for me, to that, is “yes, absolutely…. it didn’t occur to me anyone wouldn’t”
I meant to say: Now, that I’ve read up, it would seem it would be around a 3 would be about average.
woozy, this reminds me of the standard childhood question of “when we see red, do we all see the same thing?” That question always struck me as frustratingly vague and possibly meaningless, but the question here seems much more interesting. Like you, I have trouble imagining the “other side.” When you choose “6,” you don’t just mean that you can think of the properties of a red star? You can actually close your eyes and see a red star floating there, just as if you were dreaming?
I can comment in general on this blog, but for some reason every comment I make about aphantasia ends up in moderation. Why is that?
Or, right, I forgot. We must not try to speculate on the mystery of the moderation algorithms.
“I can comment in general on this blog, but for some reason every comment I make about aphantasia ends up in moderation. Why is that?”
You have comments that *don’t* end up in moderation?
Temple Grandin is a fairly famous person with autism who has written extensively about what her experience with autism is like. She is an extremely strong visual thinker, and has written about that extensively as well. I am a visual thinker, but not nearly as vividly and strongly (and usefully) as she is, but I recognize myself in her descriptions of how she thinks (though I don’t have autism):
” You can actually close your eyes and see a red star floating there, just as if you were dreaming?”
Yesterday, I would have answered that “Of course”. I can imagine anything I like any color I like. The only limit is how many details I can keep track of in my head at one time which I guess is about a dozen. So if I imagine a city block in New York on a Sunny Day if I spend time imagining the individual people I’ll forget to imagine the many store fronts and cars.
I honestly thought every one could. And even now I can’t really imagine how one couldn’t. You can see something when you *are* looking at it so…. just remember that when you aren’t.
Although to be fair its very very hard for me to bring up smell and odors. And other than pain and rabbits fur, it had to imagine touch. So I guess Aphantasia must be similar to the difficulty of recalling sensation only not just for touch and smell but for sight. But I assumed that was because we don’t rely on touch or small as much as sight and sound. …. guess not.
I didn’t realize that “dreaming” was something common and imagining was not. Anything I can do asleep I can do awake. Even better as I can keep track of my train of thought.
But my answer is an unqualified…. Yes… I can.
I wonder…. are you a visual, tactile, aural, oral, or linear learner. I’m strong tactile and visual to the point of spoken directions are completely useless to me. …. I don’t think I’d be capable of *learning* anything if I couldn’t visualize things.
Oh, I almost *never* dream of touch and smell and (!god forbid!) I attempt to dream of taste (dreaming about eating food is *revolting* because the taste is *AWFUL*). Do *you* dream of touch and smell and taste?
Do you dream in color? When I was young I read that the majority of people dreamed in Black and White which I couldn’t imagine; I always dream in color *vivid* color, sometimes *more* vivid than reality. But I’ve read that is no long the case presumably because Color Movies and Television is more common.
…..
Could that be why when my step father lost his vision he could no longer comprehend basic things because he couldn’t visualize them? We tried to get him talking software but it was a complete failure because if you moved your mouse over *anything* it would say what it was no matter how irrelevant and every single popup window was read aloud. And when he rested his hand on the mouse the cursor would go to the edge of the screen and repeat “edge of screen, edge of screen” over and over. He wanted to know what all that noise was and I said “Every time the mouse goes over something, or any time any menu pops up, it announces it, and you know how whenever you do *anything* an a computer so many visual things happen at once” and … he didn’t get it or understand it. He’d been using computers for 30 years. Could he have *forgotten* just how visual they were?
woozy: Early on you asked “Is it actually just like seeing a real apple, with colors and shapes as if photons were hitting your receptors?” and I guess I didn’t quite understand you question because the answer, for me, to that, is “yes, absolutely…. it didn’t occur to me anyone wouldn’t”
It didn’t occur to me that anyone could. Well, OK, it occurred to me – that’s why I asked – but I was pretty sure you would say “no, of course not.” It sounds like you can have vivid hallucinations whenever you want.
It’s sort of a wonder that humans are even able to communicate with each other.
This thing is, I would say (or would have said) that I’m good at visualizing or imagining things. I can think of what the geographical and political map of Europe looks like, and draw it from memory. Or I can think of what the free-body diagram looks like for a physics problem, and use it to derive the relevant equations. But they’re primarily abstractions – it’s not like looking at an actual picture.
I’m surprised at hearing “it’s like dreaming”. but I guess if you can’t visualize hallucinations and dreams are the only visionization other than actual seeing that aphants do. (I’m actually surprised aphants can visually dream.)
I don’t think it’s at all like dreaming or hallucinations because it’s completely voluntary. .. and the don’t have any permience. And although it is visual it doesn’t “seem” any more real than any other thought. It’s just like any other form of thinking except…I’m thinking of an image.
It astonishes me this is unusual in any way.
so… when you are looking at a picture do you think “oh, yeah. Now I remember what things look like. I had forgotten”?
“so… when you are looking at a picture do you think “oh, yeah. Now I remember what things look like. I had forgotten”?”
No, I know what things look like even when I’m not looking at them. I think what makes this difficult to discuss, is that outwardly, functionally everything seems to be identical for us. That’s why I initially thought this must just be a difference in how we describe things.
For example, if you ask me, “how do you get to the grocery store from your house?” I know the layout of my neighborhood from a bird’s eye view, and can describe it to you. Or I can think about all the things that you would pass on the way to the grocery store, or describe the shape and color of all those things. I remember and can describe all those things. But I can’t close my eyes and look at them in the same way that I could look at a picture.
I don’t know if I dream in color. I don’t particularly remember colors from dreams, but I guess if they were all black-and-white, I’d remember that, because that would be pretty noticeable.
Re: learning style. I learn best by reading books. Actually, for a long time, I didn’t understand what the point was of going to math and science classes. Sure in smaller, advanced classes (or in humanities and social sciences) there can be discussions that are useful. But for a large lecture, the teacher is telling you stuff already laid out in the textbook. Except because they’re lecturing to a general audience, they go slowly over stuff you already understand, and quickly over stuff you don’t. And when you stop listening for a bit, or don’t understand something, you can’t stop and go back and reread it. Lectures just seemed like an obviously poor way to learn things. Much, much easier to just skip class, and use that time to stay home and read the book. I really didn’t understand why anyone went to class unless there was mandatory attendance.
It wasn’t until I was in my 30’s that someone told me they could absorb the information better when hearing someone speaking, than from reading a book. Suddenly the whole lecture system made much more sense. But it was almost incomprehensible at first, as if she had said she learned best while standing on her head.
@Winter Wallaby:
This thing is, I would say (or would have said) that I’m good at visualizing or imagining things. I can think of what the geographical and political map of Europe looks like, and draw it from memory. Or I can think of what the free-body diagram looks like for a physics problem, and use it to derive the relevant equations. But they’re primarily abstractions – it’s not like looking at an actual picture.
I know of one professional artist who is an aphant. Performative ability to draw something is not identical to visualizing it. (She’s actually how I learned about aphantasia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewsGmhAjjjI)
I remember when I was eleven wondering why it was possible to conjure up images and sounds completely but not touches, smells, or tastes. And I wondered how it was possible to remember a familiar taste when you are eating it, if you can’t actually conjure and remember it when you are not.
I still wonder about that and don’t understand how that can/n’t be. I always assumed that we relied on sound and sight to know what was “real” but touch, smell, and taste were unnecessary extras. But I guess if there are (apparently many) people who can’t do sound of vision or can do so only limittedly, I guess that isn’t it.
But I find it strange that aphants can visualize in dreams. In general I can’t dream of touches, smells, or taste…. except.. *very* rarely and occasionally I can dream of a smell. But so rarely that it seems utterly bizarre when it occurs
Since then I have been able to conjure up some tastes, smells, and touches but very faintly and only of some things. There was a very irritating period in college when I first become able to dream of pinching pain. It was (and still is) the only touch I’m capable of dreaming. (It’s unpleasant.)
I know that I dream in color because I have had dreams where color was prominently featured.
You know, it’s funny, until a few days ago I didn’t even know I was lacking a common ability, and now I find myself a little sad that I don’t have it.
I learned about his late last year from the Hello Internet podcast. On this episode they discuss it and one of the hosts says his father is completely aphantasic. They also have a follow-up discussion in the next episode, I believe. http://www.hellointernet.fm/podcast/131
I enjoy this podcast in general. It’s a couple of smart guys having interesting conversation about whatever. No idiotic laughter or hate, like too many podcasts have.
For any who don’t know “Hello Internet”, you might know the hosts: YouTube animator CGP Grey, and YouTube videographer Brady Harran (“Numberphile”, “Computerphile”, “Sixty Symbols”, etc)
Another good podcast that’s touched on this is “Serious Inquiries Only”, hosted by Thomas Smith (from “Thomas and the Bible”, “Opening Arguments”, “Philosophers in Space”, “Comedy Shoe Shine”, etc). In episode 227 (https://seriouspod.com/sio227-do-you-have-an-internal-monologue/), Thomas and his co-host Jamie discuss the fact that Jamie does not have an inner monologue at all.
@SingaporeBill, I watch both their videos, but for some reason have never felt tempted to listen to their podcast.
Carl Fink, podcast choice is very personal. I find the blend of their personalities, the give and take in the conversation and a general calmness of the thing appeals to me. There have been podcasts I’ve found where I really like the subject but something puts me off. Sound quality must be decent or I can’t listen. After that, I can’t stand a podcast that’s all whooping it up. If it’s got two or three (or more) people just jabbering and all laughing wildly at the stupid things they say, I hate that. I also don’t like when people don’t do some basic research. I, for example, am a cinephile. I love movies and the history of film etc. When I listen to a podcast that purports to be a couple of guys who are into movies discussing classic art films and they get details (easily checked by either looking at the film or reading online) wrong, can’t stand it.
However, that’s my preference. Other people love the stuff I hate.
“You know, it’s funny, until a few days ago I didn’t even know I was lacking a common ability, and now I find myself a little sad that I don’t have it.”
Well, apparently only 39% (and maybe less) of people have it good as I do. So, I’m surprised as well.
Well…. doing a little more research it seems quite probable I have (when it comes to vision and auditory) hyperphantasia and apparently, I’m *not* the guideline to compare it to. I’m really quite surprised.
I’m not *really* curious to know what is and isn’t typical. How does everyone else do on the star test? How do you do one this checklist?
========
Visual – Picture an apple on a plate.
What color is the apple?
What variety is the apple? (Red Delicious, Granny Smith, Macintosh…)
Which direction is the light coming from?
Is there a specular reflection – ie, a shiny spot, as if light is being accurately reflected by the skin of the apple?
Are there imperfections in the surface? Roughness, subtle variations in the color of the apple?
Is there reflected illumination from the plate onto the apple?
Can you easily zoom in on the apple, rotate it, etc? How faithful to an actual 3-D physical object is this in your mind’s eye?
Audio – Imagine a song, one with vocals and instruments. Pick one you’re familiar with.
Does it have all the instruments?
Are the vocals changing pitch, tone, etc?
Are the vocals actual words, or just sort of gibberish fitting the role? (Try singing along to whatever is going through your head out loud if you’re not sure)
How sharp are the drums?
Can you change the tempo?
Can you make the singer sound like they huffed helium?
Can you swap out instruments? Swap out lyrics wholesale?
Can you change the key or mode of the song?
Touch/Proprioception – Imagine your hand and an object, any object, in front of you.
Can you mentally reach out and touch it?
Does the object feel like it should? Hard/soft, hot/cold, smooth/rough, etc…
Could you feel your own imagined hand and arm? Were you aware of the physical movements in the same way that you know where your physical arm/hand/fingers are without looking?
How heavy is the object you imagined? The right weight?
Can you change that weight?
Close your eyes (mentally or physically, whatever works) and concentrate on that imagined hand. Start with the thumb. Tap it to your palm. Do the same with your index finger, then your middle, ring, little finger. Any problems?
Can you keep going? In other words, can you continue to ‘tap fingers’ with fingers you don’t have – imagine that you had extra fingers – despite not having a real-life analogue to compare to?
Can you go a step further, and imagine the feel of wholly alien things (bird wings, say) that will require entirely fictitious input?
Smell – Imagine a flower, preferably one with a strong smell
Can you smell it at all?
Does it smell strong enough, or just a faint whiff?
Is the smell accurate – a rose smelling like a rose?
Can you make it smell like something else – fresh cookies, say?
Multiple smells at once? Rose, cookies, old stinky socks?
Taste – Seems to be pretty rare, but… imagine a few foods.
Can you taste them?
If you imagine something salty – like a pickle or potato chips – and add imaginary salt to it, does it taste saltier?
Can you distinctly tell apart the taste of distinct items, like, say, two flavors of chips, or two kinds of candy bar, or two different wines?
Kind of the acid test: if you imagine a few foods and what they would taste like together, can you go in your kitchen, get those foods, eat them together, and have them taste the same? That is, are your imagined tastes demonstrably the same as the real thing to a degree that it would be useful cooking?
woozy: It seems like we’re on the opposite ends of the spectrum, which is perhaps why we’re also the most fascinated by this. Maybe other people can more easily imagine stronger or weaker visualization skills, but we’re so far at one end, that having/not having this ability is almost incomprehensible.
That checklist is a little long to answer everything, but to deal with the apple. If I’m asked to imagine an apple, I think about the properties of a “typical” apple, which for me is a Red Delicious: it’s red, the shape has sort of dimple curve in the middle, there’s a stem on top, etc. . . Until a few days ago I would have called that “picturing” an apple, but apparently most of the planet means something different by that than I do. I don’t imagine any light source, or shiny spot, imperfections, reflected illumination, etc. . ., since I don’t have any actual “picture” in my head that I’m looking at, and so mostly I’m just thinking of different properties of a “generic” apple. If you ask me to describe how I would make a realistic drawing of an apple with a pencil, I will start to think of where to put the light source, how to shade it to make it look realistic, what sort of imperfections I might put on it, etc. . . But none of that is automatic when you ask me to “picture an apple,” and it’s not really a picture that I’m looking at; it’s perhaps better described as a mental map of what I would do to draw a realistic apple.
Is that more comprehensible? Maybe not? Honestly, it’s still a little hard for me to believe that you can actually look at pictures of whatever you want, whenever you want. I just had a long talk with my wife about what she does when she “visualizes” something, and it’s clear at this point that it’s not just a matter of semantics – but it’s still hard for me to wrap my head around.
I get only momentary glimpses, not well detailed, when I visualize things. I definitely can’t hold a picture of the object and examine it closely. I don’t think I can “visualize” flavors or scents at all. None of that really bothers me.
I do experience something most here probably don’t, Hypnagogia:
So the list woozy posts about imagining the apple, I found that each additional item it asked for caused me to then add that to my mental image — which I’m not sure is what they’re after, or if it “counts”. So I picture an apple, it is not immediately detailed and specific, it more platonic or abstract; but as you ask me to add details, I can and do, so you want color? Sure. Are you gonna specify the color, or should I pick one? I can do either. Is it a granny smith? Sure, if you want. Does it have texture? Sure, the more you describe the texture, I can add that. Does it have a reflection on it? Well, now that you mention it, it does… Does that count? I think I learned not to bother to be too specific about something I’m visualizing until I have to be — if you are going to describe an apple in detail, it is extra work for me to deconstruct the detailed apple I had in mind to make it conform with your description — I’m better off starting with a platonic apple and then adding details as you list them. If you leave me on my own, I’d probably fill in the apple with details, assuming I need the picture of the apple and you’re not going to describe the details (say in a book), or I might just leave it as a platonic apple if it turns out not to be too important. But if the apple is central and you never bother to describe it more, I’ll probably have quite a vivid detailed image of that apple, and complain bitterly that the movie adaptation got the apple all wrong…
larK
That’s one of the issues I have. Visualizing is not “imagination” and its not like vividness is running away. And it’s not like we *need* to visualize to think and we don’t have rainmanlike need to add complete texture like an idiot savant. And it’s not synaesthesia.
But then the journalist can’t help but write it up like that. I think I put more detail then you do (but are you responding to “think of an apple” as opposed to being specifically told to “*visualize* an apple”? There’s a heck of a difference between those two commands.) but I find no difficulty at all in adding as little or as much detail and clarity as I want. I mean we’re just *visualizing*. But from what I read visualizing is rare…. or maybe the writers who can’t do it, think that it is.
There’s this description:
“The super-visualizer”
“At the other end of the spectrum is children’s book illustrator, Lauren Beard,…
“The text describes a baby perilously climbing onto a chandelier.
So at this point I’m engaged and waiting to hear about the exiting hyper-visual description…. And it is this:
“Straightaway I can visualise this grand glass chandelier in some sort of French kind of ballroom, and the little baby just swinging off it and really heavy thick curtains,” she says.
Um… That’s it ???? She writes about a baby climbing a glass chandelier and … she can picture it in her mind with some detail …. and …. that’s considered “super-visualizing”???
“Not many people have mental imagery as vibrant as Lauren…”
Really? They *don’t*? It’s… just a baby in a ballroom swinging from a chandelier. Why would anyone *not* be able to visualize that? I thought there’d be something about counting the bees in the bushes out the window or the thread count of the cotton polyester blend of his pajamas with purple elephants and the shape of the faded juice stain fading into the fabric or something.
But then I read that to visualize a “red star” that only 39% of people can do that. (What!?!?!?) And those who can’t are surprised it’s that high. (I’m surprised it’s below 91%)
So…. I have no idea if I’m hyperphantasic or not. I can visualize or “hear” *anything I can think of in as much detail and clarity as I need or want but that seems about as intriguing or as rare as claiming “I can write a sentence in English with one hand while petting a cat in the other! I must be hyperagilfrabjoulous!”
“And those who can’t are surprised it’s that high.”
Well, it should be pretty clear at this point, but just to drive the point home: I’m still just stunned that it’s not 0%!
Woozy: “(but are you responding to ‘think of an apple’ as opposed to being specifically told to ‘*visualize* an apple’? There’s a heck of a difference between those two commands.)”
There may be a stark difference in your mind, but for me they’re pretty close. Even when trying to visualize the face of someone I know, I can easily remember what he/she looks like, but I can’t hold an image of his/her face in my head for more than a brief moment. If try to focus on one detail (like a person’s eyes or the apple’s shape), the other details (like a person’s hair or the apple’s color) disappear.
Then I guess I *do* have hyperphantasia….
I just feel that something with that fancy a name should be like a superpower or something. Like you visualize with more detail than you can actually imagine. Or that it’s hyper real and imagine a flash can cause pain or something.
Maybe I don’t understand why the ability to visualize *should* be in any way limited. My ability to imagine anything in clarity for as long as I’d like doesn’t seem to tap into any mental region that isn’t engaged in normal activity (memory, thought, imagination,etc. Of which I’m utterly normal) . It’s just… why should it be hobbled for anyone?
Maybe I should figure a way to turn it into a super power. If you need to have a horse tap dancing in a watermelon field visualized, I can do it for you for a modest fee….
@woozy: did you follow the links I posted (way) above about Temple Grandin? She describes her visual thinking style in detail, about how it allows her to “test drive” designs she makes before building to see that it works right, and other such details. She doesn’t make it out to be a super power, but she does find it useful, and she does have to come to grips that clearly not everyone is endowed with the same abilities.
larK
Yes, but she “thinks in pictures”. I don’t think in words, pictures, or moods, or impressions. I just think. I can to a certain degree put my thoughts into pictures, moods or words, (although putting them into words is always much harder and comes out flatter than it should)
Maybe she discovered people don’t visualize as well as she did, but I guess like Winter Wallaby but in reverse, I just assumed she meant she realized people don’t use images as a primary way of being conscious, because it never occurred to me any-one couldn’t visualize what a cow sees when it walks through a tunnel.
(I read this some many years ago.)
And she solves problems in pictures because her visualization. I suspect if I asked her to visualize an elephant crawling through a mousehole she’d have trouble. I can solve some many problems through visualization but as me pictures are not actually constructed they are under no obligation to follow the laws of physics to any degree *more* than I actually know them. If I imagined dropping two objects off a building and I intuitively had a rough idea of their mass and I only had an intuitive idea of the laws of impact there is no reason the craters created would match reality. And of course I can visualize the ping pong causing an earthquake and the bowling bow floating away in the breeze.
Also part of my surprise is I find it moderately possible to imagine how people might not be able to visualize at all, but I find it really strange to imagine that people can do it but very badly. If you can do it at all, it’s hard to imagine why you can’t just do it well.
larK: If the ability to visualize made marked differences in outward ability, then I don’t think either of us would have been able to go so long without realizing that there were these differences in ability. I’m not saying you can’t find a use for your “superpower,” but in terms of outward appearances, the ability to visualize and the ability the imagine appear quite similar.
All this reminds me of Stendhal and Mallarmé. Stendhal’s depiction of the Saint Bernard pass, when he understands he’s not describing his memories but an engraving he had seen later on a wall someplace (and actually, he’s not describing the engraving but the memory of it). Mallarmé put it more poetically: “Je dis : une fleur ! et, hors de l’oubli où ma voix relègue aucun contour, en tant que quelque chose d’autre que les calices sus, musicalement se lève, idée rieuse ou altière, l’absente de tous bouquets.” Flower instead of apple.
I learn better listening than reading. My visual memory is about location: I can never remember a quote but I know exactly where in a book I can find it. I can remember/dream/imagine sight, smell (actually my best links to very early memories), taste, sound, touch. Dreams are more vivid than recollection or imagination. I can also sometimes control my dreams but I avoid it now because waking up can be very upsetting. I am never bored in a waiting room.
It was woozy talking about “superpowers”. My take is that people may use vastly different engines under the hood, but that they have all conformed to have roughly the same appearance of performance on the outside. That doesn’t mean, however, that the differences in the underlying engine don’t give advantages (and disadvantages) in certain tasks (and it’s simply evolutionarily beneficial that there are a multitude of ways to solve a problem, so I don’t see this going away anytime soon, either). I have in past here written about the difficulties I encountered in school and in learning, where the method used to teach is not optimal for my way of thinking. Some people are able to leverage this to differentiate themselves and advance way beyond others, and others get a sub optimal education and suffer disadvantages. And probably most (I think this is my case) work very hard using their different system to merely catch up to the mean, which is a waste of potential, but keeps society grinding along.
” I have in past here written about the difficulties I encountered in school and in learning, where the method used to teach is not optimal for my way of thinking. ”
I guess every *other* trait I’ve had (or I wanted to believe I had because it’d make me feel special) as in ADHD, or Introversion or tactile information processor, or lucid dreamer, and west coast accent, or whatever, I’ve always felt something before hand to determine that somehow it fits me.
This is, so far as I can tell, the only time where it *never* occurred to me anyone *would* be different. And this is also one of the only times where the alternative way just seems quite alien.
larK: Whoops, I meant woozy.
Re: different optimal learning styles. My wife recently commented, “I used to think that the fact that you passed all your classes in college by skipping class, and just reading the book at home, showed how smart you were. But I’ve come to realize that it’s also because you s-k at auditory learning.”
She wasn’t being mean, just matter-of-fact. (She was right.)
I also find this fascinating — I can do everything on woozy’s list, but visualizing something isn’t remotely like looking at it, or dreaming I’m looking at it, it’s like remembering looking at it, which is quite different. How does that figure in?
…my default apple is a Macoun. Which doesn’t look like the one on the Wikipedia page.
Dave in Boston: Are you sure that you can do everything in woozy’s list? My understanding is that by “visualizing” he means that it is like looking at it. i.e. it’s just like photons hitting the eyes. Similarly with the picture in the cartoon: 1-5 means “what do you see, floating before your eyes?”
If it’s just “can you remember looking at something?” and recall or imagine specific details, then I can do that, but I think almost everyone can. If the ability to recall details was what was in question, then the tests woozy linked to could have been objective, rather than subjective: e.g. “Can you remember what colors apples can come in?”
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? I’m not talking about remembering what colors apples come in, or what shape they are, I’m talking about visualizing the color and shape. Definitely visual in nature; could draw from it, if I could draw. But it’s not the _same_ as seeing something in person, like dreaming is, nor does it overlay or obscure anything I’m actually looking at. It’s like remembering having seen an apple last week, except it’s synthetic.
What does it means to “visualize” something if you can’t actually “see” it? Until last week I would have said “visualize” was shorthand for “forming a good mental map from your recollections that you can use for things like drawing a picture, or other practical activities,” which sounds like what you’re saying. But after talking to woozy and others, I’ve become convinced this is not what the majority of people mean by “visualize.”
In other words, it seems like I can do what you can do, so either you have aphantasia, or I’ve incorrectly diagnosed myself with aphantasia.
Well, it’s visual; it’s like looking at something, it’s spatial, there’s depth perception, etc, it’s just not the _same_ as looking at something. It doesn’t seem the same as what you’re describing, but it also doesn’t necessarily seem the same as what others are describing either, at least some of which sounds like visualized objects actually appear in their vision.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Guy #1 lacks the ability to internally visualize things, and also lacks the ability to internally vocalize speech, and thought that these things were normal. Guy #2 has just broken the bad news that the first inability isn’t normal, and is now realizing that he’s going to have to break the bad news that the second inability isn’t normal either.
When I first saw this comic, I looked up aphantasia, and was a little confused as to whether I have it. Actually, I guess I’m still a little confused about that.
https://www.iflscience.com/brain/people-are-weirded-out-to-discover-that-some-people-dont-have-an-internal-monologue/
The next thing the face-making guy will say is something along the lines of, “Yeah, no, I hate to break it to you but that’s also a real thing.”
So, I guess the question is — CDIU Bill — when YOU picture an apple in your head, do you actually see a picture of an apple? And, when you’re having an internal monologue, do you actually physically hear a voice? If you don’t, that would explain why you’re not understanding the joke.
chemgal, thanks for that link. I especially liked the facebook post it linked to.
ianosmond: What does it mean to see a picture of an apple in your head? Is it actually just like seeing a real apple, with colors and shapes as if photons were hitting your receptors? Like I said, now I’m not sure if I have aphantasia.
As someone without an internal monologue I found this weird, in that it seems very weird to me to imagine people can’t visualize an image in their head (is that a thing?) and the voice over in movies *is* supposed to be literary narrative device. Yes, the character *could* have an internal monologue but that’s not why the film director put it in. Most jokes of this type are misconception of something common is the setup, and the punchline is misconception of something *extremely* common. In this case setup is bizarre and weird but the punchline is barely a misconception at all. (At least to me.)
Or does the cartoonist, who apparently *does* have an internal monologue, imagine that those of us who don’t have one, *can’t* have one.
I can and often do have an internal monologue but it is something I purposely and conciously create. And I do the same when I picture an apple in my head.
So… um… are there people who *can’t* picture things in their minds. Are there people who *can’t* do internal monologues?
I do sometimes do a silent monologue as if I were rehearsing explaining something. It’s for my own amusement or to think about a subject more deeply but not my normal thought process.
Winter Wallaby.
I think Aphantasia is the *in*ability to picture. Not the lack or necessarily needing to visualize. The issue I think is *can* you imagine a picture of an apple with color and texture and shapes. I imagine you *can*. I suppose a secondary question is if told “picture an apple” do you *have* to add all the colors.
The *inability* might be a “condition”. But I would imagine the *necessity* to is just as much so.
Then again maybe I have a weird condition and everyone else has it differently.
…..
And I imagine the cartoonist, who does have an internal monologue, is incorrectly assuming the lack of one is aphantasia which I presume it absolutely is not.
The voice in my head is telling me to set fire to my teacher, but everyone has that, right?
I can visualize better with my eyes open.
Closed visualization only works as a sleep aid, when I’m near sleep anyhow.
Go figure.
I was a music student, and I can read a score and hear the music in my head. My roommate found this out, and told his friends “He can hear music in his head” as if he were saying I can turn straw to gold or something. But can’t you all hear music in your head? Don’t you ever get a song stuck in your head? I believe we even talked about “earworms” here not too long ago.
Such an interesting topic! I picture things complete with colors, and ALL of my thoughts are internal monologues. I didn’t know anyone else was different. It took me years to learn to turn the thoughts off so I could go to sleep quickly. Even writing this, I’m dictating to myself.
woozy: “The issue I think is *can* you imagine a picture of an apple with color and texture and shapes. I imagine you *can*.”
Can I? I don’t know if I can. I can think about what an apple looks like. I can recall apples that I’ve seen, and “design” new apples in my head that I’ve never seen before. But I wouldn’t say that a picture appears in my head that I can look at in the same way that I “see” an apple when I dream. Not sure if this is just semantics, or I have a genuine difference with what you’re describing.
I can internally monologue. I find it difficult to assess what fraction of the time I internally monologue, since any time I think about whether I’m internally monologuing. . . “bam, I am!”
Like most things about the human brain, there are degrees. Aphantasia is at one extreme, presumably people with eidetic memory are at the other. I can visualize, but I end up with an abstraction more than a concrete representation. I have a super-present internal monologue, though.
woozy: “The issue I think is *can* you imagine a picture of an apple with color and texture and shapes. I imagine you *can*.”
I’m not sure. Can I?
I can remember what an apple looks like, or think of a new apple that I’ve never seen before. But I don’t “see” an image of apple like I do when I’m dreaming. I’m not sure if this is a genuine difference in ability from what you’re describing, or just a difference in how we describe it.
I can definitely internally monologue. It’s hard to assess how often I do it, since any time I think about whether I’m internally monologuing . . . bam, I am!
Ugh, thought my first comment was just gone, it didn’t look like it was in moderation.
“Can I? I don’t know if I can. I can think about what an apple looks like. I can recall apples that I’ve seen, and “design” new apples in my head that I’ve never seen before.”
Then, from what the description is, you are not aphantasic. People with Aphantasia can not do that. At all apparently. If you ask them to imagine an apple they can not do it at all. I think your, and admitted my, problem is we can’t comprehend how anyone possibly *can’t*; it’s so basic to us.
I guess if I think of it, I can think of places or situations where there are a *lot* of details that it’s impossible to notice them all at once or remember them all (a victorian parlor in a busy movie where *every* shelf and mantle piece has at least a dozen different knick-knacks, or the living room of the Addams family television show, or a bookcase with over many different book titles and covers) and guess the difficulty of bringing up that complicated an image… I can imagine. SO I *guess aphantasia must be like that but for *all* images no matter how simple.
You can try this test. https://aphantasia.com/vviq/ Unfortunately its completely subjective but it gives you an idea of what can potentially be visualized. For me imagining a storm cloud with lightening over a lake was pretty vague and cartoonish but going to a counter at a store or imagining my mothers face and posture was a clear as seeing it.
Mark in Boston – I have earworms all the time; I sing a lot, I can hear a song and join in by the second verse (if I’ve got words). However, I look at a music score and it’s a bunch of dots on a page. I can, laboriously, say “this dot is a whole C and this one is a half-note D and this is a half-note E” – and all that tells me is that the music goes up slowly there. I have no idea what note a C is, without a reference. If I look at a music score, I most definitely do _not_ hear music in my head. My mom is in our church choir; she discovered (a few years ago) that some of the other singers can do that – see an unfamiliar song in musical notation and “hear” (or just hear) the music directly, and we were goggling over this weird ability. Do you have perfect pitch, too? or anything close to it? I can make clear tones (by voice), but I have no idea what note name belongs to that tone. Nor, given a note name, can I generate that tone. With an instrument I can do it, but it’s because I know what fingering belongs to what note, not what the note sounds like.
I can visualize things, but it’s somewhere between 3 and 4 from the first panel – I see the idea of a something (apple, whatever) rather than the clear object (roundish, crunchy, apple-smelling, tart, red or green or stripey or…). Which makes it really annoying to try to draw something that’s not physically right in front of me for reference.
I do internal monologue – but it’s usually conversations between two people, either me and someone I talked to or need to talk to, or between two characters in a story I made up. Huh, I guess I mostly internal dialogue rather than monologue… I’m more likely to _see_ a word than to hear it, actually. Which makes sense – I can remember something I’ve seen written a heck of a lot better than something I’ve heard. Just the way I’m wired, I guess.
I see pictures in my head, but I wouldn’t call it a “realistic apple” – it’s a lot more shadowy and vague than a real apple I actually see. I have a STRONG internal monologue, and sometimes put myself to sleep by “hearing” music and “seeing” things. I can dope out a melody from a music sheet, but that’s work, and something I’ve learned to do, not something that came naturally (learning Gregorian chant really helps develop this ability, BTW).
I mostly comport with ignatzz’s description.
I found the quiz linked by woozy to be frustrating (and not just because I couldn’t get results without putting in my personal information). I just don’t understand the difference between the different levels of visualization.
woozy: It seems to me that there’s a difference between what I said I can do (think about/recall what an apple looks like), and being able to visualize an apple. If aphantasiacs were unable to think about/recall what an apple looks like without actually seeing one, the test would be very simple and objective: “Q: What colors do apples come in? A: I have no way of knowing, there are no apples here.”
You say my problem may be that I can’t comprehend not being able to visualize an apple, but my problem is more at the other end. e.g. the test that you link to has a rating for “5. Perfectly clear and lively as real seeing.” I can’t understand something in my imagination being as clear and lively as real seeing, unless it’s a dream or a hallucination. I’m not even sure that ratings 3 and 4, “moderately clear and lively,” or “clear and lively” make sense to me.
Actually, the more you describe what we “can all do,” the more I feel that I’m at least far on the aphantasiac spectrum. (As Carl says, it’s presumably a matter of degree.)
So reading up on it.
…..
I wonder do people distinguish or not distinguish between visualizing and thinking about. If you ask me to *think* of a peanut butter sandwich I won’t visualize anything, I’ll think of the *concept* of a peanut butter sandwhich with visualizing any components. If you ask my to *visualize* a peanut butter sandwich I will do so in great but not complete detail. A photorealistic peanut butter sandwich will have hundreds if not thousands of air bubble pockets in the bread but my image those will be glossed over to merely texture.
And I have an internal monologue that never stops but it’s about composing letters or a thinking about whether I liked the television show I watched last night and exploring theoretical ideas. If I have to think about whether I need to go shopping or have to brush my teeth I certainly *never* hear a voice say “I need to brush my teeth”.
…..
I’m a bit surprised to find how common it is to have an imperfect visualizing ability and how those who have it find it hard to believe others have good visualizing skills. And I’m surprised to find that, apparently, my visualization skill are…. quite good.
There was a test
where you were asked to identify what you visualize when asked to visualize a red star. One commentator found it hard to believe that a “whopping” 39% claimed to visualize a 6, and was pretty sure people tended to over exaggerate to vividness of their vision and that people probably saw the chart *before* visualizing.
It would never have occurred to me that anyone on the planet wouldn’t visualize at a six, it’s just a color and a shape after all, and I’m utterly floored it is as low as 39%. Even learning this condition exists I’d have assumed at least 91% of people would always be a 6.
I really don’t think I have hyperphantasia, but I read one article about a woman who was considered an extreme and as an example when asked to visualize a baby climbing in a chandelier imagined the baby and clothing and the individual chrystal prisms getting tangled and french ballroom style windows and opening staircases. And I …. don’t find such details to be surprising or unusual. I imagine if this woman does have hyperphantasia she probably imagines the view through the windows and individual knick-knacks on a dozens or so display cases.
ww ignatz,
Look at those apples in the cartoon. What level do you visualize. When I first posted I assumed that everyone would have done a 1 and would have thought it was very strange that there might be anyone who wouldn’t do a 1.
Now, that I’ve read up, it would seem it would be around a 3. If you do a 4 or 5 I’d say you might be aphant. Early on you asked “s it actually just like seeing a real apple, with colors and shapes as if photons were hitting your receptors? ” and I guess I didn’t quite understand you question because the answer, for me, to that, is “yes, absolutely…. it didn’t occur to me anyone wouldn’t”
I meant to say: Now, that I’ve read up, it would seem it would be around a 3 would be about average.
woozy, this reminds me of the standard childhood question of “when we see red, do we all see the same thing?” That question always struck me as frustratingly vague and possibly meaningless, but the question here seems much more interesting. Like you, I have trouble imagining the “other side.” When you choose “6,” you don’t just mean that you can think of the properties of a red star? You can actually close your eyes and see a red star floating there, just as if you were dreaming?
I can comment in general on this blog, but for some reason every comment I make about aphantasia ends up in moderation. Why is that?
Or, right, I forgot. We must not try to speculate on the mystery of the moderation algorithms.
“I can comment in general on this blog, but for some reason every comment I make about aphantasia ends up in moderation. Why is that?”
You have comments that *don’t* end up in moderation?
Temple Grandin is a fairly famous person with autism who has written extensively about what her experience with autism is like. She is an extremely strong visual thinker, and has written about that extensively as well. I am a visual thinker, but not nearly as vividly and strongly (and usefully) as she is, but I recognize myself in her descriptions of how she thinks (though I don’t have autism):
https://templegrandin.com/article.html
https://grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html
” You can actually close your eyes and see a red star floating there, just as if you were dreaming?”
Yesterday, I would have answered that “Of course”. I can imagine anything I like any color I like. The only limit is how many details I can keep track of in my head at one time which I guess is about a dozen. So if I imagine a city block in New York on a Sunny Day if I spend time imagining the individual people I’ll forget to imagine the many store fronts and cars.
I honestly thought every one could. And even now I can’t really imagine how one couldn’t. You can see something when you *are* looking at it so…. just remember that when you aren’t.
Although to be fair its very very hard for me to bring up smell and odors. And other than pain and rabbits fur, it had to imagine touch. So I guess Aphantasia must be similar to the difficulty of recalling sensation only not just for touch and smell but for sight. But I assumed that was because we don’t rely on touch or small as much as sight and sound. …. guess not.
I didn’t realize that “dreaming” was something common and imagining was not. Anything I can do asleep I can do awake. Even better as I can keep track of my train of thought.
But my answer is an unqualified…. Yes… I can.
I wonder…. are you a visual, tactile, aural, oral, or linear learner. I’m strong tactile and visual to the point of spoken directions are completely useless to me. …. I don’t think I’d be capable of *learning* anything if I couldn’t visualize things.
Oh, I almost *never* dream of touch and smell and (!god forbid!) I attempt to dream of taste (dreaming about eating food is *revolting* because the taste is *AWFUL*). Do *you* dream of touch and smell and taste?
Do you dream in color? When I was young I read that the majority of people dreamed in Black and White which I couldn’t imagine; I always dream in color *vivid* color, sometimes *more* vivid than reality. But I’ve read that is no long the case presumably because Color Movies and Television is more common.
…..
Could that be why when my step father lost his vision he could no longer comprehend basic things because he couldn’t visualize them? We tried to get him talking software but it was a complete failure because if you moved your mouse over *anything* it would say what it was no matter how irrelevant and every single popup window was read aloud. And when he rested his hand on the mouse the cursor would go to the edge of the screen and repeat “edge of screen, edge of screen” over and over. He wanted to know what all that noise was and I said “Every time the mouse goes over something, or any time any menu pops up, it announces it, and you know how whenever you do *anything* an a computer so many visual things happen at once” and … he didn’t get it or understand it. He’d been using computers for 30 years. Could he have *forgotten* just how visual they were?
woozy: Early on you asked “Is it actually just like seeing a real apple, with colors and shapes as if photons were hitting your receptors?” and I guess I didn’t quite understand you question because the answer, for me, to that, is “yes, absolutely…. it didn’t occur to me anyone wouldn’t”
It didn’t occur to me that anyone could. Well, OK, it occurred to me – that’s why I asked – but I was pretty sure you would say “no, of course not.” It sounds like you can have vivid hallucinations whenever you want.
It’s sort of a wonder that humans are even able to communicate with each other.
This thing is, I would say (or would have said) that I’m good at visualizing or imagining things. I can think of what the geographical and political map of Europe looks like, and draw it from memory. Or I can think of what the free-body diagram looks like for a physics problem, and use it to derive the relevant equations. But they’re primarily abstractions – it’s not like looking at an actual picture.
I’m surprised at hearing “it’s like dreaming”. but I guess if you can’t visualize hallucinations and dreams are the only visionization other than actual seeing that aphants do. (I’m actually surprised aphants can visually dream.)
I don’t think it’s at all like dreaming or hallucinations because it’s completely voluntary. .. and the don’t have any permience. And although it is visual it doesn’t “seem” any more real than any other thought. It’s just like any other form of thinking except…I’m thinking of an image.
It astonishes me this is unusual in any way.
so… when you are looking at a picture do you think “oh, yeah. Now I remember what things look like. I had forgotten”?
“so… when you are looking at a picture do you think “oh, yeah. Now I remember what things look like. I had forgotten”?”
No, I know what things look like even when I’m not looking at them. I think what makes this difficult to discuss, is that outwardly, functionally everything seems to be identical for us. That’s why I initially thought this must just be a difference in how we describe things.
For example, if you ask me, “how do you get to the grocery store from your house?” I know the layout of my neighborhood from a bird’s eye view, and can describe it to you. Or I can think about all the things that you would pass on the way to the grocery store, or describe the shape and color of all those things. I remember and can describe all those things. But I can’t close my eyes and look at them in the same way that I could look at a picture.
I don’t know if I dream in color. I don’t particularly remember colors from dreams, but I guess if they were all black-and-white, I’d remember that, because that would be pretty noticeable.
Re: learning style. I learn best by reading books. Actually, for a long time, I didn’t understand what the point was of going to math and science classes. Sure in smaller, advanced classes (or in humanities and social sciences) there can be discussions that are useful. But for a large lecture, the teacher is telling you stuff already laid out in the textbook. Except because they’re lecturing to a general audience, they go slowly over stuff you already understand, and quickly over stuff you don’t. And when you stop listening for a bit, or don’t understand something, you can’t stop and go back and reread it. Lectures just seemed like an obviously poor way to learn things. Much, much easier to just skip class, and use that time to stay home and read the book. I really didn’t understand why anyone went to class unless there was mandatory attendance.
It wasn’t until I was in my 30’s that someone told me they could absorb the information better when hearing someone speaking, than from reading a book. Suddenly the whole lecture system made much more sense. But it was almost incomprehensible at first, as if she had said she learned best while standing on her head.
@Winter Wallaby:
I know of one professional artist who is an aphant. Performative ability to draw something is not identical to visualizing it. (She’s actually how I learned about aphantasia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewsGmhAjjjI)
I remember when I was eleven wondering why it was possible to conjure up images and sounds completely but not touches, smells, or tastes. And I wondered how it was possible to remember a familiar taste when you are eating it, if you can’t actually conjure and remember it when you are not.
I still wonder about that and don’t understand how that can/n’t be. I always assumed that we relied on sound and sight to know what was “real” but touch, smell, and taste were unnecessary extras. But I guess if there are (apparently many) people who can’t do sound of vision or can do so only limittedly, I guess that isn’t it.
But I find it strange that aphants can visualize in dreams. In general I can’t dream of touches, smells, or taste…. except.. *very* rarely and occasionally I can dream of a smell. But so rarely that it seems utterly bizarre when it occurs
Since then I have been able to conjure up some tastes, smells, and touches but very faintly and only of some things. There was a very irritating period in college when I first become able to dream of pinching pain. It was (and still is) the only touch I’m capable of dreaming. (It’s unpleasant.)
I know that I dream in color because I have had dreams where color was prominently featured.
You know, it’s funny, until a few days ago I didn’t even know I was lacking a common ability, and now I find myself a little sad that I don’t have it.
I learned about his late last year from the Hello Internet podcast. On this episode they discuss it and one of the hosts says his father is completely aphantasic. They also have a follow-up discussion in the next episode, I believe. http://www.hellointernet.fm/podcast/131
I enjoy this podcast in general. It’s a couple of smart guys having interesting conversation about whatever. No idiotic laughter or hate, like too many podcasts have.
For any who don’t know “Hello Internet”, you might know the hosts: YouTube animator CGP Grey, and YouTube videographer Brady Harran (“Numberphile”, “Computerphile”, “Sixty Symbols”, etc)
Another good podcast that’s touched on this is “Serious Inquiries Only”, hosted by Thomas Smith (from “Thomas and the Bible”, “Opening Arguments”, “Philosophers in Space”, “Comedy Shoe Shine”, etc). In episode 227 (https://seriouspod.com/sio227-do-you-have-an-internal-monologue/), Thomas and his co-host Jamie discuss the fact that Jamie does not have an inner monologue at all.
@SingaporeBill, I watch both their videos, but for some reason have never felt tempted to listen to their podcast.
If you’re at all curious, you can get a taste from some of the HI animations which have shown up on YouTube, such as https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe_b-HAZD1pW-Da_Atlx_1XfyNVe-sv9r
Carl Fink, podcast choice is very personal. I find the blend of their personalities, the give and take in the conversation and a general calmness of the thing appeals to me. There have been podcasts I’ve found where I really like the subject but something puts me off. Sound quality must be decent or I can’t listen. After that, I can’t stand a podcast that’s all whooping it up. If it’s got two or three (or more) people just jabbering and all laughing wildly at the stupid things they say, I hate that. I also don’t like when people don’t do some basic research. I, for example, am a cinephile. I love movies and the history of film etc. When I listen to a podcast that purports to be a couple of guys who are into movies discussing classic art films and they get details (easily checked by either looking at the film or reading online) wrong, can’t stand it.
However, that’s my preference. Other people love the stuff I hate.
“You know, it’s funny, until a few days ago I didn’t even know I was lacking a common ability, and now I find myself a little sad that I don’t have it.”
Well, apparently only 39% (and maybe less) of people have it good as I do. So, I’m surprised as well.
Well…. doing a little more research it seems quite probable I have (when it comes to vision and auditory) hyperphantasia and apparently, I’m *not* the guideline to compare it to. I’m really quite surprised.
I’m not *really* curious to know what is and isn’t typical. How does everyone else do on the star test? How do you do one this checklist?
========
Visual – Picture an apple on a plate.
What color is the apple?
What variety is the apple? (Red Delicious, Granny Smith, Macintosh…)
Which direction is the light coming from?
Is there a specular reflection – ie, a shiny spot, as if light is being accurately reflected by the skin of the apple?
Are there imperfections in the surface? Roughness, subtle variations in the color of the apple?
Is there reflected illumination from the plate onto the apple?
Can you easily zoom in on the apple, rotate it, etc? How faithful to an actual 3-D physical object is this in your mind’s eye?
Audio – Imagine a song, one with vocals and instruments. Pick one you’re familiar with.
Does it have all the instruments?
Are the vocals changing pitch, tone, etc?
Are the vocals actual words, or just sort of gibberish fitting the role? (Try singing along to whatever is going through your head out loud if you’re not sure)
How sharp are the drums?
Can you change the tempo?
Can you make the singer sound like they huffed helium?
Can you swap out instruments? Swap out lyrics wholesale?
Can you change the key or mode of the song?
Touch/Proprioception – Imagine your hand and an object, any object, in front of you.
Can you mentally reach out and touch it?
Does the object feel like it should? Hard/soft, hot/cold, smooth/rough, etc…
Could you feel your own imagined hand and arm? Were you aware of the physical movements in the same way that you know where your physical arm/hand/fingers are without looking?
How heavy is the object you imagined? The right weight?
Can you change that weight?
Close your eyes (mentally or physically, whatever works) and concentrate on that imagined hand. Start with the thumb. Tap it to your palm. Do the same with your index finger, then your middle, ring, little finger. Any problems?
Can you keep going? In other words, can you continue to ‘tap fingers’ with fingers you don’t have – imagine that you had extra fingers – despite not having a real-life analogue to compare to?
Can you go a step further, and imagine the feel of wholly alien things (bird wings, say) that will require entirely fictitious input?
Smell – Imagine a flower, preferably one with a strong smell
Can you smell it at all?
Does it smell strong enough, or just a faint whiff?
Is the smell accurate – a rose smelling like a rose?
Can you make it smell like something else – fresh cookies, say?
Multiple smells at once? Rose, cookies, old stinky socks?
Taste – Seems to be pretty rare, but… imagine a few foods.
Can you taste them?
If you imagine something salty – like a pickle or potato chips – and add imaginary salt to it, does it taste saltier?
Can you distinctly tell apart the taste of distinct items, like, say, two flavors of chips, or two kinds of candy bar, or two different wines?
Kind of the acid test: if you imagine a few foods and what they would taste like together, can you go in your kitchen, get those foods, eat them together, and have them taste the same? That is, are your imagined tastes demonstrably the same as the real thing to a degree that it would be useful cooking?
woozy: It seems like we’re on the opposite ends of the spectrum, which is perhaps why we’re also the most fascinated by this. Maybe other people can more easily imagine stronger or weaker visualization skills, but we’re so far at one end, that having/not having this ability is almost incomprehensible.
That checklist is a little long to answer everything, but to deal with the apple. If I’m asked to imagine an apple, I think about the properties of a “typical” apple, which for me is a Red Delicious: it’s red, the shape has sort of dimple curve in the middle, there’s a stem on top, etc. . . Until a few days ago I would have called that “picturing” an apple, but apparently most of the planet means something different by that than I do. I don’t imagine any light source, or shiny spot, imperfections, reflected illumination, etc. . ., since I don’t have any actual “picture” in my head that I’m looking at, and so mostly I’m just thinking of different properties of a “generic” apple. If you ask me to describe how I would make a realistic drawing of an apple with a pencil, I will start to think of where to put the light source, how to shade it to make it look realistic, what sort of imperfections I might put on it, etc. . . But none of that is automatic when you ask me to “picture an apple,” and it’s not really a picture that I’m looking at; it’s perhaps better described as a mental map of what I would do to draw a realistic apple.
Is that more comprehensible? Maybe not? Honestly, it’s still a little hard for me to believe that you can actually look at pictures of whatever you want, whenever you want. I just had a long talk with my wife about what she does when she “visualizes” something, and it’s clear at this point that it’s not just a matter of semantics – but it’s still hard for me to wrap my head around.
I get only momentary glimpses, not well detailed, when I visualize things. I definitely can’t hold a picture of the object and examine it closely. I don’t think I can “visualize” flavors or scents at all. None of that really bothers me.
I do experience something most here probably don’t, Hypnagogia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia
I’d be surprised if most of us hadn’t experienced hypnagogic phenomena. I certainly have.
Anyone else had waking dreams? I had a serious sleep deficit for a while there.
By coincidence, this link was posted on another of my groups this morning:
‘I have no mind’s eye’: what is it like being an author with aphantasia? | Books | The Guardian
https://tinyurl.com/vetuxxm
So the list woozy posts about imagining the apple, I found that each additional item it asked for caused me to then add that to my mental image — which I’m not sure is what they’re after, or if it “counts”. So I picture an apple, it is not immediately detailed and specific, it more platonic or abstract; but as you ask me to add details, I can and do, so you want color? Sure. Are you gonna specify the color, or should I pick one? I can do either. Is it a granny smith? Sure, if you want. Does it have texture? Sure, the more you describe the texture, I can add that. Does it have a reflection on it? Well, now that you mention it, it does… Does that count? I think I learned not to bother to be too specific about something I’m visualizing until I have to be — if you are going to describe an apple in detail, it is extra work for me to deconstruct the detailed apple I had in mind to make it conform with your description — I’m better off starting with a platonic apple and then adding details as you list them. If you leave me on my own, I’d probably fill in the apple with details, assuming I need the picture of the apple and you’re not going to describe the details (say in a book), or I might just leave it as a platonic apple if it turns out not to be too important. But if the apple is central and you never bother to describe it more, I’ll probably have quite a vivid detailed image of that apple, and complain bitterly that the movie adaptation got the apple all wrong…
larK
That’s one of the issues I have. Visualizing is not “imagination” and its not like vividness is running away. And it’s not like we *need* to visualize to think and we don’t have rainmanlike need to add complete texture like an idiot savant. And it’s not synaesthesia.
But then the journalist can’t help but write it up like that. I think I put more detail then you do (but are you responding to “think of an apple” as opposed to being specifically told to “*visualize* an apple”? There’s a heck of a difference between those two commands.) but I find no difficulty at all in adding as little or as much detail and clarity as I want. I mean we’re just *visualizing*. But from what I read visualizing is rare…. or maybe the writers who can’t do it, think that it is.
There’s this description:
from https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34039054
So at this point I’m engaged and waiting to hear about the exiting hyper-visual description…. And it is this:
Um… That’s it ???? She writes about a baby climbing a glass chandelier and … she can picture it in her mind with some detail …. and …. that’s considered “super-visualizing”???
“Not many people have mental imagery as vibrant as Lauren…”
Really? They *don’t*? It’s… just a baby in a ballroom swinging from a chandelier. Why would anyone *not* be able to visualize that? I thought there’d be something about counting the bees in the bushes out the window or the thread count of the cotton polyester blend of his pajamas with purple elephants and the shape of the faded juice stain fading into the fabric or something.
But then I read that to visualize a “red star” that only 39% of people can do that. (What!?!?!?) And those who can’t are surprised it’s that high. (I’m surprised it’s below 91%)
So…. I have no idea if I’m hyperphantasic or not. I can visualize or “hear” *anything I can think of in as much detail and clarity as I need or want but that seems about as intriguing or as rare as claiming “I can write a sentence in English with one hand while petting a cat in the other! I must be hyperagilfrabjoulous!”
“And those who can’t are surprised it’s that high.”
Well, it should be pretty clear at this point, but just to drive the point home: I’m still just stunned that it’s not 0%!
Woozy: “(but are you responding to ‘think of an apple’ as opposed to being specifically told to ‘*visualize* an apple’? There’s a heck of a difference between those two commands.)”
There may be a stark difference in your mind, but for me they’re pretty close. Even when trying to visualize the face of someone I know, I can easily remember what he/she looks like, but I can’t hold an image of his/her face in my head for more than a brief moment. If try to focus on one detail (like a person’s eyes or the apple’s shape), the other details (like a person’s hair or the apple’s color) disappear.
Then I guess I *do* have hyperphantasia….
I just feel that something with that fancy a name should be like a superpower or something. Like you visualize with more detail than you can actually imagine. Or that it’s hyper real and imagine a flash can cause pain or something.
Maybe I don’t understand why the ability to visualize *should* be in any way limited. My ability to imagine anything in clarity for as long as I’d like doesn’t seem to tap into any mental region that isn’t engaged in normal activity (memory, thought, imagination,etc. Of which I’m utterly normal) . It’s just… why should it be hobbled for anyone?
Maybe I should figure a way to turn it into a super power. If you need to have a horse tap dancing in a watermelon field visualized, I can do it for you for a modest fee….
@woozy: did you follow the links I posted (way) above about Temple Grandin? She describes her visual thinking style in detail, about how it allows her to “test drive” designs she makes before building to see that it works right, and other such details. She doesn’t make it out to be a super power, but she does find it useful, and she does have to come to grips that clearly not everyone is endowed with the same abilities.
larK
Yes, but she “thinks in pictures”. I don’t think in words, pictures, or moods, or impressions. I just think. I can to a certain degree put my thoughts into pictures, moods or words, (although putting them into words is always much harder and comes out flatter than it should)
Maybe she discovered people don’t visualize as well as she did, but I guess like Winter Wallaby but in reverse, I just assumed she meant she realized people don’t use images as a primary way of being conscious, because it never occurred to me any-one couldn’t visualize what a cow sees when it walks through a tunnel.
(I read this some many years ago.)
And she solves problems in pictures because her visualization. I suspect if I asked her to visualize an elephant crawling through a mousehole she’d have trouble. I can solve some many problems through visualization but as me pictures are not actually constructed they are under no obligation to follow the laws of physics to any degree *more* than I actually know them. If I imagined dropping two objects off a building and I intuitively had a rough idea of their mass and I only had an intuitive idea of the laws of impact there is no reason the craters created would match reality. And of course I can visualize the ping pong causing an earthquake and the bowling bow floating away in the breeze.
Also part of my surprise is I find it moderately possible to imagine how people might not be able to visualize at all, but I find it really strange to imagine that people can do it but very badly. If you can do it at all, it’s hard to imagine why you can’t just do it well.
larK: If the ability to visualize made marked differences in outward ability, then I don’t think either of us would have been able to go so long without realizing that there were these differences in ability. I’m not saying you can’t find a use for your “superpower,” but in terms of outward appearances, the ability to visualize and the ability the imagine appear quite similar.
All this reminds me of Stendhal and Mallarmé. Stendhal’s depiction of the Saint Bernard pass, when he understands he’s not describing his memories but an engraving he had seen later on a wall someplace (and actually, he’s not describing the engraving but the memory of it). Mallarmé put it more poetically: “Je dis : une fleur ! et, hors de l’oubli où ma voix relègue aucun contour, en tant que quelque chose d’autre que les calices sus, musicalement se lève, idée rieuse ou altière, l’absente de tous bouquets.” Flower instead of apple.
I learn better listening than reading. My visual memory is about location: I can never remember a quote but I know exactly where in a book I can find it. I can remember/dream/imagine sight, smell (actually my best links to very early memories), taste, sound, touch. Dreams are more vivid than recollection or imagination. I can also sometimes control my dreams but I avoid it now because waking up can be very upsetting. I am never bored in a waiting room.
It was woozy talking about “superpowers”. My take is that people may use vastly different engines under the hood, but that they have all conformed to have roughly the same appearance of performance on the outside. That doesn’t mean, however, that the differences in the underlying engine don’t give advantages (and disadvantages) in certain tasks (and it’s simply evolutionarily beneficial that there are a multitude of ways to solve a problem, so I don’t see this going away anytime soon, either). I have in past here written about the difficulties I encountered in school and in learning, where the method used to teach is not optimal for my way of thinking. Some people are able to leverage this to differentiate themselves and advance way beyond others, and others get a sub optimal education and suffer disadvantages. And probably most (I think this is my case) work very hard using their different system to merely catch up to the mean, which is a waste of potential, but keeps society grinding along.
” I have in past here written about the difficulties I encountered in school and in learning, where the method used to teach is not optimal for my way of thinking. ”
I guess every *other* trait I’ve had (or I wanted to believe I had because it’d make me feel special) as in ADHD, or Introversion or tactile information processor, or lucid dreamer, and west coast accent, or whatever, I’ve always felt something before hand to determine that somehow it fits me.
This is, so far as I can tell, the only time where it *never* occurred to me anyone *would* be different. And this is also one of the only times where the alternative way just seems quite alien.
larK: Whoops, I meant woozy.
Re: different optimal learning styles. My wife recently commented, “I used to think that the fact that you passed all your classes in college by skipping class, and just reading the book at home, showed how smart you were. But I’ve come to realize that it’s also because you s-k at auditory learning.”
She wasn’t being mean, just matter-of-fact. (She was right.)
I also find this fascinating — I can do everything on woozy’s list, but visualizing something isn’t remotely like looking at it, or dreaming I’m looking at it, it’s like remembering looking at it, which is quite different. How does that figure in?
…my default apple is a Macoun. Which doesn’t look like the one on the Wikipedia page.
Dave in Boston: Are you sure that you can do everything in woozy’s list? My understanding is that by “visualizing” he means that it is like looking at it. i.e. it’s just like photons hitting the eyes. Similarly with the picture in the cartoon: 1-5 means “what do you see, floating before your eyes?”
If it’s just “can you remember looking at something?” and recall or imagine specific details, then I can do that, but I think almost everyone can. If the ability to recall details was what was in question, then the tests woozy linked to could have been objective, rather than subjective: e.g. “Can you remember what colors apples can come in?”
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? I’m not talking about remembering what colors apples come in, or what shape they are, I’m talking about visualizing the color and shape. Definitely visual in nature; could draw from it, if I could draw. But it’s not the _same_ as seeing something in person, like dreaming is, nor does it overlay or obscure anything I’m actually looking at. It’s like remembering having seen an apple last week, except it’s synthetic.
What does it means to “visualize” something if you can’t actually “see” it? Until last week I would have said “visualize” was shorthand for “forming a good mental map from your recollections that you can use for things like drawing a picture, or other practical activities,” which sounds like what you’re saying. But after talking to woozy and others, I’ve become convinced this is not what the majority of people mean by “visualize.”
In other words, it seems like I can do what you can do, so either you have aphantasia, or I’ve incorrectly diagnosed myself with aphantasia.
Well, it’s visual; it’s like looking at something, it’s spatial, there’s depth perception, etc, it’s just not the _same_ as looking at something. It doesn’t seem the same as what you’re describing, but it also doesn’t necessarily seem the same as what others are describing either, at least some of which sounds like visualized objects actually appear in their vision.