This is definitely pre-2009, I built this at Stanford w/ the others and I was only at Stanford until around 2005. (But they may have continued updating it given the Firefox version number referenced.)
I passed it on to everyone I knew that was in any way related to the comedy/entertainment industry. And a lot of other people besides. It's excellent writing, even though it's for a medium I generally don't enjoy. Thank you for putting it out there! And that was an excellent use of that domain name.
I know lots of platforms-of-the-month come through HN, and it's hard to filter the signal from the noise...just wanted to add another voice that Exponent is indeed awesome. Built by one of the sharpest (and most humble) teams in the valley.
I suggest NativeScript as an alternative that's very similar in scope but far more mature, definitely not a platform-of-the-month. The latest version is built on top of TypeScript and Angular 2 instead of React Native like Exponent.
I wonder why we don't hear that much about them in HN.
A more apt comparison might be React Native and NativeScript--both are frameworks that bridge native APIs to JavaScript. In contrast, Exponent is a mobile environment of which React Native is one piece.
Before choosing React Native, we deeply investigated bridging native and JavaScript on our own and one of the ways was a NativeScript-like approach. When React Native was announced we looked at the beta and saw that it exhibited many characteristics we believe are important in a next-gen app framework.
We saw that React Native was designed for multicore phones by dividing work across multiple threads, namely application logic (JS), view and text layout (this is significant), and rendering. Other work like image decoding also runs on a separate thread. One reason React Native's multithreading is fantastic is because hardware manufacturers are adding more cores faster than they are improving the performance of those cores, partly because power consumption grows superlinearly with respect to frequency. The React team is also in the early stages of exploring incremental rendering, which may allow us to parallelize React rendering in JS as well as native.
So far we're happy we chose React Native for Exponent. There's a lot of interest and activity around it and it's on the right track in several ways.
> I suggest NativeScript as an alternative that's very similar in scope but far more mature
NativeScript has been around longer than React Native (at least for Android), but going by Github activity (not the greatest metric, but not aware of a better one) React Native[1] is much more active than NativeScript[2].
Some differences between Exponent and NativeScript:
- Exponent supports building iOS and Android apps on macOS, Windows, and Linux. With NativeScript you need a Mac to build iOS apps.
- Exponent also allows you to push updates to published apps, while publishing with NativeScript is identical to publishing regular iOS and Android apps.
I really would give anything to see this show become a reality. You're a fantastic writer, your stuff on Medium is superb. If there was a way to invest in a pilot I would hand over as much as I could.
I would be curious to see how the HN community scores on this aphantasia survey embedded in the BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34039054. Perhaps there's a connection between programmers and this condition. Will you take it and report your score?
The survey is oversimplified, obviously, but it was devised by the Exeter neurologists who are studying this. I got the lowest score (8/40) since none of the questions make sense to me (no image on any of them).
I said vague and dim for most of them, but it feels like fleeting glimpses of bits more than anything else. I can't really imagine coloured objects, though I sort of label an object as coloured. Geometric arrangements are easy to imagine but I don't have a real picture. I have no problems imagining sound, music or voices. I'm not sure if I dream in pictures and rarely remember dreams. (I work in science)
Poses, colors, and movements of people is very shaky, but I can do landscapes OK. But something about the structure of the questions bothers me... It seems like they are implying that I am observing the image, rather then generating it. Like, "how clearly can you see ____?" means I focus a bit and add it to the image, until I can see it better, but very little of the details asked about pop up unless I think about them, take the information asked for, and intentionally integrate it into the image.
31/40, but when I'm asked to visualize something I don't immediately conjure up a detailed picture, it's more like a cursor going over a scene and adding details as needed.
For instance, until I was asked to "Rate how vivid the colours of that person's clothes look in your mind?", I hadn't even imagined his clothes being ANY color. Once I decided that he wore a green sweater, I could "experience" the green color vividly.
I heard the story of the Exeter research on NPR while driving back from the airport at night last year at it floored me! I never realized that other people could actually picture images in their minds. I also thought this was entirely metaphorical. I wrote to the researchers back then to be included in further research.
I'm a computer engineer.
Anyone know if there a community group of people with aphantasia?
I got 21 out of 40. Although it was strange - imagining a person was really hard, but imagining a sunrise / clouds / thunderstorm seemed really easy.
Even when the question was, "can you imagine their clothes" and the guy I was thinking of is well known for his, er, "drastic", clothes choices I couldn't do it. Much to my own surprise.
I get 30/40. I have very good visualisation of places and landscapes but have poor visualisation of people's face (especially relatives, it's much easier to recall the face of celebrities or people that are unknown to me or to recall imaginary people from books).
I'm also good at visualizing writing. When I was a student, during tests, I would see in my mind's eyes the place on my notes or in the book related to the question.
To go to sleep, I quickly imagine a lot of beautiful landscapes repeatedly, spending maybe a few seconds in each landscapes.
When I remember a book, I usually remember how I pictured the scenes of the book. Even 12 years after reading the dune books, I can remember the gom-jabbar pressing on Paul's neck, I can remember Alia's tapping her finger with the same rhythm as the baron Harkonnen. I can remember Siona running from the wolves.
8/40. Reading this has been a, "Hey! That's me!" moment. I've tried to discuss the whole, "You can't really see things in your mind, right?" thing with people before, but nobody believed me when I said I couldn't.
I work as a software engineer. The rainbow and characteristic body poses are the only thing that I can even vaguely "see" (and that was being generous).
However, on the question about a lightning storm I can hear lightning striking around me but not see any images.
37/40, I struggle a little with visualizing faces but not much else. I've worked as a software developer for 10+ years, I would have thought programmers skewed towards high visualization.
Do y'all visualize objects as amorphous blobs floating in space with little fish hook methods covering the exterior? When writing SQL, do you not visualize the ERD in your head? Might explain why I've always been strong in data modelling, but like everything, probably a downside somewhere else.
All my "images" are descriptions, but for some of the questions I think those descriptions are vivid enough to count as images. (For example, gradient was a helpful term for the sun and the sky.)
I'm an INTJ engineer, in case that's a helpful thing to note. Audio and "feelings" are even harder for me to imagine, because I have less descriptive language
It's actually hard for me to imagine what people mean by pictures in the mind. Surely nobody imagines things the way they see things?
24 / 40, although I might've rated a few too optimistically.
> It's actually hard for me to imagine what people mean by pictures in the mind. Surely nobody imagines things the way they see things?
We do!
When I'm focused on imagining something, it's similar to if there were a 5% opacity layer - of what I've imagined - overlaying my normal vision. Only the opacity is really 0%, but I'm still able to perceive it... somehow. I can look at a table, and imagine a mug on it, and I'll "see" the invisible 0% opacity mug there. A 1% opacity wireframe/outline of the mug would be very very similar to what I "see".
I can then close my eyes and "picture" the room still. I can get up and try to navigate the room - it's not working off a collection of factoids about where objects roughly are compared to each other or where I was, it's much more like vision. There are hazards - my actual position and my imagined position won't stay perfectly in sync and will drift apart over time. And if someone moved around the furniture, that won't be reflected in my imagined world, leading me to try and sit on nonexistant chairs or trip over tables that are invisible... within my invisible, imagined, room.
I don't have to base what I'm picturing off of reality, although my imagination struggles to fill out entire scenes on it's own consciously if it doesn't have a template to work off of. Details get left out or abstracted.
I can keep my eyes open and do this as well. I notice that I automatically and subconsciously take steps to reduce the impact of my real senses when I do this - this typically means I look up towards some boring part of the ceiling or sky, defocus my vision, and reduce the amount of attention I'm paying to my senses. I may or may not close my eyes when trying to "picture" something. This all reduces the impact of what's "behind" the invisible "semitransparent" layer of my imagined pictures.
I can do similar with other senses. I can imagine what pizza tastes like - if you took away the flavor of pizza until you're no longer sure or not if you're actually tasting anything, the physical experience is similar to that. Same with smells - just take the real experience, and then dilute it to the point where you're no longer sure if you're actually smelling the thing or not. Interestingly, imagined touch and feel might be a bit more vivid for me - imagining myself on a warm and sunny beach, I do actually feel (still very slightly) warmer.
13/40 I'm an ENF(J/P) single founder, I used to mostly do programming but lean more to the sales/leadership side of things these days.
I never remember images but I do remember feelings/sensations pretty well, so I might not rememeber the sunset, but I do remember the hot feeling on my skin, the sounds and my state of mind.
I got 30/40. I can imagine static images with almost unbounded detail visually, but movement is hard, other senses are a lot harder and imagining transitions(like a blue sky becoming stormy) is almost impossible.
38/40 . I always had a vivid, graphic imagination. My limits in drawing are lack of work, not imagination. I even at times had strongly visual mathematics intuitions.
When I try to picture the examples in my mind, they all start out as a blurry blob like impressions that increase in detail gradually. It's as if I'm watching the drawing process occur step-by-step.
In the beach example I saw the following features appear one after another in this order: the sand, the water horizon, a set of palm trees on each side, a pirate ship, the sun, and a gift shop.
I never see whole images appear instantly but have met people that claim such.
So you cannot visualize things while trying to but do you dream at night ?
About psychedelic drugs, it's not something I would advocate lightly as it has the potential to mess you up pretty badly. From my limited experience it was more like having my imagination on steroids so I wouldn't know what happens if there's nothing to enhance in the first place... That said I've never taken hardcore stuff like lsd or dmt where some people report having full visual hallucinations.
8. Do you dream?
No, or I don’t recall them. I’ve had a couple dreams but there was no visual or sensory component to them. When I woke up, I just knew a list of “plot points” about things that happened. This is also how I digest fiction.
Ah thanks, I missed this one when reading the article. Some other commenter talks about having a coworker with aphantasia but still being able to dream so they may well be a whole spectrum of what people can / cannot visualize.
I would be surprised if you weren't capable of "seeing" the typical colorful geometric patterns of a DMT not-quite-breakthrough with your eyes closed, and the experience of having something pass through your mind's eye just once might trigger dormant pathways.
Anyway, as a quasi-professional, my advice if you were going to pick just one to try, would be vaporized freebase DMT.
I'm the author of this post, happy to answer any questions.
About me: I was formerly a director of product at FB and a founder of Firefox. My YC startup became FB's first acquisition. I'm focusing more on creative writing these days (wrote the Silicon Valley spec script and the Theranos parody that have come up on HN a few times.) Aphantasia was a pretty weird discovery for me given this new focus.
The one that surprised me the most was the inability to replay music in your head. Probably because I do that a lot.
Here's a series of things you could try.
- Sing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" out loud.
- Do it again silently -- don't vocalize -- but keep moving your mouth, lips and tongue. If you're like me, you'll also still feel your throat and vocal chords moving.
- Do it again silently, without moving your lips, but still move your tongue and vocal chords.
- Do it again silently, but keep your tongue still, just move your vocal chords silently.
- Do it again, entirely silently, in your head.
I'd be interested to learn which steps are hard for you. When I'm singing a song "in my head" I'm actually doing any one of the latter three actions.
Relatedly, when I'm talking to myself in my head -- which I do often, usually while reliving an old conversation or anticipating a new one -- I often do the throat and tongue motions. Occasionally I even do the mouth motions, which is a good way to get people to look at you strangely :)
One of my coworkers also experiences aphantasia. We've talked about it many times and it still blows my mind that he doesn't "see" things like I do. However he told me that he does dream like most of us, with vivid images and all.
You might be interested in an exercise called "image streaming"[1]. The idea is to describe an object in extreme detail, as if you were giving someone instructions for how to draw it. Apparently this is one of the few things that allows my coworker to view images in his mind. Also see "backup procedures for people who don't get pictures" [2]
The question that kept coming to mind as I read this was how you compare different things?
For example, something as simple as: What is more blue? The sky or a lake?
Or, on a practical note, if you are designing software, do you have a good sense of color theory, to be able to select colors that will look good together, or do you have to put it on screen and do some trial and error?
Also, your concept of the "milk voice" was very alien to me. I don't think like that. My inner voice is my own voice, with full emotion and inflection.
> For example, something as simple as: What is more blue? The sky or a lake?
I'm not Blake but I actually can't answer that question. I'd have to ask you what lake and what sky. I've stored some notion of color values for ex. a "stormy" sky and could probably compare that to the color value I have stored for the lake near my childhood home.
The abstract concepts of "sky" and "lake" don't have any color to me though. If you asked me to imagine a plane flying through the sky, the sky wouldn't have a color.
I think I've stored basic information as to color degree, like "X is very dark blue" and "Y is light blue." I'd have to actually see the objects to settle a close contest.
Trial and error for matching colors.
Thanks for the insight on the "milk voice." You'd think by now I'd learn not to assume anything. I thought the "neutral inner voice" was universal.
> I thought the "neutral inner voice" was universal.
For me, most of the time, I don't have any kind of inner voice. I don't usually think in words; thinking is more like combining abstract symbols/feelings/concepts in a way that's more immediate and less linear than language.
This is slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to say thank you for writing this article! I never knew people thought/imagined in so many different ways.
Personally, like codingdave, my "milk voice" is my own voice. I can "hear" my voice, with texture, inflection, and everything, as if I were reading my thoughts out loud. The milk voice doesn't have to be my own; I can vividly imagine the voice of anyone else I've heard. I have often wondered about that; how is it that with so little sample data (hearing someone talk for only a few seconds) I'm able to imagine them saying _anything_, with any inflection?
That begs another question - if you are doing something althletic (or even soemthing simple like driving a car), do you develop "muscle memory" the same as other people, or do you need to actually think through each motion you perform?
There was a study done a while back that looked at whether people could improve at video games by imagining themselves playing. IIRC the participants who imagined practicing showed a comparable amount of improvement in contrast to those who actually played. Can't find the link unfortunately.
Similarly I read once that during recovery from a trauma that prevents to do a particular physical activity if one imagines doing that activity, then it shorten the recovery time and leads to less muscle dystrophy.
If I attempt the red triangle thought, I can place the concept of a triangle in space, but I can't see it.
Similarly for the beach, my mental model is all the concepts accociated with a beach positioned in 3d space, but I don't "see" anything.
However, on rare occasions I have "seen" things in my mind in absolutely perfect detail, but I have no control over what I see. I've also heard complete orchestras but have no control over what they play. Otherwise my inner ear is very limited.
I've always wanted to tame these abilities but don't know where to start.
This is really fascinating. I'd say that I really only have a "milk voice" when reading things. Most of the rest of my private thoughts are images and particularly sounds.
In fact, I often know I'm about to drift off to sleep when the music in my head starts getting interesting. My dreams are often very intense, visual/audio experiences with plots and special effects, like AAA Hollywood movies.
I'll often wake up when the brass section of my mental orchestra gets too loud and I'll hear the last few beats repeating over and over as I gain consciousness.
I've actually found the multi-media/search aspects of modern chat systems very helpful since I can often reply what I'm thinking by just searching for a picture that represents my thoughts instead of writing out words.
I'm also absolutely terrible with directions on roads, but quite good inside of large complex buildings (my wife is the opposite).
One thought, instead of "giving in" to this fact, I wonder if exercising it might do something. Perhaps take some community sketching classes and work on drawing to see if exercising the unused visualization areas of your mind might activate them?
I would suggest researching a bit about "modalities" in NLP. If you have heard of NLP before and it rings alarm bells, forget the magical thinking stuff about NLP ...the interesting beginnings of the project began on some good scientific research in how people imagined things in their mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_systems_%28NL...
In essence, people can think visually, kinetically (feeling), aurally (sound).
Most folks imagine with pictures, but many don't. You are not alone.
For example: I'm sure you can imagine what it felt like when something really funny happened to you, right? And you could probably also remember listening to a song you heard on the radio. Now - recall what it felt like when you were on a beach (or a snowy mountain), and recall what it sounded like. If you cannot remember, imagine the feeling of the sun, sound and imagine the sound you might hear.
I'm not Blake, but I think you're falling victim to the typical mind fallacy.
> I'm sure you can imagine what it felt like when something really funny happened to you, right?
I can't. In fact, the entire notion of how I "felt" in the past seems like a metaphor to me.
> And you could probably also remember listening to a song you heard on the radio.
I can remember the fact that I heard a certain song on the radio. I certainly cannot hear it.
> If you cannot remember, imagine the feeling of the sun, sound and imagine the sound you might hear.
I've been to beaches and snowy mountains and absolutely could not imagine those things. I know in the abstract that a beach is warmer than a mountain, but I don't feel those memories differently—they're just textual descriptions, like what you'd read in a book.
> For example: I'm sure you can imagine what it felt like when something really funny happened to you, right? And you could probably also remember listening to a song you heard on the radio. Now - recall what it felt like when you were on a beach (or a snowy mountain), and recall what it sounded like. If you cannot remember, imagine the feeling of the sun, sound and imagine the sound you might hear.
Did you read the whole article? I'm pretty sure he cannot do these things. He mentions he can't really imagine music or sound either and has a hard time recalling experiences in general.
I just took the test on the BBC and got the lowest score, but I'm still not sure if I have aphantasia or not.
I can "picture" scenes in my mind. I certainly don't have a problem with imagination or thinking up different potential realities.
But the picture I have is basically a literary description. If you asked me to imagine a beach I would rapidly compose a narrative composition of said beach: there's turquoise water lapping against the sand which slopes up gradually. Oh and there's probably a rock somewhere along the shoreline. And there are some palm trees. But in my mind this process is occurring exactly how it's happening here: as text.
That being said, I remain unconvinced that I actually have aphantasia. How do I know everyone else isn't having the same experience but describing it with images?
One point is that when I tried to imagine my best friend's face I couldn't come up with more than a general description. But perhaps this is just a poor memory of faces?
Like you, I also have a terrible experiential memory. I barely remember going to high school at all and the few memories that I do have from my life are basically stories—narrative snapshots which I have verbalized enough times for them to be embedded in my mind, just like the plots of my favorite books are. I can just as easily imagine the first time I asked out a girl as when Frodo destroyed the One Ring.
I think my visualization ability is poor compared to most people, but I can definitely tell you that it starts with an image, which you can then describe in text, not the other way around. For instance, when I imagine a beach, I pull up a (rough, fuzzy, for me) picture in my mind. Then I actually look at the picture and notice that, for instance, it's in kind of a U-shape around a small inlet. In fact, it actually took me a minute to come up with the words to describe that just now.
That said, I think an easier way to differentiate is to imagine a beach you've actually been to. When I tried to do that, the first thing to come to mind was a lake near my house. And I saw more of the lake than the beach actually - the trees behind it, the parking lot off to one side, etc. Thinking logically about that one, my mental picture is actually flawed, because that parking lot is farther away than it is in the mental picture that came up!
It seems like for a lot of people, the pictures actually have a "mind of their own" to some extent. Another comment mentioned imagining a triangle, and it turned out it was spinning. I can totally see that happening. You don't think, "I'm going to imagine a spinning triangle" or something - you just attempt to pull up a picture of a triangle, and your brain gives you a representation. Details you don't decide on will be filled in.
It really is fascinating. And from reading other comments on this post and others like it, it sounds like some people have a far stronger ability to visualize than I do. I'm mildly jealous, but at the same time, the OP for instance has obviously done just fine without - and is also a highly entertaining writer! (Who knows, perhaps even for reasons related to the aphantasia.)
I discovered that aphantasia was a thing, and that it seemed to match me, a couple of months ago.
May I ask if you feel embarrassment when you think about an embarrassing event in your past?
The adjustment is quite an odd feeling. I use mostly the same language to describe things as other people. I will use terms like 'mental image' or 'yeah i can see you wearing that', but to me it was far more metaphorical. I had the same realization about counting sheep. Now I feel a bit uncomfortable when I use some terms. I'm used to using them but that was when I thought everybody else was using them in the same way as myself.
I had wondered if the Text popups in the TV series Sherlock came from someone with without aphantasia trying to understand a description given by someone with aphantasia. I could describe what I 'see' when I think about something as a cloud of facts relating to the subject, If someone who inherently thought of such things visually tried to interpret my viewpoint I could quite easily understand how they end up with the effect used in Sherlock. It's not what I see of course. I don't see words floating in space. I see nothing. To some the idea of not imagining things visually must seem just as impossible.
I think it's different to imagination though, I can't visualize but I can imagine.
I tried this experiment:
Imagine two identical closed cardboard boxes. In one of them there is a duck.
I can't see the boxes but I can imagine them, and the box with a duck in it is distinctly different to the one without. My friends say they can visualize the boxes and they do indeed look identical, but strangely they still seem to know which one the duck is inside.
What about more abstract tasks that could be solved by visualization, such as "What is the shape of the graph of y = x^2" or "Given any shape made out of six squares, is it possible to fold it into a cube?" Would you be able to solve these kinds of questions mentally, and if so, how?
As an example, for the cube question, I would generally solve it by visualizing the shape starting out flat and then getting folded 90 degrees inward at each crease until it either forms a complete cube, in which case the answer is yes, or two of the squares are forces to overlap each other, in which case the answer is no. To be clear, I'm not imagining any person's hands actually performing the act of folding, I'm just visualizing the abstract shape floating an otherwise featureless void, folding of its own accord. In fact, here's a video that more or less shows what I would visualize: https://vimeo.com/64926672
Not really questions, but two facts I think you should know:
I read your inability to use Morgan Freeman's voice in Morgan Freeman's voice.
When you mentioned you were unable to hear the Star Wars theme my first reaction was how badly it clashed with the song in my mind's ear already.
I have a much stronger mind's ear than average. The loss of my mind's eye I would not notice much; sure it would make fiction less fun and dreams less vivid, but eh. But losing my mind's ear would be like going deaf. I have what amounts to a built-in iPod that can call up any sound I've ever heard, and many more sounds that I haven't. Going without a mind's eye would be a curiosity to me, but losing the ear would be like losing an arm.
I don't think i visualize things ( if i understood correctly). Although it seems just partially.
I do have dreams, but don't remember them ( after 10 minutes, i forgot them for sure).
I never understood how people could draw robot faces to describe a person at a police officer... It seems weird...
I have memories, but trying to describe something i will say "general things" like colors, objects, ... I can't describe my own house in detail... I describe my house with facts...
I had a crush on someone ( i dated her even a couple of times) and i even said her hair was dark-blonde... While i was not paying attention during chatting... ( it was not ...)
I find it dificult to describe color "variations". Not blue or brown, but a color like turqouise says nothing to me.
Is that the same thing then?
What i find similar: you mentioned engineers who have the same thing (i'm a .net architect) and i'm an INTJ personality according to Meyer Briggs ( http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html ) which is also something of 2-3 % of the people ( like you mentioned the % of people who have Aphantasia). Perhaps this has something to do with each other?
INTJ here too, but I can vividly recall memories and imagine things in my full spectrum of senses. My memory is pretty good too.
Although visual imagination is slightly weaker / less tangible in my mind than the rest - as if recall of audio was at whisper strength and easily drowned out in stronger IRL stimulus, but I don't forget the things I imagined, I just have to focus and re-imagine them when they fade.
Thinking about it now, it might be that my visual short term memory is the limiting factor. Incrementally building visual scenes isn't hard to me, but I have to "paint it out".
Do you think you'll ever learn how to imagine things now that you are aware of the possibility?
I often wonder whether the imagination can be improved like a muscle since I have trouble holding mental image outside brief flashes. I'm not sure if you can relate, but trying to picture something in my mind often feels as though I'm trying to recall the fleeting details of a dream; the harder I try the more foggy it becomes.
Thanks for the response and article. I can only imagine how difficult that would be.
I'm not sure if you've heard of it, but there is a memorization technique called "Art of Memory" you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_memory. I think you'll find it particularly interesting since it explains how to process/form mental images in a very thorough & systematic way. It's all about enhancing memory by thinking about information in a visually, and contains examples of how to visualize different types of information.
What is the overlap between aphantasia and absence of memories? The example you gave was that you couldn't remember going to see Les Mis a year before, so that's not stored as a fact somewhere?
There was a (possible hoax) story a while back about a guy who could only remember the previous 15 or so hours of his life. He kept journals and had to jog his memory daily. One interesting proposal was that he was in a unique position to re-watch his favourite movies and compare his previous reviews to see, unbiased, if there was any change in opinion. Aside from the awfulness of the condition, that particular aspect sounded quite cool - you could experience things for the "first time" multiple times.
Does the same thing occur with aphantasia? If you see a movie that you love, presumably you can't remember any scenes from it later (though you I assume you would remember the plot)?
> There was a (possible hoax) story a while back about a guy who could only remember the previous 15 or so hours of his life. He kept journals and had to jog his memory daily.
This is probably not the same condition, but those with anterograde amnesia cannot form new memories and will forget things within minutes. The movie Memento was about this, and Oliver Sacks wrote about a man with it in "The Lost Mariner." I could definitely believe that story... Strange and awful things can happen to the brain :-/
This is really quite interesting. I realise now that whilst I can visualise things, it's incredibly difficult for me. Trying to visualise a beach, for me, is seeing a flash of blue, then a flash of yellow, then they're next to each other, and that's about as far as I can get. The sky is black.
Have you ever tried any psychedelics? Feel free not to answer.
I am very curious if they could make that connection. I know LSD puts the brain's visual processing into overdrive, perhaps it might make the connection strong enough to give you this mind's eye, even if only temporary.
I have been interested in trying psychedelics for this reason. I have some ability to visualize, but it's pretty limited. I experienced similar surprise when learning that doing things like picturing yourself on a beach was not meant to be a metaphor. I hope it's something I can experience at least once in my life.
Curious if this only applies to visuals. What about voices or music? For example can you accurately reproduce your parents, siblings, or friend's voices in your head. Also, what happens if you take psychedelic drugs which produce visual hallucinations?
Also, I would assume the lack of visuals holds true for dreams as well? For dreams that you remember (if any), what were they composed of? Interestingly, some people dream in B&W and other people dream in color. [1]
I had what I would describe as a 90% version of this for the longest time. My mental imagery was mostly ephemeral to the point that it may as well have not existed—attempting to picture something would give me a mental 'flash' of it, that would then instantly be replaced with darkness. Nothing would stick around long enough to permit examination.
I discovered one 'trick' to get around this: certain music would cause strong, evocative "music video" imagery to be conjured in my mind's eye for as long as I listened to it, with this being mostly directible (i.e. the emotional cues of the song were fixed, but I could constrain the imagery to anything that matched those emotional beats.) I considered myself a writer in my teenage years because I took advantage of those "synesthetic fantasias" to build up scenes and characters in a sci-fi setting of my own creation. Sadly, this ability faded with age.
More recently, I was diagnosed with Inattentive-type ADHD (and, to be clear, it was always there, rather than adult-onset; my parents just disregarded the advice of my family doctor and pretended I was neurotypical.) I began taking medication for it. My visual imagery is not ephemeral any more! I mean, it still kind of is, insofar as mental images will be lost the moment I temporarily lose focus on them—but I can now hold the images for as long as I concentrate on them.
I think I might now actually have access to the full "thought toolset" other people do, but since I developed and rely on this alternate way to go about thinking without it, I don't reach for visually-imagining as a way to do things, so it doesn't get used often.
On the other hand, I notice that, on ADHD medication, I have far fewer fleeting "unrequested" visual images. I can now imagine consciously, but it seems like the visualization capabilities of my subconscious have been switched entirely off.
Though, I do notice, if I go a day without taking my ADHD meds, the second night—when it's all washed out of my system, but my brain hasn't bounced back to producing any dopamine, so the amount in there is even lower than my baseline—I'll have really intense dreams, where the details of every scene are full of "grotesquely real" imagery, as if DeepDream were trained on Zdzisław Beksiński paintings.
This almost makes me wonder whether there's a sort of "cross-fade" potential between conscious and subconscious visualizing, controlled by dopamine. Really low dopamine: vivid dreams, no conscious visualizing. Average dopamine: meh dreams, meh visualizing. High dopamine: no dreams, vivid visualizing. (This would also fit with the observation that visual hallucinations are a symptom of mania.)
What's your experience of art like (especially paintings and other visual art)? Does it ever evoke strong feelings? Is there some art you like more than others for reasons you can't articulate with words? Ditto for UI design.
Thanks for writing this, by the way. This is totally mind-blowing.
Could I ask if you drink alcohol? If so, do you experience an alternation in your mood like being more relaxed or having a different perspective on things?
I don't understand how you can be unable to visualize scenes in your head but also write a script for _Silicon Valley_ that contains descriptions of visual humor.
The human mind adapts, he only recently concluded that there is a difference... It doesn't mean he can't have visual humor. He just experiences it differently ( text/facts vs images)
I'm really skeptical of this "disorder." I think it mostly amounts to "semantics and variability in human abilities, not pathology."[1]
Metacognition like this is super slippery and is really easy to draw whatever conclusion you want. I've just never been able to draw even mildly realistic anything ever, this doesn't mean I have a disease.
Whatever you want to believe about semantics (which I addressed in the article), the Exeter neurologists did see a difference in the man's MRI scans versus the control group.
Sure, we can call that a "variability in human ability" rather than a "disorder". I never used the word "disorder" anyway.
Right, I don't doubt that some exceptional biological incident can trigger a change... I'm just skeptical of any kind of self-diagnosis that requires metacognitive analysis of one's self. Especially one that, if you're to judge even by the small number of comments on this thread, seems to be wildly prevalent.
And, I mean, you _did_ couch this as a disorder when you made the single-subject case study your proof.
Yesterday I was reading something about how children think without words, because they hardly know any word yet.
I mulled over that for a bit, and concluded that we all think without words in fact. The thought comes first, then it's translated into words inside our minds. It should be obvious that the brain can only form words after it's formed the thought.
So in your case, I find it impossible to believe that you don't have imagination. I think it might just be inaccessible to you (to your consciousness).
I think most thoughts are in fact unconscious. What we consciously perceive of our own thoughts is just a small part of it, the high level output.
So I'm thinking that for you, the "consciousness barrier" so to speak is just a little higher than it is for most people.
I saw the movie "FireFox" when I was growing up. In one scene, he's trying to steal a thought-controlled Russian airplane. "You must think in Russian" his handler tells him. After the movie, we thought that scene was controversial, and spent hours wondering if people think in a particular language or just think in abstract ideas.
