4 ms·

Take this test: https://aphantasia.com/vviq/ https://aphantasia.com/vviq/

necovek 5y ago
Not the GP, but it was hard for me to take that test: I can describe features of a thing I am trying to imagine, but it does not show as a visual image at all. So it's all "nothing at all" all the way in the test. My first thought is "am I trying hard enough?" It sounds like this might be aphantasia, but if it is, it's really hard for someone with it to understand what's being asked of them. :) I take that to mean that I do have it, but I am just slightly not sure, just like the GP.
jstanley 5y ago
Huh, maybe I have aphantasia too, thanks. The lowest level above "no image at all" is "Dim and vague; flat", which are not words that I would ever use to describe thoughts. But it's hard for me to believe that anyone else would use these words to describe thoughts.
- timvdalen 5y ago
  That was my experience as well. The things in that test are not how I relate to thoughts.
ud_0 5y ago
The problem with this test is I have nothing to compare it to, and the answer spectrum provided is not helpful because it seems concerned with things like how vivid the colors of mental images are. If I don't actually "see" the object but I know exactly what it looks like to the point of having a clear but abstracted version of it in my head, do I still put the slider all the way to the left, or to the center, or what? I would say that me "visualising" an object kind of feels like watching a GAN paint an image, only the image is never as explicitly shown as if it was on my retinas. Does that count? When I close my eyes and I think of an object there is never a danger of me not realizing that my eyes are currently closed. Am I an aphantasiac because of that? Was I supposed to literally hallucinate scenes all the time?
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > When I close my eyes and I think of an object there is never a danger of me not realizing that my eyes are currently closed. Hallucination and visualization are distinct things. People without aphantasia who talk about "seeing" things in their mind are not confusing the mental images with the scene in front of them, that would be a hallucination.
  - ud_0 5y ago
    I know they're distinct things, I just wonder about the way visualization is described. From the way non-aphantasia is characterized here one could assume that the difference is just how much control people have over the content of the image, as opposed to the degree of realism. A hallucinating person may have an experience that feels indistinguishable from reality, but they can't control what the experience entails. From this test, I gather that a non-aphantasiac person has an equally-as-realistic image in front of them, but they are completely in command of what is shown.
    - SamBam 5y ago
      I do think there's a difference between visualizing something clearly and not clearly, though, and this is what the test is asking. The test asks me to visualize the face of a close friend or relative. I can quite clearly bring to mind my wife's face. I can imagine looking at each individual mole, or different facial expressions she makes. If I were asked to visualize the face of the barista who served me coffee 20 minutes ago, I could only come up with something vague. I remember he was wearing large earrings, because they stood out to me, but his face is a blur. I mean that literally: when I imagine looking at his face, there are parts that simply won't come into focus or even into view, like they're missing -- in the same way that the dot disappears when you find your blind spot (i.e. not in a "argh, he's missing a nose!" way, but in a "it's just not there, but that's not weird" way). So I have a pretty clear phenomenological distinction between visualizing things clearly and not.
      - Jtsummers 5y ago
fsflover 5y ago
Or try this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29367989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29367989.
illwrks 5y ago
"You have hyper-aphantasia". Makes sense as I'm a designer and can very easily visualise things, objects etc in my head.

Not the GP, but it was hard for me to take that test: I can describe features of a thing I am trying to imagine, but it does not show as a visual image at all. So it's all "nothing at all" all the way in the test. My first thought is "am I trying hard enough?" It sounds like this might be aphantasia, but if it is, it's really hard for someone with it to understand what's being asked of them. :) I take that to mean that I do have it, but I am just slightly not sure, just like the GP.

jstanley 5y ago

Huh, maybe I have aphantasia too, thanks. The lowest level above "no image at all" is "Dim and vague; flat", which are not words that I would ever use to describe thoughts. But it's hard for me to believe that anyone else would use these words to describe thoughts.

timvdalen 5y ago
That was my experience as well. The things in that test are not how I relate to thoughts.

ud_0 5y ago

The problem with this test is I have nothing to compare it to, and the answer spectrum provided is not helpful because it seems concerned with things like how vivid the colors of mental images are. If I don't actually "see" the object but I know exactly what it looks like to the point of having a clear but abstracted version of it in my head, do I still put the slider all the way to the left, or to the center, or what? I would say that me "visualising" an object kind of feels like watching a GAN paint an image, only the image is never as explicitly shown as if it was on my retinas. Does that count? When I close my eyes and I think of an object there is never a danger of me not realizing that my eyes are currently closed. Am I an aphantasiac because of that? Was I supposed to literally hallucinate scenes all the time?

Jtsummers 5y ago
> When I close my eyes and I think of an object there is never a danger of me not realizing that my eyes are currently closed. Hallucination and visualization are distinct things. People without aphantasia who talk about "seeing" things in their mind are not confusing the mental images with the scene in front of them, that would be a hallucination.
- ud_0 5y ago
  I know they're distinct things, I just wonder about the way visualization is described. From the way non-aphantasia is characterized here one could assume that the difference is just how much control people have over the content of the image, as opposed to the degree of realism. A hallucinating person may have an experience that feels indistinguishable from reality, but they can't control what the experience entails. From this test, I gather that a non-aphantasiac person has an equally-as-realistic image in front of them, but they are completely in command of what is shown.
  - SamBam 5y ago
    I do think there's a difference between visualizing something clearly and not clearly, though, and this is what the test is asking. The test asks me to visualize the face of a close friend or relative. I can quite clearly bring to mind my wife's face. I can imagine looking at each individual mole, or different facial expressions she makes. If I were asked to visualize the face of the barista who served me coffee 20 minutes ago, I could only come up with something vague. I remember he was wearing large earrings, because they stood out to me, but his face is a blur. I mean that literally: when I imagine looking at his face, there are parts that simply won't come into focus or even into view, like they're missing -- in the same way that the dot disappears when you find your blind spot (i.e. not in a "argh, he's missing a nose!" way, but in a "it's just not there, but that's not weird" way). So I have a pretty clear phenomenological distinction between visualizing things clearly and not.
    - Jtsummers 5y ago

fsflover 5y ago

Or try this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29367989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29367989.

illwrks 5y ago

"You have hyper-aphantasia". Makes sense as I'm a designer and can very easily visualise things, objects etc in my head.