4 ms·
Everyone here, including the original poster has, I believe, made a mistake of thinking the article meant to literally visualize a problem like a cartoonist. Th
by djmips 5y ago
Everyone here, including the original poster has, I believe, made a mistake of thinking the article meant to literally visualize a problem like a cartoonist. The cartoon caricature is only meant by analogy. Possibly a blind spot for those with aphantasia, but the thesis of this article isn't centered around literally visualizing something but capturing some salient points, perhaps exaggerated and not technically correct as an initial way of starting to explain a mathematical concept. It's perhaps unfortunate that the analogy chosen was difficult to understand or sidetracked people that have trouble with the process of making a cartoon caricature.
- necovek 5y agoI am self-diagnosed with aphantasia :), but I understood the desire of the article to simplify by exaggerating most prominent features necessary for a given context, similar to what cartoons do (though I implicitly assumed they simply meant a "caricature" as opposed to any "cartoon", though I haven't looked up if my understanding of the specifics matches actual definitions of those words). So definitely not a blind spot for those with aphantasia. Still, the article does an extremely poor job of showing how that is done well, thus fails in getting the point across. Even the cartoon of a person example sticks out to me as not amplifying a feature, because I don't see the jaw line as a feature in the original face at all. If anything, I see non-existence of that jaw line in the original photo. As such, it's a great model for the article: bad caricature, just like all the bad math examples below.