4 ms·

I'm one of the naysayers denying aphantasia in the comments. Why would we default to believing people, though? I get your point. Believe people when they tell

I'm one of the naysayers denying aphantasia in the comments. Why would we default to believing people, though? I get your point. Believe people when they tell you their experience. Sure, that seems like a reasonable thing to do. But in this case, when there is zero evidence besides a self-reported experience, why do we default to believing that there are suddenly two types of people, instead of assuming that semantics has created this illusion? You're defaulting to being nice, which is fine, but it doesn't make you any more right than me and my skepticism. We both have no idea what the truth is.

selcuka 1mo ago
> why do we default to believing that there are suddenly two types of people Because we know that there are already more than two types of people, even when we ignore aphantasia? So there is nothing new here. Also if you read the FA, it explains that there are objective differences: > People have taken various physiological and behavioral tests in a research lab. Researchers have observed that people who report vivid imagery respond differently to these more objective measures than aphantasics. Although this doesn't let us know definitively that they vividly see an image, it all points to the fact that something is truly different between people who claim to see vividly and those who don't.
ToyKeeper 1mo ago
> zero evidence That's a bold claim. It doesn't tell me there is zero evidence... hardly anything has zero evidence. It just tells me you either reject the evidence or haven't looked. It's not hard to check. For the lazy, Wikipedia provides a nice summary and 82 references to get more details. But that's just a starting point. > there are suddenly two types of people This comment is pretty revealing. For almost any trait, there are way more than two types of people. Usually there's a whole spectrum with lots of diversity. It's a beautiful thing. What would be very unusual is if there was only one type of person, or only two types. Even distinct "types" is a bit of a misleading concept. Instead of distinct types or buckets, most things have more of a cluster or nebula structure. Each individual member of a cluster is different, but has overall similarities, on average, to other members. There will usually be a fairly dense core, and then it gets more sparse with distance. And there will often be several clusters near each other, overlapping, so there is no clear boundary between one cluster and another. That is how descriptive categories work... nebulous clusters in thingspace, where that space is a many-dimensional abstract space with each trait having its own axis, and many degrees of each trait. For convenience and efficiency, we use labels to refer to these clusters, but when deeper understanding is needed, or more nuanced communication, the labels stop being a useful simplification. It's like trying to dig out a splinter with a shovel; shovels are very useful, but they're way too coarse and blunt for something as precise as a splinter. A deep enough understanding requires us to more explicitly recognize the cluster structure and the multidimensional spectrum of diversity. Don't mistake the map (the labels, or the "types" of people) for the territory (the rich variety of life).
andy99 1mo ago
It was funny to watch this discussion turn from skepticism at the top to then a bunch of proponents moving in and crowding out the rational voices. It feels a bit religious to me, at least unscientific, there are obviously no testable hypotheses about subjective descriptions, and so people seem to dig in on their sides more than if there was a real basis for comparison. I default to not believing in it until there is actual strong evidence, same as ghosts and the Loch Ness monster and whatnot.
- selcuka 1mo ago
  I'm not sure how the examples given in this thread, such as brain scans, are "unscientific" while simply saying "nah, I believe everybody else is exactly like me" is "rational voice"?
- D-Machine 1mo ago
  > there are obviously no testable hypotheses about subjective descriptions Clearly false if you take just 30 seconds to scroll through this thread. Embarrassing.
metabagel 1mo ago
I believe it, because I tend to have a hard time visualizing even the faces of people I love and know well. It takes great effort.
nomel 1mo ago
> zero evidence besides a self-reported experience There are clear differences in brain scans [1]. [1] https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/01/mind-blindness-decoded-people-who-cant-see-with-their-minds-eye-still-activate-their-visual-cortex-study-finds https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/01/mind-blindness...
- hirvi74 1mo ago
  I'm on your side of the argument, but while that research may be evidence, it's not definitive proof.
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    Qualia can't be definitively proven.
    - hirvi74 1mo ago
      I meant definitely proven with in a realistic sense. Smoke causes lung cancer, albeit only something like 20% of smokers get lung cancer. It's been proven, but not in the mathematical sense of the word.
  - UpsideDownRide 1mo ago
    What would you accept as a proof if that doesn't clear the bar for you?
    - hirvi74 1mo ago
      One, a study with more than 32 people. Two, replications with equally strong observations. I've read a lot of research on fMRIs and mental disorders. Something like this pops up every other day. Not a single one has really study the test of time ion terms of diagnostic utility.
- dtkav 1mo ago
  Also differences in pupil dilation when asked to imagine scenes [0]. [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9018072/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9018072/
iamhamm 1mo ago
Here’s some evidence for you: when I close my eye, I see black. That’s it. No amount of effort conjures an image. That’s not what most people I talk to about it report, so I am going to assume there’s a functional difference between me and people with functioning visualization.
- Suppafly 1mo ago
  >Here’s some evidence for you: when I close my eye, I see black. This, I can imagine things, but it's like the idea of something, not a picture of it. Blows my mind when people tell me their imagination is like watching a movie.
  - iamhamm 1mo ago
    Same! My wife is at the opposite end and can visualize these wild scenes and describe them in detail and I’m like “I can tell you roughly where the parts of a cat go”.
    - jaggederest 1mo ago
      That's so funny, my wife and I have the opposite dynamic. She rolls her eyes at me when I insist "no the couch would definitely fit through that doorway if we rotate it like that, I don't need to measure", and after she gets a tape measure it's about an inch of room to spare.
- mikestorrent 1mo ago
  I believe you. Why wouldn't someone believe you? There's not much reason to claim "I cannot do X" maliciously. I'm hopeless at catching a ball, can't play tennis to save my life, for instance... believe me? I just want to throw my two cents in: I think I have a pretty good level of visualization ability, but it's not actually projected into my field of vision. It's like having a second monitor plugged in somewhere... _else_. It doesn't overlap with the 3D space of our world. I don't SEE it, but I do "see" it, not as concepts but as something akin to generated memories. It does often help to look away from visually distracting things so that the mind is more free to use its capacity to generate things.

selcuka 1mo ago

> why do we default to believing that there are suddenly two types of people Because we know that there are already more than two types of people, even when we ignore aphantasia? So there is nothing new here. Also if you read the FA, it explains that there are objective differences: > People have taken various physiological and behavioral tests in a research lab. Researchers have observed that people who report vivid imagery respond differently to these more objective measures than aphantasics. Although this doesn't let us know definitively that they vividly see an image, it all points to the fact that something is truly different between people who claim to see vividly and those who don't.

ToyKeeper 1mo ago

> zero evidence That's a bold claim. It doesn't tell me there is zero evidence... hardly anything has zero evidence. It just tells me you either reject the evidence or haven't looked. It's not hard to check. For the lazy, Wikipedia provides a nice summary and 82 references to get more details. But that's just a starting point. > there are suddenly two types of people This comment is pretty revealing. For almost any trait, there are way more than two types of people. Usually there's a whole spectrum with lots of diversity. It's a beautiful thing. What would be very unusual is if there was only one type of person, or only two types. Even distinct "types" is a bit of a misleading concept. Instead of distinct types or buckets, most things have more of a cluster or nebula structure. Each individual member of a cluster is different, but has overall similarities, on average, to other members. There will usually be a fairly dense core, and then it gets more sparse with distance. And there will often be several clusters near each other, overlapping, so there is no clear boundary between one cluster and another. That is how descriptive categories work... nebulous clusters in thingspace, where that space is a many-dimensional abstract space with each trait having its own axis, and many degrees of each trait. For convenience and efficiency, we use labels to refer to these clusters, but when deeper understanding is needed, or more nuanced communication, the labels stop being a useful simplification. It's like trying to dig out a splinter with a shovel; shovels are very useful, but they're way too coarse and blunt for something as precise as a splinter. A deep enough understanding requires us to more explicitly recognize the cluster structure and the multidimensional spectrum of diversity. Don't mistake the map (the labels, or the "types" of people) for the territory (the rich variety of life).

andy99 1mo ago

It was funny to watch this discussion turn from skepticism at the top to then a bunch of proponents moving in and crowding out the rational voices. It feels a bit religious to me, at least unscientific, there are obviously no testable hypotheses about subjective descriptions, and so people seem to dig in on their sides more than if there was a real basis for comparison. I default to not believing in it until there is actual strong evidence, same as ghosts and the Loch Ness monster and whatnot.

selcuka 1mo ago
I'm not sure how the examples given in this thread, such as brain scans, are "unscientific" while simply saying "nah, I believe everybody else is exactly like me" is "rational voice"?
D-Machine 1mo ago
> there are obviously no testable hypotheses about subjective descriptions Clearly false if you take just 30 seconds to scroll through this thread. Embarrassing.

metabagel 1mo ago

I believe it, because I tend to have a hard time visualizing even the faces of people I love and know well. It takes great effort.

nomel 1mo ago

> zero evidence besides a self-reported experience There are clear differences in brain scans [1]. [1] https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/01/mind-blindness-decoded-people-who-cant-see-with-their-minds-eye-still-activate-their-visual-cortex-study-finds https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/01/mind-blindness...

hirvi74 1mo ago
I'm on your side of the argument, but while that research may be evidence, it's not definitive proof.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  Qualia can't be definitively proven.
  - hirvi74 1mo ago
    I meant definitely proven with in a realistic sense. Smoke causes lung cancer, albeit only something like 20% of smokers get lung cancer. It's been proven, but not in the mathematical sense of the word.
- UpsideDownRide 1mo ago
  What would you accept as a proof if that doesn't clear the bar for you?
  - hirvi74 1mo ago
    One, a study with more than 32 people. Two, replications with equally strong observations. I've read a lot of research on fMRIs and mental disorders. Something like this pops up every other day. Not a single one has really study the test of time ion terms of diagnostic utility.
dtkav 1mo ago
Also differences in pupil dilation when asked to imagine scenes [0]. [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9018072/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9018072/

iamhamm 1mo ago

Here’s some evidence for you: when I close my eye, I see black. That’s it. No amount of effort conjures an image. That’s not what most people I talk to about it report, so I am going to assume there’s a functional difference between me and people with functioning visualization.

Suppafly 1mo ago
>Here’s some evidence for you: when I close my eye, I see black. This, I can imagine things, but it's like the idea of something, not a picture of it. Blows my mind when people tell me their imagination is like watching a movie.
- iamhamm 1mo ago
  Same! My wife is at the opposite end and can visualize these wild scenes and describe them in detail and I’m like “I can tell you roughly where the parts of a cat go”.
  - jaggederest 1mo ago
    That's so funny, my wife and I have the opposite dynamic. She rolls her eyes at me when I insist "no the couch would definitely fit through that doorway if we rotate it like that, I don't need to measure", and after she gets a tape measure it's about an inch of room to spare.
mikestorrent 1mo ago
I believe you. Why wouldn't someone believe you? There's not much reason to claim "I cannot do X" maliciously. I'm hopeless at catching a ball, can't play tennis to save my life, for instance... believe me? I just want to throw my two cents in: I think I have a pretty good level of visualization ability, but it's not actually projected into my field of vision. It's like having a second monitor plugged in somewhere... _else_. It doesn't overlap with the 3D space of our world. I don't SEE it, but I do "see" it, not as concepts but as something akin to generated memories. It does often help to look away from visually distracting things so that the mind is more free to use its capacity to generate things.