I also see number 1. I met a man, a long time ago, with no ability to visualize, or hear music in his head, or imagine other sensory data. He said never saw anything in his head, except on rare occasions when he was stroking the trouser serpent. I thought this was interesting because in Kundalini yoga there is a connection between the Mulhadara chakra (at the base of the spine governing sexual activity) and the Ajna chakra (or third eye).
I've read recently, ironic considering what I'm about to relate, that "Ear worms" are a function of Memory: they carry memories into long term storage. I wonder if this man had a long-term memory deficit?
In all honesty all I can see is 5, if I try really hard I can maybe muster a light 4, but that's it. I just don't have that kind of imagination. I can come up with some real funny off the wall words sometimes that would result in a laugh from my friends, but not able to imagine pictures. I think with words not pictures.
That is really interesting, and exactly what I am curious about. I assume that the different ways of thinking results in different ways of being in the world. I am curious as to what people approach the world, and create solutions to problems differently from one another.
I get a flickering of all the possibilities above and I simultaneously experience a conceptual flickering of what "apple" means.
It's neither words nor pictures, but something like code that can be easily converted into either those things, or both. If you asked me to think of the apple I held earlier today - or simply draw a specific apple - only then I would be able to lock into 1 single possibility.
This seems to be relatively common in people who identify as aphantasic. I also don't usually have inner monologues, it's a similar principle I suppose.
Ah, I certainly wondered about that overlap. A lot of people have assumed that if you can't visualize the apple in a real state that it would indicate an inability to draw, however I can visualize it in a real state, and cannot draw to save my life, so one does not necessarily go hand in hand with the other.
I wondered about the internal monologue bit. It is so interesting to me, because this difference exists for a reason. I am curious as to what it is. It takes all kinds to make a world, and the world exists even without people knowing that there are these fundamental differences between them, so I wonder what the different strengths are to the different experiences.
I can totally relate to that curiosity. In fact, pretty much all interactions we've had since I came across you at Quora was me looking to figure out those very nuances.
As a factor 1 psycopath you have been providing me with a rather valuable frame of reference of what it means to be purely rational, since my original wiring seems to be purely emotional.
I actually suspect that is precisely the key difference that accounts for why some babies turn into psycopaths from being exposed to excessive intrauterine cortisol, while others turn autistic.
It's as if some humans are emotionally wired and others are rationally wired. This dichotomy has been traditionally assigned to women and men, but asides from sexist I think that is just wrong.
By the way, do you experience a ongoing inner monologue? Also, do you get clear pictures in your mind's eye when you close your physical eyes and think of nothing in particular?
Ps - drawing is observation combined with mark making. You're already a natural in the observation departament, and if you can write cursively you have mastered basic markmaking already. You have both prerequisites, you just haven’t learned to combine them, and you seem to have developed a belief that It's wasted effort.
I tried to train it in various ways for over a year. A neurologist informed me that he suspected that the cause is a limited visuospatial deficit suggesting a delayed regional maturation, and that it wasn't something that would change in the future.
For me, it is a literally broken pathway. it vexes people that have tried to give me the tools that I simply can't employ them.
Failing is an illusion, since the common denominator in the development of just about any skill is the willingness to fail as many times as it takes.
There's nothing vexing about failing, but there's something vexing about quitting.
The thing is... quitting is also an illusion. For as long as life doesn't end, one merely pauses endeavors.
"Fail Faster" is the right attitude for anyone who cares to cut through illusions.
Objective drawing vs Subjective drawing:
By the way. When you speak of drawing, are you speaking of drawing from life (objective drawing) or drawing from imagination(subjective drawing)?
Those are actually two very complimentary modalities, and evolving as a draftsperson mastering both. The former is essentially a rational undertaking, while the latter is an emotional undertaking.
This is why most classic art programs begin with teaching the students how to draw from life ; to provide them with the toolset that will subsequently allow them to keep developing their objective drawing as well as fleshing out their subjective drawing.
It's usually a good idea to keep doing both types of thing, for anyone who cares to progress up through the drawing journey.
As a factor 1 psychopath, I am pretty sure you would be naturally talented at objective drawing - and I can also see why you would find subjective drawing naturally perplexing.
Meaning that you probably struggle real hear when you try to just extract an image from your mind into a piece of paper - but, you will probably find it super easy to do the opposite and capture real life visual into a piece of drawing.
Fail faster:
I would bet that with the right training and the willingness to do so, you could learn to adequately draw from life in about 100 hours worth of training.
I've already mentioned this book called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", whose PDF I here avail to you:
I firmly believe that if you were to take 100 hours of your time and 100 pieces of paper and comb through the exercises in here, you would come out as someone who is perfectly comfortable drawling the likeness of any person or animal.
Quite vexing and Fail Faster, Athena why don't you?
Just skim through the book and make sure to actually read the intro. I think the author does a stellar job of clarifying this conundrum in a way that will be super clear to you.
Drawing is a super valuable skill, also! And it's a lifelong quest. Everyone should learn how to do it, just like everyone should learn how to write. Actually - from my world, these two things are just as close as the two sides of any given coin.
Thankyou all coming to my PEP talk. Everyone go learn how to draw now, you'll love it once you learn how to actually go about doing it.
PS - Athena Walker, can we see some of our drawings? Now I'm curious.
Any drawing at all. It doesn't matter what it is, I cannot create anything that resembles what I see in my mind, or in life. There is just a dead end, my brain cannot figure it out. My drawings are less comprehensive than a three year old.
There isn't any value in pursuing it for me at this point. It is a great deal like someone without legs trying to walk. There just isn't the physical ability to do it. I was introduced to the book some time ago, and don't remember anything about it, but do remember that it wasn't at all helpful to change my inability to draw. It's just not going to happen.
I have had someone try that with me, and they might as well have been asking me to build a spaceship, it wasn't remotely something i could do. It doesn't matter the orientation of the image, the nature of the image, nothing like that matters, I cannot draw.
I see number 1. It is interesting the way by which people's conceptualization of the physical world varies so much. A big dividing line in the people think is in words or images --> perhaps this explains why some struggle with conjuring up an actual image of a physical object; perhaps they tend to be less visual in their imagination and more oriented towards words? Or perhaps they won't think of an actual realistic looking apple, but instead an abstract representation of how 'all' apples look (something approximating image (2-4 which are obviously not real-looking apples, but more symbols hereof).
A very good question. I imagine that there are drawbacks and benefits to both types of thinking. I am curious as to where those are in both categories.
Well I can't prove I'm not lying here. But can only speak as I find. What I can picture is something between 1 and 2. Wouldn't have said the clearness of the image was quite as good as what's shown in one. But other than that what I imagined was like that only the colours of the apple were different (it's not always like this when I try to imagine something in my head though, I can sometimes find it quite hard).
well i KNOW what an apple looks like. i know what texture it has (i have memory of how it feels), i know that it's usually green or red, but when i close my eyes i don't see anything. just the color orange or black depending on the lighting of the room i'm in. so basically i just see the back of my eyelids lol.
but if you mean like if there is this 2D image of a 3D shiny red apple at the back of my head... like i don't literally see it with my eyes but it's there, in my brain, then yes i "see" a pretty accurate apple. so either 1 or 5 depending on what "see" really means. BUT, i don't know if this is how i normally "see" it, because i JUST looked at those example pictures of apples. maybe the apple in my brain gets less accurate-looking depending on how recently i last saw an apple? idk
I wasn't certain if I was going to include the apple images in the post for exactly that reason. I decided that it made more sense to include it because it can seem like an odd question without the reference to what I am asking for numbers three through five.
I see number 1, my spatial skills have always been higher than any other scores when I take an IQ test. Sometimes the picture can be pretty basic but there's always color involved. Temple Gradin did a Ted talk and referenced this visual ability to, though hers seems way more in depth than my own visual library. I have ADHD and not autism though.
I see the first one, #1. I heard about this not long ago as well, and I was also surprised. I assumed that everyone could visualize at least as well as I do, but I guess some do not. I picture not only and apple, but any of several varieties that I like, the visual differences between them and even tiny characteristics such as the particular sheen after washing, how juicy one is compared to another.
That is how I see it as well. I can imagine any apple that I have seen in the past, the different smells that I have intentionally coded to my memory, take an imaginary bite f them, etc.
Your brain just steadies on channel 1 as shown in the picture, whereas the high-functioning autistic brain flickers through all 6 channels. Your brain can however probably access the other channels on command, but it does so in a steady focused manner with no unnecessary "zapping" .
Another "vote" for between 1 and 2. If I focus on detail, then #1 becomes more vivid. If I focus on "the concept of apple", then it's more cartoonish and #2. Smell is not automatic, but if suggested, then yes, it becomes part of #1. Similarly for texture, if suggested then either being held in the hand or tasted and chewed.
There are different ways of seeing the world that other people have no idea even exists. We live in a world where people experience it very differently from one another, but most people assume that their experience is the same as everyone else's. This fascinates me.
I "see" 5. Nothing. If I try really hard then I can visualise the shape but it's more like a drawing of an outline. I think Apple and I get memories. My memories aren't visual like movies. More like a list of facts. Memories like how I taught my kids about fractions by cutting one up and visually showing them. A memory of last week buying 7 different types of apples with my son so we could compare the tastes. An apple tree we bought instead of a Christmas tree then planted it. How the Apple tree can be grafted and how it's pollinated. The temperature they like to grow in. Different ways it will die. None of it is visual. Yet for me to be able to learn anything I need visual cues. I will read something then translate it onto YouTube for a visual explanation. I don't usually understand anything without visuals. But I 'think' in darkness 🤷🏼♀️
Honestly, I can see number 5, the image. Better than that...I can also "smell" it exactly, I can visualize it as a green apple instead and "smell" that as well, I can "feel" the weight of it. I can't ALWAYS do this, not at all. The "conditions" have to be right for me. I can literally go an entire day without visualizing anything at all in my mind's eye, that's basically my default mode. As a kid I really struggled to enjoy books because I could barely "see" what was happening. I just read it, and understood it. I could barely visualize the characters, let alone "hear" their voices. Nowadays it all comes pretty easy to me as long as I can concentrate. But yeah, number 5 for me lol.
Before I even scrolled down, I imagined a red, shiny apple, like nr 1.
Had I seen anything other than nr 1 or 2 (especially 5!), I think I'd be freaked out.
This was really cool. I read somewhere, last year I think, about inner monologues. I have an inner monologue, constantly. Like I'm narrating myself in a weird sense. And then I read that some people have no narrating monologue. No inner dialogue. (I can find the link if you want to read.)
"The way people perceive the world fascinates me"
This sentence sums it up so well. There's a reason I really like reading your stuff, beside the fact that I think you write good, and that's because so much of it is simply so alien to me. It's riveting.
Highfive in internal narration. With occasional switch to "you" said by that inner voice about me. But there are times when words fail and just half-abstract and half-visualconcepts go, notions, stuff.
Versions of #1 in my case. Depending on the day, it will be a full picture where I can see it all at once in great detail, or I will only be able to focus in some specific parts, still detailed enough.
Also, sometimes the image can be clear and "crispy", while at times it can be faded / clouded.
All but smell. It's funny because I have a strong sense of smell, but my imagination is not great at replicating it! (the same happens with taste). The other senses I can imagine well enough.
Also for me, there's no need to close my eyes. It surprised me to learn that for some people, triggering their internal visualizations needs them to have their eyes closed; if I close my eyes it is actually harder for me!
I wonder if you are like me in terms of smell. I cannot associate smells with memory, as none of my memories have emotional coding, so instead I have to intentionally code the smell with what it is in my mind so I can later recall it.
I smell something and tell myself, "that smell is garlic", or "that smell is coffee". If I do this, I find that my ability to recall smells is far better, and the ability to have a memory of what that smell is outside of its presence is fairly advanced.
I personally associate smell with memory. A few years back I got food poisoning from a Subway sandwich and the smell from a Subway fast food place still makes me gag till this day. I'm also a lot more sensitive to that smell as I don't recall being able to detect it so far away before. Pretty annoying as there were some things they made that weren't bad until the poisoning episode
Very interesting. I don’t associate smells with memories, but for me coding smells happens automatically. I may not think of a particular time when I had coffee, when I smell something, but I will almost instantly recognize that it’s the smell of coffee, dissociated from anything. I also have an ability to guess what something I haven’t smelt before smells like and imagine the smell, I am often correct. Though it happens that I smell something and have no idea what the smell is. What I almost always have a trouble with identifying is perfume and other artificial smells. Unless it’s some strong mint or pine tree smell I will not be able to guess what it was supposed to be and describe it any deeper than “smells sweet”, for example.
Interesting. I haven’t thought about it before and I certainly haven’t thought that there are people who have it like that, it’s interesting.
I don’t have to tell myself what smell is from, but I will remember the smell if I acknowledge what it’s from.
I am smelling paint, for example, I understand that I am smelling paint, think something like “oh that’s how acrylics smell” and if choose, I can stop and “imprint” in my mind. But there are smells that seem to have appeared in my mind on their own, or probably they have been around for so long that I don’t really remember how I remembered them.
So if you smell something you haven’t coded, you won’t be able to recognize or at least guess what that smell is?
That is very similar to what I do. I smell something and intentionally lael it. That smell is garlic, or that smell is natural gas, or that smell is propane, etc.
If I haven't coded it, my brain can recall that it knows the smell, but not what from, and it lacks a database from which to draw. It is very unlikely that I will be able to identify it.
Hmmm... I have no trouble identifying what a smell is but trying to imagine it usually is more like having a dialogue balloon telling about the smell than actually feeling it in my mind lol
Even if it was a smell tied to a strong emotion, I won't be able to "virtualize it" easily.
I also see number 1. I met a man, a long time ago, with no ability to visualize, or hear music in his head, or imagine other sensory data. He said never saw anything in his head, except on rare occasions when he was stroking the trouser serpent. I thought this was interesting because in Kundalini yoga there is a connection between the Mulhadara chakra (at the base of the spine governing sexual activity) and the Ajna chakra (or third eye).
So he was completely unable to have an earworm of a song stuck in their head. Fascinating.
I've read recently, ironic considering what I'm about to relate, that "Ear worms" are a function of Memory: they carry memories into long term storage. I wonder if this man had a long-term memory deficit?
Seems reasonable to think, but I don't know for certain
In all honesty all I can see is 5, if I try really hard I can maybe muster a light 4, but that's it. I just don't have that kind of imagination. I can come up with some real funny off the wall words sometimes that would result in a laugh from my friends, but not able to imagine pictures. I think with words not pictures.
That is really interesting, and exactly what I am curious about. I assume that the different ways of thinking results in different ways of being in the world. I am curious as to what people approach the world, and create solutions to problems differently from one another.
Oh, the Aphantasia debate.
I get a flickering of all the possibilities above and I simultaneously experience a conceptual flickering of what "apple" means.
It's neither words nor pictures, but something like code that can be easily converted into either those things, or both. If you asked me to think of the apple I held earlier today - or simply draw a specific apple - only then I would be able to lock into 1 single possibility.
This seems to be relatively common in people who identify as aphantasic. I also don't usually have inner monologues, it's a similar principle I suppose.
Ah, I certainly wondered about that overlap. A lot of people have assumed that if you can't visualize the apple in a real state that it would indicate an inability to draw, however I can visualize it in a real state, and cannot draw to save my life, so one does not necessarily go hand in hand with the other.
I wondered about the internal monologue bit. It is so interesting to me, because this difference exists for a reason. I am curious as to what it is. It takes all kinds to make a world, and the world exists even without people knowing that there are these fundamental differences between them, so I wonder what the different strengths are to the different experiences.
It all has me very intrigued.
I can totally relate to that curiosity. In fact, pretty much all interactions we've had since I came across you at Quora was me looking to figure out those very nuances.
As a factor 1 psycopath you have been providing me with a rather valuable frame of reference of what it means to be purely rational, since my original wiring seems to be purely emotional.
I actually suspect that is precisely the key difference that accounts for why some babies turn into psycopaths from being exposed to excessive intrauterine cortisol, while others turn autistic.
It's as if some humans are emotionally wired and others are rationally wired. This dichotomy has been traditionally assigned to women and men, but asides from sexist I think that is just wrong.
By the way, do you experience a ongoing inner monologue? Also, do you get clear pictures in your mind's eye when you close your physical eyes and think of nothing in particular?
Ps - drawing is observation combined with mark making. You're already a natural in the observation departament, and if you can write cursively you have mastered basic markmaking already. You have both prerequisites, you just haven’t learned to combine them, and you seem to have developed a belief that It's wasted effort.
I tried to train it in various ways for over a year. A neurologist informed me that he suspected that the cause is a limited visuospatial deficit suggesting a delayed regional maturation, and that it wasn't something that would change in the future.
For me, it is a literally broken pathway. it vexes people that have tried to give me the tools that I simply can't employ them.
Failing is an illusion, since the common denominator in the development of just about any skill is the willingness to fail as many times as it takes.
There's nothing vexing about failing, but there's something vexing about quitting.
The thing is... quitting is also an illusion. For as long as life doesn't end, one merely pauses endeavors.
"Fail Faster" is the right attitude for anyone who cares to cut through illusions.
Objective drawing vs Subjective drawing:
By the way. When you speak of drawing, are you speaking of drawing from life (objective drawing) or drawing from imagination(subjective drawing)?
Those are actually two very complimentary modalities, and evolving as a draftsperson mastering both. The former is essentially a rational undertaking, while the latter is an emotional undertaking.
This is why most classic art programs begin with teaching the students how to draw from life ; to provide them with the toolset that will subsequently allow them to keep developing their objective drawing as well as fleshing out their subjective drawing.
It's usually a good idea to keep doing both types of thing, for anyone who cares to progress up through the drawing journey.
As a factor 1 psychopath, I am pretty sure you would be naturally talented at objective drawing - and I can also see why you would find subjective drawing naturally perplexing.
Meaning that you probably struggle real hear when you try to just extract an image from your mind into a piece of paper - but, you will probably find it super easy to do the opposite and capture real life visual into a piece of drawing.
Fail faster:
I would bet that with the right training and the willingness to do so, you could learn to adequately draw from life in about 100 hours worth of training.
I've already mentioned this book called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", whose PDF I here avail to you:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LNpRzKgzjbjNGUtqytp8LMLVerN44AeA/view?usp=sharing
I firmly believe that if you were to take 100 hours of your time and 100 pieces of paper and comb through the exercises in here, you would come out as someone who is perfectly comfortable drawling the likeness of any person or animal.
Quite vexing and Fail Faster, Athena why don't you?
Just skim through the book and make sure to actually read the intro. I think the author does a stellar job of clarifying this conundrum in a way that will be super clear to you.
Drawing is a super valuable skill, also! And it's a lifelong quest. Everyone should learn how to do it, just like everyone should learn how to write. Actually - from my world, these two things are just as close as the two sides of any given coin.
Thankyou all coming to my PEP talk. Everyone go learn how to draw now, you'll love it once you learn how to actually go about doing it.
PS - Athena Walker, can we see some of our drawings? Now I'm curious.
Any drawing at all. It doesn't matter what it is, I cannot create anything that resembles what I see in my mind, or in life. There is just a dead end, my brain cannot figure it out. My drawings are less comprehensive than a three year old.
There isn't any value in pursuing it for me at this point. It is a great deal like someone without legs trying to walk. There just isn't the physical ability to do it. I was introduced to the book some time ago, and don't remember anything about it, but do remember that it wasn't at all helpful to change my inability to draw. It's just not going to happen.
A question: Can you write something on paper, like signing your name?
"One day, on impulse, I asked the students to copy a Picasso
drawing upside down. That small experiment, more than anything else I had tried, showed that something very different is
going on during the act of drawing.
To my surprise, and to the
students' surprise, the finished drawings were so extremely well
done that I asked the class, "How come you can draw upside
down when you can't draw right-side up?" The students
responded, "Upside down, we didn't know what we were drawing."
This was the greatest puzzlement of all and left me simply
baffled."
pp XII preface
I have had someone try that with me, and they might as well have been asking me to build a spaceship, it wasn't remotely something i could do. It doesn't matter the orientation of the image, the nature of the image, nothing like that matters, I cannot draw.
Very strange
I see number 1. It is interesting the way by which people's conceptualization of the physical world varies so much. A big dividing line in the people think is in words or images --> perhaps this explains why some struggle with conjuring up an actual image of a physical object; perhaps they tend to be less visual in their imagination and more oriented towards words? Or perhaps they won't think of an actual realistic looking apple, but instead an abstract representation of how 'all' apples look (something approximating image (2-4 which are obviously not real-looking apples, but more symbols hereof).
A very good question. I imagine that there are drawbacks and benefits to both types of thinking. I am curious as to where those are in both categories.
Well I can't prove I'm not lying here. But can only speak as I find. What I can picture is something between 1 and 2. Wouldn't have said the clearness of the image was quite as good as what's shown in one. But other than that what I imagined was like that only the colours of the apple were different (it's not always like this when I try to imagine something in my head though, I can sometimes find it quite hard).
Thank you for your response, Emma. Do you find you have a combination of words and images when conjuring concepts?
Np. I think it would likely depend on the concept. But I also think yes this does happen at times.
well i KNOW what an apple looks like. i know what texture it has (i have memory of how it feels), i know that it's usually green or red, but when i close my eyes i don't see anything. just the color orange or black depending on the lighting of the room i'm in. so basically i just see the back of my eyelids lol.
but if you mean like if there is this 2D image of a 3D shiny red apple at the back of my head... like i don't literally see it with my eyes but it's there, in my brain, then yes i "see" a pretty accurate apple. so either 1 or 5 depending on what "see" really means. BUT, i don't know if this is how i normally "see" it, because i JUST looked at those example pictures of apples. maybe the apple in my brain gets less accurate-looking depending on how recently i last saw an apple? idk
That is very interesting to me.
I wasn't certain if I was going to include the apple images in the post for exactly that reason. I decided that it made more sense to include it because it can seem like an odd question without the reference to what I am asking for numbers three through five.
I see number 1, my spatial skills have always been higher than any other scores when I take an IQ test. Sometimes the picture can be pretty basic but there's always color involved. Temple Gradin did a Ted talk and referenced this visual ability to, though hers seems way more in depth than my own visual library. I have ADHD and not autism though.
That is really interesting. I am curious as to what she said about it, so I will try to track down the Ted Talk she did.
I see the first one, #1. I heard about this not long ago as well, and I was also surprised. I assumed that everyone could visualize at least as well as I do, but I guess some do not. I picture not only and apple, but any of several varieties that I like, the visual differences between them and even tiny characteristics such as the particular sheen after washing, how juicy one is compared to another.
That is how I see it as well. I can imagine any apple that I have seen in the past, the different smells that I have intentionally coded to my memory, take an imaginary bite f them, etc.
This picture here illustrates the situation clearly, I think:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e73fd91c1b5241d6720b7704081a102a.webp
Your brain just steadies on channel 1 as shown in the picture, whereas the high-functioning autistic brain flickers through all 6 channels. Your brain can however probably access the other channels on command, but it does so in a steady focused manner with no unnecessary "zapping" .
Oh I like that way of considering it.
Another "vote" for between 1 and 2. If I focus on detail, then #1 becomes more vivid. If I focus on "the concept of apple", then it's more cartoonish and #2. Smell is not automatic, but if suggested, then yes, it becomes part of #1. Similarly for texture, if suggested then either being held in the hand or tasted and chewed.
Very cool
What have you discovered from this data? 🤔
There are different ways of seeing the world that other people have no idea even exists. We live in a world where people experience it very differently from one another, but most people assume that their experience is the same as everyone else's. This fascinates me.
I "see" 5. Nothing. If I try really hard then I can visualise the shape but it's more like a drawing of an outline. I think Apple and I get memories. My memories aren't visual like movies. More like a list of facts. Memories like how I taught my kids about fractions by cutting one up and visually showing them. A memory of last week buying 7 different types of apples with my son so we could compare the tastes. An apple tree we bought instead of a Christmas tree then planted it. How the Apple tree can be grafted and how it's pollinated. The temperature they like to grow in. Different ways it will die. None of it is visual. Yet for me to be able to learn anything I need visual cues. I will read something then translate it onto YouTube for a visual explanation. I don't usually understand anything without visuals. But I 'think' in darkness 🤷🏼♀️
That is so interesting to me
I could probably draw one though, maybe in a cartoon like form. Probably muscle memory? 🤷🏼♀️
Honestly, I can see number 5, the image. Better than that...I can also "smell" it exactly, I can visualize it as a green apple instead and "smell" that as well, I can "feel" the weight of it. I can't ALWAYS do this, not at all. The "conditions" have to be right for me. I can literally go an entire day without visualizing anything at all in my mind's eye, that's basically my default mode. As a kid I really struggled to enjoy books because I could barely "see" what was happening. I just read it, and understood it. I could barely visualize the characters, let alone "hear" their voices. Nowadays it all comes pretty easy to me as long as I can concentrate. But yeah, number 5 for me lol.
lmao I obviously meant number 1!
I figured, based on your description.
Before I even scrolled down, I imagined a red, shiny apple, like nr 1.
Had I seen anything other than nr 1 or 2 (especially 5!), I think I'd be freaked out.
This was really cool. I read somewhere, last year I think, about inner monologues. I have an inner monologue, constantly. Like I'm narrating myself in a weird sense. And then I read that some people have no narrating monologue. No inner dialogue. (I can find the link if you want to read.)
"The way people perceive the world fascinates me"
This sentence sums it up so well. There's a reason I really like reading your stuff, beside the fact that I think you write good, and that's because so much of it is simply so alien to me. It's riveting.
Highfive in internal narration. With occasional switch to "you" said by that inner voice about me. But there are times when words fail and just half-abstract and half-visualconcepts go, notions, stuff.
I see 1
Thank you for letting me know
Versions of #1 in my case. Depending on the day, it will be a full picture where I can see it all at once in great detail, or I will only be able to focus in some specific parts, still detailed enough.
Also, sometimes the image can be clear and "crispy", while at times it can be faded / clouded.
All but smell. It's funny because I have a strong sense of smell, but my imagination is not great at replicating it! (the same happens with taste). The other senses I can imagine well enough.
Also for me, there's no need to close my eyes. It surprised me to learn that for some people, triggering their internal visualizations needs them to have their eyes closed; if I close my eyes it is actually harder for me!
I wonder if you are like me in terms of smell. I cannot associate smells with memory, as none of my memories have emotional coding, so instead I have to intentionally code the smell with what it is in my mind so I can later recall it.
I smell something and tell myself, "that smell is garlic", or "that smell is coffee". If I do this, I find that my ability to recall smells is far better, and the ability to have a memory of what that smell is outside of its presence is fairly advanced.
I personally associate smell with memory. A few years back I got food poisoning from a Subway sandwich and the smell from a Subway fast food place still makes me gag till this day. I'm also a lot more sensitive to that smell as I don't recall being able to detect it so far away before. Pretty annoying as there were some things they made that weren't bad until the poisoning episode
That's quite interesting, but makes sense to me.
Very interesting. I don’t associate smells with memories, but for me coding smells happens automatically. I may not think of a particular time when I had coffee, when I smell something, but I will almost instantly recognize that it’s the smell of coffee, dissociated from anything. I also have an ability to guess what something I haven’t smelt before smells like and imagine the smell, I am often correct. Though it happens that I smell something and have no idea what the smell is. What I almost always have a trouble with identifying is perfume and other artificial smells. Unless it’s some strong mint or pine tree smell I will not be able to guess what it was supposed to be and describe it any deeper than “smells sweet”, for example.
I would very much like it to be automatic for me, that would be cool. Having to do it manually can mean it gets overlooked a lot.
Interesting. I haven’t thought about it before and I certainly haven’t thought that there are people who have it like that, it’s interesting.
I don’t have to tell myself what smell is from, but I will remember the smell if I acknowledge what it’s from.
I am smelling paint, for example, I understand that I am smelling paint, think something like “oh that’s how acrylics smell” and if choose, I can stop and “imprint” in my mind. But there are smells that seem to have appeared in my mind on their own, or probably they have been around for so long that I don’t really remember how I remembered them.
So if you smell something you haven’t coded, you won’t be able to recognize or at least guess what that smell is?
That is very similar to what I do. I smell something and intentionally lael it. That smell is garlic, or that smell is natural gas, or that smell is propane, etc.
If I haven't coded it, my brain can recall that it knows the smell, but not what from, and it lacks a database from which to draw. It is very unlikely that I will be able to identify it.
Oh, same here. I thought our memories worked quite differently first.
Hmmm... I have no trouble identifying what a smell is but trying to imagine it usually is more like having a dialogue balloon telling about the smell than actually feeling it in my mind lol
Even if it was a smell tied to a strong emotion, I won't be able to "virtualize it" easily.
Interesting , I can always smell things I imagine, if they have a smell, even dirt.
Interesting, I have a harder time with my eyes open, but the smell is easier either way
I see number one too. I think most people see between number one and number three.
I was surprised that there was such a difference among people, it had never occurred to me. It is really intriguing.