Any other writers with aphantasia?

[AG31]

My wife is the same, no inner imagery. She can't explain what it is like to interpret information. I guess those of us that see it visually at least have a relatable metaphor to use. Everybody can see, just not with their eyes closed. My wife has a hard time understanding that the visual thing is not actually in the eyes, like there are images overlayed on top of what I am physically seeing, or pictures on the back of my eyelids. It's more like the part of my brain that interprets the signals from my eyes can construct or reconstract that interpretation.

On the flip side, I can barely imagine or even remember tactile sensations, so I have a really hard time describing them in my stories, which is a big handicap here. But auditory things work very similar to visual things for me.

If you "see" it "on your eyelids," it's called "eidetic imagery." I think.

 

[AG31]

Hmm. I always assumed that people with aphantasia can still enjoy fiction... somehow.

Well, for sure this one does. Just like we can enjoy life!

 

[AG31]

I'm sure there's others who do, but I just can't get into it. Even visual stuff like fictional TV and movies doesn't hold my interest. But I'll watch nature documentaries for hours.

I suspect that this doesn't have anything to do with your aphantasia.

 

[AG31]

The linked article only describes aphantasia in terms of “visualization,” does it cover other senses beyond visual?

We talk about mind’s eye, are there aphantasia havers who also don’t experience a mind’s ear, mind’s nose, mind’s skin, so to speak?

I don't experience things in the mind's ear. I just figured that out in my late 70's. I figured out the visual thing in my 20's. But I've assumed there is (or will be) a different term than aphantasia. I think that's specific to vision.

 

[AG31]

@AG31 your presence is required in the lobby.

I'm the complete opposite of aphantasia - definitely in the highly visual, cinematic, filmic camp. Readers say my prose conjures up imagery in their minds as they read. I have no idea what literary techniques I use to do that, but apparently they work.

Hello, hello. I've replied two or three times now. I was out of internet accessibility since July 5.

 

[AG31]

To people with aphantasia, do you ever have ideas of what characters look like as you read that clash with the appearance of movie characters?

Yes, absolutely. But the details aren't understood until I see the "wrong" ones. I do understand that I think the character is tall or short, good or bad looking. But not hair color, shape of face, etc.

 

[AG31]

so I'd love to hear how you read it, in your non-visual way.

I found all your visual details (fingernails, freckles, swaying on the bus) vivid and evocative. But I didn't "see" them. I know about fingernail polish and freckles and swaying on a bus. I have a rich array of associations with all of them.

A few have mentioned audial (aural?) imagery. I don't have that. But I liked her "surprisingly low, even husky" voice. Do any of you actually hear it in your mind's ear?

 

[AG31]

Several people have talked about whether having or not having aphantasia affects the way they write. I suppose it affects mine. I don't include much visual description at all. Just enough to set the scene or make a statement about social position via clothing. I haven't received many criticisms based just on that.

 

[AG31]

And yet another thought. To those of you who are baffled as to how one can think without pictures. Do you have a picture when you think about "freedom?" If not, then you have an example of how us aphantasics can think about tables.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Just curious if anyone else here has aphantasia.

I think I'm in the middle as far as a visual imagination. I have a pretty good visual memory. But when I read or daydream the visuals are vague, sort of like seeing shapes through a sheer curtain. I do remember my dreams and I know I dream in technicolor (and sound, and motion). But it's not as clear when I'm imagining things, even when reading.

When I'm writing something, I have a stronger mental visual, but it's not as clear as other people talk about.

My internal monologue, on the other hand, is constant and clear. I usually have a song (sometimes more than one) playing in my head, as well as a basically neutral observational commentary. It ramps up when I'm trying to sleep. Which helps, sometimes, with the writing. I've drafted whole scenes in my head, but getting the mental writing in a more permanent form is hit or miss.

It's definitely something i never thought about. But for me, the 'no internal monologue' is harder to imagine experiencing than no internal visual.

The mind is a wierd and wonderful place.

Truth!

 

[AG31]

I found all your visual details (fingernails, freckles, swaying on the bus) vivid and evocative. But I didn't "see" them. I know about fingernail polish and freckles and swaying on a bus. I have a rich array of associations with all of them.

A few have mentioned audial (aural?) imagery. I don't have that. But I liked her "surprisingly low, even husky" voice. Do any of you actually hear it in your mind's ear?

@ElectricBlue - Edit: I think the most important impact of these visual details is what it tells us about the observing MC.

 

[ElectricBlue]

And yet another thought. To those of you who are baffled as to how one can think without pictures. Do you have a picture when you think about "freedom?" If not, then you have an example of how us aphantasics can think about tables.

Interesting to track my response. My first thought was, "Freedom is not being locked up," then immediately my mind saw an image of high rolling hills, short grasses, mist, rain in the distance. A twelve year old's memory of walking Welsh hills to Mount Cader Idris, with my father. Then my mind flashed to the stony path up Ben Nevis, the pilgrim's path up Croagh Patrick in the west of Ireland; again, places from my youth from fourteen months spent in England, where every weekend my dad took us to see a castle, a National Trust house, a Roman ruin, an abbey ruin - some place that's lodged in my visual memory and is still there.

Describing this mind process now, I realise that, if I think a few words in my head, there's an immediate visual image of the place I associate those words with, and if I sat down and concentrated, I could probably draw it. Or describe it in words, for someone else to "be there."

 

[Bramblethorn]

I found all your visual details (fingernails, freckles, swaying on the bus) vivid and evocative. But I didn't "see" them. I know about fingernail polish and freckles and swaying on a bus. I have a rich array of associations with all of them.

Similar here: when I read about visual details of a character, what sticks with me is less the specifics of those details and more what they might signify.

If an author mentions a woman with hot-pink fingernail polish, I may not remember that precise colour, or even that she has fingernail polish. But it establishes her as the kind of woman to wear hot-pink fingernail polish, and I'll remember whatever I associate with that.

Some details don't signify a whole lot. If a character is described as having brown eyes, usually it just means they have brown eyes. In a fantasy setting where only the Quorbs of V'Laxor have brown eyes, I'm more likely to remember that detail, because now it does signify stuff, but otherwise generally no.

A lot of details get abstracted away to "the author thinks this character is hot".

 

[intim8]

Yes. I object to the term "aphantasia," because it sounds like you can't fantasize. Au contraire!!!!!!

I mildly object on the grounds that it implies having inner visuals is the default, the normal. Maybe it is true for the vast majority of people, but maybe not. It is for me, in the extreme, but I could be the wierd one.

 

[intim8]

And yet another thought. To those of you who are baffled as to how one can think without pictures. Do you have a picture when you think about "freedom?" If not, then you have an example of how us aphantasics can think about tables.

I get a visual, but it's more an association than an image of freedom itself, or a vehicle for understanding it. But as soon as I try to analyze it, like, say make a logical argument about it, I start picturing boxes and arrows in my head.

If I was going to write about it, lile someone experiencing it, I would definitely get images of that.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I mildly object on the grounds that it implies having inner visuals is the default, the normal. Maybe it is true for the vast majority of people, but maybe not. It is for me, in the extreme, but I could be the wierd one.

I suspect there might be a correlation between neurotypical = visual and neurodiverse = non-visual, but I don't think it's automatically one-for-one.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I suspect there might be a correlation between neurotypical = visual and neurodiverse = non-visual, but I don't think it's automatically one-for-one.

My guess would be that neurodivergent includes both hyper-visual and hypo-visual, but whether one or the other dominates I'm less certain. Certainly face-blindness seems to be common with autism.

 

[stickygirl]

I suspect that all these characteristics are a question of degree. We might be startled by the accuracy to which a person with 'photographic memory' can record detail, but it is not so foreign to us that we burn them as witches ( any more ).

Our brain must filter the deluge of input our sense provide it - 'sensory gating' in order to make sense of our environment. The wonder to me is that we're so similar in how we think and interact given that our brains are fancy porridge with electricity in it. One of the joys of life is discovering both how we are different from other people, yet have so much in common. Writing is an enduring method of sharing the knowledge and experience from our perspective so that others can compare it to their own.

Fancy porridge. You heard it here first.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Fancy porridge. You heard it here first.

Fancy porridge, huh?

 

[XerXesXu]

We might be startled by the accuracy to which a person with 'photographic memory' can record detail,

There is no known case of 'photographic memory'. That's the stuff of fiction, 'The 39 Steps', and even Mr Memory could only remember an arithmetric formula no more difficult than most of us remember for school exams - and 60 years later. So far as objective measures of Hyperphantasics v Aphantasics are concerned, the later make far fewer memory errors than the former.

 

[ElectricBlue]

There is no known case of 'photographic memory'. That's the stuff of fiction, 'The 39 Steps', and even Mr Memory could only remember an arithmetric formula no more difficult than most of us remember for school exams - and 60 years later. So far as objective measures of Hyperphantasics v Aphantasics are concerned, the later make far fewer memory errors than the former.

What about the guy who can see a view of a city for maybe ten minutes, then go off to a room and spend days drawing a vividly accurate line rendition of the view point? His visual recall won't be using mnemonics, because he's drawing, not reciting numbers or words.

 

[XerXesXu]

What about the guy who can see a view of a city for maybe ten minutes, then go off to a room and spend days drawing a vividly accurate line rendition of the view point? His visual recall won't be using mnemonics, because he's drawing, not reciting numbers or words.

He remembers what it looks like.

 

[ElectricBlue]

He remembers what it looks like.

Memory or visual recall, either way it's not a "usual" way of perceiving and recalling visual input. Are you suggesting that just anyone could do it, like little old you or me?

 

[Kumquatqueen]

My guess would be that neurodivergent includes both hyper-visual and hypo-visual, but whether one or the other dominates I'm less certain. Certainly face-blindness seems to be common with autism.

I get an image of 'freedom' but it's like a collage, lots of fragments of images all laid on top of one another. Mandela and the Born Free lions seem to be at the centre of it, various pictures done Amnesty magazine, sky, people partying in streets, fall of the Berlin Wall, etc.

Neurodivergent usually includes hyper- and hypo- all sorts of things. We could use 'neuro-boring' as a synonym for neuro typical, given there's probably a lot more similarity there.

So someone (let's use me as a handy example) may have amazing recall for words on a page, where a book of a certain colour got put, details of a map. But also be deemed faceblind. I can remember details of faces but not the general way one splodge of eyes-nose-mouth-chin-cheeks-forehead is deemed similar to another.

A lot of tests for faceblindness I pass no problem, because they show you the same photograph. I can tell you've shown me two copies of an identical photo. But if you show me two photos of one person, or perhaps of two similar people, that's where I struggle. More recently, I get to know what my colleagues look like when face-on to a camera and from shoulders upwards. When I meet them in person, I have no clue when seeing them partly from the side. Some people are just harder - even after their time in power, I still couldn't tell the difference between David Cameron and Nick Clegg...

2D stuff I'm great at, like jigsaws, but as soon as things go to 3D, like heads, I can't match them up. I'd be terrible doing security - I have no idea whether a ID photo matches the person holding it! I'd kick out 70% of people...

 

[stickygirl]

What about the guy who can see a view of a city for maybe ten minutes, then go off to a room and spend days drawing a vividly accurate line rendition of the view point? His visual recall won't be using mnemonics, because he's drawing, not reciting numbers or words.

Stephen Wiltshire