Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.2K

@picman is a small goy.

@picman is a small goy.

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

Aphantasia (en.wikipedia.org)

[–] • 3 pts

rofl there's actually a label for being an NPC.

[–] • 1 pt

What's worse is that it is estimated that 80% of people are unable to do so... The further you look back into history books the more that this concept becomes overwhelmingly obvious.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

I am curious what the percentages are as we account for race?

I find it hard to believe 80% of people are unable to do so. I talk in my head all the time, mostly in English, but its slow.

Faster decision making happens without language, such as troubleshooting complex computer problems, the resolution can become clear with each 'touch point' of the problem being iterated over within a split second or two. Faster than I can say the name of one of the touch points. Often these decisions for troubleshooting prove to be accurate, and I suspect it is because it draws from your subconscious experiences.

What do they see though? Is it really nothing, perhaps the term "see" is not accurate? I can visualize, simulating the nerves coming in from my eyes. I can be given a description and form a mental picture, which doesn't involve sight.

/sigh I don't get it

edit - The mental picture can be formed with eyes open, I'm not sure why they need to be closed, but that may be the missing link. Its not what we see, its what we form in our head, even with visual stimuli

[–] • -2 pt

Except that some of the world's smartest people have been aphantasic, so it's not linked to IQ like that.

In fact, did you know aphantasic is overrepresented, specifically among mathematicians? Same with many promenant physicists, etc.

[–] • 3 pts

Fuck off with the forced projection. I never once stated IQ. Never once.

It's not a highly studied phenomenon so everything you claim is straight garbage.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Desperately defending his inadequacy

IQ is merely the quantified ability to process logic. Mental imagery is the ability to take those ideas and concepts to assemble them within the mind -- separate from the world and make connections where they could not be realized before.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

So these motherfuckers don't have an imagination? How do they think of ideas? I mean how do they process memories?

Also, Not everyone has an inner monologue?

*edit: Spelling

[–] • 1 pt

Apparently yes. It's quite shocking to think about.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Not only do I see an apple, I can see a very specific apple, with a neat scar on its skin, but also generic apples of different colors, and I do so without closing my eyes. Static apples, rotating apples, drawn apples. Whatever. There's no limit. How about a square apple? Done. I see it. Stem, two green leaves, square sides, but still with the little bottom nubs on which it sits. Or now, with a flat bottom, like a box. How is this not the norm.

This is almost as disturbing as learning that a large percentage of the population stands up to wipe their ass. WTF?!?!

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah I can imagine images and "video". My memories are "moving pictures", yes the specific/accurate detail goes WAY down the longer in the past they go but it's filled in by just things that would fit.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

This still blows me away, that some people don't have a visual memory or visual imagination. Who are these defects?

[–] • 2 pts

Who are these defects?

niggers

[–] • 0 pt

Eh, I can't visualise for shit either unless I'm about to fall asleep, I'm almost completely word oriented. I can describe the shit out of any apple in prose better than most, but I can't "see" it. Same with spatial stuff, I can eyeball if something will fit a given space pretty well, but visualising it actually in that space is beyond me, and while I'm a pretty mediocre artist I can have an idea of what I want to create and produce that on the page, even though I'm sure having a vision for it in my head would be an advantage.

As for how this pertains to folks being an NPC, plenty of people I've spoken to who self-report as being perfectly able to visualise yet are some of the most brainwashed fucks you could ever imagine, so I'm not sure there's a strong correlation either way.

I agree it's an interesting topic though, there are folks who purely think in words, purely think in images, and a spectrum in between. I've always wondered if there was a genetic factor (though my parents frequently encouraged me to visualise numbers while doing sums) or if it was just a matter of practise and exposure to certain types of stimuli during brain development.

[–] • 0 pt

blue account trying to dcry the NPC label

Sure thing sport.

[–] • 0 pt

You can call me an NPC if you like, friend, though it seems a rather simple minded response on your part.

I'm honestly not certain if NPC types trend less visual since I've not studied it. I can however say anecdotally that I've encountered fairly few people across what few social media places I've frequented over the years that identify themselves as having aphantasia (self-reporting is about the best you can hope for in this case), but a good bunch of those same "visual" people didn't have an original thought in their body and a deep seated aversion to well established scientific fact that opposes their programming.

I've not seen any studies to suggest that complete aphantasia is particularly common (it's suggested to be about 3% of the population by aphantasia.com and around 2% elsewhere), but I'd enjoy reading studies if you've any at hand.

As for "blue account", I presume this is related to posting habits? I tend to lurk since departing Voat.

[–] • 0 pt

But you've seen apples yes? It doesn't require imagination or any mental processing at all. I can imagine various apples I've never seen but just forming a mental picture of an apple just requires recall for everyone whose ever seen one.

[–] • 0 pt

Yes, I'm quite familiar with apples, it's not like I run into the local grocers and stand in stunned silence at the granny smiths, and I can describe a given apple from experience quite easily - in text form, I just can't form a visual mental image of one.

It's slightly better when it comes to people, in that I can barely picture someone's face (sometimes) if I concentrate, but it's simply not something I have much capacity for.

It's honestly not something that I ever even realised was unusual until quite recently, and certainly not something that caused any problems for me over the years. I simply assumed that people were using figures of speech or simply exaggerating when they talked about that sort of thing (imagine my surprise at finding people that can actually daydream the way that you see in movies), and actually describing things or people to others has always come easily to me.

There's also folks out there who claim to have purely image based thoughts as well, and they were the ones being tagged as NPCs the last time I saw this topic come up. These people claim to have to "translate" words to and from images while they're in a conversation - something that takes them enough time to make conversing difficult - and that's a completely alien concept to me. I think most people fall along a spectrum between these extremes though.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I've always thought it was natural to do both. I think in pictures and words. Each can be more efficient in differing circumstance. Lacking either seems unnatural and a handicap.

Really it goes further than that. Some thoughts are pure math. Some thoughts can be a combination. Lacking any of these seems defective to me.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I tend to build my imagination, so basically start at 5 and end at 2. I can't seem to get a perfect 1 without deliberate concentration, or day dreaming, where as most of my quick thoughts end at 2, as I don't see the worth in furthering the imagery.

Faces though are beyond me, they are always blurred out, maybe a 4, even in my dreams. I'll know who the person is just by 'presence' or other means. It's like my mind purposefully looks away from the face, but I challenge myself to sculpt it into existence.

I think this is why people need to take more art lessons, or learn it for themselves, as the older I get, and the more I learn to address artistic concepts, the more vivid my imagination has become, I know that faces will deblur themselves in time as I continue my practice.

I truly think that the brain is a muscle, and many people forget that art is helpful to themselves, hence why some other comments I've seen on this thread have noted Mathmetitions tend to have lack of imagery. It uses a different part of your brain, than the logical, mathematical part does.