![Further evidence based explanation of the NPC label. [1024x1686 - 421KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/lqNayV.png){kind=link}
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.
blue account trying to dcry the NPC label
Sure thing sport.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(post is archived)