[snaeker58]

I disagree. Asking someone to name shapes that resemble for example the Sydney Opera house seems to me just a test of creativity, not ability to “visualize” something in your head.

I don’t think we’ll ever get a test, because the entire concept of visualization and imagination is so unquantifiable and abstract. We’re all black boxes in a way to each other, with no real way of describing or showing each other how our version of this “visualization” or “image” or … looks or even feels.

[Jordan-117]

It is a creativity test, but doesn't how you get there matter? From what I understand, aphantasiacs think in words, verbalized concepts, remembered facts, relationships, etc. So I'd expect that to make a visual analogy they'd have to first think through the properties of the thing -- "OK, I know this building is white, triangular, curved, near the water..." -- and then come up with other things those attributes describe. But I can just "see" the shape and color of the building in my mind's eye, and mentally make it be something similar, without any internal monologue at all. Actually, if you just gave me a written description of these traits, I'd have a harder time coming up with examples because they're just abstract properties without any specific image to anchor them to -- I could do it, but I'd have to think about it some. But doing the same exercise with a mental image feels much easier.

[layer8]

How can someone judge if two things look similar that are not before your eyes without visualizing them in their mind? Surely some visual comparison and matching must be going on in their head?