[laszlojamf]

I'd be curious to know how people with aphantasia come up with ideas, or what they call that process if not imagination. The author has written books. Books have stories. Somehow she comes up with them. If that's not imagination, then what is it. I have a hard time visualizing things myself, and I'm a lousy painter, but is _that_ what aphantasia is?

[vidarh]

People without aphantasia see images in their head. If you don't see images, you have aphantasia. I don't see images. It took until I was in my 40's to realised that this wasn't most peoples experience.

I agree with you regarding imagination - the problem isn't the usual definitions of imagination, but that the process of seeing images to varying degrees (from fuzzy, brief views to "full fidelity video" they can rewind at will at the other extreme) is so deeply ingrained in most people that a whole lot of our vocabulary uses visual metaphors for the entire process rather than just for the visual aspect.

[mewpmewp2]

I get my ideas completely from inner monologue. But my ideas are mostly related to developing automated systems etc, I don't really need imagery for that, although I think I need to sense some sort of graphs or how things work together on the higher level.

[vidarh]

I write a lot, including fiction, and I feel my aphantasia probably shapes what I like to read and write in ways I wasn't aware of (before realising aphantasia was a thing, and that I have it), but it doesn't stop me either.

E.g. when reading I tend to skim over writing that spends a lot of time describing the visual appearance of things unless the words themselves are beautiful to me, because no matter how well written the descriptions are, they don't achieve anything for me beyond the shape of the prose itself.

(I love the structure and flow of language, so there are absolutely moments I find myself reading visual descriptions because of the descriptions themselves)

When writing, I prefer to write relatively sparse prose that focuses on how things works and relates to each other, and dialogue, rather than trying to evoke imagery that I can't see for myself when reading the text back.

[laszlojamf]

yeah, I had a similar realization as an adult that not everybody else talks to themselves inside their head

[ryanjshaw]

Best way I can describe it is as a different sense.

I have a sense of how things relate, like a graph I can follow. So in my room I know the couch is in the corner of the room by the window and there is a desk taking up the space on the other side, with a gap between.

I can’t “see” it, like a drawing or picture, I can just sense the spatial relationships.

I recently did a little fun series of photos with my daughter at a Halloween event and came up with the idea as a series of frames and what I was trying to convey.

The end result was a complete surprise to me, because I only imagined the story and spatial relationships. The photographer said it was the most creative sequence anyone did that night.

Although it’s on my fridge that I open multiple times per day, I can’t tell you what it looks like exactly, only logically. For example I have to remember the costumes we wore, I can’t see them in my head, to remember what we looked like. So visualization ability is not necessary for creativity, I believe.

[zzyxy]

Thank you for this description. It almost exactly matches my experience that I had trouble putting into words. I can "model" the things I'm asked to remember/visualize, but I do not really "see" it.

The closest physical world analogy is moving in a familiar room in the darkness -- you kind of know where the corners are, and where to find the light switch, so you can move around, and tell, if asked, what's where... But there's no seeing involved.

So, when asked to imagine something, for me the process is akin to drawing a blueprint, and then mentally modeling how that contraption could work in real life, without actually building it. Imagination is certainly involved, but it may not be the kind of imagining the requester assumed.

[alistairSH]

Can/do people with aphantasia day-dream?

Is it common for people with aphantasia to not realize it until well into adulthood?

One of my good friends has it, didn't realize it until he was married (~40 years old) and his wife "figured it out." He doesn't care for fiction - especially written fiction, but movies/TV to a lesser extent - I always wondered if that's related. Aside from that, you'd never know - he's a good photographer and excels with mechanical stuff (rebuilding/modifying vintage motorcycles in particular).

[t-3]

The reason so many people with aphantasia don't realize until adulthood is that we do everything you do. There's no real difference in capability, many things are identical or very similar, but the mental experience is different.

My understanding is: Each sense has an phantastic analogue for phantastics. The hyperphantastic can override their senses with their phantastic analogues. Most people have more-or-less full control(?) of their visual and auditory phantastic analogues. The aphantastic have no/very stunted analogues with limited control, or only a partial selection, but people with a visual analogue and without other senses would probably never realize, and so aphantistics can be assumed to missing at a minimum the visual analogue but very commonly have none.

[jmhammond]

I didn’t find out it was a thing until I was 38 or 39. And yes, I daydream. But it’s not like watching a movie. I don’t know how to describe it besides my mind wanders and there’s a narrative.

[mewpmewp2]

I think it is the case where you just assume that people are embellishing or being metaphorical about those things and you just refuse to consider for a moment that they are actually seeing something. But it does give this thought that why do people like to embellish or be metaphorical so much? I guess the answer is that they are not!

[kgwxd]

"seeing" is a pretty vague word. It has like 3 different meanings just in the context of discussing aphantasia. They are seeing something, but they're not seeing it. You see?