Investigating hypophantasia: some suggestions
Investigating hypophantasia: some suggestions
I have hypophantasia: very low mental imagery. I've been following the Aphantasia Network and the aphantasia communities on Reddit, Twitter and Quora. I've noticed that these groups tend to attract many people with total aphantasia, but very few people with hypophantasia. I think the reason for this is the type of testing that is used.
Here you can see two tests that are used by the Aphantasia Network:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFFv2-7W4AMsur9?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/aioyga/simple_aphantasia_test/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
In both of these, a person can get a high score even if he or she can visualize only simple, abstract drawings. I myself can easily imagine simple figures like red stars and stick-figure horses. What I can't create are complete, three-dimensional scenes, or images that are literal, concrete and realistic. My images also seem to be instantaneous and/or nontemporal; they do not move or persist independently. They do not seem to exist within a framework of concrete, Newtonian space-time. This means that I can't do guided visualization exercises like entering an inner place or traveling back to a different time.
I think that there is likely a significant subcategory of people with this minimalistic form of imagery. The statistical distribution of imagery vividness follows a smooth bell curve, which means that there are people at all points on the continuum However, it is likely that there are also qualitative differences in imagery functioning based upon specific imagery subsystems.
Studying low imagery is very important, because it will reveal the most basic subcomponents of imagery generation. By stripping something down to its bare, basic minimum, one can discover the most basic facts. Low imagers are a natural experiment in this regard.
In order to investigate the low end of the imagery range, it is necessary to suspend some common assumptions about what imagery is like. For example, the assumption that it resembles photographs and has photograph-like qualities. If a person says that they can see an image, the first question should be, "Is it like a photograph or a drawing?" Also, the online tests make the assumption that form is easier to visualize than color. For me, the opposite is true.
For people in the low range, visual imagery may work in a way very different from photography. Therefore, it must be approached with a fresh perspective.
I have hypophantasia: very low mental imagery. I've been following the Aphantasia Network and the aphantasia communities on Reddit, Twitter and Quora. I've noticed that these groups tend to attract many people with total aphantasia, but very few people with hypophantasia. I think the reason for this is the type of testing that is used.
Here you can see two tests that are used by the Aphantasia Network:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFFv2-7W4AMsur9?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/aioyga/simple_aphantasia_test/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
In both of these, a person can get a high score even if he or she can visualize only simple, abstract drawings. I myself can easily imagine simple figures like red stars and stick-figure horses. What I can't create are complete, three-dimensional scenes, or images that are literal, concrete and realistic. My images also seem to be instantaneous and/or nontemporal; they do not move or persist independently. They do not seem to exist within a framework of concrete, Newtonian space-time. This means that I can't do guided visualization exercises like entering an inner place or traveling back to a different time.
I think that there is likely a significant subcategory of people with this minimalistic form of imagery. The statistical distribution of imagery vividness follows a smooth bell curve, which means that there are people at all points on the continuum However, it is likely that there are also qualitative differences in imagery functioning based upon specific imagery subsystems.
Studying low imagery is very important, because it will reveal the most basic subcomponents of imagery generation. By stripping something down to its bare, basic minimum, one can discover the most basic facts. Low imagers are a natural experiment in this regard.
In order to investigate the low end of the imagery range, it is necessary to suspend some common assumptions about what imagery is like. For example, the assumption that it resembles photographs and has photograph-like qualities. If a person says that they can see an image, the first question should be, "Is it like a photograph or a drawing?" Also, the online tests make the assumption that form is easier to visualize than color. For me, the opposite is true.
For people in the low range, visual imagery may work in a way very different from photography. Therefore, it must be approached with a fresh perspective.
Comments
Post a Comment