Casual Conversation

4 1/2. I can "plot" various shapes, etc. but it isn't visual, it's spacial information. It's like an un-rendered cad file. Also, the more I concentrate on a detail, the less I perceive of the whole.

5. I cant picture my own partners face in my head.

I guess when it comes to visualizing things, the apple I'd see would be between a 1 and a 2.
But to me when I try to fully imagine an apple, I also imagine how I can feel the texture of its skin, the weight of it in my hand, the taste and sensation when taking a bite out of it, the smell of the juice, the stickiness of my fingers afterwards, etc.
Or is this also included in the scale? Because then I guess it's a 1.

Between a 4 and a 5. I also have no inner monologue, just thoughts in the form of impulses and instincts

2 when I don’t think about it, 1 with some effort.

A complete 5 for both me and my partner, but her daughter has 1 to the point of "watching movies in her head" when she's bored. Her uncle is the exact same way, at least as a child.

Wait, there are people who aren't a 1?!?!

I can see a kind of a framework. If I imagine a wooden cottage in a mountain scenery, what I see is just metadata. I "see" the following:

• The concept of a mountain scenery
• The concept of wooden cottage exists within the said mountain scenery (its location is not defined, though).

Then I can take a look at the mountain scenery. I "see":

• The concept of there being a valley
• The concept of a river flowing in the valley

Next, let's take a look at the valley. I "see" for example:

• There is a concept of another mountain beyond the valley.
• There is a forest growing on the slopes of the valley

If I "look" at the forest, I "see", among others:

• Many individual coniferous trees

Etc.

But, when I'm "looking" at the trees, I never see the actual tree, only a knowledge of "here's a tree". And while "looking" at the forest, I do not see the rest of the scenery, only the tree. I can of course go back to seeing the whole scenery with the cottage in it, but now I only "see" the information "there is a mountain scenery with a valley, and a cottage exists within the scenery". Okay, the valley has appeared in a more stable fashion now that I've taken a look at the image.

So, shortly put, I do get very precise instructions for how to draw the image, but I do not see the image. The only way I can actually see it is to take physical pencils or an image editing program and actually draw a picture according to the instructions. This is also how my memories work. Everything is just metadata. A very thorough metadata that can be used for drawing a very precise replica of what I have seen, but no real visual information.

I can even "paint" the abovementioned scenery more precisely:

• Mountain scenery
  • Valley with river
    • River: Water is streaming relatively fast
      • White "foam" visible on top of waves
      • Basically this is something between a river rapid and a wide mountain creek
    • River: Slightly bending here and there
    • River: Has waves
    • River: Going from near the lower right corner, meeting the horizon maybe 30 % from the left side of the image.
    • River: Direction of flow not clearly defined
    • Valley: A slope exists on the other side of the valley
      • Forest on the slope
        • Consists of coniferous trees
          • Spruces, maybe 70 % of trees
            • About as tall as a four-floor building
            • The shape is uniform, beautiful
              • Branches have needles on them
                • Branches have subbranches
                  • The branches' structure seems to be recursive
                • Needles are dark green
                • Individual needles are visible
            • For some reason, there is one squirrel among the spruces.
              • The squirrel is brown.
              • Its tail is fluffy
                • Reaches a bit over the top of its head
          • Undefined coniferous trees, remaining 30-ish %.
            • Cannot be further observed
  • Sky
    • Covers a bit over a quarter of the upper part of the image
    • The sun is setting or rising
      • Yellowish or orangeish colour
      • Seagulls or similar
        • Far away, not visible very clearly
        • Gliding, not flapping their wings
• Cottage
  • Wooden
    • Made of horizontal planks, possibly logs
      • The logs/planks have lines visible in them, as wood does.
        • Lines are somewhat winding, calmly
  • Has a door
    • Wooden
    • No window
    • Planks on door are vertical
    • I am apparently unable to see a handle in the door
  • Has a window
    • Made of four panes
      • Pane is transparent
      • A sofa visible through the pane.
      • A flower vase is standing behind the window
        • It is on a windowsill
        • The flowers are roses
          • Red
          • Petals
            • Petals are more tall than wide
            • Overlapping each other
          • Leaves
            • Two
  • Chimney
    • Smoke rising from the chimney
  • A person is sitting inside the cottage (okay, apparently I can "see" through the walls; hadn't really noticed this earlier that this makes very little sense)
  • Male
  • Old
  • In a rocking chair

(Et cetera. I could "zoom" into different things in this "image" forever, and yet I cannot see it or anything it. Every time I zoom, I just get more information on what's visible – more "instructions for what to draw" if I ever wanted to make the image visible by bringing it physically to existence. I could also probably make the river flow to some specific direction or have the "undefined coniferous trees" defined more precisely, but those are not "visible" in the original image I got when I chose "a wooden cottage in a mountain scenery" as the image I'll be observing, so it means I'm kind of "painting over" the original image if I define them.)

I have hyperphantasia, according to some crappy online test I took a few months ago.

It certainly has its advantages, like it occasionally combines with my relatively good memory for moments of photographic memory.
But it can also be somewhat depressing at times, like other people get excited to visit some castle or whatever and I'm just like "I've seen a castle before, I can just look at it in my head for the most part", which makes such trips significantly less interesting...

So I'm a 1, except for faces. Does anyone else get this?

If its a face I know, then it's a 2. But if I'm reading or listening to fiction, faces are more like a 4. Everything else appears in vivid detail when described - clothes, surroundings, etc. - I can even conjure tastes and smells, but I really have difficulty holding onto a face in my mind. It's made me appreciate fan art.

3. Though colour is fine, I don't know why this graph removes the colour. Things I visualize appear quite faint, like I can hardly see them. But I can definitely visualize things.

So I'm really not sure where I lie on the scale. I try to imagine the apple but I really can't create any kind of image.

I read a bit about this and tried to imagine faces of people I know and had a little more success. However it is like I'm recreating each part at a time and as soon as I start to imagine another part, the previous disappears. I.e. I imagine the right side of the face, eye and cheek, the go to imagine the left side and the right side fades or disappears completely, imagine the hair, and the face is vague at best etc.

But also, I can also have incredibly vivid dreams!

It's almost like imaging an apple is too trivial for my mind to bother with! I try to imagine my front garden and its there, but rather vague and monochrome, so maybe 3-4.

I think I'm a 3-4? Its such a hard thing to gauge. I've known people who are 1s and 5s

5. No pics in my brain at all. Also have Anendophasia (no inner voice).

I dream but it fucks me up. Same system my brain uses for reality stuff. Takes time to sort out if not fantastical. I still don’t see anything. Just remember like I do other stuff without pictures. It so disconcerting that I have smoked cannabis every night since I was 13 before bed to suppress the dreams even though they surface from time to time, at least then I know they are dreams.

5 :3

I'm usually 1, sometimes 2 when I'm tired. I can imagine whole storylines as if they were movies, which made planning comic panels super easy to me. I was just imagining the whole scene in my head first and then extracting key frames 😆

It depends. If I'm relaxed, it can be a 1 with hallucinogenic effects, but if I'm tired or sit down trying to do art, it's a 4. 😅

Hmm. I'm not sure I can imagine in color.

I think i might be 1 or 2 or middle of it. I can create a map in my head, then rotate the map. I used to be able to do it well but lately maybe because of old, i need to focus a bit more to do it.

But then i could be 3? Because the colour could be off.

For me it's like seeing through a small frosted window my above my right eye, muted colors and blobs. I see some fuzzy words, max 3 letters in my upper left "field of view". Other than that all black and all images fade in a second or two.

I think I'm a 4, but I could be 5 and coping. I can't decide whether I'm imagining an apple or imagining that I'm imagining an apple.

i literally don't know.

Somewhere between 3 and 5? I don't know.

Picture a line diagram of an apple, annotated with average dimensions, weight, taste, smell, possible colours, patterns, and whatnot, all cross-referenced to lists of apple varieties, recipes, and other random information about apples.

Now remove the diagram, and leave only the information. No, not as text, or spoken words, just as raw information.

That's the one, whichever number it is.

(This doesn't mean I couldn't draw you an apple, mind, the necessary information is still all there — I mean, I can't, but because my hand eye coordination sucks, not because of the aphantasia; give me a vector drawing software I'm familiar with and I'd probably be able to draw you a pretty cromulent apple.)

Probably 4. I technically have an imagination since I did pass that psy test where you interpret stories from image boards (according to my last psych eval), but my imagination is pretty weak