Some people can't see mental images

For those who find themselves wondering whether they 'have' aphantasia or not, I would really recommend looking at the aphantasia apples:

https://lianamscott.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/f4c55-1_b...

As in: if you look at this image, can you place yourself on a scale of 1 - 5 of as to the fidelity with which you can picture an apple if you try to imagine it?

I'm a 5 for example, and in asking many people this question I've gotten a solid spectrum of answers from 1 - 5. Generally in a single group of a handful of people I'll get several different numbers.

I think this test is bad at accounting for subjectivity. A literal image you see with your eyes doesn't map exactly to an image you "see" with your mind.

I have no frame of reference for what a 1 is even like so I don't know how to judge myself on it

Do 1's see it as clearly as if it was through regular eyesight?

According to my wife (a 1), yes. Seems wild to me as a ~4. If I concentrate really, really hard on trying to imagine visual detail I can get something to a ~3 at low detail or hold individual small details at a 2 until I stop concentrating on them.

I have sometimes wondered whether there is a personality or cognitive trait that makes one unable to respond to tests measuring personality or cognitive traits.

Every personality test I have ever taken, on many of the questions I've felt that I could answer almost anything and still be truthful.

When I see this apple scale, I simultaneously feel that both 1 and 5 apply to how I visualize an apple. It's hard for me to describe what's going on in my brain, and I don't think language or images are very helpful at illuminating it.

If such a meta-trait were to exist, which would have more to do with the narratives and metaphors we use to describe our mental processes than the processes themselves, it would be funny if that's actually a good deal of what was being measured all along.

(Or maybe it just means I'm a 5)

It... doesn't, but I've found that a large number of people (I've asked at least many dozens) find it relatively easy to rank themselves on it, and differentiate amongst one another's subjective perceptions.

Also see my sibling comment about contrasting and tasks!

Something that might help - in this specific instance - is trying to contrast with others.

That is: if you show this photo to people that you know and you compare and contrast _how detailedly_ you can imagine the apples, that can help.

For example: are you imagining a _specific_ apple? What high-level color is it? How about more specifically? How does the color change across the surface? If so, does it have any distinguishing features? Leaves on the stem or no? What does the bottom look like? Can you turn it around and describe that?

Folks who are high up on the spectrum (like 1) can often answer these questions specifically, whereas as you go down the spectrum these tasks seem progressively more impossible.

I've had mixed results with this method, especially for folks in category 5 because they grew up in a world where people casually talked about [actual] visualization and they've associated [not actually visualization] with the word (thinking it is a metaphor for something else). As someone who cannot visualize at all when faced with this question I feel like my answer wants to be.. "null" / "the premise of this question doesn't make sense" and not "5"

A variant that I've found helpful for teasing out this case: 1. Ask the test subject to visualize an Apple 2. Ask them for a few very specific details about the apple they are currently visualizing (what color is it? does it have a leaf or a bite out of it?, etc)

In many cases aphantastics will not object to the activity in step 1, but they won't be doing the same thing as the folks who are actually visualizing. They'll just do what they do when people talk about "visualizing".

When you get to step 2 someone who is actually visualizing can immediately answer the questions and don't think they are strange, they are just reporting what they are visualizing in front of them.

An aphantastic in step 2 is often confused. They aren't actually visualizing any specific apple so there isn't a reference to answer the questions. You'll get a response like.. well what kind of Apple is it? How should I know if it has a bite out of it? You first have to either provide more context or reword the question to something like: What is a color an Apple could be? or What color is your favorite Apple?

I'm definitely in category 4 by default, though I can do category 2 with concentration. But I don't really feel like it's a problem? If things have colors and surfaces then your view of one object can block your view of another object which seems like it makes visualizing complex scenes or devices much less convenient.

That doesn't really help me, because I feel that I could answer those questions in detail but also truthfully say that there is no image at all of the apple in my head.

I guess what I'm saying is that image / not-image binary doesn't really map on to how I perceive the experience of my own imagination.

But again, maybe that just means I'm a 5 and I'm coping.

I think I'm a 3? I don't see a real apple, more like the concept of an apple, but the harder I try, the more characteristics I can conjure -- although it would be a stretch to say I "see" them.

From the comments here I'm almost getting the impression aphantasia is more common than not, which is wild to me. I'm quite sure I'd place myself on one. I can imagine an apple, and it will vividly appear. I can transform it, see reflections on it or imagine the feel and sound from slicing it. However, I do not experience the apple as part of an overlay, as some others have described it. Rather, it's as if I use a different set of eyes, ears or a another skin. The more vividly imagine the apple, the less aware I become of my actual senses. I can of course also imagine how the apple would interact with the environment around me, but the combined environment is still distinct from reality. I also have very precise memories of faces I've seen. I've always wondered if there's an inverted correlation with my number memory, which is much more diffuse.