This is more of me trying to understand how people imagine things, as I almost certainly have Aphantasia and didn’t realize until recently… If this is against community rules, please do let me know.
The original thought experiment was from the Aphantasia subreddit. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/g1e6bl/ball_on_a_table_visualization_experiment_2/
Thought experiment begins below.
Try this: Visualise (picture, imagine, whatever you want to call it) a ball on a table. Now imagine someone walks up to the table, and gives the ball a push. What happens to the ball?
Once you're done with the above, click to review the test questions:
- What color was the ball?
- What gender was the person that pushed the ball?
- What did they look like?
- What size is the ball? Like a marble, or a baseball, or a basketball, or something else?
- What about the table, what shape was it? What is it made of?
And now the important question: Did you already know, or did you have to choose a color/gender/size, etc. after being asked these questions?
No matter how much I tried to focus, all I can see is Mickey Mouse in a magician’s cap trying to control buckets and mops.
I might have hyperfantasia.
boooooo
Love it
As an aphantasia person myself, it is honestly mind boggling that people can visualise things that aren’t there. Like that must be so much effort on things that aren’t needed.
Suppose it means you can just have a wank and not need porn though.
I’ve put some effort into improving my visualization since learning about aphantasia. Upon reading the prompt, I was able to imagine a colorless ball, but with shading to indicate a 3D shape, like a preview render in a CAD program. That’s progress! It didn’t have a size inherently. For the table, I could picture a white, rectangular plane hovering in a black void. If it was a normal dinner table size, then the ball was something like a softball or basketball.
And that’s it. That exhausted my ability to visualize. No person, no push, no motion. Best I can do is to see the white rectangle after the ball has rolled off of the edge.
A vague thought of a ball and knowledge of what would happen. Nothing else.
Exactly. There’s no need to add more details unless that’s part of the requirements. Otherwise it makes it harder to keep track of things. Keep it simple first, then add complexity as needed.
Exactly. It rolls for a while unless it reaches an edge.
The ball was red, like a red rubber ball. The person was sort of indistinct from the neck up, it was more like my view was focused on the ball itself and didn’t see a face, but it was a man, wearing a white shirt and dark tie, and dark pants. The ball was about the size of a baseball, wasn’t completely smooth and shiny, sort of a matte with a slight grippy texture. Table was square, wood, like a medium brown color. The ball rolled off the table and bounced a few times.
All these decisions were automatic when reading the prompt, it’s what I saw.
I’ve just become aware of aphantasia myself, I have a few family members who have it apparently. I was talking to my BIL about it the other day, I was saying how I’m a big fan of reading, but I mostly read nonfiction. He said he doesn’t read much, mostly biographies, but fiction doesn’t do much for him because he can’t picture anything in his head. I can picture everything in great detail when I read fiction. Its interesting because our minds work very differently
I imagined the same red, baseball-ish sized rubber ball. Not sure why that’s my default for “ball.”
+1 for a red rubberlike ball … looks like a pattern emerges
I imagined a sort of physics textbook diagram, not real objects. There was no person, only an arrow indicating the applied force on the ball!
That’s how I did it too. There is a sphere on a plane. A force is applied to the sphere, parallel to the plane. Neither the sphere nor the plane have a defined color, size, material, etc. Nothing specific pushed the sphere.
My job is often to mathematically model the things people say to me, and in those circumstances thinking like this is correct.
I don’t think this way when I daydream, although the visual components of my daydreams are more like the feelings I get when I look at something than like concrete mental pictures.
Hello, fellow odd brain!
I remember when I was at school (this was 6th or 7th grade) and the teacher wrote
y = xand drew a diagonal line on a Cartesian plane. At that moment, I realized that the world was made of math and I was enlightened. I’m not exaggerating - the experience revolutionized the way I could think.The interesting thing to me is that I have worked with physicists who appear to be capable of even higher levels of abstraction than I am. If I read an equation, I need to think about its geometrical representation but they claim to think directly in terms of equations. (Pure mathematics, not the letters and numbers that make up the written equation.) I believe them because they can comprehend equations much faster than I can; they and I would go to talks where the presenter just put up slide after slide of equations and I would be lost almost immediately while they were able to follow along. I don’t think that’s simply because they’re much smarter than I am, because I am otherwise generally able to match them intellectually.
I wish I had their brain type, I struggled in math to remember the formulas. I had a great time learning it, otherwise. Calculus was awesome, I had never considered measuring the rate of change of the rate of change and I got pretty excited. Set theory was great too.
Wait a second.
- The ball had no color at all
- The person who pushed the ball didn’t even exist. It just got pushed by some invisible force. Naturally, they didn’t have an appearance.
- The ball was like… Small I guess?
- The table had no properties at all.
Do people really usually have a more vivid picture in their heads? It’s always just concepts with me. I’m confused.
I also had the “I spent 23 minutes designing this scene in blender” impression of the ball, table, and disembodied hand. The table was made of light grey, the ball was made of light grey, and the hand was made of light grey
Yeah, same with me. But I knew the ball was pushed and rolled to the edge of the table and then fell, so I feel like I got the most relevant bit.
Tbh I’ve never been good at visualising faces, recognising people I know, retracing a route I’ve taken etc. This just feels like one of those things I’ve never really been great at.
- What happens to the ball?
It slowly rolled toward the edge but stopped before falling to the ground. The path was somewhat eccentric because of the texture of the ball.
- What color was the ball?
Yellow
- What gender was the person that pushed the ball?
Male
- What did they look like?
Green and white track suit (why? IDK), mid 60’s Italian, chubby
- What size is the ball? Like a marble, or a baseball, or a basketball, or something else?
It was one of those foam Nerf bullets, so about the size of a shooter marble
- What about the table, what shape was it? What is it made of?
It was that black IKEA table where the four metal legs screw into the corners. About 6ft by 3ft.
- And now the important question: Did you already know, or did you have to choose a color/gender/size, etc. after being asked these questions?
The entire scene sprung into my head at once after reading that someone interacted with the ball
Do people really usually have a more vivid picture in their heads?
I can’t speak for others, but I do if they’re concepts I’ve encountered before. I have “default” visualizations of things that are changed if the description warrants it.
Huh. The person was off-frame. And I’m pretty sure i retroactively chose a color for the ball.
I think I might have a black-and-white imagination.
What does it mean if I already knew the answer to every question except what the person looked like?
Same here. I knew it was a man but nothing else. But I had a clear view of a small red rubber ball on a card table.
Grey, female, cartoonish with that weird bob round kind of look that comes with bushy brown hair that’s slightly longer than shoulder length, slightly larger than a ping pong ball, wooden square/rectangle, no.
Both my partner and I answered the same.
The ball was the size of a tennis ball, no colour.
The person had no gender or any distinguishing features.
The table was a standard kitchen table.
Neither of us knew what the test was about.
- small dull red rubber ball
- no obvious gender
- they looked simple, like a Simpsons character. Impression of having a body, but only actually saw their hand
- table was standard rectangular, wooden affair
My visualisation is quite chaotic, so I mostly see a jumble of overlapping objects then have to choose which one to focus on.
Surprisingly, I had a real hard time visualising the ball rolling on its own. The hand was either pushing it or it was bouncing off of the floor.
Interesting exercise!
spoiler
Interesting, on the first sentence I actually thought of many different sizes and shapes for the ball, then realized I’d have to pick one before moving on to the next part, so it was kind of a conscious decision. I ended up with a simple grey anti-stress ball. But the table was always the same, light brown wood. All focus is on the ball so the person is just a silhouette partly out of camera but the hand is white and wearing a black sleeve. I only chose what the person looked like after the questions based on what felt right for the initial visualization, like panning out the camera.
There’s another question though. Would your mind get into all this trouble if you didn’t know there would be questions coming?
Interesting. I also had only the vaguest impression of the person pushing the ball, but I definitely caught a glimpse before the ball rolled off the table. Slacks and a blue shirt, that was about it.
It’s interesting how many people picked a brown wood table. I’d guess that’s probably the most common material and colour for tables. But I’m typing this on a black table, and yet I still pictured a brown wood one.
My ball was gray, too. With no details whatsoever, just shading. In the edge of the table, a hand came from the left of the camera view with its index finger stretched out and poked the ball, which rolled a few inches and stopped (while in other faded versions of it the ball fell off the table or rolled further over the table surface)
I love how by default most tables were wooden and the balls were mostly about baseball size
For me it was a round coffee table and it was a lanky butler wearing white gloves who gently reaches out with index and thumb and pushes the baseball sized ball forward
Apparently I’m in spooky brain mode cause mine was a crystal ball
So, in this experiment you’re asking people to picture a certain situation that doesn’t call for any specific details, then asking them to describe the unnecessary details they came up with: colour of the ball, etc.
I’m curious if the people who have aphantasia can picture something in their heads when it does call for all that detail.
Picture a red, 10-speed bike with drop handlebars wrapped with black handlebar tape. It’s locked to a bike rack on the street outside the library with a U-lock. You come out of the library and see that the front wheel has been stolen. Think about how that would look. Picture the position of the bike, and anything you might look for if it were your bike and you were worried. Pretend you needed to examine the situation in as much detail as possible so you could file a police report.
Questions
- Were your front forks resting on the ground, or up in the air?
- Was there any other damage done to your bike or to the lock?
- Are there any other bikes nearby? People nearby? Security cameras that might have caught the crime?
I’m aphantasic. You can say “picture this” followed by whatever you like. It’s not possible for me in any way. Growing up I honestly thought “picture this” or “close your eyes and see” was just metaphor. I legitimately didn’t understand other people can see things.
My mind has a verbal descriptive stream, and I’m good with muscle-based or proprioceptive spacial memory, and the two combine to handle most things, but nothing visual. So like I can easily describe things from memory or from an idea, and it’ll be fully consistent, but not something I see.
If you have aphantasia, and not just hypophantasia, it makes no difference how much detail is provided, there’s a total, fundamental, inability to visualize things.
So as someone who coaches sometimes I have to ask. Can you imagine and feel body movements? Sometimes I’ll ask someone to visualize themselves performing an action before they do it.
I’d imagine thinking through the thought has around the same mental impact. But that would be interesting to research as that advise always helped me massively in tennis.
In my experience people have a hard time running through a checklist in their head. That’s why just imagining the action is so helpful, since you don’t have to think as much. Or in my experience, the less you think about it the more natural the movement becomes. Like you can practice the action a bit but you need to eventually just do the action.
Not really, but typically if I can see someone else do a motion I can self-insert the movements I’d need to make to duplicate it, so that might just be a disused function for me.
Although that’s a good question, because I do have special memory that I use for a lot of things, and it involves movement, but maybe not in the same way someone else would (eg I can count the windows in my place by simulating a walk through my house and “opening windows” like I do on nice mornings, but I often forget about out-of-the-way non-opening windows because they aren’t part of my muscle memory)
If someone told you to study a ball for 20 seconds and then close your eyes, then asked you immediately after you closed your eyes what colour the ball was, could you answer? The second something disappears from your visual field, is it gone from your “mind’s eye”?
What’s interesting to me about this is that the way our visual field works involves a lot of fantasy. Like, our minds are convinced that we’re currently seeing everything in front of us and most of it is in focus. But, in reality our eyes can only really see a tiny amount of the world in full focus at once, but they’re constantly flickering around filling in details. This is why some optical illusions are so strange, because they show us that our visual systems are taking shortcuts and what we think we see isn’t actually reality. It makes me wonder if people with aphantasia actually “see” the world differently too.
I don’t have a minds eye for something to fade from, so that question doesn’t really make sense to me. I have my eyes and then when I close my eyes it’s either black or eyelid colored, nothing else, and I’m super unclear what seeing things in your mind is supposed to be like. Tho I do have super-vivid visual dreams these days (which did not happen until my late 20s, but aren’t at all uncommon for people with aphantasia) and because I only have open-eye sight and these dreams that seem totally real, I frequently have to ask people if things actually happened. It’s very disconcerting, but my understanding is that dreams are not really the same as waking minds eye anyway.
Rather than a visual representation, I’ll have a verbal description ready as soon as I see an item. So for the ball example, I’d know the ball is “small, about the size of a plum, solid pink somewhere between neon and intense salmon, smooth matte texture, looks like it might be foam”. It probably serves the same function as a visual representation, although perhaps with a bit more required specificity. I don’t really describe things to myself unless I need to, though, so I guess my thinking is sort of abstract. I know the traits something has, and can recall them, but typically don’t explicitly list them unless I’m describing for someone else.
One perk of this is I’m great at describing things I’ve seen or made up, a downside is I’m terrible when people describe things to me. Since I’ve never seen the thing being described, it is a super arbitrary list of usually non-specific features and I don’t care at all. I skip clothing descriptions in books, for example. Don’t care. But when I describe things, even made up things, I’ll run through a list of the features it needs as a minimum to be the object for my mind, which is usually vivid detail for others, as the ball example above.
Idk if I see things differently eyes-open, I don’t really think so, but that’s always been a curiosity of mine since there’s literally no way to know what other people see. I have mild impairments as a result of not being able to visualize, like I’m largely face blind - I have to pick out specific features and traits and use the combination as identifiers. I get a ton of false positives, and almost everyone “feels familiar”. Beyond that, I’m pretty sensitive to colors and patterns. Idk.
But the -way- you ask that first question makes me curious; If you close your eyes and intentionally picture something other than the ball, would you then be unable to tell me what color it was in your example? Do you, personally, require the visual representation to “know” the object?
and I’m super unclear what seeing things in your mind is supposed to be like.
It’s hard to describe, but it’s not replacing your eyesight. If I close my eyes I see black, or if there’s some bright light I see red. But, it’s like there’s another visual channel going into your brain other than the one from your eyes. Most of the time, that channel is either off, or it’s drowned out by the actual visual information which is so much more dominant. But, if your eyes are closed the fact there’s no real information coming on the “real” visual channel means you’re able to notice what the “virtual” visual channel is showing.
It’s sometimes described as your “mind’s eye”, but for me, at least, it’s not really like another eye because it’s not detailed enough for that, but it’s still as if there’s an additional visual stream of information that goes from my memory to the visual processing part of my brain. For me, it’s blurry and lacking in detail. It would be like using a slightly out of focus projector on a white wall in a well lit room. There are shapes and colours there, but they’re hard to see. But, like an image from an out-of-focus projector, if you try harder you can make out more of what it’s showing, and if you reduce other visual stimulus (like turn off the lights) you can notice more.
So for the ball example, I’d know the ball is “small, about the size of a plum, solid pink somewhere between neon and intense salmon, smooth matte texture, looks like it might be foam”.
Does this happen instantaneously for you? If I tried to come up with a description like that it would take several seconds, whether I’m doing it while actually actively looking at the object, or with my eyes closed working based on a memory of the image my eyes saw.
If you close your eyes and intentionally picture something other than the ball
Something real, or something I’m inventing with my imagination?
would you then be unable to tell me what color it was in your example?
Like, translate the image to a word? I can tell you a word, but the metal image will come first. I think I do need the visual representation to know the object. Like, if someone gives me a description of something, I’ll build a mental image based on that description. If someone asked me to describe it later, I’d probably use different words because I’d be going based on the image not on remembering the words.
In your case, if you have a memory of something that is “small, about the size of a plum, solid pink somewhere between neon and intense salmon, smooth matte texture, looks like it might be foam”, how easy is it for you to change the words you’d use to describe it? Like, say someone asked you to describe it but not to use any words related to living things, could you swap out “plum” and “salmon” without effort? Do you think you’re storing those actual words, or are you storing a concept? For example, if you’re remembering a white rock, is it “rock” you’re remembering, or is it the concept of a rock, which can match similar words like “pebble”, “stone”, etc.?
Also, I wonder how this affects your ability to remember descriptions of things that are not physically possible in our 3d world, like a Klein bottle or a hypercube. I wonder if, for you, there’s no real difference in difficulty remembering the details of a cube vs. a hypercube because you can’t picture either of them. Whereas for me, I can easily remember / picture a cube, but for a hypercube it’s hard because it’s not something I can get a real visual representation of.
Not who you asked, but yes I could answer and also yes it’s gone from my mind’s eye. I would be answering from memory.
I have no mind’s eye. Full-stop. But I have memory and can recall details without needing to see the thing.
If you can remember someone’s name after meeting them, that’s the same process it would be for me to remember their hair or shirt color.
When you say you’re answering from memory, what is it that you remember? For example. I have a plush soccer ball / football near my bed. I haven’t looked at it recently but I can remember what it looked like. I can tell you it was white with 2 black pentagon shapes near the mid-bottom (where it’s squished) and 2 more near the top. I didn’t think of the words “white” or “black” or “pentagon” until it was no longer in my field of vision, I was able to come up with those words based on the mental image I still had. What I’m remembering is the image, and I’m able to come up with words based on that image. Are you remembering the words you would use to describe it? If so, do you automatically come up with those words?
For me, if I glance at something for half a second I can take a mental snapshot of how it looks, and then with my eyes closed I can come up with a bunch of words I’d use to describe it. The mental snapshot isn’t going to be very detailed, but it’s enough to come up with maybe a dozen descriptive words over a few seconds. But, if I tried to come up with the words while looking at it, I would still need those few seconds to come up with the words. The words aren’t an automatic thing, it’s something I have to intentionally choose to generate, and it’s slow.
I’m assuming that if you have full aphantasia, you wouldn’t even be able to picture a simple shape like a triangle. So, if you want to draw a triangle, do you do it based on remembering something like the dictionary definition of a triangle and using that “recipe” to generate one? For me, I imagine the shape I want to draw, then my hand attempts to create that shape. For something simple like a triangle that’s easy. For something complex like a face it’s hard because my hand isn’t able to create something that matches what I’m imagining.
What about something like a stop sign. I assume you can’t picture a stop sign in your mind, but do you recognize one instantly without effort when you see it? If so, I wonder what details your brain is actually storing, like if it’s storing words, how many words are in the description. The other day someone posted an image of a stop sign but the “stop” text was in lowercase not uppercase. I wonder if your brain stores the word (or a symbol representing the word) “uppercase” and mine stores how the letters look, which I can interpret as being uppercase if I think about it.
It’s hard to explain how one thinks. But yeah, I think of the words to describe something and they are automatic. I can’t describe a lot of detail about anything unless I’m looking at it, but I know enough of the basics to remember things.
I think the name comparison I mentioned is probably the best I can think of. When you see a person you know, how do you remember their name? Unless you’re a person who imagines their name on their forehead in order to remember it in the first place, I assume it’s just a word you associate with that person? That’s what the details of everything are like for me.
A triangle is a shape with three sides; that’s all I need to know and I can draw it. A stop sign is a hexagon, red, with STOP in the middle.
I can’t draw anything more complex than that unless I’m looking at it. I’m pretty good at recreating images I look at, but I can’t do art from my own head for shit; it’s paralyzing to even consider doing it.
When I’m reading a book, I’ll retain the most often repeated and basic physical traits. Harry Potter had a lightning scar and glasses, Ron Weasley was red headed, and Hermione had crazy hair. If there were other descriptions in the books, they never sunk in; my brain just disregarded them. However, now I think of Daniel Radcliffe and the other actors. I can’t describe what they look like but I can recognize those people with no hesitation.
I think the name comparison I mentioned is probably the best I can think of. When you see a person you know, how do you remember their name?
I remember their name as just a fact associated with the person. However, I can’t imagine remembering someone’s name without also trying to picture their face. So, I guess it’s more like remembering the name of someone who’s like a pen pal or something. Someone I’ve never met face to face.
I was just thinking about this, and thought of podcasters that I listen to, whose faces I’ve never seen. With them, I don’t picture a face because I’ve never seen one. But, I can “hear” the sound of their voices. I’m guessing you don’t do that either?
A stop sign is a hexagon, red, with STOP in the middle.
It’s actually an octagon. But, I assume that if you see a stop sign you don’t have to count the sides, you just recognize it immediately?
What’s interesting to me is that if I read a book, part of the pleasure is that the author is describing things in a way that allows me to picture them. It seems to me like not having the ability to picture things would make the book much less interesting. Like watching a movie that didn’t have any soundtrack, just sound effects and dialogue. I guess you don’t have anything to compare it to. But, I wonder if people who have aphantasia are less likely to enjoy books and more likely to enjoy movies?
I remember their name as a fact associated with the person.
That’s how the way something looks is stored in my head.
Derp, I was exhausted last night and said the wrong shape. But yeah, I just recognize things without needing to visualize it when it isn’t around.
I’ve definitely heard other aphants talk about not enjoying books. I love reading, but I typically don’t care for authors who are overly descriptive about visual things OR I just zone out during those descriptions. Most authors I read stuck to 1-2 sentence descriptions of things and then move on to what’s actually happening. That’s fine, and I might keep 1-2 of those details in mind.
I recently drew what I imagined the layout for a building in my favorite book series to be, then went back and found the text describing it to compare. I was way closer than I expected to matching the description, except I didn’t remember the entryway was a “long hallway” because literally none of the story happens there. If the description matters to the plot, I’m more likely to retain it. If something is only described at the beginning and in a lot of detail, I probably will not retain any of it.
I cannot hear in my head either, but my partner is an aphant who can do that, so they are unconnected. That one is weird too because I have songs stuck in my head all the time and I ‘know’ what they sound like, and my brain keeps the beat with the song, but I’m not hearing it. If anything it’s more like I’m silently singing along to the song. I do tend to get snippets of songs in my head because I can’t always remember where it goes though (I write as one line from a song circles endlessly through my mind).
Can you taste or smell things that aren’t around? If not, do you still know what those things are when you do taste or smell them?
I have aphantasia, and people really struggle to comprehend what it means or what it’s like. Now to be fair, I don’t really comprehend how people without aphantasia think or process things either.
- Were your front forks resting on the ground, or up in the air?
No idea, all I could think was that the front tire was missing, it didn’t occur to me to think how that affected the bikes position.
- Was there any other damage done to your bike or to the lock?
I didn’t think about there being any damage.
- Are there any other bikes nearby? People nearby? Security cameras that might have caught the crime?
I had just thought of a bike rack with only my bike, no people or other bikes nearby. Looking for security cameras seems obvious now that you mention it, but I didn’t think of that. If you had said “what advice would you give if your friend walked out and found their bike had been stolen/vandalized” I probably would have thought of that, but trying to think of an abstract situation is much more difficult for me.
This was fun to read. Everytime I read a new detail the scene in my head changed :)
Interesting point and I’m glad you made it, with a thought (?) experiment to check.
I think I am somewhat aphantastic, but not officially diagnosed.
Tap for spoiler
- Front forks down.
- No other damage.
- No other bikes, bike racks, or even street furniture. But as I read this question I retroactively added in the bike rack and street furniture outside my hometown’s library.
Interesting, I was also thinking of a nearby library when I came up with the scenario. It sounds to me like you don’t have much aphantasia if you thought to have the forks down, most people I think just deleted the wheel and didn’t think of how that might affect the bike. Either that, or you have a lot of experience seeing bikes with stolen wheels and you naturally picture it the way you normally see it.
Have seen a lot of stolen bikes in my town, and my brother’s front wheel was nicked last week, and he sent me a forks down photo.
I also noted that as a detail for the police report part. But missed out on checking for cctv or the like. Which is odd as I usually clock them, amongst other things in physical spaces in day to day life.
My mental image of the bicycle changed as each detail was added, but sometimes the detail changed the image (the handlebars were straight until you said they were dropped) and sometimes the detail didn’t exist; the dropped handlebars were wrapped in handlebar tape, but that tape didn’t have a colour (not sure how to explain that better) until you mentioned it was black. Most of the details “added” something to the scene rather than “changing” an assumed detail.
The “front forks on the ground” question was particularly interesting to me.
The bicycle started with two wheels, and front wheel just sorta disappeared from my image when you mentioned it was stolen, but the front fork remained floating in the air as if there was a wheel still supporting it. But asking the question about the forks on the ground made gravity exist, and then there had to be a reason it was floating, which became it was being held up by the U-Lock.
I seem to imagine scenes with few superfluous details that mostly includes only what is mentioned or implied by the narrative. But it’s super interesting to me what details we’re in fact implied.
The ball on the table was similar. The table was at waist height to the person, and the ball had a specific size of roughly the size of a racket ball because it had to be something that could be easily pushed. But the person pushing it was just a silhouette of a person, it had no gender, the only thing I pictured clearly was the hand that pushed the ball. It was pushed in an intentional way that made the ball roll across the table away from the “person” (as opposed to bouncing, or pushed sideways)
The table was just an elevated plane it had no texture, or even legs supporting it, (probably because there was no ground for those legs to be on,) it didn’t go on forever, you could see the end of the table, but it also didn’t have a size.
Also conjuring up unnecessary details is a hyperphantasia thing, not doing it doesn’t mean you have aphantasia.
I’m sure it depends on the extent of the unnecessary details Thinking the ball is red is surely not hyperphantasia.
