Quote (Thor123422 @ May 7 2021 07:42pm)

I'm way on the 6+ side. I can visualize anything in as much or as little detail as I want. It makes mechanistic science very easy for me.

Quote (Handcuffs @ May 7 2021 09:43pm)

Would you say that is vivid to the point that it is 1:1 v. seeing it IRL?

Quote (Thor123422 @ May 7 2021 07:45pm)

Depends how many times I've seen the thing IRL. If its a simple shape, then yes. I can visualize it with as much or as little detail as I want. I can picture a basketball with individual dots on it and modify the size of the dots, and I can "invent" shapes I've never seen and apply details to them as I want.

Real-life objects I can visualize with perfect clarity, but not to the point that it's photographic to what's stored on the page. I don't have a photographic memory unless I've studied the item for a very long time, and probably only if I've made specific use of it.

For instance I can remember specific pages from my biochemistry textbook that I read 10x because I thought the material was interesting, but I can't remember every page I've seen just by seeing it once.

Basically, I can invent photo-realistic pictures in my head, and I can remember what things look like with photo-realism if I've dedicated it to memory, but not all things are dedicated to memory with photo-realism.

Quote (Handcuffs @ May 7 2021 09:51pm)

Interesting. When you either read a book and/or listen to someone speak, do you have implicit/involuntary visual experiences as you receive that stimuli?

Quote (Thor123422 @ May 7 2021 07:57pm)

I picture what I'm reading/listening to but I don't know if it would be voluntary or not. It happens and I can stop it if I want.

So like, somebody says "Your dad with poop on his face". I don't immediately picture that, but I can if I want, and if I were listening to a podcast and somebody said that I might allow myself to picture it.

Somebody had to explain to me that involuntary picturing of unpleasant things is really common and I was like "Oh, so that's why people don't like talking about disgusting things when they eat. That would be really unpleasant. I didn't realize I was doing that to them".

Quote (Handcuffs @ May 7 2021 10:01pm)

I can't picture anything, voluntarily or involuntarily. As a result, I find it extremely easy to talk about anything, including that which many others would consider graphic, such as unisex bathrooms.

Quote (Thor123422 @ May 7 2021 08:05pm)

I get all the benefits of being able to picture with none of the drawbacks of being forced to picture. I think your hypothesis that emotionally reactive people would be good at visualizing needs the caveat that they also probably have involuntary visualizations.

There's also people who can't do words in their head. Like, they don't have an inner mologue. You should read into that as well.

Quote (Handcuffs @ May 7 2021 07:36pm)

Hello PaRD members, today I inquire about your lived experiences associated with visualization (commonly referred to as "The Mind's Eye"), which is chalk full of political and religious implications. Here's the study:

If I were to ask you to envision a 5-point red star in your mind, what do you see (if anything) and how sustained and vivid is this image? Those who see absolutely nothing/blackness (such as myself) have what's called "Aphantasia"--the complete lack of voluntary visualization. Those on the other end of the spectrum would have what's called "Hyperphantasia"--voluntary visualization is so vivid that it is as-similar to seeing something IRL, with people reporting to be able to see minute detail, texture, color, shape, etc. The vast majority of people, in true bell-curve fashion, are somewhere in the middle. I've included a video on aphantasia below, as well as a sample chart for reference when responding to the poll.

This is an aspect of the human experience that hasn't been researched until ~10 years ago, with initial findings suggesting that people with aphantasia are less-likely to develop visual-based trauma responses, self-report being able to 'move on' more quickly than their peers, and having less emotionally reactive responses when listening to or engaging in conversations that include graphic details. My hypothesis is that PaRD members who score higher on visualization are more likely to be members who are socially perceived as being more emotionally reactive and therefore infrequently seen as 'good-faith posters'. I also hypothesize that members who score higher on visualization will also be the members most-inclined to hold grudges against other members and are socially perceived as having a more difficult time moving on/letting things go.

https://i.imgur.com/w1P897u.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa84hA3OsHU

Quote (Handcuffs @ May 7 2021 08:01pm)

I can't picture anything, voluntarily or involuntarily. As a result, I find it extremely easy to talk about anything, including that which many others would consider graphic, such as unisex bathrooms.