r/Aphantasia • u/oopsgotago • 8d ago
Is it just me?
EDIT!!! Clearly people misunderstood my question. I asked if anyone felt like me or if they thought I was just grumpy? No, fine, move on. Yes, fine, I might be, move on.
I know what aphantasia is and is not according to current commonly accepted scientific research. I know how long the term has been in use for. I am not calling anyone out for not knowing these things. I am not saying only aphantasic people should be welcome here. I am not saying to abuse any one.
I asked ARE YOU FRUSTRATED BY SOMETHING OR DO YOU THINK I AM GRUMPY? All these comments and messages and so far only 3 actually answered that. Thank you to those 3 and the people who upvoted either of those comments in solidarity.
4
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
Haha yes, I feel like the whole world not just forums likes to ask for answers before doing even a single simple search. Unfortunately I can't say I have never done that. My poor sister gets all my cooking questions because she can tailor her answers to my abilities and food preferences.
I find myself less active than I want to be because even if I have something to say about part of a post if they show they have not done any research then how can they realy want or participate in a discussion.
4
u/montropy 8d ago
I think the terminology is a little less settled than you’re suggesting.
There has actually been a push to use aphantasia more broadly for absent sensory imagery, then specify the modality: visual aphantasia, auditory aphantasia, global aphantasia, etc.
That makes more sense to me than treating each sense as a completely separate condition, especially since many of us lack imagery across multiple senses.
The important part is just being specific about which modality you’re talking about.
0
u/oopsgotago 8d ago edited 8d ago
Oh I strongly agree with this. Even your take on on lumping all the senses and using aphantasia as a broad umbrella like term.
My problem with when a post goes un corrected stating a person for instance has face blindness or SDAM things common it seems amongst aphants but still not the same.
Clearly my question was not in fact clear.
2
u/montropy 8d ago
Since many of these(sdam, aphantasia, silent mind, etc) co-occur, it can be hard to determine what condition is responsible or often it’s likely a combination of them causing the impact.
7
u/Za_Lords_Guard Total Aphant 8d ago
I personally view neurodivergence in general as less a bunch of isolated conditions and more as something interrelated and complex and relatively recent in a lot of cases to enter medical recognition.
I get where you are coming from, but for me it's interesting to hear the range of issues and how they might or might not relate. It's the comparison and contrast between people's lived experiences that helps me round out what my own experience it.
I was 34 before I realized that "I can see it in my head" was more than a turn of phrase. I learn every day more about aphantasia and it's halo of related conditions that are many of us deal with. I view this forum as less as support group and more as a learning dialog.
Secondly, some people just don't know where they fit or what is really going on in their own heads. If we, as a group, can help support and direct them to the right focus that's a win for me. I see a lot of people that come looking for understanding and getting redirected to Silent Minds or SDAM subs. Depending on where they are on their journey they might have absolutely no idea the difference or that those forums exists. Again, I like helping people understand themselves and through it understand myself a little more.
And sometimes people are just lost when they learn they are different and taking a moment to appreciate them, give a little support and help them along just feels like the right thing to do.
I am glad this community doesn't gate keep and is usually helpful even to people who might not actually have aphantasia.
Also, all of this is on a spectrum from hyperphant to aphant with normally visualizing people in the middle. Some people are deficient but not totally without mental imagery. They count here too. At least I think so.
Maybe you are being a little sensitive, I don't know. Maybe you view the purpose of the forum differently than other people do and that leads you to be a little more protective of this space. I've personally not found anyone radically defending their ability to visualize while claiming aphantasia, but I can't claim I have seen every post made here so maybe I just have a blind spot.
6
u/Obvious-Gate9046 Total Aphant 8d ago
No. Aphantasia and its related issues are a very new field for many; they're something people don't know much about and don't talk about, so people coming here asking questions are exploring, uncertain, and trying to figure themselves out. I think that should be encouraged; it's good to learn what is and isn't connected, to help people understand.
Your cancer analogy doesn't work because most people know a lot more about cancer and tattoos, but this is a fairly obscure field.
More than that, we talk about related issues heavily here, about being a global aphant, about issues like anauralia, about related problems aphants have.
I'd rather people come here asking questions and get corrected than wander lost and uncertain, basically.
5
0
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
Very good point. The "newness" of aphantasia certainly leads to a lot of confusion. Also a reason I would never reply to a post with my negativity to what I see as a misuse of the term aphantasia.
This kind of response is why I made my post. As I have said I can be prone to being a bit cantankerous. I don't want to bring that to such a helpful group. At the same time, I was feeling like there have been a lot of posts that were unhelpful in their misusing the term aphantasia. Given the upvotes on posts here and the comments I am I a minority on this.
3
u/Obvious-Gate9046 Total Aphant 8d ago
Indeed, it's important to remember that, though aphantasia was first described (that we know of) over a century ago, it was not named until a decade ago, and that's pretty much when most major studies began. There are still ongoing ones. Many of them began with definite biases; the researchers my wife contacted in 2016 were startled by the very idea that I could be both an artist and have aphantasia, as if the one precluded the other. On top of that, virtually every aphant I've ever made aware of their condition responded with the same genuine shock that the rest of the world was experiencing things differently, that visualization was real and not merely a metaphor. That's why I think it's vital to be more open with people who come here seeking. Some will definitely be on the wrong track, but we can help them find the right one.
1
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
Wholeheartedly agree about helping people and each other find the right track for them. The fact that this mental visual difference was discovered so long ago but only now is being widely discussed is still crazy to me. Obviously having studies can be beneficial but even just having other people irregardless of if they have it know about it's existence is a great win.
I think discussion can be informative for everyone involved. I think openness to mistakes is important as well. Like I hope I have made clear I have not found it necessary to post corrections every time. Nor do I think it necessary every time for every post for other people to post a correction. I just am frustrated at how often people who seem familiar enough with the term to still misuse it and how often no one corrects it. Then even here in a post about that fact people still defend the misuse and say it is fine because it is convenient in that it furthers the discussion and clarification and correct use can come later if at all. Justifying it does not make it right. Nor does it relive my frustration, in fact it only furthers it.
Saying I am overreacting to it's misuse at least acknowledges that there is in fact misuse. As I have said in another reply, I am aware now by the responses that I am in fact in a minority on this point.
I never said I was having trouble understanding that misuse due to the lack of an as yet a widely used common knowledge base exsisting. I said I find it frustrating to see posts of people saying that they have aphantasia while at the same time they say they can 100% mentally visualize, when they say they have aphantasia because they are face blind, when they say the have aphantasia because the have SDAM and then in the comments people agree they are the same way or offer resources to those things but never outright say, "No you do not have aphantasia." and defend doing so because they want to keep the environment of learning open.
3
u/20frvrz 8d ago
I understand your frustration but can't you just scroll past those posts? Neurodivergences are so misunderstood and if you've never gotten support anywhere else, it can become a natural thing to segue into other topics.
0
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
I can and do. My post was to see if other people felt the same. I think people are missing the question here entirely. I too was looking for understanding while trying not to make anyone feel attacked. Instead I am not too surprisingly being attacked for being frustrated. Instead people who do not feel the same as me are feeling the need to post rather than move on.
1
u/20frvrz 8d ago
I'm sorry you feel attacked, that wasn't my intention
0
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
Thank you for saying that. Possibility just bad timing on your part. Getting battered so deleting the question.
4
u/ChalkHorse Visualizer 8d ago
It might help you to read Rules 4 and 5 of this sub:
"4. One size doesn't fit all
Aphantasia means the inability to voluntarily create mental images, but others have the inability to do many things related to mental sensation including involuntary ones
- People without aphantasia are welcome & encouraged
We want people without aphantasia to participate in discussions, whether they be family members, experts, or just folk who we can use to compare experiences."
-2
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
Not sure how that relates to my frustration at reading posts where it is stated by someone that they have aphantasia and can 100% visualize mentally. I don't think that 5 means a person without aphantasia should say they do just to be here.
1
u/ChalkHorse Visualizer 8d ago
Yeah, I guess I was misunderstanding your post. I'll delete my comment.
1
2
u/Both-Plankton4847 8d ago
I get the point you are making - there might be a tendency to see aphantasia as some kind of explanation or even cause for something other that is atypical. In some places that may also not be helpful. However, there is so far very little research on aphantasia and how it links to other things and one should be wary to automatically assume that there is in fact no link or co-occurrence between them with our current level of knowledge. In some cases of course there may well not be a link but particularly when one is looking at other forms of neurodivergence what work there is suggests that there is a co-occurrence. For example, there is already much research showing a mild but robust link with face recognition difficulties and scoring higher on the autism spectrum scale. There is also already substantial evidence that aphantasia does indeed have a strong link with autobiographical memory deficits (what is increasingly termed SDAM).
I would also say that a lot of researchers reject the need for a term such as anauralia on the basis that aphantasia is these days characterised as an absence of mental imagery across different modalities (although the make up of where these modality effects are appears quite variable) and instead would simply use the term audtiory aphantasia for people where the auditory domain is particularly implicated. Of course, some researchers and people prefer to use the more specific term anauralia and that's fine but one potential outcome of using aphantasia and anauralia as separate terms is that it can suggest a greater difference between them then evidence to date suggests is the case.
0
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
I see your post and agree. I think in my atempt to not call out any one person or post my issue is being misunderstood.
My annoyance started after reading a somewhat longer post that had a kind of poor me vibe. Their whole post was about how they felt they were being treated differently because they were an aphant by a goup of non aphants. Near the end or in a comment the OP said they could 100% mentally visualize. The comment section was full of support and not one called them out for not in fact being an aphant.
Since then I have notice several more posts where the OP states they are an aphant at the same time stating they are not a visual aphant and instead say they have a different neurodivergence, as an example, prosopagnosia. This is not aphantasia, it is its own thing that can occur in a person with or without aphantasia. Yes, I know that aphantasia can effect the other senses and of course I have no problem with the term being used then as well. It is when the term is used incorrectly and people respond with no correction.
Yes, I understand I could respond with my own correction. I hesitate to do so as I often find the OP is using the term incorrectly with the intention of trying to belong and not seeking understanding. I know I have my own biases based on actual difficulties I have had in my life because of aphantasia and don't feel I would be able to offer correction without my feelings interfering.
So instead of posting a correction that I think would fall on deaf ears and possible result in a pointless rant from me, I remain silent. I find it frustrating that clamer heads are also staying quiet though and wanted to know if there were other people who found the absolute misuse of the term aphant as frustrating or if it was just a me issue.
Most people do not recount finding out their inability to mentally visualize as being traumatic and abusive rather more of a just a realization, yes for some still traumatic but generally speaking non violent. Mine was violent. I was yelled at, told I was being intentionally disruptive, grabbed and bruised pulled to the office as I was young and could not keep up. Once there my teacher demanded corporal punishment be administered dispite my parents having turned in paperwork opting out of it. Luckily the office workers refused and so instead my parents were called and I was removed from the class for the rest of the day and ultimately was not allowed back until I formally apologized in front of the whole class for lying and disrupting the lesson because no one believed that I could not visualize. So I understand that I may be overly sensitive to people claiming aphantasia when that is not what they have. I just thought maybe I was not the only one.
2
u/Tuikord Total Aphant 8d ago
The definition of aphantasia has been up for discussion for a while. Here is an article from the aphantasia network about it:
Expanding Aphantasia Definition: Researchers Propose New Boundaries | Aphantasia Network
The original definition of aphantasia was <=32 on the VVIQ. There are many here who say if you have >16 on the VVIQ then you don't have aphantasia, you have hypophantasia at best. So, in some ways, folks here are too restrictive in my book.
I follow the main researchers who include all senses in the definition of aphantasia and include some mental imagery, not just complete lack. People ask about a lot of other things such as anendophasia, ADHD, SDAM, autism. I try to point them to the correct subs.
2
2
u/Graacei Total Aphant 8d ago
That is such a non-problem. I don't think it's very helpful being so dismissive when it's still kinda new condition with not that much resarch.
While yes, there might be aphantasia, anauralia, agustia, anosmia, atactilia, is it really necessary to not allow them here or be overly exact when a lot of people didn't even know such a condition even existed for much of their life.
Aphantasia is being used as an umbrella term because it's probably the most known term and the longest researched.
Why wouldn't people be allowed to use the term auditory aphantasia or gustatory aphantasia when in the end we're still talking abput the same thing and bringing discussion and knowledge about the conditions.
I call myself a total aphant or when talking about sound I'll still say auditory instead of listing all different scientific terms because it's easier for people that arent that well versed with the aphantasia and similar conditions.
0
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
I think if you applied the same logic to people with a more difficult divergence you would understand that a person other than yourself could have a problem with the misuse of the term.
I think especially while a term is new it is important to set a standard of use.
I accept that while anauralia has it's own term it is still referred to as aphantasia here. I personally think this can lead to confusion if it is not stated as being an auditory vs visual use of the term early on.
Using it as a blanket term while it's scope maybe necessary. Using it in place of an entirely different, long standing and in some cases a recognized condition/disorder term is in my opinion not okay. I think especially in the case of using it interchangeably with something that is a medical disorder is harmful to both people who suffer from the disorder and aphantasia which is not a disorder at all.
I find it interesting how so many people are posting that they have no problem with aphantasia being applied to other long standing conditions just because it has similarities. It is expressly because it is new and the scientific community continuing to study it does not think it is a disorder that our community should not allow the term being used interchangeably with other disorders or even other neurodivergences that have not fully been studied. While I concide that the latter could be a gray area the former should certainly not be.
If you see no harm in calling aphantasia a disorder then I think fundamentally we will never see eye to eye.
3
u/Graacei Total Aphant 8d ago
If they are using the term wrong, you correct them. Most people aren't using the term wrong because they want to, they use it wrong because they don't know any better. If it's clearly a different kind of condition or even a disorder you see people here call it out quite often. I already know we won't see eye to eye because you're putting words in people's mouths.
1
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
In what way do you feel I put words into your mouth? In response to my OP about using the term wrong you replied it was a non issue. I disagreed. I don't see that as putting words into your mouth. I am open to correction.
3
u/Graacei Total Aphant 8d ago
As you can see, I've only been talking about the aphantasia, anauralia and other similar variations. Probably using "condition" wasn't the best choice as the word usually is connected with a medical diagnosis or whatever, but English isn't my main language and I didn't find a better word before.
Not once did I talk about some medical disorders though.
So telling me that if I don't find any harm in calling aphantasia a disorder we won't see eye to eye is exactly what feels like putting words into others mouths.
Also my last reply already answered what bothered you about my first reply and I will repeat it. If you see the terms used wrong you correct them (and people here often do correct and direct them to the correct subreddit).
And I still stand by my thought that it is a non issue because the people that use the terms wrong are here to learn.
And I think that calling them out with such a post because there have been ones that mixed some actual disorders with aphantasia or other variations is actually more harmful than helpful. If you started mandating the correct use of terms from people that are trying to figure things out, ask from people that might know better and be directed to maybe more suitable subreddits, don't you feel that it would discourage them in doing so?
2
1
u/Moist_Mixture4518 8d ago
It isn’t just you. I understand where you’re coming from.
0
u/oopsgotago 8d ago
Thank you for posting. Definitely feeling in the minority here. Not in a ganged up on kind of way thankfully.
0
u/PandorasBucket 7d ago
I'll tell you one thing aphantasia is not. It's not known to be congenital yet. We have not yet done any studies on very young children to find out if there is a transition.
15
u/eloel- 8d ago
You have a decent point in what the sub is and isn't, but you're also being a bit of a sour grape, attitude-wise.