Ah, I follow, though I’m not sure I agree with your supposition there. I think we have language that can communicate varying levels of interior imagery, but I do think the people who are aphantasic are at a disadvantage in imagining what other people have going on inside their heads. Someone with robust interior imagery can just … imagine nothing, and while they might not get it exactly 1:1 with the aphantasic’s experience the general idea is still conveyed, but the aphantasic has absolutely no frame of reference for vibrant interior imagery and has to rely on approximations to understand.
Sure, maybe “neurotypical” people would all have the same visualization ability, but I think if they could discuss the concept and their experiences enough they could reach a shared understanding of what their visualization level was.
Ah, I follow, though I’m not sure I agree with your supposition there. I think we have language that can communicate varying levels of interior imagery, but I do think the people who are aphantasic are at a disadvantage in imagining what other people have going on inside their heads. Someone with robust interior imagery can just … imagine nothing, and while they might not get it exactly 1:1 with the aphantasic’s experience the general idea is still conveyed, but the aphantasic has absolutely no frame of reference for vibrant interior imagery and has to rely on approximations to understand.
Sure, maybe “neurotypical” people would all have the same visualization ability, but I think if they could discuss the concept and their experiences enough they could reach a shared understanding of what their visualization level was.