There is only one answer I have found.I'm curious about this concept, because imagination is one of the most crucial aspects about being a writer. Without the ability to imagine oneself in a parallel world with its own rules, customs, and people, it would be impossible to write a good book no matter how many words one knows. Either you couldn't write a book at all, or it's going to have more stuff taken from other media then original content.
I think of myself as a very imaginative person. The book I'm writing currently is pretty expansive, and pretty original for what it is. I do add in some things from other media, but its usually just to match a specific tone instead of taking specific scenes and repeating them one by one. As a kid, I've always imagined myself in the world of the TV shows I've watched, creating new plot points based off of what I would do, and how the characters would bounce off my character.
Then I had a discussion with someone a few weeks ago, where they told me that no matter what they did, they just couldn't imagine well. Here's a test.
Close your eyes and think of an apple. What do you see. Can you see an apple, or is it a blank void.
If the apple is there, then can you tell me major details about it? Is the apple red, green, yellow, or some strange color. How does light bounce of the surface of the apple?
Touch the apple in your mind. How does it feel? Bite into it. What does it taste like? Did your bite go through smooth, or did your teeth catch on the roughness of the fruit?
Depending on how many answers you can give, and how far you can detail the apple, will depend on the amount you can imagine scenarios. Granted, the apple test is easy since its not really coming up with original stuff, and not even stuff not applicable to our reality, but if you can describe even the minute details of an apple, I'd say you could imagine a great deal of things.
Thats where the interesting part comes in. The person I was talking to said they couldn't even past the first step. They couldn't imagine the apple. They can answer the question using the memory of them eating an apple a day prior, but they can't imagine a fake apple or describe them eating the fake apple.
Which brings up the question? Can imagination be taught? Would they be able to see an apple in their mind one day, or is the level of imagination one has depend from the day we are born? Would it be possible for someone to write a somewhat original story if they can't imagine their story within their minds by using the memory previous stories they've read? I'm genuinely curious about this.
It's certainly wild to read about that... I can't really imagine what it is like to have aphantasia... Like, how does that work?Imagine having Aphantasia and being a writer...
like...Mark Lawrence...
Yes.. imagine.. but you cant, because you have aphantasia.
Loosely related to people the have no inner monologue.... and I recall... don't quote me, 30 to 50 percent of people have no inner monologue.aphantasia
My stepdad told me once that I should be in a mental institution because I had an inner voice.Loosely related to people the have no inner monologue.... and I recall... don't quote me, 30 to 50 percent of people have no inner monologue.
Me thinking how the hell to people talk to themselves, if they can't, how do they achieve self actualization?
That reminds me of a story where someone developed an inner voice after not having one all her life, and thought she was going crazy.My stepdad told me once that I should be in a mental institution because I had an inner voice.
I on the other hand don't get the importance of one. I have inner voice, but doesn't most thought happen without it anyway?Loosely related to people the have no inner monologue.... and I recall... don't quote me, 30 to 50 percent of people have no inner monologue.
Me thinking how the hell to people talk to themselves, if they can't, how do they achieve self actualization?
I on the other hand don't get the importance of one. I have inner voice, but doesn't most thought happen without it anyway?
- Inner speech: Our inner monologue in which we speak words in our minds.
- Inner seeing: Imagining an image in our minds that doesn’t match what we’re seeing in reality. For example, you might conjure an image of a place you want to vacation.
- Unsymbolized thinking: Thinking but without employing words, images, or other symbolic methods of communication. For instance, you might go through the motions of brushing your teeth without consciously envisioning or telling yourself to complete each step.
- Feeling: Consciously considering your emotions. For example, acknowledging that you’re feeling overjoyed after getting good news.
- Sensory awareness: Idly thinking about one sensory aspect of the environment while not thinking about others. For instance, on a windy day, you may feel the wind and the way it makes your clothes blow around you, but instead of thinking about those things you may focus your thoughts on how cutting the wind feels on your hands.
Some people may think in all five of these ways, while others may be limited to one or two. As a result people without an inner monologue are likely to be thinking in one or more of the four ways that don’t involve inner speech.
Pros and Cons of Your Inner Monologue
An inner monologue has been found to have benefits across a wide range of domains, including planning, problem solving, self-regulation, self-reflection, emotion regulation, and perspective taking.
One’s inner monologue can also be a source of motivation, instruction, and positive self-reinforcement.
On the other hand, for some people, self-criticism is a regular feature of their inner monologue. This is a major drawback of inner monologues, and studies have found self-critical self-talk is associated with lower self-esteem and more frequent automatic negative statements about the self
The other ways of thinking that don't involve an inner monologue, outlined above, likely have benefits and drawbacks as well, but more research is necessary to understand what they may be.
Im not sure where i was going there either. I was pretty deep in alcohol when i visited this thread, probably thought you meant something elseI agree with you and I don't deny what you're saying, so I don't see what your point is.
I only say that imagination and creativity are different labels that do not refer to the same thing. Whether they co-exist or not (which they do), does not invalidate that. And context determining whether such distinctions are necessary or not—The distinction is meaningless, I suppose, for your purposes; but for the purposes of studying how new ideas are engendered in consciousness, these distinctions become vital.
Well it seems you’re on the right trackI can't really imagine what it is like to have aphantasia... Like, how does that work?
Fair, though I was mostly referring to the seeming incomprehensibility absence of it seems to have for some.Google say...
ways of thinking are:
So