When I am imagining something the best I can do is to kind of imagine a very vague shadow or outline. I can’t really “see” it. Apparently many other people can visualize things vividly - even in full color. On the other hand it is good because I’ve been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and this may be why I’ve never really hallucinated. I also am unable to have visual sexual fantasies which can apparently be a problem. I can imagine sound/music quite vividly though.
I’ve never been able to do it well, either, but I don’t see how it changes sexual fantasies. All you need is a vague outline and how it makes you feel, along with a sexy scenario.
Also, um, what were you wanting people’s opinions on? Did you mean to post this in IMHO?
I’d only be able to imagine a dark ghost-like vague outline - like a shadow. I need to see a few parts of their body at once in vivid detail.
It says “This is also the place for polling.” I wanted people to say if they experienced the same thing or what they thought about it.
I have fairly strong visual imagination. I can think of fairly complicated mechanical assemblies, inspect them, rotate them around, disassemble them, etc. I do less well but still reasonable at discovering physical impossibilities, such as if two pieces physically intersect when assembled. Color is no problem.
But for the life of me I can’t visualize faces. Not even close friends or family members. I can come up with a generic male or female face, but nothing specific. Not sure why I’m so good at one thing but not the other.
There is a lot of variability in what people report about the intensity (and detail, etc.) of their imaginative experience, but, despite extensive research looking for it, there is very little evidence that any of this variability is related to variabilities in people’s cognitive abilities, personality, or other mental traits. Indeed, there are some quite good reasons to suspect that the variability in what people say about their inner experience of this sort derives as much or more from differences in how they are inclined to describe those experiences (to themselves, as well as to others) than from differences in the underlying experiences themselves. For one thing, what people say about their imaginative experience depends a great deal on the way and the circumstances in which they are asked about them. (See here, here and here.)
In the late 19th and early 20th century there was a good deal of research into what were called “imagery types”, attempting to classify people psychologically according to whether their inner experience (according to their introspective reports) was predominantly (or most vividly) visual, auditory, tactile, kinaesthetic, or whatever. It all came to nothing, and the notion that people can meaningfully be sorted into such imagery types is no longer taken seriously by psychological researchers.
As for schizophrenic symptoms (I do not know if the same necessarily applies to schizoaffective disorder), most schizophrenic hallucinations, and the ones that seem to cause most problems, are auditory (“voices” especially) rather than visual. Thus, the fact that you have subjectively weak visual imagery is probably not of much relevance. Furthermore, it remains controversial whether the vividness of a person’s non-hallucinatory imagery has much to do with how prone they may be to actual hallucinations, or to mental illness. (There is some evidence to suggest an association, but it is not very strong, and certainly there are many people who report that they experience very vivid and copious mental imagery, yet are perfectly sane. Come to that, many perfectly sane people occasionally experience hallucinations.)
I don’t know if I actually have strong visual components to my fantasies or I just let myself think that I do.
Does having a vivid visual imagination with detailed colors give people any kind of advantage? e.g. are they better at painting, etc?
Not that kinda pole, though.
No. See my previous post.
People claiming to have a very vivid visual imagination have actually been shown, in experiments, to be worse at accurately recalling colors than other people are.
The famous and, in his day, much admired Victorian painter Sir Joshua Reynolds supposedly claimed to have no visual mental imagery at all (though I do not necessarily believe it).
I wonder if people’s “working memory” is affected by how detailed their visual imagination is… or maybe working memory is enhanced by visual imagination. (e.g. the memory technique of associating objects with places or other objects) Personally I can’t really use that memory technique but I’ve heard of people who can memorize a pack of 52 cards by associating them with places, etc.
I am not sure what you mean by “working memory”. That is actually a technical term in the psychology of memory, but I doubt whether that is what you are referring to. “Visual imagination” is not a scientifically well defined term, but what you seem to mean by it, what scientists generally call “visual mental imagery”, is considered to be one type or aspect of of working memory.
Anyway, visual mental imagery based mnemonic techniques most certainly work, and are good for what they are good for (although 21st century people only rarely have much need for what they are good for). As with other aspects of apparently visual thinking, the subjective vividness with which people experience their visual imagery has little or nothing to do with how well these techniques work for them. The techniques, especially the complicated, multi-layered ones by which it it becomes possible to memorize the order of a seemingly well shuffled deck of 52 cards,* do take a good deal of time, effort, and concentration to learn You could probably learn to do it, John, but (probably very sensibly) you are not motivated to put in the considerable amount of time and mental effort it would require.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
*I have seen a description of a method for doing this. It was complicated, and involved both visual imagery and rhyme mnemonics, combined in a systematic way. Clearly it would have taken a lot of effort to learn. I have little doubt that it would work for almost anyone who took the trouble, however, and it does make something possible that otherwise would not be possible at all. It would almost certainly be impossible for someone to memorize the order of an apparently shuffled deck of 52 cards merely by rote. (“Memory prodigies” generally do rely on mnemonic techniques, including visual imagery based ones, and not on rote memory. Sometimes, however, they may themselves have discovered, or independently rediscovered, the particular techniques that they use.)
It helps tremendously when doing mechanical type work. I’ve heard it described as “eye fingers”. When I’m working on something I can’t actually see I can “see” it vividly in my mind just by touching it. When I need to build something I first do it mentally, it helps get the bugs out before starting. Mostly in color.
In the latest issue of “World of Knowledge” magazine it talked about the Method of Loci:
It talked about Nelson Dellis using it to remember a sequence of 52 cards in 63 seconds. It involves triplets of cards and a path through a 17 room building. (the remaining card is the last card to be turned over) It took months of training to link each card to a person, action or object.
Johannes Mallow also used the Method of Loci to store 492 images in his brain in 15 minutes.
Those two people are others are mentioned here:
http://www.memory-sports.com/memory-champions/
This is an interesting video about how chimps are mentally superior to people in some ways:
I got the idea from something like this:
Yes, this makes intuitive sense to a lot of people (including me), but, as I said earlier, research (and there has been a fair bit of it) that has tried to find a correlation between the subjective vividness of people’s visual imagery and their ability to think about spatial relations in the sort of way you describe, has, essentially come up empty, and found no relation. It appears that there is essentially no relationship between how vivid a person reports their visual mental imagery to be and their ability as spatial thinkers and mechanics. You may have subjectively vivid imagery, and also be good at spatially understanding mechanical stuff, but other people who are equally as good at spatial cognition may say their imagery is not very vivid at all.
See here (note 18) for a list of studies (probably not exhaustive) that failed to find the expected correlation (but see also Dean & Morris, 2003, for a possibly more nuanced interpretation). (The relevant bibliography, with the citation details, is here.)
Yes, the method loci has been known to work well since ancient times, but it is not the only sort of mnemonic system, or even the only sort of visual-imagery-based one. (And, as I have said, it probably works just about as well for people whose visual imagery is not subjectively vivid as for those for whom it is.)
In my earlier post, I was actually thinking of the Nikola System for memorizing the arrangement of a deck of cards, as described in detail in the final chapter of Jean Hugard’s Encyclopedia of Card Tricks. As I said (and IIRC), it uses a combination of a rhyme mnemonic and a visual imagery mnemonic other than the method of loci. (I started to try to learn it once, but did not have the patience to see it through.)
Kind of related:
“Superior Autobiographical Memory”
Maybe I should try to clarify. I don’t need to be touching anything or or have seen it in the past(memory). I’ve had job situations where I’ve been asked to fabricate something that can perform a specific task. I’ll just close my eyes and imagine the task, then it starts coming together. I also tend to make several revisions to the original idea in my head until I have a nearly final plan. I’m no genius believe me, this is just the way it works for me.
Like I was saying earlier I’m unable to have sexual fantasies that would arouse me since the images are like a vague shadow. Apparently some people can have sexual fantasies and I suspect they’d have a more vivid visual imagination.