For me, the worst would be to be able to visualise but find it distracting, annoying or traumatic. Or if I could only imagine dim and vague images: not helpful, but also impossible to turn off.
There are some articles and ”quick tests“ that ask you to close your eyes, which can be quite confusing. Some people find it easier to visualise with their eyes open, others with their eyes closed.
Additionally, aphantasia often is represented by a black image, which also is misleading. Some people think they have aphantasia because they see black or Eigengrau behind their eyelids.
But aphantasia has nothing to do with physical seeing with your eyes.
How do you define an inner monologue? Thinking in sentences? An inner voice in your mind’s ear? A narrator that comments on actions?
On average, aphantasics report a reduced imagery in all other sensory modalities [1]. About 26 % report a complete lack of multi-sensory imagery (total aphantasia).
I have total aphantasia, but my inner experience is worded thinking [2], which Hurlburt defines as follows: “Worded thinking is the experience of thinking in particular distinct words, but those words are not being (innerly or externally) spoken, heard, seen, or voiced in any other way.” [2]
For me, this is an inner monologue, but it’s just silent.
> Does it mean that a person is unable, even with a lot of training, to form any visual images in their heads?
Joel Pearson, one of the top researches, speculates it could be possible to “start” the visualisation by training and electrical impulses. Electric impulses on the prefrontal cortex and visual cortex are known to make visual imagination less or more vivid. But how well and whether this works at all, is unknown.
Maybe it only works with acquired aphantasia, only for people with weak aphantasia or for people whose aphantasia has a specific cause. (These are my thoughts on this, not Joel Pearson’s).
> Also, it is near impossible to report objectively about your inner processes in a useful way.
There are some objective ways to measure visual imagination, for example binocular rivalry, skin conductance response (influence of imagery on emotions) and pupil responses during visualisation. Differences can be seen in fMRI. Also, the VVIQ (Vividness Of Visual Imagery Questionnaire) is considered statistically reliable.
> It may well be that some people actually have some form of aphantasia, but all the self reporting of amazing visual powers or the lack thereof seems more indicative of peoples' egos than the actual differences in what they are capable of.
Over 10% of people are hyperphantasic (“Phantasia – The psychological significance of lifelong visual imagery vividness extremes”), and the average visual vividness is quite high.
I guess especially in the Internet you find more people from the extreme ranges of the spectrum who search actively about the topic. But whether someone rates himself with 4 or 5 (simplified) does not have much significance individually anyway.
