Some People Can't See Mental Images. the Consequences Are Profound
Key topics
The article explores the phenomenon of people who cannot visualize mental images, known as aphantasia, and its profound consequences on their lives and cognition. The discussion revolves around the implications of this condition and its potential effects on various aspects of human experience.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
29s
Peak period
3
0-3h
Avg / period
2
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 28, 2025 at 8:21 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 28, 2025 at 8:22 AM EDT
29s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 30, 2025 at 9:57 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
e.g. as described in the article the example of Phds/Researchers to lean more heavily towards abstractions and rules.
I’ve written about this his before …
It's funny because I have no mind's eye, and I definitely consider it an advantage. I genuinely thought it was a euphemism until I was about 20, drunk, and surrounded by friends at college, playing a game in the student bar and the "mind's eye" thing came up. They couldn't believe I was serious. I couldn't believe they were serious... For a while at least.
My mind works on rules, not imagery. If I am asked to "not think of an elephant in a room", I (of course) immediately think of an elephant in a room, but it's not a visual picture - it's relationships between room and elephant (does it touch the walls, the space around it, does it press the light-switch on, can the door open if it opens inwards, ...) It's the concept of an elephant in a room. There's no visual.
Similarly, I don't know my right from my left - instead I have a rule in my head that I run through virtually instantaneously "I write with my right". That then distinguishes for me which is which. If someone gives me directions "first right, second left, right by the pub and next right" I run through that rule for the first instance, and then I have the concept of "not-right" for the "second left" bit. It gets "cached" for a while, and then drops out.
So where's the advantage ? I can consciously build these rules up into complicated (well, more complicated than people expect) structures of relationships and "work them". It's not like running an orrery backwards and forwards, but it's the best analogy I can give. I can see boundary conditions and faults well before others do - and often several complex states away from the starting conditions. I'm often called into meetings just to "run this by you" because I can see issues further down the line than most. I'm still subject to garbage-in-garbage-out, but it's still something of a super-power.
I'm told I sort of gaze into the middle distance, and then I blink, come back, and say something like "the fromble will interact with the gizmo if the grabbet conflicts with the womble during second-stage init when the moon is waning". Someone goes off and writes a test and almost all the time (hey, I'm human) I'm correct.
Mental modelling is what I gain from a lack of visualisation. I think of it as literally building castles in the sky, except the sky isn't spatial, it's relational.
A hint language may not be the gateway to intelligence, the path is imagery and glyphs as action references.