The Ball on a Table: How to Tell the Difference Between Visualizers and Conceptualizers

Visualize (picture, imagine, whatever you want to call it) a ball on a table. Now, imagine someone walks up to the table and gives the ball a push. What happens to the ball?

Table of Contents

Aphantasia: Experiencing Imagination Differently

Aphantasia, the inability to voluntarily produce visual images in one’s mind, is an intriguing phenomenon that many are still unaware they experience. While the majority of people can easily conjure up vivid images, people with aphantasia often think in more abstract or conceptual ways. It’s not about lacking imagination; it’s about experiencing imagination differently. The Ball on a Table experiment offers an enlightening peek into these contrasting inner worlds.

The Ball on a Table Experiment

Credit to u/Caaaarrrl for this experiment.

Visualize (picture, imagine, whatever you want to call it) a ball on a table. Now, imagine someone walks up to the table and gives the ball a push. What happens to the ball?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Answer these questions:

What color was the ball?

What gender was the person that pushed the ball?

What did they look like?

What size is the ball? Like a marble, or a baseball, or a basketball, or something else?

What about the table, what shape was it? What is it made of?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Now, the important question:

Did you already know, or did you have to choose a color, gender, size, etc., after being asked these questions?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Are You a Visualizer or Conceptualizer?

When you ask a visualizer about the ball on the table, they (most of them) immediately have answers to all of the questions. They are also more likely to provide extra details you didn’t ask for. This is the first clue the individual may actually be picturing the scene in their mind. For example, a visualizer might say, “The ball looks like the Pixar Ball. It’s yellow and features a blue strip with a red star. The ball is about the size of a baseball. It’s on a wooden, oval-shaped table with scratches on top, etc.”

Conceptualizers, on the other hand, approach this differently. To them, the ball on the table is primarily an idea. While they can anticipate the possible outcome – a ball, when nudged, might roll and likely fall off – many specific details, like the ball’s color, its size, the material of the table, or the gender of the person, might remain elusive to them. It’s possible that they only acknowledge or consider these details when directly prompted or questioned about them. Conceptualizers are grasping the essence or core idea, not forming a detailed picture.

Two Different Thinking Styles: Visualizing vs Conceptualizing

You can think of these different approaches to the Ball on a Table as visualizing vs. conceptualizing. These two distinct thinking styles were first articulated in the 1963 textThe Living Brain” by Walter W. Grey, and it offers unique insight into how we internalize and process information.

Visualizing: This style involves creating vivid, detailed mental images. Visualizers “see” scenarios in their mind’s eye, often complete with colors, shapes, and intricate details, akin to watching a movie unfold.

Conceptualizing: This style leans towards understanding the essence without pictorial representation. Conceptualizers grasp ideas and scenarios using their knowledge and experiences without actively “seeing” them, focusing on the abstract idea rather than visual specifics.

Conceptualizing: The Aphantasic Perspective

The Ball on a Table experiment illuminates a characteristic of aphantasia—conceptual rather than visual thinking. People with aphantasia cannot “see” the ball rolling off the table in their minds, but they can understand the concept and predict the outcome. Their thought process is more abstract, relying on knowledge, logic, and understanding rather than visual representation.

The term ‘aphantasia’ originates from the Greek word phantasia, commonly translated to ‘imagination’ and often described in the context of visualizing and dreaming. The “a” in ‘a-phantasia‘ denotes its absence. Meaning “without imagination.” But this can be misleading. Aphantasics can imagine, dream, and create. The aphantasic mind simply operates without the accompanying slideshow.

Importantly, aphantasia is not a disorder nor a limitation. In fact, many aphantasics have sharp spatial reasoning and excel in abstract thinking. Their cognitive prowess isn’t diminished; it’s just channelled differently.

Implications and Reflections

Understanding aphantasia and the broader spectrum of human imagination is essential in recognizing the diversity of human thought. The Ball on a Table experiment is more than just a playful experiment; it illuminates our unique internal experiences. It serves as a reminder that while we may share experiences, how we internalize, process, recall and imagine them can vary remarkably.

So, the next time you’re around the dinner table, try the Ball on a Table experiment. When you ask someone to imagine a situation, remember not everyone will create a detailed mental picture. Some will see clear visuals, while others will grasp the idea. Both ways of thinking are valid and show the varied ways our brains work!

You must be signed in to comment
Total Comments (13)

I saw a green Tennisball on that table which is shown at the top of this page.
When it comes to who pushed it… well I saw myself reached out to that Tennisball on some elevated place. Can’t see that table nor that I pushed the ball.

As someone with aphantasia, I often think it must be very limiting to have to pick specific configurations of a ball, table, color, etc. I asked my husband (who has hyperphantasia) about it, and he says he can adjust all the details at will, instantly, if he wants to, but…. …that doesn’t change the limitation, does it? Visualizers are essentially making a bunch of assumptions about something rather than grasping the core concept and keeping everything else open to the endless possibilities.
When I learned about a year ago that most people don’t ‘conceptualize’ things, it provided an explanation for something I’ve always felt; relative to myself, most people struggle to grasp core ideas and concepts. The ability to see a picture appears to handicap the ability to see the ‘bigger’ picture.

This was interesting. I thought of a red ball, I’m pretty sure that’s because the last ball that I saw was a little red ball. It was on a green ping pong table. Not sure why. And when asked to imagine someone pushing the ball and thinking about what happens, my first thought was to think about how people will put their hand on the ball and pull it toward them before pushing it away. I never saw any of this. It was like remembering a dream where somethings remain clearly intact in my thoughts and other things are hidden in the darkness. When asked the questions, more things began to come to mind, such as the setting was our basement and I think it was my husband who was pushing the ball.

To me, all I know is there’s a table, a ball on it and the ball gets pushed by someone. As for the description of any of these three, they are irrelevant unless I have to invent a fact about them to answer a question. I don’t get how someone would automatically fill in these details.

My mind just draws a full blank on these types of things, doesn’t even tell me colours, table size, ball size, anything. Sort of funny though, because I’m very used to it, never really understood that people usually could picture things.

I knew the softball size ball was red, before being asked. The person doesn’t exist even now, and the table is a flat surface with no legs .

I imagined the ball being rolled and figured it would probably roll off the table. I had a vague concept of table size but didn’t see anything. If someone were to ask me to imagine the scene, I suppose I would have a vague concept of a vague person at the table.

I don’t know if I would consider the details irrelevant (maybe simply more visual?), but I get what you’re saying. When I wonder if I left the toaster plugged in, I have a wordless, sightless concept within a second, and then I start to fret. I do love writers who use a lot of imagery, and I didn’t realize until now that the descriptions helped me get a sense of what the scene looked like (early on in “Notre Dame de Paris,” Victor Hugo uses a ridiculous number of words to describe Paris. Not that this is important to the ball-table-person scenario.

I’m a conceptualiser. It never occurs to me that anyone would think of irrelevant detail. It’s bare bones thinking. I can add detail if asked, but would have to be asked.

Like Pamela, I had to laugh at the questions. Surprisingly, I did “imagine” some details before reading the questions. I had a vague thought about billiard balls and a tiny person pushing the ball. I don’t visualize but I do often think in terms of spatial relationships and sequences of events.

The brain processes abstractions and when we need to make those abstractions concrete if we want to share them with others. Some think of those abstractions in visual and some in auditory thoughts. And then there are aphants like me, who must speak their abstractions.

I am a conceptualizer so the set of questions regarding the size of the ball, the gender of the person pushing it, etc. all made me laugh. Attempting to explain the way my brain processes these kinds of exercises has always been met with skepticism but knowing that there are others out there with similar imagination styles has been quite empowering.

I like the Question: Are You a Visualizer or Conceptualizer? I have always grasp concepts easily, (because I am not distracted by unneeded details?). My boss is able to visualize future things in 3D detail as if they are already in existence. So I am not only learning about myself, I am learning how he is different.

I have Aphantasia and thank you for sharing this! It wonderfully shows the difference between “knowing” and “seeing”. Again, thanks.