Wow interesting! While I don't have that level of recognition, I do seem to be able to spot celebrities before anyone else does. On several occasions and in different circumstances, I've been out and about with others and I'll go "Oh look, I think that's so-and-so!" and everyone else I'm with (despite them having the same opportunity to spot them) will be surprised I spotted them with their shades, hat on or whatever. I can only assume that the information about how somebody looks - the "raw data" if you like - is somehow stored in a way that I can match it up to what I see quicker than those who process that data through a visual "stage" in their minds perhaps?

Interesting! I have at least visual aphantasia, and was in a movie once many years ago when I was about 20 years old. The director wanted get my eye in extreme close-up for one shot, but I didn't know that he wanted my pupil to dilate while he was filming it. When we were rolling, he said to me, "Imagine a naked lady in front of you" (I'm a heterosexual male). Along with some laughter from the crew, he said he got what he wanted. However, I've just tried it by filming my eyes with my phone in selfie mode and it doesn't work. So maybe the dilation was a reaction to something else - like the shock of being told to imagine nakedness when I wasn't expecting it? I can't reproduce that shock on my own though.

The best explanation I can give in terms of a definition of "visualise" is to compare thinking about a physical thing like an apple or a face, to thinking about an abstract thing like democracy or happiness. When people who can visualise things think about an abstract concept, they would not (as far as I know) conjure up a picture of, say "democracy" in their mind's eye in the same way as they can an apple. They have to use a linguistic description of democracy to think about it in a non-visual way. For somebody with aphantasia, that "non-visual thinking" is what they also use concrete things like apples or faces as well. I think about an apple, it's shape, the light reflected off its surface, the stalk, etc. in the same way as I think about democracy, the practice of voting for government offices, the representation of regional interests at national level etc. But I am not conscious of any picture in my mind of either an apple or democracy. Not sure if that makes sense?

Interesting question! I have this week (and quite by chance) discovered I have aphantasia according to the test on this site. However, I write a lot, and enjoy putting my thoughts down in writing about my work (I'm a designer - but more on that later!). And I am often accused of writing too much. I think this may be because, unlike people who can visualise things, I have to process my thoughts of them in a "verbal" way to myself. I think this may be the same for phantasics who think about abstract things: you can't really visualise "democracy" or "irony" after all - or if you can, then you're not properly describing the details of those things. So everyone has to describe abstract things in non-visual ways. But aphantasics just do that for everything. To return to your question though - If you struggle to keep a journal going, maybe try thinking about something you're interested in like a political argument, a relationship you have, a place/thing you like/dislike and why, etc. and write about that when the mood takes you - so more like a blog than a journal? Take an idea (as I do) and "visualise" it in writing? That's what I do at least.

Wow interesting! While I don't have that level of recognition, I do seem to be able to spot celebrities before anyone else does. On several occasions and in different circumstances, I've been out and about with others and I'll go "Oh look, I think that's so-and-so!" and everyone else I'm with (despite them having the same opportunity to spot them) will be surprised I spotted them with their shades, hat on or whatever. I can only assume that the information about how somebody looks - the "raw data" if you like - is somehow stored in a way that I can match it up to what I see quicker than those who process that data through a visual "stage" in their minds perhaps?

Interesting! I have at least visual aphantasia, and was in a movie once many years ago when I was about 20 years old. The director wanted get my eye in extreme close-up for one shot, but I didn't know that he wanted my pupil to dilate while he was filming it. When we were rolling, he said to me, "Imagine a naked lady in front of you" (I'm a heterosexual male). Along with some laughter from the crew, he said he got what he wanted. However, I've just tried it by filming my eyes with my phone in selfie mode and it doesn't work. So maybe the dilation was a reaction to something else - like the shock of being told to imagine nakedness when I wasn't expecting it? I can't reproduce that shock on my own though.

The best explanation I can give in terms of a definition of "visualise" is to compare thinking about a physical thing like an apple or a face, to thinking about an abstract thing like democracy or happiness. When people who can visualise things think about an abstract concept, they would not (as far as I know) conjure up a picture of, say "democracy" in their mind's eye in the same way as they can an apple. They have to use a linguistic description of democracy to think about it in a non-visual way. For somebody with aphantasia, that "non-visual thinking" is what they also use concrete things like apples or faces as well. I think about an apple, it's shape, the light reflected off its surface, the stalk, etc. in the same way as I think about democracy, the practice of voting for government offices, the representation of regional interests at national level etc. But I am not conscious of any picture in my mind of either an apple or democracy. Not sure if that makes sense?

Interesting question! I have this week (and quite by chance) discovered I have aphantasia according to the test on this site. However, I write a lot, and enjoy putting my thoughts down in writing about my work (I'm a designer - but more on that later!). And I am often accused of writing too much. I think this may be because, unlike people who can visualise things, I have to process my thoughts of them in a "verbal" way to myself. I think this may be the same for phantasics who think about abstract things: you can't really visualise "democracy" or "irony" after all - or if you can, then you're not properly describing the details of those things. So everyone has to describe abstract things in non-visual ways. But aphantasics just do that for everything. To return to your question though - If you struggle to keep a journal going, maybe try thinking about something you're interested in like a political argument, a relationship you have, a place/thing you like/dislike and why, etc. and write about that when the mood takes you - so more like a blog than a journal? Take an idea (as I do) and "visualise" it in writing? That's what I do at least.