Talk:Aphantasia

Removing Zelda Williams from notable list.

I didn't want to just do this without getting some input, but I think we should remove Zelda Williams from the list of notable people with Aphantasia. The tweet thread that was used as the source for adding her has since been entirely deleted - and there are no additional tweets where she mentions the term. And as far as I can tell, other than people referencing that tweet - and some celeb news randomly mentioning the tweet - there's no other information online to use as a source. I know that we'll use unreliable sources in some cases, especially if it's a controversial topic the article's subject is trying to avoid being attached to. But I doubt that this is the case. Much like her request for people to stop sending her that video of a guy doing an impression of her dad online, I suspect she pulled the thread because she got tired of people asking her about it on Twitter. But it still leaves us without a reliable source to reference. CleverTitania (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it since the tweet is now deleted. Some1 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allysondavey (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KBP98 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NaviRome, Vdelreal (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by NaviRome (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Other senses

If the term correctly applies to other senses (touch, smell, taste, hearing at the least), then they should be discussed; if the term correctly only applies to vision, then there should be a brief mention and/or a link to any related sites if they exist. As it now stands, it seems unclear. Kdammers (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Aphantasia by definition refers only to vision, but people with aphantasia tend to have corresponding deficits in the other senses as well. This is mentioned in the Research section ("A 2020 study concluded that those who experience aphantasia also experience reduced imagery in other senses..."), but it's not very prominent. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right on both counts. Hopefully, the article can be modified with a brief note near the lead, since the research section is not where some-one might think to look. I found this site about the inability to call up other senses, but I don't know if it is citable:hhttps://www.canva.com/design/DAFub7Pk1l8/k8hIdCZ1mA8GY = Dysikonesia and Mental Sensory Perception - Medium Banner (US) (Landscape) (canva.com)Kdammers (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Coexistence with a Lack of internal monologue?

I don't believe "Lack of Internal monologue" has a specific term coined for it yet, but it seems like it may be a common comorbidity with Aphantasia, to a degree significant enough to warrant mention in this article. Here are some sources I could find. https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monologue.html https://futuredoctor.ai/internal-monologue-vs-thinking/

192.77.12.11 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I would note that there's a distinction to be made between "Lack of internal monologue" and "Lack of internal voice" (I personally would lack the latter but not the former). But how to include this information to the article or similar articles, I have no comment. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. This may or may not be the correct page to include information on either a "Lack of internal monologue" or "Lack of internal voice", I simply don't know. All I do know is that it seems to be an underrepresented topic on Wikipedia. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This would be the main article for this subject, as "internal monologue" redirects there. Despite being a GA, I'm not sure how well this perspective is covered. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, a 2021 study has named this phenomenon Anauralia. Specifically relates to a lack of internal auditory imagery. Just added a section in the Research section of this page, but I believe in time, this term may warrant its own page. 72.183.156.189 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Notable list: John Green

Since my attempt to add John Green to the notable people list was removed for citing a tweet, I am considering re-adding him with this source instead: https://aphantasia.com/article/news/john-green-aphantasia-discovery/. Would that be acceptable? —FactoidCow (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. It seems to be a person with aphantasia who is trying to spread the word on it. Not exactly a non-biased third party. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, what is an acceptable source for inclusion on the list? It seems like most or all of the people who are already on the list are self-reported—which makes sense, since aphantasia is primarily a subjective conscious experience. Even a formal medical diagnosis would most likely rely on self-reporting, albeit in a more formalized way (e.g. the VVIQ test). —FactoidCow (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The one for Edwin Catmull is particularly strong, as is Glen Keane. It's fine if it's self reporting if it's published in a WP:RS. But John Green didn't even say he has aphantasia, so it's OR to look at what he says and diagnose him with aphantasia. I haven't looked through all the sourcing of that list, some of them may need to be removed or have better sources found. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterise it as "diagnosing". Being unable to form pictures in your head is not a symptom of aphantasia, it is aphantasia. Aphantasia is just a shorter word to describe that phenomenon. If Green tweeted that he was experiencing pain in the portion of his digestive tract between the esophagus and the small intestine, it wouldn't be a "diagnosis" to say that he had a stomachache. —FactoidCow (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Cerebral726. John Green didn't say he has aphantasia, so it's WP:Original research to diagnose him with such. If a celebrity tweeted that they're sad all the time, could a random editor add that celebrity to the hypothetical List of notable people with depression article? Obviously not. Until Green explicitly says that he has aphantasia, he stays out of the list. Some1 (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion. John Green has now specifically described himself as "hav[ing] aphantasia" on at least two occasions (Dear Hank & John podcast, episodes 394 and 397). Can we add him to the list using those as citations? (Well, I see he's on the list at the moment anyway, because other random users keep adding him based on the Twitter post that started this whole debate, before someone else goes in and removes him again. But you know what I mean.) —FactoidCow (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m totally fine with that, given the new sources available, as long as they’re added in. Cerebral726 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Distinction between "aphantasiac" and "aphantasic"

I would like to draw attention to the use of the term "aphantasiac." Upon researching, e.g., on Google Scholar, I have been unable to discern a specific reason to use this term differently from "aphantasic." Should there be such a reason, it would be a good idea to articulate it on the page, would you not agree? @Matchups @CleverTitania FdeD8953 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no difference. Both "aphantasic" and "aphantasiac" refer to someone with aphantasia, as does "aphant". "Aphantasic" and "aphantasiac" can also be used as adjectives, e.g., "aphantasic individual". What we're probably seeing is language evolving, since they're all new words.

The different words should probably be mentioned at the beginning of the article. We should also probably consistently use one in the article, instead of switching between the two. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Added note. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the "language evolving" explanation, with which I agree, we can also look at the cases of more mental conditions. I searched Google Ngram Viewer for several, and found the -ic suffix is usually more popular than -iac (it could be because the -ic suffixed words are boosted by being used as adjectives). Specifically, I checked the article on aphasia, and found no occurrence of "aphasiac", although it does exist (see here and here). I am not a native speaker. In my opinion, it would make more sense to stick to -ic because it's the nominalization of the adjective "aphantasic". FdeD8953 (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point. Google Scholar also shows the use of aphantasics to be ten times as common as aphantasiacs. I'll make that clearer in the article. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"Aphants" is trickier. Its use falls between aphantasics and aphantasiacs in Google Scholar, but it's as common as aphantasics in google.com search, so it's apparently in common non-scientific use. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, "aphant" has evolved to be the most common noun used in the various social media groups and member-based organizations surrounding aphantasia, particularly those on the fastest tracks to becoming functional fundraising orgs - which disappointments me, strictly because I personally enjoy the whimsical nature of the term "aphantasiac" so much. But if "aphantasic" is becoming the common noun in the research circles, social usage is likely to change in the coming years.

It's even more likely when you consider why I would hesitate to use aphasia as a verbiage guide - because it is far more of an acquired condition, whereas aphantasia looks to be more often a congenital condition on a spectrum - impacting both the number of people affected and how quickly the term is expanding into common usage. Therefore I'd consider dyslexia or autism better guides for framing the terminology, and obviously the nominalizations of their adjectives (i.e. dyslexic and autistic) have become the most common nouns for people with those conditions.

So, whimsy or no, I think it would make more sense to treat "aphantics" as our standard noun for people with the condition, in the article. At least until we get a sense for whether the aphantasia community is going to lean into person-first or identity-first language, as MOS:DISABILITIES tends to stick with whatever the community/sources favors. CleverTitania (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed –let's just track it. There's definitely autisism advocacy with its own political lexicon ("alltistics"); if the same dynamic held for the aphantasic community those apples would have emic names and we'd be hearing about them. kencf0618 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

needs a backlash or controversy or criticisms section

Aphantasia doesn't actually have much backing from the psychological community this needs to have a section discussing it 82.42.100.59 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Notable people "with aphantasia"

As raised in the John Green discussion above, this should more accurately be called "Notable people claiming to have aphantasia". They might and they might not. All we can prove, and report on, is the claim. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A4BC:5EF6:B33D:51F6 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The John Green discussion is about whether it's appropriate to list someone if they've only said something like "I can't form images in my mind's eye" and haven't literally gone on the record as saying that they believe that they have aphantasia.

Per MOS:CLAIM we should avoid using a phrase like "claiming to have", for casting doubt on their assertion. Belbury (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Unclear meaning

What does this mean: "and 3.9% of the population was either unable to form mental images or had dim or vague mental imagery"? This is preceded by a statistic on people "unable to form visual mental images." Obviously, they're not meant to be the same, but what then are "mental images"? If it means the idea or understanding of a concept, then say so. If it is something else, then make it clear. 136.36.176.51 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It's actually correct--it's saying that 3.9% of people are either unable to form mental images or have dim mental imagery, and out of this 3.9%, .8% don't have any images at all--but it's confusingly written. Change it if you want, or I'll get around to it in a day or two. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

New graph (Replace or add)

As someone with Aphantasia the current graph does not do it enough justice. Aphantasia does not just have 5 "levels" it is so much more complex than. I believe it should be changed, or at least added into the page, to the graph in this video https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8UCfHXG which does a better job at giving people who don't have Aphantasia a better visualization of what someone with Aphantasia might see as well as gives someone with Aphantasia a better way of explaining what they might "see" when trying to imagine something. I'd also like to suggest the star graph which just adds another "level" to the apple graph. PandawithaBike (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The context has been dropped from the caption since I added the image in 2023, but it's intended as a rendering of the specific five apples image that went viral on Twitter in 2020, the one that's mentioned in the History section.

What's the context for this TikTok example - has it been shared and repeated widely? Belbury (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)