AnarchistArtificer @ AnarchistArtificer @slrpnk.net

Posts

4

Comments

1,199

Joined

2 yr. ago

With all due respect, I don't believe aphantasia is a real thing. The way people imagine things is so varied, weird, strange, and unique that I don't think it makes sense assigning labels

Labels should always be used with caution, but for me, learning about aphantasia led to me reconsidering the ways in which I imagine things, and this had a beneficial impact on how I communicated with people close to me. For example, I seem to be an odd mixture of relying on visual stimuli for thinking (so I have visual reminders all over, and reading complex info is way easier for me than hearing it), but also seem to lack the ability to visualise. This means that if my partner asks "hey, do you remember which drawer the mini screwdrivers are in?", I would usually be unable to answer, despite being able to walk in, take a glance at the drawers and go "that one, there". We didn't realise how frustrating this was for both of us until we reflected on the possibility of me having aphantasia. Whether I do or not doesn't matter. More relevant is the fact that now, when he asks me questions of where things are, it'll often be accompanied by a photograph of the location, which drastically improves my ability to recall and point to where the item is.

To some degree, I agree that it's nonsense to assign labels when in nature and in humans, variation is the norm. Certainly it can lead to reductionism and ignoring wide swathes of that variety if one is on a quest to sort people into boxes. However, there is still a lot that we don't know about how the brain works to process things and labels can be instructive either in researching aspects that we don't yet understand, or for regular people like me who find benefit in a word that helps me to understand and articulate that there are ways that my partner thinks and processes information that seem to be impossible for me to emulate. "Aphantasia" helped both of us to be more accepting of these differences.

Framing a phenomenon as either real or not isn't especially useful though, largely because of the ambiguity in the phrasing. An example in a different domain is that I've seen a wide variety of people claim that they don't think autism is a real thing. This tends to be received as offensive to many people, not least of all autistic people who feel like their lived experience is being directly attacked and questioned. Sometimes it is, and their anger is justified. However, I've also seen the "autism isn't a real thing" sentiment come from (often autistic) people critiquing the label and how it's used, especially in a clinical context. They argue that it perpetuates a binary framing of autistic and not autistic, which further marginalises people who do have a diagnosis, and isolates some people who have autistic traits but are overall sub-clinical in presentation (who may have benefitted from understanding these traits from an autistic perspective). Regardless of one's view of the arguments, it's pretty clear that these are two very different stances that might be described by "autism isn't a real thing".

I make this example because debating of the utility of labels can be a great and fruitful discussion that helps to improve our understanding of the underlying phenomena and people's experiences of them. Framing that debate as what's real or not can lead to less productive arguments that are liable to cause offence (especially on the internet, where we're primed to see things in a more adversarial manner)

I have known people with aphantasia who were avid readers of fiction, and I've read accounts that more or less say "good writing allows me to somewhat vicariously enjoy a sense that I don't have, perhaps similar to how deaf people can enjoy music.". Besides that, fiction is so diverse that the necessity of visualisation ability likely varies across genres, authors, time periods etc..

My gut says that aphantasia would almost certainly affect how people would engage with fiction, but that it's not a determinant of whether they do or not. Ditto for autism (indirectly responding to OP: I have anecdotally found that autistics are rarely ambivalent on fiction — we either can't get enough of it, or can't engage with it at all. Some people I have known have directly attributed their love of fiction to their autistic modes of being)

I don't think I'm clear on what you're asking? Is it that you're confused as to how a person can be a fantasy or sci-fi author with aphantasia?

If that is what you're asking, then as someone with aphantasia, I likely can't explain how that can happen anymore than people who don't have aphantasia (like you, I presume) could explain to me what it's like to visualise things. What I can say is that whilst I don't tend to read fiction much nowadays, I used to be an avid reader of both sci-fi and fantasy. I've found that immersive writing tends to involve descriptions that involve more senses than just sight, and also that the environment can be effectively described through how characters interact within the world. A well described world might be easy to visualise, but I don't think that being able to visualise things is necessary for producing that.

Not least of all because all the best writers also read a lot, and fiction is predominantly written by and for people who don't have aphantasia. Through this, I would expect that an author with aphantasia would become proficient in writing that facilitates readers' visual imaginations, even if they themselves didn't engage with fiction in that manner.

Background: I did this experiment with the pre-existing belief that I likely have aphantasia.

Starting with the important question, no, I didn't know the answer to these things before being asked

The ball was red, but I don't think my initial "rendering" involved a colour of a ball at all, because the colour isn't relevant to how it rolls. The ball felt cold, because that's one of the ways I understood its weightiness, and thus how it rolls. The ball was small enough to hold in one hand, but in "visualising" its size, I imagined how it would feel in my hand. The ball I imagined was a bit larger than a tennis ball and much heavier. I can imagine the force my fingers would need to exert to grasp it.

The person who pushed the ball had no gender because it wasn't relevant. When I considered the person's gender, they were a woman, but that information seems to have gotten lost when I "looked away" by considering other questions; when I reread the questions, I "forgot" what gender the ball pusher was, and this time they were man. I suspect that because the information wasn't relevant to the manner the ball was being pushed, the person pushing the ball was in a sort of superposition of gender, where they are both and/or neither man and/or woman, because it was liable to change whenever I "looked away".

The ball pusher(s) didn't look like anything unless I really pushed myself on this question and then I'm like "erm, I guess they were brunette?", but I think a similar thing happens as with the gender question — unless I have a way to remember what traits I assigned to the ball pusher, I'm just going to forget and have to regenerate the traits. I suspect that if I were actively visualising something, these details would stick together better, like paint to a canvas.

The table has a similar effect of nebulousness. My only assumption before you asked further about the table was that it was level (because the ball started at rest) and rectangular/square. When I tried to consider the table in more detail, I asked myself "what can a table be made out of". Wood comes to mind most obviously, because I have a wood table near me. Laminated particle-board is another thing. I also remember some weird, brightly coloured , super lightweight plastic tables from school. It could also be metal. It could have four legs, or it might have a central base like the dining table at my last house. It might be circular, or oval, or rhomboid. I think I just modelled it as squarish because I've learned enough mathsy-physics that I'm inclined to think of spherical cows, and having a straight edge is easier to model for mathematically, and to draw.

Brains sure are wacky, huh?

My late best friend was a metal head and I often joke that I hope he's gone to hell, because as a queer nerd who loved TTRPGs like Dungeons and Dragons, he'd have a hell of a time there.

I went to a big, old university where there were many old chapels with excellent organs. I went to some services despite being an atheist, just to hear the pretty sounds echoing 'round a pretty room.

Though I do wonder whether a sufficiently good lawyer could argue that it's not attempted murder if you knew they were immortal

I found linear algebra super hard until I learned it a second and then third time, from different angles. I found it harder to understand when it was taught in a pure maths context, but coming at it from the applied side made me go "oh, so that's why that's like that"

this type of ecological engineering

Do you count reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone to be the same type of ecological engineering? I haven't checked progress on that for a while but the last I heard, it was too early to say whether it was successful. I highlight Yellowstone because of how cautious the effort was (it took years of planning and analysis) and this caution feels like it's directly descended from the fuck ups of the past

It has one of the best on-screen depictions of a panic attack that I've ever seen, which I wasn't expecting

Saying no is a superpower, just not in the way the author of the original post intended. As comments like yours highlight, saying no to nonsense work is out of reach for the vast majority of people who would most benefit from it (i.e. workers who are bothered by managers). It sounds like your workplace is especially gruelling in that respect.

I opened this question and realised with a sense of dread that I don't think I have an answer to this question; often it feels like my days are slipping by without making meaningful progress in the things I care about.

That may or may not be true, but regardless, I'm going to use this space to improve at self forgiveness. It's difficult to show myself the compassion I deserve as a human, but it's easier if I try to think of myself as a dear friend. If I were my friend, I'd feel proud of me for my strength, and angry on my behalf at the fact I am having to endure so much bullshit that is holding me back. I'd feel sad, but hopeful for the hypothetical future where I might be more free to make progress on my goals.

Without a frame of reference, I don't think this constitutes improvements on anything per se. However, by setting my flag down here and underscoring my intent to be kinder to myself, I am creating a future where I will be able to look back on this comment and think "wow, such progress". The second best time to plant a tree is now, and all that.

• When my house guests text "#wifi" to me, they get an auto reply with the WiFi password.
• NFC tag stuck to my medication pouch. When I boop my phone to it (or tap a shortcut on homescreen), I can select what medication I have taken. The medication and the time gets added to the bottom of a Google sheets spreadsheet, that I, or someone supporting me can check to get an overview of how frequently I've been taking medication (especially useful for spotting high pain chunks of time due to more frequent usage of PRN pain meds).
• Another aspect of the medication tracking above is that it also can tell me the last time I took medication. For example, if I take ADHD meds at 12pm, then my next dose would be 4pm. If I tap the shortcut at 3pm, it'll tell me I last took meds at 12pm and I'm next due at 4pm. Alarms tend to either startle me or not be noticed, but when I had smart lights and a notification light on my phone, I could make a colour gradient where "you have just taken meds" = red and "you are due to take meds" = blue, and as time progresses, the colour slowly becomes more blue. This works well for me, because I like visual reminders

A helpful "rule" I set for myself to encourage myself to cook more was to allow myself to indulge if it was a proper, homecooked meal. Stuff like splurging on fancied ingredients (I'm fond of salmon), or having an extra cheesy lasagne. It was a useful carrot to dangle in front of myself, and a useful stepping stone to better habits. I also would sometimes cook for friends, like informal dinner parties (I always found it easier to cook for 4 than for 1)

On the cost side of things, even my fancier meals were still cheaper than takeout. Plus it's easier to eat healthier if you're already cooking for yourself often (and I even broke that down into smaller chunks too — I first focussed on adding more veg and general nutrition, then I reduced the proportion of healthy stuff)

I like to use Hypothes.is for annotating stuff I read in depth

This isn't mine, but a comment from an old university tutors, about a non-teaching administrator.

"She's an organisational terminator. When she retires, they'll have to replace her with two people".

He was wrong — she was replaced by three people. As well as being highly effective at her job, she was really lovely and knew so many students' names.

I was agreeing with you for the entirety of your comment (as someone with friends in healthcare), until you said

"What they call burnout, really is moral injury"

And then I was aggressively agreeing with you. I do not hear this aspect spoken about nearly enough. I was in hospital during COVID for non COVID reasons and I remember one terrible night where there was only one nurse on the ward, when two were needed to dispense medications like morphine. I was fortunate that I wasn't needing medication like that, but many on the ward did. The entire night, sick and injured people were crying from pain as the solitary nurse sounded increasingly desperate as she explained to them that she needed to wait until she had backup and that she had been promised (and that, failing that, help should definitely arrive with the morning shift).

Prior to that night, my opinion of that nurse was that she was the kind of unpleasant that made me wonder "why has this person gone into healthcare when they seem to hate people so much?". After that harrowing night, I realised the depth of the agony that her job involved and the inhumanity not just for the patients who were unable to receive medication, but for staff like her too. This was during COVID, so it's unsurprising that the hospital was struggling for staff, but services were struggling long before COVID too.

I often think about her, and what she represents; I wonder how she was when she first started the job, and if perhaps her brusque manner evolved as the moral injury wore her down and hardened her exterior.

Definitely play it. Just remember that "You Died" doesn't equal failure and dying a lot doesn't mean you're bad at the game. Dying lots is a core mechanic of the game.

I'm of the opinion that the difficulty level isn't that bad, and I'm not saying this in a gatekeepy "git gud" kind of way. I enjoy these games because they feel fair, and whenever I have been struggling disproportionately, it's either been because I was somewhere beyond my current level (especially in open world games like Elden Ring), or I was doing something "wrong" (like stubbornly using my preferred weapon even though I knew a quirk of the boss meant it was suboptimal)

If the game feels like it's being unfair to you, take a step back and rethink your approach. Try a different weapon or strategy (this might mean having to go to an easier area to practice the new weapon). Look through your items to see if you have anything that might help (including potentially helpful lore in the item descriptions). If you're not sure what a thing does, try using it and see — the game won't explain things explicitly because it wants players to find out in play.

If you like the look of Bloodborne, 100% give it a go — even if I weren't already a fan of Fromsoft's games, I'd enjoy Bloodborne for the impeccable aesthetic.

I got the impression from the summary that "broadly welcomed" may include opinions like "there's a lot of work to do on the implementation front, but this sounds like a step in the right direction", as is common when there's a big and complex problem. Unions are used to being given loads of assurances at the beginning when policies are declared, and then gradually over time, the concessions in a bill get eroded. "Broadly welcomed" could mean that 27 of the unions have sentiments that are roughly 65% positive on this, and 1 of them (the quoted one) is 60% negative. In this case, maybe including a quote from the mostly negative union also captures some of the sentiments of the 35% negatives from the main bulk. If this is the only quote included, it is weird, but I imagine the full article has more perspectives.

Edit: Reading the full article deepened this impression — apparently this is a big enough endeavour that it's expected to be on the drawing board for at least 2 years? Another union (TUC) said that "this bill highlights Labour’s commitment to upgrade rights and protections for millions" — language like "highlights Labour's commitment" is fairly fluffy, which suggests to me an angle of "starting this early in your elected window bodes well for your intentions, hopefully we can keep this up for long enough that we get a practical change"

In addition, the union who gave the negative quote are a small businesses union, and whilst I'm definitely on the side of the workers over businesses, I also think it's important to recognise that legislation like this tends to put a disproportionate burden on small businesses compared to the mega-corporations (who can lobby more and also absorb impacts easier).

This announcement is good news, but Starmer has moved the goalposts on past promises so many times that any optimism I might feel is tempered by a "I'll believe it when I see it". Time will tell, I suppose. !Remindme 2 years (this is a joke, I don't think Lemmy has a RemindMe bot)

This is a great step-by-step. If I were having a root canal, this would make me feel immensely reassured