I don’t have a minds eye for something to fade from, so that question doesn’t really make sense to me. I have my eyes and then when I close my eyes it’s either black or eyelid colored, nothing else, and I’m super unclear what seeing things in your mind is supposed to be like. Tho I do have super-vivid visual dreams these days (which did not happen until my late 20s, but aren’t at all uncommon for people with aphantasia) and because I only have open-eye sight and these dreams that seem totally real, I frequently have to ask people if things actually happened. It’s very disconcerting, but my understanding is that dreams are not really the same as waking minds eye anyway.
Rather than a visual representation, I’ll have a verbal description ready as soon as I see an item. So for the ball example, I’d know the ball is “small, about the size of a plum, solid pink somewhere between neon and intense salmon, smooth matte texture, looks like it might be foam”. It probably serves the same function as a visual representation, although perhaps with a bit more required specificity. I don’t really describe things to myself unless I need to, though, so I guess my thinking is sort of abstract. I know the traits something has, and can recall them, but typically don’t explicitly list them unless I’m describing for someone else.
One perk of this is I’m great at describing things I’ve seen or made up, a downside is I’m terrible when people describe things to me. Since I’ve never seen the thing being described, it is a super arbitrary list of usually non-specific features and I don’t care at all. I skip clothing descriptions in books, for example. Don’t care. But when I describe things, even made up things, I’ll run through a list of the features it needs as a minimum to be the object for my mind, which is usually vivid detail for others, as the ball example above.
Idk if I see things differently eyes-open, I don’t really think so, but that’s always been a curiosity of mine since there’s literally no way to know what other people see. I have mild impairments as a result of not being able to visualize, like I’m largely face blind - I have to pick out specific features and traits and use the combination as identifiers. I get a ton of false positives, and almost everyone “feels familiar”. Beyond that, I’m pretty sensitive to colors and patterns. Idk.
But the -way- you ask that first question makes me curious; If you close your eyes and intentionally picture something other than the ball, would you then be unable to tell me what color it was in your example? Do you, personally, require the visual representation to “know” the object?
Not really, but typically if I can see someone else do a motion I can self-insert the movements I’d need to make to duplicate it, so that might just be a disused function for me.
Although that’s a good question, because I do have special memory that I use for a lot of things, and it involves movement, but maybe not in the same way someone else would (eg I can count the windows in my place by simulating a walk through my house and “opening windows” like I do on nice mornings, but I often forget about out-of-the-way non-opening windows because they aren’t part of my muscle memory)
I’m aphantasic. You can say “picture this” followed by whatever you like. It’s not possible for me in any way. Growing up I honestly thought “picture this” or “close your eyes and see” was just metaphor. I legitimately didn’t understand other people can see things.
My mind has a verbal descriptive stream, and I’m good with muscle-based or proprioceptive spacial memory, and the two combine to handle most things, but nothing visual. So like I can easily describe things from memory or from an idea, and it’ll be fully consistent, but not something I see.
If you have aphantasia, and not just hypophantasia, it makes no difference how much detail is provided, there’s a total, fundamental, inability to visualize things.
100%. This is actually the entire reason I dropped out of my masters program.
I’m a science communicator. My whole purpose for existing is making science accessible to people with less formal science training than a high school student.
I was going for a masters in conservation biology, because what better to communicate these days, right? And in the limnology class I took the first semester, all my papers got poor marks for failing to use the unnecessary academic terminology. It was all entirely correct information, just simplified, and that was unacceptable.
And I can’t work under those terms. I just am entirely incapable of making things overly complicated for no reason. It’s a force for specificity sometimes, but usually what it actually does is limit the reach of the work. And that’s just stupid.
All over social media, they stress that the ideal woman should be, above all else, “feminine, fit and friendly”.
Welp, I’m none of those things.
I think I’m pretty ideal tho. Not in a way that I’d want other people to copy; all women are ideal women just as they are. (That doesn’t mean they are all good people, ofc, just that their behavior and presentation doesn’t make them any less of a woman if that’s how they identify)
It’s not hugely common, but common enough that it’s not unheard of. Same with barefoot running.
I have “barefoot” hiking sandals that are 4mm thick, so I can feel everything but not get rocks in my soles. Sort of a compromise, because I don’t like shoes but don’t want to damage my feet if I slide or something.
Skindred cd, case of strongbow, few bottles of liquor, promotional pack of jeagermeister swag (metal bar sign, bombshot glasses, thongs, t-shirts), and various other little things.
Customer appreciation golf outing then party night, everyone at the golf outing got raffle tickets (I didn’t go to that), but then got too drunk to keep track of them, so I ended up with like 12 of the winning tickets at the end of the night when everyone was clearing out.
One of my friends brings homemade hot sauce to the bar and gives little tester bottles to people tho.
If I end up with cancer that grows so fast that a mammogram every few years is the only way to catch it in time, then I frankly wouldn’t have great odds anyway.
But to more directly answer your question, I’m actually pretty unlikely to be willing to go through chemo and radiation treatments regardless if it’s a real threat to my life or not. If it can be excised via surgery, maybe, or if some of the new treatments (like the mRNA vax or the preventative vax) would handle it with minimal side effects, I would do that, but otherwise, nope. But surgery is pretty invasive so yes, I do think over-treatment for me specifically would be more harmful than just waiting to see if it gets worse, and then still doing the surgery.
I had parents in the medical field, and most of my deceased family has been taken down by cancers, so I know what I’m getting myself into, treated or not. My mom didn’t even bother with treatment (hospice only), because she spent enough time in oncology and hospice to know the outcomes. I took care of her throughout, and we had a lot of conversations about treatment and the reasoning behind not going that route, but ultimately people who work with cancer patients tend not to seek treatment themselves for a reason. And I tend to agree with their logic, given the current treatment options.
I’ve had gene screening for all known cancer genes and came up clean (tho I still get updates on my unknown mutations every few years). I was and still am fully prepared for a double mastectomy or whatever other surgical interventions if it ever becomes prudent. I do regular bloodwork, regular professional exams, plus I do fairly frequent self-screens (full body), so I’m not doing nothing, I’m just not doing mammograms.
To each their own, and by no means do I think nobody should be screened or go through treatment, it’s just not something I’m personally interested in doing.
I’ve wondered about that myself, actually, as a card carrying member of the itty bitty titty committee.
I can’t speak for mammography specifically, as I have absolutely zero intention of ever getting one (I take personal issue with how sensitive they are these days, as they frequently find tumors that never would have actually caused a problem because they are very slow-growing, leading to over-treatment) but for self-exams, do be aware that certain breasts can have more or less cystic tissue, which can change the feel of the breast. It’s not related to size, afaik, just your own composition, tho larger breasts have a lot more tissue to spread cysts and tumors through, so they might be more or less obvious.
Thus, self exams (for all Humans) are most valuable when you do them regularly, so you know what your own tissue normally feels like, and you can pick out new lumps and monitor them.
I have a lot of cystic tissue, so my breasts are normally a bit on the firm and lumpy side. Nothing to worry about, but if I didn’t know that was normal for me, I might think it was cancerous.
Cat, catty would like a word ;)