21 Nov 2012, 1:21 am
LearningTime - Wow... I had no idea you could glean that much information about me from what I had written! 
I'm really impressed. I've always known that I was a right-brain thinker because I'm the furthest thing from logical, but I appreciate artwork and enjoy doing it myself. I'm glad that you like the way that I write. 
LearningTime wrote:
when you explore the imaginary world, firstly it's like an easy thing for you to do right? you get so excited to it it's no like you're trying to imagine for some alterior reason but you just want to do it? also in teh world is it in first person how does it work? do you have to think about creating it a lot or is your mind just so excited it's coming up with all of it rapidly?
To answer your questions - using my imagination has always come easily and naturally to me. I use my imagination for fun - it keeps me entertained for hours provided I'm feeling inspired enough. In my world, I can switch the perspectives from first person to third person. A lot of times I prefer using the third person because I enjoy seeing myself in my own world. I would say that my mind gets so excited that it comes up with everything rapidly.
LearningTime
Raven
Joined: 18 Nov 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 121
Location: 6th/9th dimension... gets confusing.
21 Nov 2012, 3:22 pm
IdahoRose wrote:
LearningTime - Wow... I had no idea you could glean that much information about me from what I had written! I'm really impressed. I've always known that I was a right-brain thinker because I'm the furthest thing from logical, but I appreciate artwork and enjoy doing it myself. I'm glad that you like the way that I write.
To answer your questions - using my imagination has always come easily and naturally to me. I use my imagination for fun - it keeps me entertained for hours provided I'm feeling inspired enough. In my world, I can switch the perspectives from first person to third person. A lot of times I prefer using the third person because I enjoy seeing myself in my own world. I would say that my mind gets so excited that it comes up with everything rapidly.
I'm really impressed. I've always known that I was a right-brain thinker because I'm the furthest thing from logical, but I appreciate artwork and enjoy doing it myself. I'm glad that you like the way that I write. LearningTime wrote:
when you explore the imaginary world, firstly it's like an easy thing for you to do right? you get so excited to it it's no like you're trying to imagine for some alterior reason but you just want to do it? also in teh world is it in first person how does it work? do you have to think about creating it a lot or is your mind just so excited it's coming up with all of it rapidly?
To answer your questions - using my imagination has always come easily and naturally to me. I use my imagination for fun - it keeps me entertained for hours provided I'm feeling inspired enough. In my world, I can switch the perspectives from first person to third person. A lot of times I prefer using the third person because I enjoy seeing myself in my own world. I would say that my mind gets so excited that it comes up with everything rapidly.
cool thanks. btw for anyone interested the autistic inner world i got that understanding from like actual autistic people who first started off as like completely non speaking and all that and then only as an adult like learnt to communicate and realise how different their perception was and there inner worlds are like totally crazy and they literally lived in them and not in the real world.
LearningTime
Raven
Joined: 18 Nov 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 121
Location: 6th/9th dimension... gets confusing.
22 Nov 2012, 11:49 am
02 Apr 2017, 4:16 pm
LearningTime wrote:
itsme82 wrote:
Hmm lots of weird stuff in here.
Ok, my thinking stuff... my default is definitely non-verbal and non-visual. You could ask what it is then. I dunno, I just interact with the world and I "think" on my feet, I react to happenings, build up responses to adapt to things or create things. If I discuss a sophisticated topic that requires more "profound" thinking then I still prefer to think on the move, while talking to another person or people. I'm usually one with my environment, I look outside most of the time and so my thinking is intertwined with that.
If I'm actually inside my head, then it's still neither verbal nor visual most of the time. Something abstract, hard to describe. Maybe this ties into that if I read a book, I just see the letters and I know their meaning and I can follow the story very well and excitedly even though I don't visualize any of it in my head. I'm not hyperlexic but almost, I guess.
Btw if I do happen to think verbally at times then I will see the written words in my head, in some generic font so I don't focus on the visual presentation of the letters much. If I visualize inside my head, well that's pretty rare, but I usually do it with abstract logical structures that I build up about something. It's pretty abstract visualization of logical connections, shapes, forms, lines, colours.
I also have some synesthesia, some weird form of it also with multiple aspects, visual in terms of colours, visuo-spatial, auditory and abstract "feelings", all that's connected to numbers, letters, somewhat arbitrary sequences of characters and other arbitrary symbols.
I have some visual imagination as well when I think up stories for fun at times; I see those as motion pictures, like a film. It's only a static image if I imagine an overview of something on how it works, but this imagining happens very rarely. Tbh the "films" and the pictures are pretty subdued, not very vivid in terms of how visual it is. The world around me is also slightly "subdued" in a direct sensory way (though it's of course more vivid than the internal movie pictures), I'm just very used to the things of the world, I don't experience sensory overload, I'm rather the opposite, I have high stimulation threshold.
I'll mention, my access to the world in terms of visual sensing is probably not the same as many people's, I'm very spatial and I very heavily lean on the "WHERE" visual pathway instead of "WHAT" pathway (these are neurological pathways in the brain), that is, I know where things are, but I do not spend as much mental energy on identifying them. Also, my picture of what I see of the world is kind of abstract impressionist, that is, I'm not detail oriented on a conscious visual sensory level, instead I perceive everything at once in a holistic way where the details are all processed in one. This works very efficiently though. (I can zoom in and process details one by one if I want to, of course but I usually don't care to.) And this holistic visual attention of mine is very broad and shallow as well, I don't look at one thing for long unless it's very special. So with me being so spatial and abstract impressonist and broad and just not being a verbal person much, one side effect of that is that I can have a hard time identifying and naming objects. I see the object well, I just don't know what it is lol. Everyday objects are not a problem of course, just the more special ones. I have a weird thing going on for handling/manipulating objects too, I either only see the object very well in a static way but can't analyse it to be able to use it; or I can choose to just start using it while avoiding looking at it but that trick does work for some strange reason. I mean, if I tried to look at the object too much I'd start f***ing up some analysis of it and then that blocks my ability to manipulate/use the object. I also have an issue copying new movements in one go, it has to be broken down into static steps, I'll connect those and will be able to imitate the motion then. Not until then. Not sure if these are asperger related or what, I may not even actually have asperger syndrome.
Anyway, to go back to "inner world" stuff, I don't have much of that as I said, but I'll try to list things in the order of usage frequency of thinking forms: 1) formless/intertwined with the world 2) abstract formless 3) verbal 4) visuo-spatial 5) plain visual (this is most rare for me as internal thinking form). Overall I suspect I'm not someone who's meant to think that much inside the head. I'm more "built" for interaction with the actual world.
Ok, my thinking stuff... my default is definitely non-verbal and non-visual. You could ask what it is then. I dunno, I just interact with the world and I "think" on my feet, I react to happenings, build up responses to adapt to things or create things. If I discuss a sophisticated topic that requires more "profound" thinking then I still prefer to think on the move, while talking to another person or people. I'm usually one with my environment, I look outside most of the time and so my thinking is intertwined with that.
If I'm actually inside my head, then it's still neither verbal nor visual most of the time. Something abstract, hard to describe. Maybe this ties into that if I read a book, I just see the letters and I know their meaning and I can follow the story very well and excitedly even though I don't visualize any of it in my head. I'm not hyperlexic but almost, I guess.
Btw if I do happen to think verbally at times then I will see the written words in my head, in some generic font so I don't focus on the visual presentation of the letters much. If I visualize inside my head, well that's pretty rare, but I usually do it with abstract logical structures that I build up about something. It's pretty abstract visualization of logical connections, shapes, forms, lines, colours.
I also have some synesthesia, some weird form of it also with multiple aspects, visual in terms of colours, visuo-spatial, auditory and abstract "feelings", all that's connected to numbers, letters, somewhat arbitrary sequences of characters and other arbitrary symbols.
I have some visual imagination as well when I think up stories for fun at times; I see those as motion pictures, like a film. It's only a static image if I imagine an overview of something on how it works, but this imagining happens very rarely. Tbh the "films" and the pictures are pretty subdued, not very vivid in terms of how visual it is. The world around me is also slightly "subdued" in a direct sensory way (though it's of course more vivid than the internal movie pictures), I'm just very used to the things of the world, I don't experience sensory overload, I'm rather the opposite, I have high stimulation threshold.
I'll mention, my access to the world in terms of visual sensing is probably not the same as many people's, I'm very spatial and I very heavily lean on the "WHERE" visual pathway instead of "WHAT" pathway (these are neurological pathways in the brain), that is, I know where things are, but I do not spend as much mental energy on identifying them. Also, my picture of what I see of the world is kind of abstract impressionist, that is, I'm not detail oriented on a conscious visual sensory level, instead I perceive everything at once in a holistic way where the details are all processed in one. This works very efficiently though. (I can zoom in and process details one by one if I want to, of course but I usually don't care to.) And this holistic visual attention of mine is very broad and shallow as well, I don't look at one thing for long unless it's very special. So with me being so spatial and abstract impressonist and broad and just not being a verbal person much, one side effect of that is that I can have a hard time identifying and naming objects. I see the object well, I just don't know what it is lol. Everyday objects are not a problem of course, just the more special ones. I have a weird thing going on for handling/manipulating objects too, I either only see the object very well in a static way but can't analyse it to be able to use it; or I can choose to just start using it while avoiding looking at it but that trick does work for some strange reason. I mean, if I tried to look at the object too much I'd start f***ing up some analysis of it and then that blocks my ability to manipulate/use the object. I also have an issue copying new movements in one go, it has to be broken down into static steps, I'll connect those and will be able to imitate the motion then. Not until then. Not sure if these are asperger related or what, I may not even actually have asperger syndrome.
Anyway, to go back to "inner world" stuff, I don't have much of that as I said, but I'll try to list things in the order of usage frequency of thinking forms: 1) formless/intertwined with the world 2) abstract formless 3) verbal 4) visuo-spatial 5) plain visual (this is most rare for me as internal thinking form). Overall I suspect I'm not someone who's meant to think that much inside the head. I'm more "built" for interaction with the actual world.
after reading yours and i guess other people's quotes i think i'm pretty deficient in visual. because surely it takes some real seeing to really know what you're reading about. words fool one into thinking they know what it is ... but all words are communication codes for actual things. it seems you're definately in that sensory mode a lot of the time and i'm pretty sure it feels good to be in that mode like a genearl higher excitement level. when you said where rather than what that's exactly what i mean by simply the visula information that you're seeing in relation to you ie your sense rather than thinking about the object ie doesn't matter specifically how it looks or how you're sensing it just what is it. that could possibly be the basis of thought vs feeling which basicaly means symbol vs senses.
yeah if you thinking you're literally not sensing that's why you won't use the object as well because you're not sensing it if you're thinking about it - (it's a revelation only recently i realised the difference between thought and attention ie meaning and information) . using objects is meant to be thoughtless and done by the subconscious (brain that processes visual/senses) anyway like with driving a car once you're used to it. i'd say you don't have aspergers as to put sense to all this thinking stuff to acutall be 'thinking' in teh first place you actually have to have some interest topic to think about but if you're just living your life fine no problems then you wouldn't go into problem solving mode which is thinking on your own.
yeah the inner world thing that's for anyone whose really classic autistic because i watched a video where an older autistic person was saying that those hand flapping 'crazy' type of kids people it's because they're living in a virtual reality literally that the real senses interfere with it. or maybe it' sjust hypo/hypersensitivity and they don't have any inner world. but i've read that autistic people the reaosn why they're so on their own and so phsyically dysfunctional in this real world is because they'd much rather be in this pure imagination place which they've cleverly developed and it's a place without words only senses and feelings ie reality.
Oh wow this old post of mine got a reply.
So if you are still around...
Yes in that sensory mode by default but since I wrote that post I realized that the reason the world is slightly "subdued" in the sensory way (still more vividly tangible than my poor imagination though) is that I'm not fully immersed in the sensory. I'm a bit too removed emotionally for that. So no, it's not really a high excitement level, though I can get excited about the sensory stuff sure, but I have a high stimulation threshold, I'm too used to most of the stuff besides the emotional detachment.
And yes senses > symbols for me, exactly as you put it. I liked the way you described it, very good.
So if autistic people usually are inside that that pure imagination place... yeah no that's completely opposite to me
The only aspect where I'd be remotely similar to AS issues is apparently some subtler aspects of social stuff... definitely missing quite some emotional aspects if someone doesn't help there, due to that emotional detachment. If someone actively involves me then it gets better.
And apparently, with my recent attempts with trying hard to get more integrated socially and to develop relationships, I did go a bit on the symbols > senses side temporarily. To be able to even make sense of some people stuff. Excruciatingly hard though. But I managed to understand some things about myself and people and on how to connect to people, basic for sure but it's maybe proving helpful. So I can hopefully go back to senses side and just gain experience with people more
itsme82 wrote:
So with me being so spatial and abstract impressonist and broad and just not being a verbal person much, one side effect of that is that I can have a hard time identifying and naming objects. I see the object well, I just don't know what it is lol. Everyday objects are not a problem of course, just the more special ones. I have a weird thing going on for handling/manipulating objects too, I either only see the object very well in a static way but can't analyse it to be able to use it; or I can choose to just start using it while avoiding looking at it but that trick does work for some strange reason. I mean, if I tried to look at the object too much I'd start f*****g up some analysis of it and then that blocks my ability to manipulate/use the object. I also have an issue copying new movements in one go, it has to be broken down into static steps, I'll connect those and will be able to imitate the motion then. Not until then. Not sure if these are asperger related or what, I may not even actually have asperger syndrome.
I'd add to this too. If I have to (I don't do this much by default), I can actually look at the object in a very analytical way to logically break it down a bit with added strong focus. Just tuning into its details and its parts and how they are arranged spatially and relative to each other and how it all could then be functioning (but that analysis consists of incredibly static steps again like I mentioned in that old post of mine about copying movements). Best if I play with the new object first a bit, poke it, then I can turn to this analytical mode if that wasn't enough to figure out how to use it or take it apart/fix it or whatever. But that analytical thing comes with a bit of a delay. And it works best if I still keep trying to manipulate the object actively so it can kinda move the analysis ahead too. Then it clicks together I guess. This method can be faster than if I just keep trying to poke at it/manipulate it in various ways without looking at it too much and without analyzing it at all beyond the most basic automatic appraisal of the object (which is what I wrote about in my old post).
Quote:
Ok, my thinking stuff... my default is definitely non-verbal and non-visual. You could ask what it is then. I dunno, I just interact with the world and I "think" on my feet, I react to happenings, build up responses to adapt to things or create things. If I discuss a sophisticated topic that requires more "profound" thinking then I still prefer to think on the move, while talking to another person or people. I'm usually one with my environment, I look outside most of the time and so my thinking is intertwined with that.
And this, I noticed since than that my building up responses in more complex situations consists of putting together factual bits of information about the situation and then I act out of that built up structure. Same for the less complex more immediate situations except it gets built much faster then and requires no active putting together of the bits.
