Tell a man that he must not think about a pink elephant and that he cannot get that animal out of his mind!
This quote from Kurt Siodmak’s 1974 novel City in the Sky shows how difficult it can be to suppress our thoughts. “Don’t Think About the Pink Elephant” has become a classic example of how difficult it can be to avoid deliberate fiction.
Research shows that many of you may have read about the pink elephant and may have even imagined seeing it.
However, some people like us who have aphasia – we can’t imagine. So we’re a little confused by the idea that other people can imagine seeing things that aren’t there.
In a new study, we find evidence that the pink elephant problem is not universal. Some people – including those with aphasia – can block involuntary visual thoughts from their mind.
What is aphasia?
People with aphasia cannot voluntarily imagine seeing things in our mind’s eye. So if you ask us not to think about a pink elephant, we won’t imagine one, because we can’t.
Aphantasia is generally described as a deficiency. When people first find out they have aphasia they often become upset, as they realize that other people can do things that they cannot. For example, it may be good to imagine seeing characters described in a book or to imagine an absent loved one.
However, losses are often balanced by gains. There are suggestions that people with aphasia (or aphasia, as we are sometimes called) may have increased resistance to involuntary intrusive thoughts.
Another way of looking at it is that fantasics is part of the natural diversity of the human mind, with people varying in their ability to imagine. Where dreamers have no ability, most people’s ability is average, and very few people’s ability to imagine is extremely strong.
vivid mental imagery and involuntary visualizations
In our new study, we looked at the relationship between the intensity of people’s visual imaginations and their tendency to fantasize, even when they try not to. People with vivid visual imagination were more likely to have involuntary visualizations, and we could predict these outcomes by measuring brain activity.
Some people may enjoy imagining seeing expansive views whenever they want. However, this seems to have come at the cost of not being able to get closure from these experiences.
Most people have less vivid imaginations, but they seem to be better able to suppress these thoughts.
Do lustful people have peaceful minds?
Involuntary visualizations are unlikely to occur in aphantasics. Does this mean that their minds are peaceful?
People in our study who reported that they had a weak imagination were less likely to imagine seeing things they weren’t trying to think about. However, they were more likely to report mind-wandering.
If it describes indifference, instead of imagining things we are told not to think about, we can turn our minds to other thoughts, such as what’s for dinner. So we won’t have a more peaceful mind, there will just be resistance to thinking about the things we are trying to push out of mind.
If lustful people don’t fantasize, do they daydream?
From our own experience, we can confirm that at least some depressed people’s minds tend to wander. But when our mind wanders, none of us imagine seeing things. Our experiences are different.
When Derek’s mind wanders he imagines listening to and participating in an entire audio conversation. Since daydreaming is usually associated with visions, it was not until recently that he realized that these imaginary conversations could be described as his daydreaming experience.
Lorraine can’t imagine Or Imagine hearing things. She experiences her thoughts as various sensations of texture and imaginary feelings of motion – and this is what she experiences when her mind wanders.
Are sexually aroused people immune to trauma from reliving events?
Perhaps.
While our evidence suggests that melancholia is resistant to involuntary sequences, more research will be needed to find out whether we are resistant to reliving traumas, or whether these will simply trigger different types of imagined experiences. .
What is clear is that Siodmak was wrong. If you tell people they shouldn’t think about a pink elephant, some of us will gladly put that animal out of our minds, and turn our thoughts to other matters. What’s for dinner?
(Author: Derek Arnold, Professor, School of Psychology, University of Queensland and Lauren N. Bowyer, PhD student, Neuroscience, University of Queensland)
disclosure statement:Derek Arnold receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Lauren N. Bowyer does not work for, consult to, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond his academic appointment. haven’t done)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
