site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2316 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for June 6, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What do you think makes someone good at drawing? I’ve always been terrible at it despite relatively strong visuospatial skills (in the mental shape rotating sense) and decent manual dexterity. For whatever reason, this doesn’t translate at all to my ability to imagine the distances, angles, and ratios of objects well enough to recreate them accurately on a page. Sometimes it feels like I only imagine things topologically.

Just speculating, but provided that you already appreciate drawings and can distinguish between better and worse drawings, it should simply be a matter of

  • imitate technique 1

  • recreate technique 1 in varied contexts and applications

  • recreate technique 1 in novel scenarios once general applications have been mastered

  • be able to assess your ability to perform technique 1 by imagining it as someone else’s work

  • do the same for techniques 2-9999

I don’t actually think there is a relationship between “visual reality” and drawing, because the most prized drawings in different cultures do not depict reality but instead “signal” what the mind considers significant information according to the culture. Even the “realistic” renaissance drawings are only emphasizing particular aspects

relatively strong visuospatial skills (in the mental shape rotating sense)

I've put some effort into getting better at art within the last few years, and sometimes I think my inner shape rotator is actively hindering attempts to draw from life well. Proper shading is IMHO hard when you have strong sense of what the object colors should be: as a simple example the checker shadow illusion requires conscious effort to color properly.

I haven't ruled out that mental shape rotating might be useful at some future point, though. It seems like maybe it'd be helpful drawing without reference.

From https://paulgraham.com/taste.html

Line drawings are in fact the most difficult visual medium, because they demand near perfection. In math terms, they are a closed-form solution; lesser artists literally solve the same problems by successive approximation. One of the reasons kids give up drawing at ten or so is that they decide to start drawing like grownups, and one of the first things they try is a line drawing of a face. Smack!

To get good at drawing you have to happily suck at it for years. There are a lot of things like this. Drawing is a special case because we tend to not be aware of how much time someone spent practicing.

I wonder if the ability (or lack of ability) to draw has anything to do with what I've heard termed aphantasia? This is not an original wonder, I expect. I was sitting around a table of men and women several months ago, and our host asked everyone to close their eyes and imagine I believe an apple (This was back in November.) I could see an apple in my mind, with a dark background, imagining the color of it from stem to bottom, red to pinkish to green-yellow, the way apples are sometimes mottled, and when we all opened our eyes, of the eight or so people there, I think only two of us said we were able to imagine it. My wife in particular said she just saw black. I was thinking this might simply be an artifact of how the question had been asked--an excess of honesty might produce "I didn't see it" because really there was no apple, I wasn't seeing a real apple with my eyes, it was in my "mind's eye" as it were. But if--and this assumes at face value that the host, his wife, the others there, and my wife simply could not visualize an apple in the way I could--would that have an effect on their ability to, say, draw an apple?

Many Japanese are almost stereotypically talented at drawing (my wife is not). Often however this means that they draw manga-type stylized figures very well, but not realistic objects. Then some of my students who are required by their histology instructor to draw, say, glomeruli in the kidneys can do so with impressive talent. Just with a pencil and eraser. Surely someone has studied this. I should look it up.

I was thinking this might simply be an artifact of how the question had been asked

This point has been gone over and over on Reddit and always circles back to some people admitting that no, they really don't have visual imagination.

I personally take literally nothing from Reddit seriously. In qualitative study there are various traps researchers can fall into when it comes to relying on self-report. There are also strategies to control to some degree for this. Reddit is the wild west of unreliable accounts. I don't suppose it was always so, but trolls, edgelords, sock puppets, shit posters and pathological liars all seem to have ensconced themselves there fairly robustly.

I've got to say I find your all-encompassing scepticism towards Reddit a smidgen excessive - they were only saying the same thing that you said here in response to posts that echo what you've heard people say to your face, only at scale.

Practically everyone here is or was a Redditor of relatively long standing. Reddit is not a high quality forum populated exclusively by intelligent and thoughtful people, but it's not completely devoid of them either. Eternal September began a long time ago.

And that's fine. I've been burned a sufficient number of times on reddit to be comfortable with my (excessively) skeptical (or sceptical, if you like) approach to posts and interactions there. Which is why I included the caveat term "personally" as in "I personally." Certainly you and whoever are free to do whatever suits your own temperament. I was on reddit from around 2013 to 2021, and for a large part of that period it was fine, and I even felt somewhat at home. There was a time when I wasn't sure what was wrong, and then it hit me.

As for the issue at hand, it's difficult without an actual controlled test to have any sort of granularity in judging responses. Even the VVIQ test relies on a 5-point Likert scale, and it's not entirely clear how valid/reliable it is. Questions beyond simply "Can you see the apple?" and "Do you notice colors? Can you rotate it in your mind? Can you imagine a bite taken out of it?" and so on and so forth can help, but even then there's a lot of noise. Whether a number or even a great number of redditors chime in saying they have no visual image does not negate that in that moment in that house with those people I was with there may have been a lack of clarity, to say nothing of the fact that about half of the people were Japanese (and thus prone to conformity in a group setting) as well as interacting in a second language, adding another layer.

I don't think aphantasia can be strongly related to art skill: the Disney animator responsible for Ariel in The Little Mermaid (Glen Keane) and Ed Catmull (co-founder of Pixar) have both expressed that they can't see things in their head. Source

From what I can find the term aphantasia was first coined as recently as 2015 in a paper titled Lives without imagery.. This despite the existence of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire or VVIQ which predated the 2015 study by 40+ years.

The Guardian article you've linked makes the point at the end:

Keane’s work was proof that you do not have to be able to picture something to be able to draw it. “People had conflated visualisation with creativity and imagination, and one of the messages is: ‘They’re not the same thing.’”

I wouldn't suggest that creativity and visualization are "the same thing" but I think to suggest that there is no correlation between the two is counterintuitive, and bears investigation.

In a 2020 study Quantifying Aphantasia through drawing Zeman et al found evidence that aphantasics have deficits im object memory (what something looks like, its color, shape, size, etc.) but not spatial memory (location, relative distance from other objects, directions, layouts) and in fact in some cases aphantasics outperformed non aphantasics in this regard.

Also there seems to be no real difference in an aphantasic's ability to draw what they see (eg a still life) rather than what they imagine (Medusa, a leprechaun, etc )

Train is arriving, have to cut this short. Thanks for engaging.

Practice.

Someone wrote a good post about it a couple months back, but I couldn’t find it. It basically said you could train the skill efficiently by drawing real objects every day. Sufficient experience lets you move from drawing what you see to drawing what you saw, once, in a different pose and setting.

You can see it in various long-running webcomics. If you start reading the archives from the very beginning, you can see how the (initially quite terrible) artist has improved just by drawing several new pages every week.

https://www.themotte.org/post/1789/smallscale-question-sunday-for-march-23/311099?context=8#context

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats