Do Aphantasics Dream in Images? 13%

By Bence Nanay Ph.D.11%

8/3/2026, 6:25:08 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Representativeness Heuristic, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 21.3% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 618 faulty-reasoning hits from 506 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.4% and a BS Rank of 13% (24,637 of 28,251 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.20% of the article peer group.

Close your eyes and visualize an apple. 
What do you see 'in your mind's eye'? 
Most people see a pale image of an apple. 
Some, however, see nothing. 
This condition is called aphantasia. 
Aphantasics report no conscious mental imagery. 
Their 'mind's eye' is blind. 
Research on aphantasia is relatively new, but has accelerated in the last couple of years. 
We now know that there are many underlying causes of aphantasia. 
Some aphantasics, while they don't have any visual imagery when deliberately trying to conjure up images, do have involuntary flashbacks of images. 
Others don't. 
Further, some aphantasics have visual imagery when taking psychedelic drugs. 
Others don't. 
Differences in Dreaming Experiences Among Aphantasics 
The most important  and puzzling  difference among aphantasics is that some dream in images, whereas others don't. 
Given that dreaming in images is one way in which imagery is used in the mind, one would expect that aphantasics would not have any imagistic dreams. 
But some do. 
How is this possible? 
While the link between dreaming and aphantasia has bothered researchers for years, the first systematic study on it was published just a couple of weeks ago in the journal Scientific Reports. 
More than 200 subjects were asked to assess the vividness of their imagery when awake and while dreaming. 
And it turned out that 46% of aphantasics dreamed in images. 
That is almost half. 
But how is this possible? 
How can aphantasics, who can't conjure up images when they are awake, have rich imagery when dreaming? 
Aphantasia Is Not a Single Condition 
To answer this question, it is important to understand that aphantasia is not a monolithic phenomenon. 
You count as an aphantasic if you report no conscious imagery when visualizing. 
But this can have a lot of very different underlying causes. 
I described aphantasia as the blindness of the mind's eye. 
But just as blindness can have very different underlying causes  problems with the retina, problems with the visual nerve, problems with the primary visual cortex  the same is true of aphantasia. 
A lot of different things need to come together for us to see. 
If any of these is missing, we get blindness. 
Similarly, a lot of different things need to come together for us to have vivid mental imagery. 
If any of these is missing, we get aphantasia. 
More specifically, while some aphantasics have problems conjuring up mental imagery at will  for example, counting to three and visualizing an apple  their involuntary mental imagery is intact. 
Their problem is not with their capacity to have imagery, but with their capacity to conjure up and control imagery. 
Some other aphantasics, in contrast, don't seem to be able to have any imagery at all. 
These are very different conditions. 
Importantly, the former group would have no problem with dreaming in images. 
But the latter group would. 
In short, the findings about the differences between aphantasics in terms of their dreams can help us uncover the different underlying causes of the condition. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 1.3%Psychology Today: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.2%Psychology Today: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.9%Psychology Today: 2.3%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 15.2%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 4.2%Psychology Today: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic15.2%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 4.2%Psychology Today: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias16.6%This article: 2.6%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.6%Psychology Today: 2.2%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.9%Psychology Today: 3.7%Negativity Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 3.0%Psychology Today: 0.8%Recency Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.1%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 1.5%Psychology Today: 4.5%Appeal to Authority6.1%This article: 3.4%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 2.2%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 2.9%Psychology Today: 7.5%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 1.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 1.6%Psychology Today: 0.7%Begging the Question1.0%This article: 12.6%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 3.2%Psychology Today: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.6%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 6.5%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 1.6%Psychology Today: 0.4%Appeal to Nature6.5%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 3.2%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 0.2%No True Scotsman3.2%This article: 21.3%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 5.3%Psychology Today: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.3%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.2%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 1.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.2%This article: 10.3%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 2.6%Psychology Today: 0.1%Special Pleading10.3%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 4.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bence Nanay Ph.D.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

506 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.