The spatial thinking is relational in concept, such that I can think about distances and angles in relationship to one another. I can describe (and build), with my hands, but I can’t “see” the object from a certain angle.
It’s as if there’s a bunch of points in virtual space, again not visualized, but accessible to my thinking process. I can imagine how they relate, and how they can fit together, without actually seeing it rendered. Not sure if that makes sense or I’m just muddying the waters.
Another example would be Legos, which I played with a ton as a kid. I can think about the exact piece I need, and think about the larger thing I’m building as a composite of said pieces. I keep mentioning my hands, because the way it’s expressed in my mind is more of a “feeling” than anything visual.
Another way to think about it would be like a 3d model of the world, where I can think about my route/position/etc. through it, without having any concrete view. It’s like a 3d file without the 2d renderer.
> It’s as if there’s a bunch of points in virtual space, again not visualized, but accessible to my thinking process. I can imagine how they relate, and how they can fit together, without actually seeing it rendered. Not sure if that makes sense or I’m just muddying the waters.
There is no wireframe. There's no visual component for me in any capacity. I have no ability to perceive a visualization of something.
But I know what something would look like if I could see it. I know what an apple looks like. I can know that things are connected or related without seeing them. It is fairly easy for me to "conceptualize" a graph, but there's 0 visual component even if closing my eyes.
I would love if I could wireframe visualize like that post you sent. That would be actually awesome, but I cannot.
The article made me thinking if my way of "visualizing" things is limited. My kids do have a vivid imagination for visual things out of nowhere, I on the other hand need a spark or idea to get the flow going.
> Another way to think about it would be like a 3d model of the world, where I can think about my route/position/etc. through it, without having any concrete view. It’s like a 3d file without the 2d renderer.
That example just fits perfectly my perception of things. I habe a very good mental model of everything that fits well in my brain but it's sometimes hard to put them into words... yet I get better by describing "my view".
Funny that I have a graphical memory but can't construct any new in my mind.
This is so interesting. As a test, I wonder if you could make something out of Legos without any issues if you blocked your vision so you couldn't see them or your hands. Guessing that that you could.
The spatial thinking is relational in concept, such that I can think about distances and angles in relationship to one another. I can describe (and build), with my hands, but I can’t “see” the object from a certain angle.
It’s as if there’s a bunch of points in virtual space, again not visualized, but accessible to my thinking process. I can imagine how they relate, and how they can fit together, without actually seeing it rendered. Not sure if that makes sense or I’m just muddying the waters.
Another example would be Legos, which I played with a ton as a kid. I can think about the exact piece I need, and think about the larger thing I’m building as a composite of said pieces. I keep mentioning my hands, because the way it’s expressed in my mind is more of a “feeling” than anything visual.
Another way to think about it would be like a 3d model of the world, where I can think about my route/position/etc. through it, without having any concrete view. It’s like a 3d file without the 2d renderer.