Please read Author Disclaimer before purchasing.

Disclaimer: if you expect his book to teach you about your experience with Aphantasia, you will be disappointed. A few reviewers speak to this disappointment, yet as the book description clearly explains, this book is meant to support not teach. There are countless online groups and source information at Aphantasia.com attempting to do that, I suggest reading them all.

You are welcome to visit @PY.powerofyou on Facebook where you can find this and all of the author's books for free and perhaps other information you may find helpful and supportive of personal development and growth.

To date there have been 6 reviews of this book. All of them authentic and unsolicited. However, the two that actually write reviews of this work provide an insight that seems unusual. The first is essentially saying they didn't read the work because the author is "self indulgent," which is another way of saying the author is arrogant. But to be fair, if the reader were to read the description and first few pages available, they could have gotten that sense before purchasing the book.

The second review is even more peculiar. He provided a single star but on the very same day, he provided the other book written on the subject a 5 star. He suggested he sought out the work to better understand aphantasia but anyone that learns of their own aphantasia should know by now, there is no quantifiable research or studies done to help someone understand living with aphantasia. Why? because there isn't any quantifiable research done of course. Think about it. Dr. Zeman learned of patient MX in 2005 and then wrote a summary and then 10 years later (10 years later!), published a study conducted on 21 "self diagnosed and self selected" participants about the vividness of the images. If they all have aphantasia, how much more vivid is the image than the other 20 participants?

Anyway, there is a great site in aphantasia.com and plenty of good quality conversation on many of the online forums as well. In fact, the first book written on aphantasia is basically a summary of those sites so I am not sure the first book provides the information the reviewer was looking for either.

But another peculiar comment was that the author does touch on the concept of Mental Senses and Mental Sensory Perception but doesn't expand on it much. Yet the reviewer doesn't include the fact that the author, the very one that self indulgently discusses aphantasia from his personal perceptive while including conversations with those groups and people in his life, is the very individual responsible for coining both terms Mental Senses and Mental Sensory Perception. He also wrote that in his review but has since edited it to discard that part. But, to the point, if my work is "meandering, disjointed, repetitive and poorly written" again, the reviewer could have gathered that from the fist 20 pages available for free. Imagine an author can coin a term that describes the ability specifically and precisely while discussing aphantasia, yet he is still a wanna be one star self-published author that can't write for sh@t! Oh wait, you can't imagine because you have aphantasia: )

Finally, if you are going to review a book for the benefit of those that are deciding to read or not to read, I would recommend to everyone that you provide an honest and insightful review and not targeted negative reviews that are clearly attacking the author with no authenticity instead of attacking the work itself, like the two reviewers clearly did. But if you think this book is controversial, the next book coming soon, Aphantasia: Chasing Unicorns, will surely upset many people considering it is challenging the very history and study of Aphantasia.