People love to talk about this stuff because it's the same concept as "what if the red I see isn't the red you see?" but dressed up in more complicated language and with frankly depressing overtones of fixed intrinsic capabilities or genetic luck of the draw. Everything I know tells me that most people, because they seem capable of doing the same things everyone else can do, all have extremely similar minds and don't differ in major ways like this, at least not in terms of potential.<p>IMO, the only caveat here, and it may be a big one, is that of perception and imagination shaped by experience. I started learning music in my late 20s. Now, in my mid 30s, I can understand lyrics to songs when I couldn't before, identify chord progressions (a concept I had no knowledge of beforehand) and imagine entire arranged songs in my head. It's not that I didn't have a "mind's ear" before, it's just that I hadn't built a bunch of useful skills and conceptual frameworks to work with. Whether my music education developed new neural networks that might be detected or analyzed is another question.<p>This has to be the same way it works for visual artists. Obviously a skilled illustrator, painter or sculptor is going to be better at visualizing imagery than someone who doesn't do those things. If that's the case, just thinking about images a lot makes you better at visualizing images. Ultimately, that's not much of a shocker and isn't very interesting.