>>41462926 (OP)
It's not like how you may think it is. Here's an example: pause and think of a generic banana, then an apple. You probably thought of some clip art.
Now try this. You know those bumps on the bottom side of some apples? And how your finger can run down from those to the center backside dimple where there's a little brown fuzzy thing. And the feeling it makes if you run your thumb over that little fuzzy thing, then flip it over and hold the little stem fragment protruding out of the top dimple by squeezing it between your thumb and index finger fat pads?
Or, on a freshly peeled banana, how you locate the brown undesirable part and mush it off with your fingers, and how the stray strands of pith from the inside of the peel run vertically down the banana flesh, and how there's a light brown oval shaped bruise on the upper third of the fruit that looks like it doesn't go too deep. The outer part of the peel is rubbery with almost imperceptible splashes of green and the inner part of the peel is damp and slippery with a bit of an almost chalky bit of fruit residue.
Now, all I have done here is use words to excite visualization capable areas of your brain. Your visualization, or lack thereof, doesn't really exist, it is a result of a synthesis internal to you and the way your brain functions. When people talk of visualization of things like energy, it is essentially what you just did with the fruit, except instead of words from me, it's data from ill understood brain circuits of ancient origin which lacks, or is entirely unsuited for, translation to mere words.
Thus, getting what you are after is not as much of any particular "trying", or desire-driven effort, but much more of a commitment to radical openness of thinking. The opposite of such openness is overzealous pruning of ill-defined, nebulous data that is often uncomfortable and unwieldy to work with. But understanding that someone is looking at you as prey (for example) can be all you need to know.