What is it for?

139 points

Not everyone does, I’ve had a lot of conversations with a lot of people on this topic.

People’s thought processes range from monologue to dialog to narration to silence to images to raw concepts without form.

I personally do not have a constantly running monologue, but rather have relatively short bursts of thought interspersed with long periods of silence.

permalink
report
reply

I always find this conversation fascinating and it makes me wonder in what other ways people may experience the world differently.

I do have a constant internal monologue. Every word I read is spoken in my mind. My thought process is, to my awareness, me talking things out in my head.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Yeah, I also “hear” the words in my head as I read them, and that goes for everything.

I kinda wish I thought in shapes and colors though. While my imagination is okay, I get the feeling it’s not as… vivid or Shar as others imaginations are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That is so interesting. Thanks for sharing!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Me to. This is the first time I think about that. Everything I read or write gets spoken aloud.

When I am hearing a book or a podcast there is silence though, because when there is someone else talking, my inner voice would interfere.

Fascinating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

I don’t have one at all. Spent ages thinking that it was just a figure of speech, but when I found out I became fascinated by it.

The current theory is that at some early point in our evolution we literally had a voice in our head, not unlike how some forms of schizophrenia present.

It’s called the bicameral mind.

https://gizmodo.com/did-everyone-3-000-years-ago-have-a-voice-in-their-head-510063135

In my day to day life it makes little difference however, despite being an avid reader and writer I struggle tremendously to read aloud.

I don’t know for sure but I suspect it is connected.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
*

In the article they bring up many questionable aspects of this idea, which also seems to lack in scientific support.

And so the bicameral mind remains a highly controversial idea

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Absolutely. I’m no expert, and since there weren’t any studies performed on people from that era, I’d expect it to be taken as a theory rather than a fact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

In my day to day life it makes little difference however, despite being an avid reader and writer I struggle tremendously to read aloud.

Thanks, I actually wanted to post that as a question. I would have thought that reading silently would be harder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I worked as a typesetter for years. I have a rather speedy reading pace (it isn’t inate, rather through practice)… but I do wonder if not having to ‘hear’ words changes the rhythm of reading.

I’m also fascinated if other folk perform accents in their head whilst reading? Do different characters sound different or is there one ‘voice’ that acts as a narrator?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Out of curiosity do you visualize in your mind? Like if I say a stapler can you conjure one?

The people with both Aphantasia and Anauralia fascinate me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I’ll chuck in my answer since I’ve been asked this before too.

I don’t “see” a stapler. I perceive a future state where the pages are stapled. This does appear visually in my mind but not a a a picture of stapled pages rather a set of symbols that incorporate the task “to staple” into the other things that I am concerned with at the point of thinking about that task.

“Set of symbols?” Is probably your follow up question - yes, geometry or iconography that describe the path from here to that future state where that pages are stapled.

That’s the best I can do. None of this is literally narrated in my mind, however typing this out to you each sentence is “auditioned” as I imagine I am speaking it to you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Absolutely. My day job is as a conceptual artist (seriously, the hours are good and I get to travel). Visualising objects is a large part of that. I’ve also worked in video game level design and found thinking in terms of 3D space pretty easy too. Just no words in there, or specifically, no voice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

That sounds heavenly. Mine will not shut up. And when I’ve run out of current problems to worry about, I start thinking about all my past fuck ups an embarrassments. And that’s just in the time it takes to a simple activity. When I’m at work it is constant flipping back and forth between my anxious thoughts and doing my work and worrying about how I might be fucking up my work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

This describes me 100% and I fucking hate it. And I’m sorry you go through it, too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Try vyvanse meds bro it will calm those thoughts. Obviously talk to a doctor about it

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I truly wish there was someone who could properly diagnose me. I did take a RAADS test a while back but I didn’t have a psychiatrist to bring my results to, so I go undiagnosed and likely will forever with the current health crisis. I don’t know if I can go on something like that without a proper diagnosis. I can’t even find a family doctor unfortunately.

But I appreciate the tip 😊 thank you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Mine seems to appear when I’m not on auto-pilot. If I’m heating a can of soup, there’s no real thought. I’m probably thinking about other things while carry out simple steps. If I can’t find something, it’ll pop in and say, “Where did I leave that?” Or maybe something like, “I should call Mom cause it’s New Year’s Day.” Another is, “I’m glad I remembered my umbrella,” when in rain. But I don’t have monologue about putting on my shoes or locking my door. Those are mechanical tasks while I think about something else in an abstract fashion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah this is similar to my experience. Some stuff gets done without that monologue, but I’m not completely without it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I suspect that most people have a partial internal monologue, whereby some thoughts arise to the level of verbiage and others don’t. There is also variance in how self-aware we are of our thoughts themselves. I don’t think anyone can keep up effective, meta self-monitoring 100% of the time, so our own view of our thought process is probably skewed as well. Some people swear that every single thought they have is 100% verbalized. I think that’s impossible and they’re only counting verbal thoughts as thoughts. But no doubt some people verbalize more than others.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Insightful, I’ve found that most people change their answers at least slightly after having time to observe their thoughts for a while, we are geniuses at believing our own conjectures.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’d say I can’t actively observe a thought without my internal monologue in some way narrating it or articulating what’s going on. Frankly that’s the reason I have difficulty understanding what it’s like for someone without internal monologue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Yep, I don’t, either. I think mostly subconsciously, then in raw concepts, then images, then words. I have to actively translate what I’m thinking into language in order to consciously understand it myself or communicate it, but I do better if I externalize the language through writing or speaking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

We’re very similar, I think. That externalisation as a way of understanding in particular.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I have a committee. Usually made up of people I know well. loud motherfuckers

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I have a mixture of types of thought processes. I mostly think in pictures and play things out in my head like a silent movie, but sometimes I have a monologue. Sometimes I think in a way I can’t describe with words.

permalink
report
parent
reply
84 points

Because sometimes the rubber ducky would be embarrassed at the questions I ask so I ask me the questions first.

permalink
report
reply
62 points

I think one key in the success of our species is the ability to plan ahead and mentally simulate what will happen before actually doing it.

Doing this with language is not very different from imagining what will happen when doing a physical action.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

I have imaginary conversations all the time where I simulate interactions with the people in my life and work. I’ll say something and then imagine their response and often go back and revise what I would say. This is how I prepare for conversations that might be delicate, where I want to get something across but not in a way that creates negative consequences.

Other people say that they verbalize literally everything, as in, “I need to throw this rock in a gentle arc if I want it to hit that other rock there, oh dear perhaps I should adjust my grip and throw underhand instead.” My opinion is that this is functionally impossible. You can’t drive a car by verbalizing every command as you go - put a blindfolded friend at the wheel and try it sometime! I think one of two things is happening to people who say their monologue is exhaustive: they are only counting verbal thoughts as thoughts and ignoring the sea of inchoate impulses that churns beneath them. Also, I think any time we turn our attention to our thoughts themselves, those thoughts become verbal. To say it another way, any thought you want to think about you have to first pin down and define. You render it in words by directing your attention to it. I believe this leads people to believe that all their thoughts are verbal because all the thoughts they’ve looked at are always verbal.

But I’d say this to those folks: have you ever forgotten the right word for something? There it is on the tip of your tongue but the word won’t come. This happens to everyone. And you’re clearly able to think about the whatness of the thing even in absence of the right word.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

Truly nobody knows, it’s an open research question. And to complicate matters more we know (as others have mentioned here) that everyone doesn’t think in the same way.

permalink
report
reply
5 points
*

I can offer you a very small example of a difference in thinking that I experience.

I’m a grown ass man and I can’t easily tell my left from right. The best example of this is when I’m gaming and the tutorial tells me to press ‘left thumb stick’, I usually fuck it up. It took me a long time and a lot of thinking on it to realise what was going on. For me, left and right is not instinctive like up or down, but rather, it’s either a feeling, or not a feeling.

The reason for this is because when I was 5 I nearly lost my left index finger in an accident. It was reattached, but during the healing process I was constantly told my left finger was the one I hurt, so I literally learnt left from right as ‘injury’ or ‘no injury’, which I then attributed to as ‘hurt’ or ‘not hurt’.

So now, when I have to choose left or right, my brain has to remember an injury and where it was, then kind of feel that injury and tell myself that yes, I feel it so that’s left, or no, I feel nothing so that’s right. These steps take more time than a normal person’s automatic reaction to left or right direction.

Imagine someone touching you and saying, “does this hurt”. It takes time to figure out if it hurts or not and then reply. Thats what I’m doing every time I need to identify left or right, and if there’s no time for that, like “quick, make a right turn here”, I’m forced to guess.

And there is no way for me to unlearn this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

We do actually know quite a bit about the Internal Monologue and other forms of intrapersonal communication.

There isn’t one single use for it or benefit of it (in the same way water has many uses)

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

As an aside, there is a theory called the “bicameral mind” which posits that this internal dialogue is the source of religion. In ancient or rather even prehistoric times, it’s theorized that people started separating themselves from the voices in their heads in a spiritual way and this gave rise to the concept of a “God”.

Far from proven but interesting nonetheless.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I heard a Ted Talk that claimed they had some evidence for it. Still think it is bullocks

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

One interesting corollary to the bicameral mind theory is that our brains have multiple sentient centers to them- that in turn might explain that feeling of struggling with a decision and being able to see the same thing from more than one point of view. It also explains why different parts of the brain light up in different situations

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’ve never heard of that idea before, but it’s really interesting! I wonder how they’d be able to prove something like that?

permalink
report
parent
reply

No Stupid Questions

!nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Create post

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That’s it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

Community stats

  • 9.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 3K

    Posts

  • 120K

    Comments