/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12337365]

How do people without inner monologues self-reflect or think about abstract ideas?

[Anonymous No.12337369]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u69YSh-cFXY

This woman for example doesn't do any of this, and just does the dishes and other shit. Seems like it really is an NPC thing. These people are animals living off physical impulses.

[Anonymous No.12337449]

>>12337365
Not even people who do have inner monologue self-reflect and introspect

[Anonymous No.12337885]

>>12337365
By outer dialogues with people who use inner monologues.

[Anonymous No.12337887]

>>12337365
They don’t.

[Anonymous No.12338076]

>>12337365
They think about abstract ideas abstractly.

[Anonymous No.12338078]

>>12337365
I outgrew the inner monologue thing. It's useful sometimes, but now I mostly think in images and sensations.

[Anonymous No.12338098]

>>12338078
thinking in images still requires conception of the image and advanced thinking only occurs via language thats why people who never learned a language due to being def back before we learned how to teach them were always retarded

Complex thought requires language to structure it, visualizing something is only useful if you then use language to consider the visualization

[Anonymous No.12338105]

>>12337365
It just happens.
when I do math I just look at it and write on my paper information that I need to hold and solve it.
it's just there bro.

[Anonymous No.12338215]

>>12337365
They don't.
>>12337449
A few do. Most don't.

[Anonymous No.12338240]

>>12337365
How is language even useful for that? Can you describe it in more detail?
>>12338098
That's nonsense. On the contrary, it seems lamguage must greatly limit the range and detail of your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.12338256]

When I'm thinking about complex stuff like math or how to design a program I can't limit myself by just expressing everything with words, I think about concepts and visualize things. People who only think through internal monologues are brainlets.

[Anonymous No.12338259]

>>12338240
language is responsible for the development of complex ideas, this is not even something questionable

[Anonymous No.12338263]

>>12338259
I don't see any reason to believe that.

[Anonymous No.12338276]

>>12338263
no i dont suppose you would

[Anonymous No.12338451]

>>12337365
What does an internal monologue even sound like?

Mine is more like an internal GUI that I see thoughts memories and things I'm thinking about projected on that allows me to scroll through them and read or see them, I hear letters and words as I read them or type with them one and It's always playing music in my head as well.

IQ 145 via Stanford Binet administered by a Harvard psychologist fwiw

[Anonymous No.12338459]

>>12337365
What does an internal monologue even sound like?

Mine is more like an internal GUI that I see thoughts memories and things I'm thinking about projected on that allows me to scroll through them and read or see them at will, I also hear letters and words as I read them or type them, and it's always playing music in my head as well.

IQ 145 via Stanford Binet administered by a Harvard psychologist fwiw

[Anonymous No.12338465]

>>12338459
Wow, anon, you're so cool! Here's your (You)

[Anonymous No.12338477]

>>12338459
Lmao same, but that “GUI” is not so clear, it’s kinda foggy

[Anonymous No.12338487]

>>12338459
Post test results with time stamp or kys

[Anonymous No.12338499]

>>12337365
Same way everyone else does, except they recall it in other ways.

[Anonymous No.12338515]

>>12338459
That sounds more like synesthesia than just visualization.

[Anonymous No.12338521]

>>12337369
I read that most people make micro-movements with their tongues when they think to themselves or read to themselves. In fact, suppression of these micro-movements is supposed to help improve one's reading speed. Maybe nobody truly has an internal monologue, but it's just that there is a dramatic variation in peoples' ability to suppress these tongue micro movements.

[Anonymous No.12338531]

>>12338459
The stanford binet does not have sufficiently hard questions to give meaningful scores over about 132

[Anonymous No.12338538]

>>12337365
>How do people without inner monologues
They don't exist, it's a retarded media thing

[Anonymous No.12338542]

>>12337365

Who said that!?

[Anonymous No.12338630]

>>12338098
You can imagine symbols to represent complex ideas faggot

[Anonymous No.12338646]

>>12337365
http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

[Anonymous No.12338652]

>>12338259
Language is just a tool of communication.
Most new ideas come onto you in the form of a fast sequence of images.
But it's not like you ever had an original thought in your life besides regurgitating what you assimilated from others.

[Anonymous No.12338654]

>>12337365
ask libtards. They can't think. They just parrot programmed NPC buzzwords. They just do whatever the priests of the clown cult tell them to do.

[Anonymous No.12338655]

Not everything has to be said some things can be visualized. Do you talk in your dreams? Do you describe everything you visualize in your head through your inner voice? Do you describe to yourself everything you see?

[Anonymous No.12338664]

>>12338630
>faggots

They don't have inner monologue or consciousness. When the dick entered their ass for the first time, they became the mindless undead.

[Anonymous No.12338731]

>>12338459
>>>12337365 (OP)
>What does an internal monologue even sound like?

like your voice; you NPC libtard

[Anonymous No.12338780]

>>12337365
I imagine microprocessors.

IMO it's more efficient, if your monologue is at rate of speech I basically live 3 your lives in second.

[Anonymous No.12338879]

>>12338098
Language is extraordinarily limiting.

[Anonymous No.12338922]

>>12338098
You can access thoughts and ideas that are too complex to be described with words with things like meditation, dreams and hallucinogens. You still know the meaning of those thoughts, but they can't be communicated.

[Anonymous No.12338952]

>>12338879
you cant think of an abstract concept with out a name for it
and no, you did not just make up the abstract concept that needs a new name, you combined or modified already known concepts to get it, and to know these you needed names. You can not, for example, apply the concept of 'upness' to an abstract arangement untill you name it up, this moves it from the realm of only real things that can be up, into a distinct and seperate quality of upness which can now be carried around and used on things that can not be up.

The idea of 'the thing below me is up' can not be conceptualized with out words because it is contradictory in actual normal experience, what is below you is always down and downness and belowness are the same concept untill you have named them and the names take on different contexts and then these contexts become different entities entirely.

[Anonymous No.12338972]

>>12338922
>You still know the meaning of those thoughts, but they can't be communicated.

This and contrary to what OP thinks, this is the best way to generate and conceptualize abstract ideas/concepts

Its just up to you to then decipher that into words, with our limited vocabulary.

You may come up with some concept or idea entirely without inner monologue, and try to find the right words to describe it to others only to find the very same concept/idea exists in another language with its very own word https://hifisamurai.github.io/lexicography/ but nothing in your language

Thus proving that language is not responsible for generating complex abstractions, only for the communicating and sharing of them.

[Anonymous No.12338976]

>>12338952
>>12338879 #
>you cant think of an abstract concept with out a name for it
Animals do this.

[Anonymous No.12338991]

>>12338731
No, you're American, so I understand you don't understand. That's not you. That's computer simulation of your voice, you're dictated by trough electromagnetic waves by your phone.

In better case it's you, but that's thinking out loud, in telepathy it's like talking out loud sometimes screaming.

[Anonymous No.12338998]

>>12338652
>>Most new ideas come onto you in the form of a fast sequence of images.

This but not even images in the visual sense, rather like a series of .zip files with the thoughts already formed and bundled so a single .zip file is a complete package, and you understand it in its entirety in a single moment, faster than words or images can do it.

If like me this is your primary method of thinking, you end up writing a fuck ton whenever describing anything because to stick with that analogy it's like you're unpacking the .zip and converting it to a form thats easier to communicate it with (text/speech)

[Anonymous No.12339004]

>>12338998
>and converting it to a form that's easier to communicate it with (text/speech) on the spot rather than already knowing the right words/sentences to describe it

post got cut off

[Anonymous No.12339035]

>>12337365
As someone who has inner monologues, most of my abstract thought occurs without an inner monologue.

[Anonymous No.12339074]

>>12338952
>you cant think of an abstract concept with out a name for it
That is obviously false.
>The idea of 'the thing below me is up' can not be conceptualized with out words
The reason for that is that it doesn't make sense. In fact it makes perfect sense now: people who think in language think they are special, because they can think about nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12339082]

>>12338646
It's the zombies who compensate for the lack of consciousness by using language.

[Anonymous No.12339093]

>>12338078
>I stopped reading and started looking at picture books.

[Anonymous No.12339107]

>>12338952
>>you cant think of an abstract concept with out a name for it
I've found that not only can I do that but I can refer back to it at a later time.

I just "activate" that formless, wordless, imageless concept if its relevant or related to something I'm thinking about (with an inner monologue or not) or noticing externally, forming new associations with it, etc.

Later I may choose after enough refinement and contemplation to share the concept so that would be the first time its every "symbolized" by words or images, sometimes coining a whole new term or portmanteau for it, this is literally what this website is all about- https://hifisamurai.github.io/lexicography/

[Anonymous No.12339109]

>>12338976
animals have languages too

[Anonymous No.12339121]

>>12339107
>I've found that not only can I do that but I can refer back to it at a later time.
You are not understanding what is actually happening when you think. You could not have ever initially obtained the idea with out language, and once the idea is obtained, it is bound to language. When you recall one you recall the other. You do not need to actively summon the idea by naming it, the name and the thing have become inseparable

[Anonymous No.12339130]

>>12339109
What about solitary animals? Tigers can think of concepts like danger, distance, direction, planning, cammouflaging, etc. without communicating them.

[Anonymous No.12339142]

>>12339130
how do you know they think of them

[Anonymous No.12339154]

>>12339142
Because they use them and react to changes in them to accomplish their goals. A tiger that climbs a tree by default understands the concept of "upness". They also know if the next branch is too far away to reach with a leap, and what happens if they fall. These are concepts of distance, height, and action/consequence.

[Anonymous No.12339176]

>>12337365
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_thought_hypothesis

[Anonymous No.12339179]

>>12339121
>You are not understanding what is actually happening when you think.
Yes clearly you know better about my own meta-cognition than I do even though I've been researching and learning about different methods of cognition years before the "NPC" meme, aphantasia and general awareness of unsymbolized thinking was ever a thing once I noticed I do not think with any inner dialogue like characters in TV shows or books did with their inner monologue sequences.

You are limiting concepts to languages, this is a mistake. Consider the tip of the tongue phenomenon where the word you want to use to convey a concept is unable to be remembered by you, the concept/idea you want to convey by that word is in your head but the word that describes it, to share it with someone else is temporarily missing. That cannot happen if as you say language comes before thought.

>You could not have ever initially obtained the idea with out language
Trust me I have plenty of times, followed by feelings of instant realization or disappointment, or elation, depending on what the idea was about. Most of my creative ideas happen this way too, be it immediate creative inspiration or an urge to try a different approach to some drawing/thing I'm working on.

But all my most abstract and idiosyncratic ideas and concepts have happened this way, I rarely generate any useful or novel abstract idea or concept via inner monologue, language is simply too limiting, this especially applies for when I'm contemplating on my unsymbolized thinking, in contemplating my own meta-cognition

[Anonymous No.12339185]

>>12337365
Those people do have inner monologues. What differentiates some from others (this anon included) is that they have control (to a greater extent) over it -- they ruminate when they decide to do so.

[Anonymous No.12339192]

>>12339154
>Because they use them and react to changes in them to accomplish their goals. A tiger that climbs a tree by default understands the concept of "upness".
No he doesnt, upness is a distinct thing from up, its a quality that does not exist in reality but only in mind. And this shows the importance of language, with out it the only things you have to construct thoughts out of are real things, you lack the ability to extract out of these real things properties and concepts which can be used freely on their own.

You can only think with things you have experience of. If for example you were born with out any senses at all you would never be able to think at all, even if your brain was perfectly fine, because you would have no mental constructs to start thinking with.

Language effectively allows us to invent new things, words, right out of nothing, and to these words we can attach things that do not otherwise exist in any experience way in reality. We can only experience them in mind, and while you certainly can experience these things in mind with out naming them, thats only after you have used language to form them to start with. Language is a hack that bridges the real experienced material things, the only things we can think with otherwise, and lets us rearrange them into new things. These new things, once formed, can exist independent of language. If you suddenly suffered brain damage and lost the ability to use language you may well still hold concepts you created prior to this, but the creation of a new thing, a thing you can not reference by experience, thing needs a name for it - the name becomes the experience.

[Anonymous No.12339195]

>>12337365
i don't understand how inner-monologists can't imagine thinking without an inner-monologue. are they lower IQ?

what better way to think about abstract ideas, than using raw, abstract thought?

[Anonymous No.12339196]

>>12339179
>instant realization or disappointment, or elation, depending on what the idea was about.
Its almost as if you dont understand what im even referencing. Perhaps its because you lack it :^)

[Anonymous No.12339207]

>>12339196
Ah yes when BTFO you just resort to implying some cognitive defect or otherwise lacking the same level of understanding as you are, I've seen this pattern before.

[Anonymous No.12339209]

>>12339195
an inner monologue comments on it. the monologue is not always what creates an idea, its the you observing your thought

[Anonymous No.12339223]

>>12339207
Ive described the thing im talking about multiple times, when you come back saying "but i can do x y and z with out language!" and none of those are the thing im describing, then its the only conclusion left.

Its apparent you cant make a distinction between up and upness.

[Anonymous No.12339228]

>>12339209
i still have feelings about an idea that i'm thinking about, despite not having an inner-monologue about it. i CAN have an inner-monologue, and do while speaking or typing. it's an extra (and unnecessary) step in reasoning, that for me is only useful if i am talking (or typing something).

[Anonymous No.12339234]

>>12339228
>feelings
we aren't talking about feelings

[Anonymous No.12339252]

>>12339234
by feelings, i mean "comments", as you would get with an inner-monologue. unless you mean to tell me that the inner-monologue is supposed devoid of any kind of feeling, opinion or sensation, which would be proof beyond reasonable doubt that inner-monologists are literal NPCs

[Anonymous No.12339278]

>>12339252
its just your own voice with out speaking conversing with itself

[Anonymous No.12339290]

>>12339278
schizo cope

[Anonymous No.12339309]

>>12339209
>the monologue is not always what creates an idea, its the you observing your thought

Holy shit did you just link the inner monologue to "you"?

That's the most common misconception.

"you" do not cease to exist just because you stop thinking with words and dialogue, you can experience this yourself in meditation, you are not your "inner voice" the inner voice is a tool you can utilize, some like this anon >>12339228 utilizes it some of the time while there are people who utilize it constantly and have come to totally forget they are capable of more subtle though, the inner monologue becomes the "monkey mind" endlessly chattering away

I can notice this sometimes when I have a wordless thought and find my inner dialogue catching up to put it into words, but that process comes like miliseconds after I have already processed the initial thought, so its useless in that sense, it's a habit people can learn to stop or to adopt so completely they forget that they can think in other ways than just with an inner voice, they have to first notice and be aware of that milisecond pause in between getting a thought and instantly verbalizing it internally, which mindfulness helps with as it trains and hones self-awareness, eventually the inner dialogue itself disappears, but the sense and awareness of self and the mental capacities don't, in fact you could say they become more efficient, with useless follow-on inner dialogue eliminated.

Just as this anon experienced https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/12050903/

[Anonymous No.12339314]

>>12339309
>so its useless
thats how the thought gets formalized, you dont really know what you are thinking until you do this

[Anonymous No.12339317]

>>12339314
>you dont really know what you are thinking until you do this
Yes I do because that doesn't happen everytime, some wordless thinking happens without that inner dialogue following up, the thought is formalized upon conception not upon being converted into language, in fact that was how it was before I ever learned inner voice was a THING.

[Anonymous No.12339323]

>>12337365
Wait, there are people who don't have inner monologues?

[Anonymous No.12339597]

>>12338952
Filtered

[Anonymous No.12339604]

>>12337365
who says we do?

i thought the only people with ideas are the 200 iq geniuses who are at the top of their field

[Anonymous No.12339925]

>>12337365
I unironically perform better if I shut off my inner monologue.

[Anonymous No.12339979]

>>12337365
For me inner monologue is like meditation. Only twice in my life have I thought so deep I felt like I was falling and my concentration broke.

[Anonymous No.12340000]

>>12339323
Absolutely

[Anonymous No.12340050]

>>12339121
>>12339179
>>12339196

>You could not have ever initially obtained the idea with out language
Only philosophical zombies are limited to ideas they received from others. People with consciousness can generate their own ideas.

[Anonymous No.12340063]

I don't know I didn't think of anything when I was writing this it came to me.
though I did read it my head after I wrote it.

[Anonymous No.12340074]

>>12338098
Not really. Language is just a tool in your kit. It's normal to think in a mix of language, imagery and abstractions.

[Anonymous No.12340094]

Thanks to the carelessness of Chomsky, there are many people on /sci/ who confuse language with the formal set of words and letters that constitute communication in that language, forgetting that in the real world, actual languages can be logographic, with ideographic or even pictographic components.

[Anonymous No.12340135]

Do these people really have Morgan Freeman narrating their existence in their head? How do they know where they end and where the narrator begins? How can you be you if there's someone else in there with you?

[Anonymous No.12340158]

>I can only conceptualize things I can describe in words therefore I am conscious
Somehow /sci/ now has worse threads on this topic than /x/

[Anonymous No.12340164]

>>12340135
No its just an abstract whisper
Like when you think "ah i fucked up" but prolonged when you reflect on more complex stuff
Its a flow of ideas you may or may not find words for but to you it is just easier to label this "inner speech"

[Anonymous No.12340351]

>>12340164
>explaining inner monologue by refering to inner monologue

[Anonymous No.12340565]

concepts just strike to me, I just don't think in a language

[Anonymous No.12340574]

This is probably how religion came about. Someone mistaking their own internal monologue from an outside source. And being born again, is someone who for whatever reason, didn’t have an internal monologue for most of their life, and then one day, they got one, and they thought it was god or an awakening or whatever.

[Anonymous No.12340604]

Ultra intelligent Anon here (likely the most intelligent person you will ever interact with).

I have different modes of thought, some of them are non-verbal. Each has its own merit.

High Verbosity state of mind: allows me to index previously wordless thoughts, for easier recall. Allows me to structure very broad, higher level thoughts (for example, invoking various materials that may be necessary to solve a problem). This is the first port of call for a very difficult problem.

Medium Verbosity: Allows for contrasting and comparing thought fragments to set constraints. For example, medium difficulty mathematics problems.

Low Verbosity: Using just raw visualisation is useful for IQ tests and the like, but also any difficulty of problem under time pressure. The catch is that poor indexing means whatever you do in this frame of mind is unlikely to strongly advance you unlike other frames of mind.

--

The lower the verbosity, the faster my mind is. Higher verbosity allows for better indexing.
Also verbosity for me isn't internal narration. I'm just thinking of the words themselves.

[Anonymous No.12340902]

>>12337365
/x/ topic.

[Anonymous No.12340931]

>>12340574
Its called the bicameral mind theory

[Anonymous No.12340964]

>>12340574
Religion came about because it was evolutionary beneficial.

[Anonymous No.12340970]

>>12338215
>A few do. Most don't.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Sad

[Anonymous No.12340981]

>>12338078
>not using both

[Anonymous No.12341996]

When I have to problem solve or do like quick decision sports or talk to people I dont monologue i just "think". I only talk with my inner voice when im alone and am bored or when im reading text and I just think in images when im going to sleep

[Anonymous No.12342492]

>>12337369
See how uncurious she is about the whole thing, the guy with the internal monologue is mind boggled and trying to understand her inner experience, and she doesn’t seem to be perplexed or puzzled AT ALL, and not curious about how he experiences the world AT ALL. It’s just like “nope, I don’t really care, it’s just how it is.”

[Anonymous No.12342516]

>>12337365
Some people think abstractly and other people think in words, but I don't think that has anything to do with having an inner voice or not. My inner voice is extremely faint, and I wouldn't even call it a voice, but I still "feel" the words I think about anyway, in the same way that I have very little imagination but I can still feel the things I imagine, in a sort of "vicarious" way

[Anonymous No.12342517]

>>12340574
>This is probably how religion came about. Someone mistaking their own internal monologue from an outside source.
Pre-modern people had pre-Kantian minds and experienced the world in terms of mytho-poetics rather than through categories of internal thought vs external sense. See Ernst Cassier and pic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cassirer/#PhilSymbForm

[Anonymous No.12342533]

>>12340074

mate the scientific consensus is that language is a precursor for consciousness and human-level intelligence. Not "just a tool". read chomsky

[Anonymous No.12342534]

>>12337365
I can think both with an inner monologue and without it. I can switch it on off. So I can understand what it might be like to not have it. I can also switch it between English and nihongo.

[Anonymous No.12342652]

>>12342533
Chomsky is a hack. Almost nobody takes him seriously anymore, not even in linguistics.

[Anonymous No.12342653]

>>12337369
>These people are animals living off physical impulses.

The thing that makes me think it’s more complicated than that is that she’s a fast reader and seems to process information more efficiently.

> 3:55 We can have a 100 question test and she’s done when I’m on question 12 I’m not even kidding. It’s superhuman.

What if she’s actually more evolved? The more primative version is the bi-cameral mind where you literally experience an auditory hallucination of a voice telling you what to do. Then a little more evolved is identifying that voice as “you” and being able to control it. Then even more evolved is doing away with that voice entirely and thinking entirely in abstract concepts. I can kind of relate to what she’s saying when she’s talking about writing an essay and “knowing” what you want it to say but not having it verbalized in your head. That’s exactly what I’m doing with this comment right now. The whole thing already exists in the form of a concept and I’m just translating it.

[Anonymous No.12342672]

>>12342653
Also she says at night she “sees” lists of things she needs to do. So she has almost like a computer like interface with a HUD that stores infomation as lists. She makes analogies to “files”.

This is NOT someone living off of impulses and instinct.

[Anonymous No.12342702]

>>12338952
When you conceptualize that phrase are you really conceptualizing it or just trying to conceptualize separate valid concepts that the phrase might have been intended to convey?

[Anonymous No.12342714]

>>12342653
>What if she’s actually more evolved?
Eh. Different skills for different tasks. She said she doesn't like to read, I'm going out on a limb, but I wonder how creative she is? I would expect most writers to have strong internal voices, artists to be visualizers, etc. Our minds may shape what we're meant for more than we realize, because it's becoming clear that humans are capable of very different thought patterns.

[Anonymous No.12342723]

>>12342714
I agree, she doesn’t strike me as very creative or curious. But if I needed someone to analyze many pages of legal documents or something I’d probably pick her over the spazzy emotional internal monologue guy.

[Anonymous No.12342740]

>>12342653
In speedreading (maybe pseudoscience) they try to train people to eliminate subvocalizing. I wonder if that plays a role in her fast reading skills.

[Anonymous No.12344238]

>>12342652
That's literally not true

[Anonymous No.12344796]

>>12344238
It is. Virtually everything he wrote has been disproven or abandoned.

[Anonymous No.12344845]

>>12337365
>self-reflect
Look in mirror
>think about abstract ideas
in pictures, sounds. Like TV.

[Anonymous No.12348059]

>>12337365
You know how you can think of things while keeping your mouth shut? Just do the same, but keep your mind's mouth shut. You just stop routing your thoughts through the language part of your brain, but everything else works the same way.

[Anonymous No.12348194]

>>12342653
The chinese have a higher IQ yet they have no creativity. The next step in human evolution will by all means be considered irrational.

[Anonymous No.12349199]

>>12337365
abstract thought does not use inner monologues

[Anonymous No.12349209]

>>12337365
They ask /sci/ to explain it to them like they were a child.

[Anonymous No.12349218]

>>12339093
>reading
Inner monologue is an audiobook at best.

[Anonymous No.12349257]

>>12337369
When she pauses to think of her upcoming word selection as she keeps doing, what is she doing if not using an inner monologue?

[Anonymous No.12349267]

>>12349257
If it is the same as me it is probably a process of staging the thoughts you want to say, ordering the ideas. I do have an internal monologue tho but it is not constant. I don't use it all the time.

[Anonymous No.12349270]

>>12349257
thinking of a word or sequence of words and looking at them and deciding whether they convey the intended meaning

[Anonymous No.12349273]

>>12349267
>staging the thoughts you want to say
That is called an inner monologue.

[Anonymous No.12349275]

>>12338078
>think in sensations
>believes this is superior
Grats on becoming retarded.

[Anonymous No.12349276]

>>12349270
So by utilizing her inner monologue?

[Anonymous No.12349277]

>>12349273
a monologue is something you could say out loud and it would be words
thinking about words does not map to speech directly

[Anonymous No.12349278]

>>12338078
>think in sensations
So you are saying you don't think of the word hot, you just start to get flushed and sweat when the abstract concept of hot comes to mind?

[Anonymous No.12349282]

>>12349276
it is more like you are standing next to a conveyorbelt and deciding which words to place on the belt in which order
you can evaluate which words to use without using words in your evaluation of them

[Anonymous No.12349285]

>>12349277
Speech is words that can be spoken, thinking about words to speak is the definition of inner monologue.

[Anonymous No.12349288]

>>12349285
>thinking about words to speak is the definition of inner monologue.
haha no
inner monologue is more like having a discussion with yourself

[Anonymous No.12349289]

>>12349282
>you can evaluate which words to use
How can you evaluate words without using words?

[Anonymous No.12349293]

>>12349288
No its like thinking of and evaluating words and sentences without saying them out loud.

[Anonymous No.12349307]

>>12349289
by having associated the word with memories and images and ideas I guess?
the conversion from the ideas back to the words is a bit slow for me at times and I have to do an extra pass of sorts where I read the sentence to see whether it is valid
or if I have already said the words I have to add filler words or subclauses and so on (this process is basically automatic).

the point being they are not "words" until they have already been decided on through the idea they try to convey

[Anonymous No.12349310]

>>12338521
My internal monologue's "voice" sounds different from my spoken voice.

[Anonymous No.12349316]

>>12349307
>associated the word with memories and images
If you can freely associate memories and images with words in your mind, how can you not just do that with an internal monologue?

[Anonymous No.12349323]

For me. I have to move my tongue and slightly my lips. While I think or type. Other then that nothing. Unless I am dreaming at night. But no sound in my dreams.


Best thing I can think of is tapping your fingers to a rhythm. I am not thinking about the rhythm. I hear or feel the rhythm and adjust to the rhythm I would prefer. It's not that I have a rhythm in mind. I just go for it and adjust on the fly.

I rarely second guess myself. Because I trust that my brain retains pertinent information.

Example wise. Is I rather know 3-6 out of the seven seas. Or the 7 continents. Rather then all the states and countries.

[Anonymous No.12349354]

how do i turn off my brain voice anons? I literally can't read without my inner monologue reading for me unless i read out loud.

[Anonymous No.12349360]

>>12349354
>google says to say "stop"
>it actually fucking works

[Anonymous No.12349363]

>>12349354
Just go LALALALALALALAALALALALA in your head like how you would block Jedi Masters from listening in to your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.12349366]

>>12349354
also I can change my inner monologue into any voice.

[Anonymous No.12349378]

>>12349366
What about CCH Pounder from The Shield?

[Anonymous No.12349382]

>>12349378
send link with voice.
also I tried to do mc ride's voice, bit of a challenge

[Anonymous No.12349388]

>>12349382
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsDLkDmzhJQ

[Anonymous No.12349392]

>>12349388
pretty easy lel, of course, I have no way to prove this.
I'm pretty sure this what people mean when they say "read this in his voice".

[Anonymous No.12349397]

Wait, most of us here are capable of thinking in both language and visuals, right?
I'm capable of switching between the two at ease.

[Anonymous No.12349406]

>>12349397
yeah i can think of and in images
its how I enjoy so much literotica

[Anonymous No.12349411]

>>12349397
I think strictly in terms of n-dimensional Fractals and Manifolds.

[Anonymous No.12350420]

>>12337365
I think aloud when i'm alone

[Anonymous No.12350691]

>>12337365
inner monologue is just a monkey distracting you rself.
>self-reflect or think about abstract ideas?
you silent brain do this then tell to you monkey brain by 'inner monologue'

[Anonymous No.12350707]

>Had a complex inner monologue as kid
>Would narrate everything inside my head as if I were going through a story
>Can barely do this as an adult and mostly think in abstractions and image sequences
Is this a bad thing bros?

[Anonymous No.12350708]

>>12337365
Chad cerebration

[Anonymous No.12353266]

>>12342492
that's because she's a literal NPC, her brain is just following the script of whoever wrote her in, we're in a simulation and most of us are playable characters

[Anonymous No.12353431]

>>12337365
Good news everyone, even people without inner monologues read this in my voice.

[Anonymous No.12353526]

>>12340135
its like being more of a collective, 2 heads are better than one. my inner monologue is a conversation between 2 me's. Wait does that mean there are 3 me's if my inner monologue is 2 voices?

[Anonymous No.12353532]

>>12340135
It also doesn't sound like morgan freeman, it sounds like me but with a deeper voice, or should i say it sounds like how i think i should sound. Ive heard recordings of my voice and it doesn't sound anything like that.

[Anonymous No.12353547]

>>12353431
based

[Anonymous No.12353548]

>>12338078
>I stopped reading books and gradually succumbed to autism due to using imageboards

[Anonymous No.12353716]

>>12349354
Simple. Create a habit of only speaking when talking out loud. That's probably why you notice it stop while reading out loud.

The book probably doesn't help only because your reading something out loud. Suppressing your thoughts. But not expressing your thoughts.

So be alone in the car. Or a walk through nature, alone at home. And just rant about things out loud. But take breaks to just sit quietly and stare a wall. Listen to music. But try not to think about anything. Experience relaxing. Or experience music.
Or just a simple exercise routine. Like jumping rope. Don't count just jump feel your muscles.