This is the article that the retards who are spreading their forced NPC meme on Jow Forums are basing their wild conclusions off of and think it confirms their beliefs. But does it really?
They are just twisting the facts and outcome of the study so it fits their delusions and they didn't even bother to read it fully to understand it otherwise they wouldn't have so stupidly rushed out to spread this meme (and even concoct a new wojak image macro to spread along side it like some kind of fucking forced meme campaign).
>article about different thinking methods >article attempts to show that not everyone is a primary verbal thinker who thinks with a constantly on "inner voice" and sub-vocalizes their thoughts >there are people who think primarily in mental imagery or in concepts and sensations - without sub-vocalization >retards equate this as meaning those people who don't have an "inner narrator" on in their heads the entire time are incapable of thinking
The retards spreading this NPC meme on here have equated a lack of inner voice and sub-vocalization of thoughts as a lack of thinking, ignoring the conclusions and point of the article that not everyone utilizes sub-vocalization when thinking. Ironically the article mentions how many people don't believe it possible, because they have never experienced it themselves, and neither have the retards spreading the NPC meme, because rather than realizing that the article describes a thinking method that they have no awareness off they choose to misinterpret its finding as suggesting that some people lack inner awareness entirely.
>Unsymbolized thinking is the experience of an explicit, differentiated thought that does not include the experience of words, images, or any other symbols.
>But if this was an unsymbolized thought, there would have been no experienced words--no experience of the word "wonder" or of "Feature 5." There would have been no experienced images--no seeing of a beeper or of anything else. There would have been no experienced symbols of any kind, and yet you would have directly apprehended ("before the footlights of your consciousness") yourself as thinking that exact thought.
>If this is an unsymbolized thought, you directly apprehend the thought as an experience before the footlights of consciousness at the moment it is occurring.
Basically what the article refers to is a thinking method where the inner voice isn't utilized, there is just a pure awareness and instant knowing, I know this because this is my thinking method and for the longest time I lacked an inner voice when I wasn't deliberately trying to use it, that means I could speed read by glossing over text and understanding it without needing to sub-vocalize it internally
You are just as capable of deep thought and regular thinking without an "inner voice" as you are with one. In some respects the lack of an inner narrator is an advantage as it allows for rapid, speedy thinking, no words - no inner sub-vocalization to slow you down. Thus abstract concepts and ideas which are difficult to express with both words and images are much more easily understood this way.
Now lets compare that to the "philosophical zombie" experiment which is the root misunderstanding of this NPC meme
>"A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that from the outside is indistinguishable from a normal human being but lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] For example, if a philosophical zombie was poked with a sharp object it would not feel any pain sensation, yet could behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch", recoil from the stimulus, and say that it is feeling pain)."
Already we can see this is not the same exact thing at all as merely lacking a method of thinking "inner narration and sub-vocalization of thoughts)
Remember lack of inner voice =/= lack of thought.
Those who equate inner narration and the use of sub-vocalization as the only method of "thinking" are in the wrong, and this is what the psychology today article and study found, and this is the error the NPC memers have committed
Now heres an example of how different people who use a different primary method of thinking might perform a specific task based off my post in a previous thread For a final example I'll take a simple thought process that I think can be best applied to all methods of primary thinking to better elucidate the differences
You are going to get a glass of water and in the process you notice the fridge handle is crooked and about to come apart:
>Visual thinker See's an image of water or cup in their head and get up to go get the water, notice the fridge handle and get an image of it breaking off and hurting their foot, get an image of repair work done on the handle, they may also sub vocalize to themselves but only in brief phrases while the mental pictures fill in the rest
>Sub vocalizer thinker Runs an entire internal monologue from the moment they get the thought to the moment they sit down again "I'm thirsty I'm gonna get a drink, I wonder if I paused my game, oh shit the handle is crooked its gonna break I should probably do something about that, this pitcher is fucking cold man, ok that should be enough water....."
>Conceptual/non sub-vocalizing thinker A thought about the action of getting a glass of water, the concept of parched thirst, the person walks to the fridge and touches the handle and notices its crooked, the idea of it coming apart and slamming down on their foot, the idea of it needing to be repaired, the thought of how old the fridge is all comes in at once like a barrage of thought impressions in an instant without being internally spoken or mentally visualized, and are all set aside for the time as the pitcher is reached for and the water poured in the glass, the water drunk and the thought of how nice cold and refreshing the water is - without saying to yourself "wow thats nice cold and refreshing", just a thought impression that is instantly "thought"
Also see pic related for all the errors in thinking the NPC memers are guilty of in their haste to link this psych today article with their philosophical zombie NPC meme
I'm going to spread this and other material in every single stupid NPC thread I see. My greatest enemy is misinformation and deliberate misinformation at that.
This stupid fucking NPC meme is the dumbest thing to happen to this board in a while desu, it even has its own wojak already, it feels so "manufactured" really makes you think
>oy vey, there's nothing wrong with thinking in impressions and pictures like a literal animal. All cognition is the same, goy. It's 2018, come on! I see you, Rabbi. Quit fluoridating my fucking water.
Dylan Hall
Good thread OP, but you're fighting a losing battle. The newfags and the shitposters don't care about truth, they just want to spam their new le epic funny word. I can already tell that NPC is gonna become the hip new Jow Forums insult of the month
Daniel Lewis
I know, this isn't the first instance I've come across of misinformation and misconception being spread wide in short order on the internet after someone autistically goes around spreading it far and wide, for whatever reason.
The thing is it reminds me of flat earthers a lot, the level of delusion and lack of critical thinking, you don't know who is playing along and who begins to genuinely believe the nonsense they are spouting and someone might take it seriously when the NPC thing aka - "philosophical zombie" is just a philosophy thought experiment, with no rational basis in reality, so I figured I might as well have at least one thread up on this fucking board that attempts to fight the misinformation
I'm well acquainted by now to fighting misinformation, it's so tiring
>he's never had an insight reach his consciousness, without accompanying words or mental images or any "symbol" for it just the abstractness and formless thought/idea itself, and understood it entirely and what it meant instantly >he doesn't experience visualization apparently which is a natural thing
Kayden Gray
The NPC meme is just made so people can feel special about themselves. If any1 acually read the article properly they would know the difference. Either they are idiots wanting to spam their shitty memes. or they acually belive it in which you are a fucking moronl.
Michael Hill
What!? You mean a bunch of spergtards half-read some scientific research and are now waving around erroneous misinterpretations of it in a desperate attempt to tout their 'muh superior intellect' over people whom they're envious of in order to ease their butthurt!? That's... shocking!!
Nolan Barnes
Pretty much my point. I think in images and not with words. I can much more easily connect different things with my brain when i use images. But i have an inner monuluge too, which is kind of wierd.
John Watson
I think unsymbolized and this used to be my primary mode of thinking until I started thinking with an inner voice too because I would notice in various media those scenes of people "talking to themselves inside their heads" and wondering if that was an actual thing people experience. So now I think unsymbolzied and with sub-vocalization, I think I think the lest in mental pictures though, my visualization skills suck.
But the quality and vividness of ones mental images is on a spectrum as a study found out psychclassics.yorku.ca/Galton/imagery.htm so it may be that people who don't experience very vivid mental imagery do not use it primarily as a thinking method and instead rely on sub-vocalization or conceptual/wordless thinking
I already described the process of my thinking in previous threads which also has a lot of information and insights -
Pretty much, the study itself wasn't even very scientific nor well devised, it was a small experiment to create a moment of self-awareness in the subject when the beeper set off so that at that moment they could record what was going on in their heads, a moment of self reflection.
They found that not everyone thinks in sub-vocalization, some people simply experienced thought without accompanying inner narration, and other experienced thought in the form of mental imagery, others had both etc...
That's all that study found, and it wasn't anything like a professional research study, peer reviewed and with a large sample size either.
Logan Howard
>the NPC lashes out as it realizes it isn't a player
Jordan Morales
>real life is just like my vidyas >muh simulation theory
Austin Murphy
buuuuump >You have been muted for 2 seconds, because your comment was not origin
Daniel Brooks
The pen might be mightier than the sword but it's useless when talking to litteral retards. You can't have a constructive dialogue with this people. >inb4 HAHA NICE TRY NPC
