These are the articles that the retards who are spreading their forced NPC meme on Jow Forums are basing their wild conclusions off of and think they confirms their delusions. But do they 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-vocaIize 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.
>"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
I know. I just like to call normies that because it makes them mad.
Alexander Moore
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....."
>ConceptuaI/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"
Yeah I know a lot of is just playing along but the fact is theres a subset of people who take the meme seriously and now genuinely believe they are superior to others because they can subvocalize their thoughts and think that others who can't are incapable of thinking, or of self awareness, introspection and deep high level thinking which is just wrong.
If anything it exposes their own biases and egocentric method of thinking, believing that everyone must share their own familiar internal cognitive experience or they are different and inferior to them
That's what I'm tackling here, that misconception that theres only one method of thinking, or that its the only superior method of thinking
And what's funny is they base their sense of superiority off of a minor informal "study" that was just about proving that not everyone thinks the same - using sub-vocalization and mental dialogue alone
Over analyzing a meme is the fastest way to kill it. If some plebbit fag sees this he will think he gets the meme. He will tell people that they are wrong about the usage of the word and use a screen cap if this post as proof. You are basically writing a in depth guide on how to use a slang word. In other words you are a faggot. You either understand the concept behind moonman or you don't. The reason memes are fun is because of how fluid they are. If you are arguing semantics like communists already the meme is dead. You've killed the fun of it. It's like turning a video game into 1s and 0s because some stupid faggots couldn't understand the theme of the game.
Leo Bell
second this.
Anyways I really fucking hate people that do not interact with me if I talk to them. I have some clients that, after a question was asked, just sit there and stare blankly for like 2 minutes in the distance. Then their head rotates and some absolute garbage comes out. Like "Oh this background, do you want it red or blue?" and out comes after a long pause "yes" and I just fucking repeat the question. The moment you stop being nice to them and ask the question a bit more aggressive you will get the first option you said back. After like 1 year and 5 months (not making that up) the client called in to tell me, that his portfolio was not what he wanted it to be and asked when I would finish it. I told him that is was finished like over a year ago and put the phone down. These people may not be npc but they behave like one.
Joshua Hughes
You don't belong here you stupid npc. Go with the flow or fuck off. I am superior to normie npc faggots like you. There is no reason I can't be both joking and serious at the same time
Evan Sanders
The meme is shit anyways and the retards spreading it citing the Psychology Today articles are deliberately spreading misinformation about meta-cognition.
This meme was manufactured, it never spread naturally, it was forced across Jow Forums, /v/, /a/, /tg/, Jow Forums in less than a few days with its own wojak edit and everything all ready, it had artificial growth, and its already turned into another chad v. virgin walk example, the faster it dies off the better.
My inner voice is why I'll never have a gf. Instead of letting things happen, which I do the majority of the time with grills, I being to overthink in my head in critical moments that completely kills the vibe and my chances.
Jeremiah Davis
>t. NPC
>You have been muted for 8 seconds, because your comment was
I don't disagree but I've used the npc analogy a long time ago. Oh and the chad v virgin wasn't forced.
Aaron Ortiz
I never implied it was forced, it persisted on here for some time before more crazy and crazier edits were made month after month and then normalfags from reddit found it and then the meme died, once reddit gets ahold of anything it just withers away and dies out unfunny, and ruined
This NPC meme though was forced as fuck, nothing spreads so far and wide across the boards like that if it isn't being deliberately spread to become a forced meme
It's like the onions meme. It's inaccurate but still describes something real (many people may as well be NPCs).
Leo Miller
yeah but its spreading the misconception that if you don't use your inner voice to think then you can't think at all and are like an animal
ignoring the fact that people who think in different methods still think, just not via using their inner voice, but via mental images or feeling and sensing their thoughts and concepts and understanding what they mean all the same
The point isn't to say NPCs don't think but that they can't have the proper inner conversations with themselves to really conceptualize different topics.
Evan Hernandez
So wait? Are there people who can't make voices for each character when they read a book? How sad :(
Chase Harris
You have it exactly backwards. According to Hill and Jacobs 2009 people who only have an inner dialog/subvocalize were slower to reach conclusions and struggled more with topics like mathematics and spatial orientation while people who could think in images or in abstract concepts reached conclusions faster and were better at math.
Yeah but you don't need to have an inner voice, or sub-vocalize your thoughts in order to think, introspect and conceptualize topics like that.
If anything, conceptual/unsymbolized thinking is advantageous for more abstract contemplation- concepts, ideas, feelings, sensations, feels, which do not need language or mental imagery to be understood, and for which language and imagery - concrete and defined boundaries are applied afterwards a thought is sufficiently formulated.
In my case my math skills are abysmal, so it doesn't apply to me. I also can't perform mental math either because my visualization ability is poor, I mostly utilize a mix of conceptual/unsymbolized and sub-vocalized thinking, but unlike primary sub-vocalizing thinkers I do not run a constant, unceasing mental dialogue with myself at all times, it seems like that would be exhausting, language and inner speech is wasted on concepts and thoughts already understood and processed without their aid.
Important things like philosophy or political concepts or even just important life decisions cannot be thought over properly without inner conversations. I can think in both images and in speech, but from this study most people can only do the former.
Owen Thompson
>cannot be thought over properly without inner conversations.
Wrong, because I do exactly that. An user in a previous thread described it well see pic related
Says who? You? Obviously plenty of people DO do so without inner dialogue. Hell, according to Ruf 1999 and the Stump, Duffy, and House 2009 studies as IQ goes up the incidence of inner dialogue goes *down* with it being rarest with people at 160+ IQ and most common inpeople at 85- IQ. So, again - you have it BACKWARDS. Makes sense: robots are the lowest of the low....
It makes some sort of sense when you also consider mindfulness and meditation and how its about quieting the mind so it can be free of distractions and you are better able to focus on one thing at a time with perfect awareness and razor sharp focus, which would be hard to do if you are running an inner mental monologue constantly, at every waking moment, distracted by every new sub-vocalized dialogue you speak
Jace Jones
You have it completely backwards; forced memes spread slowly, organic memes spread quickly. That's how true memes work. They catch on and spread because they encapsulate a concept or feeling that is inwardly held by many people, but difficult to communicate
Not commenting on the quality of the npc meme, but it was very natural. It deeply resonates with the Jow Forums-poster demographic
Nathan Lopez
My IQ is 155 and i still do it for almost every important decision and non-mathematical concepts. You need both, saying just visual or just dialogue is stupid. In debates and so on you almost always prepare by running arguments against your own mind. This is all anecdotal but i can't see important philosophers not doing this even though philosophy majors and relevant philosophers themselves are some of the highest IQs on average.
Kevin Fisher
I never do that, but I do mind myself debating perhaps someone else in my mind when daydreaming, as though I was in a scenario and had to explain something to someone else I know, or some random group or in a classroom whatever and this then leads to me sub-vocalizing and perhaps better understanding a thought or concept or idea, very interesting.
In the same vein that I don't know what I'm about to write down until I write it down and the thoughts go from abstract and concepts to written language to express them with others, but I never actually have it fully planned out in my head beforehand what I'm about to write word for word, that comes automatically as I type or write.
OP, I'm sorry, but you need to take control of your life. You're a mess.
James Wilson
>how can anyone be different than me? Lol
Josiah Taylor
Couldn't care less about the meme, just the misinformation about inner dialogue and sub-vocalization and other methods of thinking which is being spread around misinforming people by a group of people who think themselves superior to others just because they use sub-vocalization while others may not
Angel Torres
I write automatically also, but the overall structure of what i'm writing stems from preconceived ideas and thoughts i usually go through as im researching or reading whatever it is i'm writing about. I said it is anecdotal stupid NPC
Henry Jones
Here's my thing about all this. If you can't use verbal abstraction to work through concepts in your head, you are effectively handicapped when trying to grasp with important existential and political questions. Especially if you have visual thinking. I would be willing to wager that the majority of people with 'intuitive thinking' are not smart enough to grasp complicated questions intuitively, and really what this means is that they're not thinking about much of anything ever. Maybe you, OP, are able to use intuitive thinking effectively. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I use this type of thinking for low level problems too. But I need the tool of verbal thinking when the concepts get too difficult, and tbqh I have a pretty high IQ already.
tl;dr I don't think 99% of people are able to really think about anything abstract without verbal abstraction, and if they aren't doing that, they might as well be NPCs.
Thomas Campbell
>stems from preconceived ideas and thoughts Same here, but just without needing to use any sub-vocalization and inner dialogue in the process
Asher Perez
These "people" who think they're superior to anyone are depressed teenagers/manchildren with no accomplishments. These rationalizations are all they have so let them, it avoids a suicide or two a day.
Adam Peterson
The sub-vocalization is usually when i'm trying to develop counter arguments against my own points.
Aaron Bennett
(continued a bit) This whole NPC meme about thinking methods has actually applied uncomfortably well to my IRL life. A friend and I have been asking people we know about how they conceptualise, and without fail only our most thoughtless compatriots have said they don't have a verbal internal monologue. It's actually just bizarre. My gf learned about the NPC meme and she's freaking out because she's realising that all the times she most respects herself are when she's listening to her internal monologue and that she does regrettable thing when she tunes it out because it's 'harshing her out.'
Nathan Perez
Well you're wrong, see this Words are just a tool to label the thought, but there are higher level thoughts, ideas and concepts, abstract and difficult to label, where words and images fail us that conceptual and intuitive thinking is best at, not at all what you said.
That doesn't mean that a primary sub-vocalizing thinker isn't capable of such abstract thought just as well as a conceptual/unsymbolized thinker though. But those spreading this meme and the misconceptions and misinformation around assume exactly this, that without sub-vocalization, and inner dialogue one is unable to grasp abstract, higher level thinking, and also lacks self-awareness and introspection, which is flat out wrong.
Furthermore the lack of utilizing an inner monologue is an advantage in abstract thinking because your thoughts do not have to be linearly laid out, following a dialogue, and they do not have to come at the speed of your inner voice but rather - a slew of ideas, concepts and impressions can be held at once, you think literally at the speed of thought without internal sub-vocalized language slowing your thought process down to allow the words or images to catch up.
Very interesting then in my case the moments when my inner monologue feels like it can't shut off is when I have high anxiety, high levels of distress and high uncertainty. While my moments of mental clarity, sharpness of thought, action and dialogue are when this inner voice is silent, and my mind just feels unified in a sense, free of distraction and focused on whatever I need to focus on mental or external.
I will say I like how the proliferation of this meme has led to renewed dialogue about different thinking methods, meta-cognition fascinates me and yet theres so little information and research out there about unsymbolized/conceptual thinking, its like its rarer than sub-vocalized I think. Meaning inner monologue thinking is most likely the most prolific.
You being able to do it isn't proof that I'm wrong because what I said was that I believe you might be able to do it. But words are actual aides. Applying the concepts directly without the facade of the words is more cumbersome, and words come with extra meaning, so they're pre-associative building blocks. Again, maybe you can pull it off, but if a person is thinking about things without using these functional tools, and instead are doing everything from the ground up everytime, it would seem that their abstract thinking is limited.
>the moments when my inner monologue feels like it can't shut off is when I have high anxiety, high levels of distress and high uncertainty. While my moments of mental clarity, sharpness of thought, action and dialogue are when this inner voice is silent, and my mind just feels unified in a sense, free of distraction and focused on whatever I need to focus on mental or external. It even sounds that you're proving it here, really. OP, maybe if you trained yourself to use words in your head, you could unlock more potential. If you're feeling distressed and uncertain when you try it, it's probably because you're actually investigating yourself rather than going off instinct. Going off instinct is animalian.
Nolan Wright
>If you're feeling distressed and uncertain when you try it, it's probably because you're actually investigating yourself rather than going off instinct. Going off instinct is animalian.
>it's probably because you're actually investigating yourself Again you're implying I can't do that if I don't sub-vocalize but like I said you're wrong because I can introspect and probe deeply without need for sub-vocalization.
Like when I meditate and look inwards, insight arises wordlessly but leads to realizations and new perspectives on things bothering me or whatever, and all of this without any internal monologue necessary
Imagine being this triggered by the NPC meme. Probably because there is less fembot threads so he can't ERP with other guys and crossdressers/anime posters.
Jose Anderson
Why is it, do you think, that when you try to use words to sort through yourself that it leads to rumination and distress? What is it about 'wordless insight' that doesn't provoke feelings of uncertainty?
Juan Adams
>spreads misconceptions Oh noes!!!!!! How could somebody have fun with misconceptions like that?
Charles Thomas
>These "people" who think they're superior to anyone are depressed teenagers/manchildren with no accomplishments.
Robots have been calling people with superior social lives and careers "normies" for years. They've come to terms with their loser status a long ass time ago. But when they show the tiniest bit of self respect in diginity people lose their shit. This is why the NPC meme has taken off so hard. The Streisand effect of faggots like this getting butthurt about it.
Carson Wilson
>writes a fucking essay >I actually don't care
Jonathan Howard
Because those words aren't anything but mental noise, did you not read the article on rumination. I'm fully aware when I am using sub-vocalization versus when its intrusive and more anxiety and rumination driven, and ultimately distracting.
>when you try to use words Keyword is "try" but when its rumination or unproductive thoughts as I am referring to I am not trying to "sort" anything. But its just as possible for sub-vocalized thinking to lead to insight as well, through the process of generating new connections and analyzing things deeply, however that is just as possible without sub-vocalizing for a conceptual/unsymbolized thinker
It's when you can't shut off the internal monologue because your anxiety is going crazy is when its unproductive and rumination/unnecessary worry. However I am able to use sub-vocalization if its required but its often not because I'm just as able to think anything through and analyze and introspect wordlessly as I am with sub-vocalization
>What is it about 'wordless insight' that doesn't provoke feelings of uncertainty Usually because its not happening during times of anxiety and my mind is clear and calm, but like I said, insight is possible through normal inner voice speculation and analysis in the same state of mind but isn't necessary as wordless thinking is faster and more "open"
Noah Morgan
The essay is addressing the misconception and misinformation that forms the basis of the meme though - the Psychology Today article and "study". I'm not addressing the content of the meme or how its evolved or anything like that
I'll admit I fell for this meme too when it was originally posted. I felt all happy and shit because I thought I had finally found "the answer" to why it's so difficult for me to have an actual conversation with someone. Reading the article a second time revealed to me I was totally false though and the feeling of euphoria was gone. I think people here are just very desperate to find a reason/solution for their issues so they clinged to that one because it went along with their mindsets and it required no actual effort on their part to change
Blake Scott
It's not self respect, it's delusion and lack of self awareness. It's silly though, people shouldn't be so pissed off about it. It's an innocuous meme.
Ayden Peterson
>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,
Nobody thought this which is why the meme isn't "NPCs don't think". Even dogs and pigs think, the meme isn't about a lack of thought it's about degrees of self awareness.
It's very dehumanizing when you think about it, to just assume that others are less mentally capable or even self conscious than you because they lack some fundamental quality of self awareness which somehow only sub-vocalizing thinkers posses
Sebastian Ward
You still went through the effort. That ain't nothing.
Lincoln Roberts
I know the study says otherwise but it seems highly unlikely to me that not all people use all five thinking methods at least a little. I think the testing method is very flimsy and leads to people biasing one or another method in their recording because the recording is still a retrospective, even if it's over a very short time.
I'm mostly an verbal/audio and visual thinker but there's times I use the other three modes. Rapid fire coversation or quick, reflexive answers to math problems or puzzles strike me as unsymbolic thought, and although its rare I'm familiar with the feeling of being overcome by an emotion or physical sensation.
Luke Roberts
If you can't do all of these you're a NPC
Noah Lewis
>It's when you can't shut off the internal monologue because your anxiety is going crazy is when its unproductive and rumination/unnecessary worry. I feel like this is a non-answer. You're just saying 'it is because it is.' I'm suggesting that you get anxiety because when you speak in a language that properly interfaces with the outside world, you become uncertain. It sounds like interacting with the outside causes cognitive dissonance, so you avoid it intentionally. You feel more satisfied and interpret it as 'cognitive accomplishment' when you come up with an idea using your own head-language. And yes, you must be using a head language, at my most charitable interpretation. Children who are not exposed to language at a key age become mentally handicapped when it comes to abstract conceptualisation, even when mediate non-verbally. Which is to say there is an objective link between development of language in an individual and being able to properly conceptualise the world.
Carter Bennett
I was just surprised at how many people actually can't think faster than they can talk
Bentley Brooks
Verbal thinkers have no trouble doing that. That's just an IQ thing.
Owen Flores
Spare me your armchair psychology BS, for one thing my anxiety is not related to this, I only mentioned that when I do have anxiety, and panic attacks in response to anxious situations (not in response to speaking or attempting to use inner speech what the fuck?) that I notice then a lot of mental monologue going off, none of it which is productive, and is not how I usually think, do you see why I mentioned that, its because its abnormal mental behavior, and is a symptom of the brain being overwhelmed I believe as it never gets like that when I'm not anxious or ruminating.
>It sounds like interacting with the outside causes cognitive dissonance, so you avoid it intentionally. It sounds like you are misinterpreting my description of what happens during anxiety/panic attacks and applying it to every other situation in my life, even going so far as to suggest a developmental disorder.
>Children who are not exposed to language at a key age become mentally handicapped when it comes to abstract conceptualisation, You really seem desperate to think you've stumbled upon something that can support your conclusions but you're just twisting my words and taking them out of proportion, I have no issues with language let me assure you that much, nor did I have issues with language growing up, in fact I had higher verbal competency for my age when growing up, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying and trying to link it to some mental language defect and developmental disorder when that is not true. Also this manner of conceptual and unsymbolized thinking is beneficial for abstract conceptualization, not detrimental, as I've already explained many times ITT.
What I am describing and what you are suggesting are not the same. You're linking language to thought, and the idea that one can think without sub-vocalization isn't registering, to the point you need to suggest a developmental disorder or lack of language processing at an early age which is not true.
Do you think that when I think conceptually that I suddenly lose the ability to comprehend and process english? I just don't need to use language when thinking, if I do it lags behind an already understood and processed thought as I explained.
You need to stop assuming that language = thought, that thinking = internal monologue. That is just a method of thinking, one of several.
>I only mentioned that when I do have anxiety, and panic attacks in response to anxious situations (not in response to speaking or attempting to use inner speech what the fuck?) that I notice then a lot of mental monologue going off, none of it which is productive, and is not how I usually think, do you see why I mentioned that, its because its abnormal mental behavior, and is a symptom of the brain being overwhelmed I believe as it never gets like that when I'm not anxious or ruminating. Okay well that wasn't my question. What happens to you when you do use sub-vocalisation?
The rest of the post is you sperging out saying that I'm accusing you of having a developmental disorder when it's very obvious to anyone with decent verbal capacity that I'm using the objective connection between language-ability and abstract conception to point out that you must be using language on some level to conceptualise, even if it's not the English language. The rubber is really not hitting the road though because you're doing a translation when trying to interface that language with the outside world, if that is in fact what you're doing.
Caleb Phillips
>tfw conceptual thinking intp intj hybrid with all strengths and no weaknesses
>What happens to you when you do use sub-vocalisation? Depends on the context obviously. My bringing up rumination and all during anxiety was to provide a counter example to what you wrote here that for your gf moments of verbal internal monologue seem to provide the most mental clarity while for me it is the opposite, the more ongoing mental dialogue and rumination the more scattered and distracted my mind is, unable to calm itself down and focus
Note in that example I'm not "using" sub-vocalization in that I'm choosing to use it, it's happening automatically, like an anxiety response, in response to an overwhelmed brain. Otherwise I am capable of using sub-vocalization if I choose to, but prefer not to, other times I'm not choosing to use it but it follows my conceptual thinking "lagging" behind it, if it makes sense.
For example- I can have a thought about something I should have done, and then in the moment following that though might come the sub-vocalization "I should have done x" when its unnecessary, the thought was already understood without need for language.
>to point out that you must be using language on some level to conceptualise Well thats wrong, its not language, its more like I can "feel" or "sense" the thoughts, they have a solidity to them, in a sense, I can't explain it, but its not at all what you were describing, bringing up "head language" and the example of what happens to children not exposed to language at a key age.
>because you're doing a translation when trying to interface that language with the outside world That's wrong, because it implies I can't translate my abstract conceptual and unsymbolized thoughts into verbal language, in order to discuss them with others, yet thats exactly what I've been doing this entire thread. You must not be familiar with this method of thinking at all if its so alien and difficult for you to understand how it works, thats what I'm suggesting.
Reminder that one of these is only possible with a developed language center of the brain.
Christopher Young
>that for your gf moments of verbal internal monologue seem to provide the most mental clarity while for me it is the opposite, the more ongoing mental dialogue and rumination the more scattered and distracted my mind is, unable to calm itself down and focus I should clarify something here. She feels anxious and uncertain when listening to her internal monologue as well. She would describe it in similar terms as you. Thinking in other ways is more comfortable for her. The problem is that this leads to dysfunctional abstractions when applied to reality and the next thing she knows she's placed herself in situations that are self-destructive, while deluding herself into happiness about them until a dark moment that provokes realisation.
>For example- I can have a thought about something I should have done, and then in the moment following that though might come the sub-vocalization "I should have done x" when its unnecessary, the thought was already understood without need for language. Not entirely dissimilar to what I do, except the sub-vocalisation is necessary when interfacing the abstraction with reality, so the interplay between the monologue and the abstract thought has been streamlined into simultaneousness.
>That's wrong, because it implies I can't translate my abstract conceptual and unsymbolized thoughts into verbal language, in order to discuss them with others, yet thats exactly what I've been doing this entire thread. Yes, and you waste words because you allow entire ideas to formulate without cross-checking every step of the way. If I allowed myself to do that (and I have) I would be mocked for being a schizo mess.
You had better hope you're a woman, boy. Cursed be the ground for OUR sake
Jonathan Smith
To be sure, we all know Myers-Briggs is BS, right? It's fun, I like it too, but it was made by two women, mother and daughter, who had degrees in Agriculture and Polisci, respectively. The test was based on something by Jung, who in the same stroke said it wasn't actually a totally put-together theory. Big 5 is academically-derived, current, and based on statistical associations.
(I'm ENTP)
Lucas White
>The problem is that this leads to dysfunctional abstractions when applied to reality and the next thing she knows she's placed herself in situations that are self-destructive, while deluding herself into happiness about them until a dark moment that provokes realisation. To me its nothing like that it's more that during moments of intense anxiety and oncoming panic attack its a barrage of an internal monologue about every minor thing, that feels like I can't shut off and leads to more anxiety, the content of the monologue is irrelevant its just that it feels stronger and more present. It's not my natural method of thinking this way, like a nonstop dialogue, it gets in the way of thinking clearly and calmly and rationally with my usual conceptual and unsymbolized thinking where the inner voice is not necessary, and peaks during moments of high anxiety.
Otherwise my subvocalization and inner monologue is minimal, unless its necessary, it varies but its subtler and more productive, sometimes often unnecessary but nothing like its peak during anxiety.
>except the sub-vocalisation is necessary when interfacing the abstraction with reality It just gets in the way usually. If I want to get a drink of water I don't need to tell myself that, nor do I need to run an internal dialogue about everything on my way there, thats just exhausting, constantly using an inner dialogue and voice when its not necessary
>and you waste words because you allow entire ideas to formulate without cross-checking every step of the way Yes I'm guilty of that. In highschool and college my papers would often run on for long because while writing I am translating the abstract and conceptual formations in my head to the verbal and concrete, and it happens during the writing, but since I can understand and comprehend something without needing sub-vocalization to really explain to myself how, it becomes only necessary when taking it out of my mind and onto paper or speech.
I'm aware but while reading INTP and INFP descriptions and explanations I saw written there many patterns of my behavior and thinking which I had no words to describe previously but recognized instantly. And curiously I read the other types and their descriptions as well and they didn't match up like that at all to my experience and thinking. So I think theres something to it but I reject the defined boundaries and labels and how MBTI mania has swept up society.
im gonna let everyone in on a little secret btw 150 IQ here >inb4 bullshit WAIS fags so anyway any smart person already knew all of this because we already know basic psychology and phenomenology. if u have half a brain the "thinking without words" or whatever article was like every other psych/sociology article on the internet: trite, boring, and of absolutely no consequence whatsoever i am actually repulsed by this meme and the meme fighters equally, because this concept is so rudimentary to me that spending time on it (even with this post) is a waste of brain CPU that i should be putting towards looking at my hentai collection, or playing piano just thought i'd share and also let u know that ur all equally retarded :^)
>>there are people who think primarily in mental imagery or in concepts and sensations - without sub-vocalization
That's the way animals think. So your choice is "NPC" or "non-sentient fucking dog".
Pick one.
Samuel Long
Animals don't "think" they just "do"
Jose White
>Words are just a tool to label the thought, but there are higher level thoughts, ideas and concepts, abstract and difficult to label, where words and images fail us that conceptual and intuitive thinking is best at, not at all what you said.
This is total fucking bullshit and just what I'd expect a talking dog to say.
There is no such thing as the ineffable. Period. Or, at least, nothing of value is ineffable.
People are just lazy and inarticulate and/or stupid and so they exhaust either their energy level or intelligence while grasping for an explanation and, once past the point of exhaustion, chalk whatever they failed to express up to transcendence.
Fuck you Deepak Chopra, leave the fucking thread and go bark at flowers somewhere else.
Bentley Rogers
>Animals don't "think" they just "do"
If that was the case, they wouldn't need sense organs or brains.
>Dog sees car >Dog processes mental image of car >Dog subvocally decides to chase car >Dog chases car
Congratulations, you're a dog.
Michael Nelson
>It just gets in the way usually. If I want to get a drink of water I don't need to tell myself that Well, like I was saying at the beginning of this, I don't monologue that kind of thing either. It's about complex abstract ideas and cross-checking them to make sure I'm not going off the rails. If you don't mind going off the rails, and can somehow harangue all your thoughts back down to Earth, that seems inefficient to me, but maybe you can make it work. But most people without the tool of verbal abstraction just choose to never take off from the ground and stays NPC-tier, only addressing simple, immediate problems, and responding to feels without self-doubt.
>it becomes only necessary when taking it out of my mind and onto paper or speech. I would say it's necessary constantly as a grounding tool, otherwise you allow yourself to believe reckless and self-destructive things which you never challenge because there's no reason to ever verbalise them. But if you're getting along fine in your life, who am I to criticise you. Just don't feel any shame in admitting that you might be an outlier.
>I saw written there many patterns of my behavior and thinking which I had no words to describe previously but recognized instantly. To be fair, this is verbatim what people say about horoscopes. But yeah there's probably something to it. Jung knew some shit.
People put dogs under MRI so there's been some research on this sort of thing and from what I've heard it's thought that they do actually think in pictures. It's unique to humans that we use language in our inner sanctums and certainly there is a strong connection between abstract thinking and our ability to use language, at least developmentally-speaking.
isn't having conversations with yourself in your head just schizophrenia or something anyway? I mean i talk outloud to myself too often but i don't have full blown interactive convos with myself...
Zachary Martin
What the fuck is this meme picture, its suggesting you can't consciously reflect on your actions if you can't sub-vocalize, which is wrong.
>no capability for reason >no self identity Because someone doesn't use sub-vocalization? That is also wrong.
>can't debate self, self reflect and need to be guided by others if you can't sub-vocalize Also wrong. You can do all of this, you don't need to run a mental monologue all the time while doing so.
You can just as likely go "off the rails" when thinking with a inner monologue just as with conceptual/nonverbal thinking though. So I don't agree with what you are saying about how sub-vocalizing is necessary for grounding your conceptual and unsymbolzied thoughts, especially if those thoughts are already grounded and simple everyday thoughts which don't require any internal monologue or deep analysis to understand and comprehend
>otherwise you allow yourself to believe reckless and self-destructive things which you never challenge because there's no reason to ever verbalise them I disagree, in this what matters is not whether you can sub-vocalize or not but your intelligence, emotional intelligence, and rationality, capacity for reason, empathy etc... all of which do not require sub-vocalization to be utilized, assuming so is foolish and ignorant.
The image doesn't explicitly state that's the only way. It says inner voice, not inner monologue or sub-vocalisation.
Wyatt Young
>But most people without the tool of verbal abstraction just choose to never take off from the ground and stays NPC-tier, only addressing simple, immediate problems, and responding to feels without self-doubt.
I think part of the debate here (to be serious and to leave dogs out of it for a moment) is difficult because of flawed application of definitions.
I don't believe for a moment that "thinking using verbal abstraction" is the same thing as "conducting an interior monologue of all elements of every thought".
It's possible that not everyone is looking at the study or studies in question and applying the same definition or understanding of what the surveys were about.
It can be possible to think through the question (for example) "What do I think about the current political situation in Venezuela?" without composing every element of every thought into a fully-internally-articulated paragraph. So a thinker without an "ongoing internal monologue" could productively think about this topic.
It would *not*, OTOH, be possible to think this question through entirely in "mental imagery" or on the basis of "sensation" ALONE, without verbal abstraction. Not while thinking anything AT ALL of value, above that which could be experienced by a dog.
Blake Jones
Yes and it is flawed >Rei sees the world as abstract concepts, relationships, feelings and ideas This is just the same with conceptual/unsymbolized thinkers >using her inner voice to reflect on them >inner voice
If we assume inner voice can only refer to sub-vocalization then that is so, but inner voice can also just be a way to say one's own perspective, self awareness, awareness of relation to self and others, higher level reasoning and self reflection ability all things that humans posses and utilize whether or not they use sub-vocalization or not. This pic suggests that if you lack an inner voice you lack self awareness, and reason and higher level thinking which I already said is wrong. You can have a concept of "self" without needing to internally verbalize it, you can reflect on thoughts, concepts, feelings, ideas, urges, people, the world, and reality without needing to sub-vocalize those reflections.
Once again these pic exemplifies how dehumanizng this NPC memery is.
>You can just as likely go "off the rails" when thinking with a inner monologue just as with conceptual/nonverbal thinking though. I said yes, you said no. I explained my reasoning, which is that the inner world interfaces with the outer world through language, a tool which exists to encapsulate the outer world, while inner thoughts do not bow down to actuality.
>especially if those thoughts are already grounded and simple everyday thoughts which don't require any internal monologue or deep analysis to understand and comprehend I'll say it one more time and never again. This is about complex abstract thoughts. Not mundane thoughts. This is about complex abstract thoughts. Not mundane thoughts.
>all of which do not require sub-vocalization to be utilized, assuming so is foolish and ignorant. See the first point in this here post. I explained why. I have anecdotal evidence for this from multiple people. You are the only person, online or in person, who I've ever read say the opposite. You have your own anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence from an Jow Forums poster that LARPs as anime girls that their abnormal method of abstraction is 'perfectly functional' is lacking some ethos, don't you think?
Angel Wood
This is exactly why I () think. I have never and will never conduct some autistic unending internal dialogue about every little move I make.
Adrian Taylor
>If we assume inner voice can only refer to sub-vocalization then that is so, but inner voice can also just be a way to say one's own perspective, self awareness, awareness of relation to self and others, higher level reasoning and self reflection ability all things that humans posses and utilize whether or not they use sub-vocalization or not. This pic suggests that if you lack an inner voice you lack self awareness, and reason and higher level thinking which I already said is wrong. You can have a concept of "self" without needing to internally verbalize it, you can reflect on thoughts, concepts, feelings, ideas, urges, people, the world, and reality without needing to sub-vocalize those reflections.
Right, but none of that involves thinking solely in "imagery" or "sensation", and we've been told that there are people who think *that* way.
How are the people who (apparently) think exclusively in images conducting higher reasoning? How would they *know* they've conducted higher reasoning, even once they've done it?
Even a very minimal level of abstraction - like giving concepts, objects or persons NAMES - requires verbal thinking.
Nathan Jones
>Even a very minimal level of abstraction - like giving concepts, objects or persons NAMES - requires verbal thinking. To be fair, the idea is that you'd be thinking of that thing which you named as it is and without the language of its name, but I do agree with your point.
Henry Diaz
>This is about complex abstract thoughts. You don't need sub-vocalization for that, that's what I'm trying to fucking tell you, the more defined verbal aspect of a thought can come later but it is not necessary in order to fully process a highly abstract idea or concept and work through it, analyze and explore it fully in your head including its implications in reality, its feasibility, its nature of abstractness and concreteness, etc..
Like many have said and like I have frequently said, conceptual/unsymbolized thought is advantageous for complex abstract thinking because you don't have words slowing you down, you don't need the words to understand the concept. You don't need to experience yourself saying in your head "humanity" to understand that you are thinking right now in that moment about humanity, an abstract concept, likewise for any abstract thought. Yet at the same moment you are aware of what you are thinking about and that it might have a verbal component but in that moment it is not required it would just slow your thinking down
>abnormal method of abstraction Oh that's rich, and what is a normal method of abstraction then? Running an inner monologue and using only words to grasp at abstract concept, ideas and thoughts? That's ineffective and slow.
>Anecdotal evidence from an Jow Forums poster that LARPs as anime girls Who the fuck is LARPing here, I'm just posting reaction images with my posts, this is Jow Forums that shouldn't be something noteworthy in your attempt to disparage what I'm saying.
>To be fair, the idea is that you'd be thinking of that thing which you named as it is and without the language of its name
That cannot be done.
Let's say I'm a dog and I'm thinking about how I'd like to go fuck up some cats.
You can't actually think that thought using the "thing in itself" or, as you put it, "that thing which you named as it is and without the language of its name" because that would require you to think of every last perceptual instance you've ever experienced of the four-legged animal we describe with the word 'cat'. Or, at least, that's what you'd have to do in the absence of a verbal abstraction.
The concept 'cat' only exists as a verbal abstraction.* Prior to that abstraction, what exists is "every individual cat in the world, as immediately perceived by those entities currently able to perceive them, and/or the memory of a prior perception of one".
*Fuck off, Platonists, there is no Eternal Form of a Cat out there, you fucking dumbasses
Landon Perez
You can have the perception "cat", and know that you are referring to a specific one too without needing to sub-vocalize it, or see a mental picture of that cat or any cat in your head to further flesh out the perception.
Christopher Brooks
>Even a very minimal level of abstraction - like giving concepts, objects or persons NAMES - requires verbal thinking.
Not necessarily see this >"is your understanding of the concept crippled until you remember the word?"
Cameron Gray
>You don't need to experience yourself saying in your head "humanity" to understand that you are thinking right now in that moment about humanity, an abstract concept, likewise for any abstract thought.
You still need to employ the verbal abstraction, though. You don't think of "a mental image" of "humanity". You don't conjure up the memory of "the sensation" of "humanity".
Brandon Moore
>writing whole walls of text on debunking a fucking meme
Yes, that's right, you are DEBUNKING a MEME
Brayden Peterson
>You can have the perception "cat", and know that you are referring to a specific one too without needing to sub-vocalize it
No. If you are thinking of a specific individual cat, you can summon the memory of that individual cat and think "nonverbal placeholder for this individual cat, as an individual entity and not as a member of any other category".
To think of the concept of "cat", you need to have verbally abstracted, and assigned a label to, the concept of "catness" as it applies to every instance of a cat you have ever encountered, and every other instance of a cat you may ever encounter.
In the absence of that abstraction, you most emphatically can NOT think about the concept of a "cat". You may believe that you can and do, but I would submit that's only because you have so thoroughly internalized the use of verbal abstraction that you no longer even realize you're doing it. But this "problem of universals" has consumed about 90% of the history of philosophy, man. Our ability to perform this abstraction is actually very strange and very difficult to understand, but it's very clear that we DO it. (And Koko the gorilla may have done it, too. It's unclear.)
Bentley Sullivan
>You don't conjure up the memory of "the sensation" of "humanity". I do, like I said, a conceptual thinker can "feel" thoughts, they have a sense of solidity to them, its so difficult to describe. Its like thinking in sensations, impressions, feelings, and knowing what those are referring to without needing to verbalize them or picture them.
There is a sensation for the "concept of humanity" there is a sensation for the "concept of space" etc, not that each of these concepts are linked to a specific sensation though, there is just an "instant knowing" that I am thinking about "this" and "this" can be whatever from the most abstract and remote ideas and concepts to something as simple as what to do next when playing vidya, without any accompanying verbal or pictorial thinking.
>You don't think of "a mental image" of "humanity". I seem to remember somewhere that primary visual thinkers do in fact do so, every thought and concept is associated with a mental picture, so for them "humanity" may be the sudden mental image of a group of people, and they may use sub-vocalization alongside that though too but they may not, yet still fully grasp and comprehended the concept and thought in question.
>"I was wondering about my very minimal inner monologue after talking to my husband about it earlier this week. I find it incredible how most people seem to constantly be thinking in words/sentences. It sounds exhausting to me. I think in actions, visualizations, feelings, impulses and only really have a proper inner monologue when reading or writing. I never know internally what I'm about to say out loud (unless I force myself to do so, or if I'm nervous about talking in specific situations). Often my mind seems blank with no thoughts. I find meditation very easy."
Levi Rogers
>Often my mind seems blank with no thoughts. Note this does not mean what people immediately assume it means, there is an assumption among sub-vocalizing thinkers that a lack of a running inner dialogue/voice = mindlessness and a lack of thinking. But for those people who do not primarily thing in a running mental dialogue all the time, that is not the case.
Joshua Allen
>While my moments of mental clarity, sharpness of thought, action and dialogue are when this inner voice is silent, and my mind just feels unified in a sense, free of distraction and focused on whatever I need to focus on mental or external. this.
The best thinking is when the mind is completely free and allowed to come up with insights on its own. When this happens, the understanding is clear and sharp and penetrates to the heart of the issue. Thinking with words just clutters up the mind and obscures insight
Kayden Lee
>because you have so thoroughly internalized the use of verbal abstraction that you no longer even realize you're doing it Can you explain further, what exactly verbal abstraction is referring to, because it most certainly isn't sub-vocalization or inner monologue
Evan Edwards
Well, OK then - you actually are defective.
Frankly I find even thinking using complete verbal abstraction to be insufficient. You should be able to think in complete verbal abstraction, and should be able (when necessary or useful) to hold large numbers of verbal abstractions in table classes of the mind, while relating those table classes to each other in the manner of structured query logic joins.
If you can't or don't do that, you're not actually thinking.
Your description of random experience of sensation followed by a conclusion sounds an awful lot like *wild ass guessing*, and while wild ass guessing can often achieve a good-enough result, it's not actually "thinking".
