NPC = those "people" who autonomously follow group think and trends

You also have this article, which touches on why an inner dialog is so necessary in creating a "sense of self", and contrasts that with aphasia patients, who have damage to the regions which would allow them to do so.

The questions then, are....

1. Are those who reported having no inner dialog telling the truth to the person taking the survey?

2. Do such people really exist, and if so, what percentage of the population?

3. What is the political implications of this?

4. If someone lacks inner monologue, does that mean that the totality of their thought is limited by the input they get via television, other media, and conversations of others?

abc.net.au/news/health/2016-06-23/inner-voices-how-internal-dialogue-helps-us-make-sense-of-world/7535538

Neither the video nor the paper say anything about a "lack" of inner speech.
Congrats for trying

>Neither the video nor the paper say anything about a "lack" of inner speech
Which only proves you couldn't even make it 1 minute into the video or the second paragraph of the paper.

So much for trying to have an intelligent conversation.

Nice try buddy, you're the one chickening out here now. You throw a random link, you make a conclusion from the link, the conclusion isn't there. Your entire conversation falls to pieces before you even started. End of story

Again, the fact that you couldn't make it 1 minute into a 4 minute video, and then have the temerity to claim that it didn't say what it says shows me that you have no interest in having an honest discussion.

>t.npc

Okay buddy. Keep on yammering about your npcs on the internet. The article is a tough read for a non-academic but anyone with half a brain can watch that video and see how full of shit you are. So you can keep sperging about my so-called lack of reading/listening comprehension the counterproof is right there clear as day

OK, let's try going around the block on this...

1. Do you have an inner monologue yourself? As in... you "think" in words, you have the ability to use these thinking words to process complex ideas, to self-reflect, and to filter a variety of input into coherent conclusions?

2. Do you agree with every neurologist in the world that there is an illness called "aphasia" which blocks this ability (among other things) as a result of brain damage?

nidcd.nih.gov/health/aphasia

3. Do you agree that there are at least SOME people who self-report that they have no inner dialog?

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pristine-inner-experience/201110/not-everyone-conducts-inner-speech

4. Can you see the political significance if a large enough percentage of the population lacks an inner monologue?

Your first question is retarded. My personal experience has no merit on any conversation and I can lie about it. Aphasia is a medical issue. Not a permanent psychological impairment. It gets fixed. One statistic pulled from 30 people from one university does not allow itself to be extended to the general populace. Google statistical interference, sample vs population, sampling distribution, reliability repeatability and reproducibility. Therefore your last question is a fairy tale

I agree that one study of 30 people is not enough to make generalized statements about he population, that is why I have been careful of my words.

But the fact that there are ANY people self-reporting a lack of inner voices suggests one of two things...

1. Every person who self-reported is lying.

2. There ARE at least a few people in this world who live without an inner voice.

My mention of aphasia is to remind the reader that the inner voice is tied to biological factors; ones which can be on or off due to brain damage or potentially other (including genetic) factors.

For example... science has concluded that eye color is a genetic trait passed down by the combination of either the prominent or recessive traits of the parents ( as in Bl+bl=Bl, Br+X=Br)

And yet, science (and most people) are nearly unwilling to admit that the brain, which is also biological, is subject to the same genetic advantages or disadvantages being passed down.

Is your argument that there are NO people in this world lacking an inner voice in their every day life? Or is your argument that the number of such people is so low as to be statistically insignificant?

I can understand the reasonableness of debating the second, but I think the proof (assuming that not every self-report is a lie) of the first is already there.

And once we accept that there are ANY such people living; the discussion of how (and to what extent) they are able to conduct independent thought is a reasonable topic of discussion.

Your lack of adherence to the facts is astonishing
And your constant attempt at putting words in my mouth is disgusting
I've already called you out on bullshit twice, and you've received all the time I was willing to alot to you
Which, may I remind you at the start of this thread was exactly zero seconds
Yes, there are still a bunch of things wrong in your last comment
No, I'm no longer willing to keep divulging what it is
Do more reading and less ranting

A fairly complex version of the "non-denial denial"; with a little "you're wrong, therefore you're wrong" thrown in.

I've noticed that with the exception of , you haven't really gone into specifics. But that's OK too, you're not required to reply to a comment; though the fact that you replied to my first comment made me think you wanted to have a real conversation on the subject.

Whatever I'm bored with studying and the board is shit I can amuse myself with this dumbassery a little more

1. Every person who self-reported is lying.
2. There ARE at least a few people in this world who live without an inner voice.
Both wrong. The obvious conclusion from the test is: There are at least a few people in this world who didn't have an inner voice *during the observed moments of the test*.

Aphasia has nothing to do with inner speech. There is nothing about that condition that relates to this. It's a matter of input/output of audiovisual cues getting scrambled.

And when you're asking me what my argument is, I don't have to choose. I can just choose both. Or even more than both. I don't see a reason to believe any one of them more than the other. So why the fuck should I have to pick one?

So when I said there was a bunch of things wrong I was being gentle
I actually meant pretty much everything is wrong

Of course there is a relationship between aphasia and the loss of inner speech:

nautil.us/issue/30/identity/what-happens-when-you-cant-talk-to-yourself

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4419662/

core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42336858.pdf

The first one is a blog, not science.
And it isn't in relation to what is being discussed here
i.e. a permanent loss instead of a temporary one

There you go again. You claim the first article has nothing to do with what we are talking about, though it does. Although, in your defense, you had to read all the way to the 6th paragraph to find it.

The woman was describing the aphasia she was suffering after a stroke. To quote...

But one of the most profound effects was losing the ability to speak with herself. Her inner monologue disappeared for several months, leaving her unable to process her own thoughts in what is considered a psychologically “normal” way. The ability to converse with one’s self, known as “self-talk,” or “inner speech,” is essential for conceptualizing our emotions, processing our memories, and for predicting the future. It is inherently associated with our sense of self.

The relationship between language and the self is made clear in child development. As infants gain the ability to understand and use language, they also become more aware of themselves and their place in their environment. When infants don’t develop their language as expected, it is often a sign of a larger issue, such as autism spectrum disorder, which is also associated with a lack of self-awareness and sociability.

And also, this is the conclusion of your last study:
The study showed that inner speech can remain intact while there is a marked
deficit in overt speech.

Anecdotal stories are not science.
That is basic stuff

And later in the article, they disccuss "loss of identity" that results:

Phillips is just one of three people with aphasia that documentary filmmaker Guillermo F. Flórez has profiled in a new film about the condition, Speechless. In it, Phillips describes her internal silence as a total loss of identity. Some research has even suggested that internal speech is necessary for higher consciousness. But American philosopher Jerry Fodor proposes an alternative idea, called the “Language of Thought” hypothesis. He argues that in addition to our consciously perceived internal monologues, we have a second internal language that is codified into the brain—a kind of “mentalese,” that we don’t consciously perceive.

And yet in order to find that, you ignore the second sentence of the summary which says...

" Previous studies show that there are some cases in which inner speech is preserved while overt speech is impaired, and vice versa. "

None of this should be difficult to accept. Since the inner voice is tied to brain activity in the auditory centers of the brain, it is only natural that damage to that section would hinder the ability to have an inner voice.

Temporarily.

OK, so I at least have you acknowledging that it happens.

Now comes the question as to whether or not it is temporary. You are correct that in terms of stroke patients, it is (usually) temporary depending on the severity of the stroke.

However, in progressive aphasia (which is tied to progressive brain disease like Alzheimer's, it becomes permanent.

aphasia.org/aphasia-resources/primary-progressive-aphasia/

Now, you can argue (rightly by the way) that the Alzheimer example uses a diseased or abnormal brain as an example and therefore does not describe "normal" brain activity. That is correct, but it leads us back to the same problem/issue that I started with. To recap...

1. The ability to conduct inner speech is a biological function.
2. That function can be disrupted by brain injury, which confirms that it is a biological function within the brain.

Which leads to...

3. There are biological variations in the brain between one person and others. (for example, autistic vs non-autistic)

4. We still have people reporting that they have NEVER had an inner voice.

I don't know your opinion, but I think there is room for a LOT more study on this subject. The 30-person study isn't enough. But again, the mere existence of this is significant, and if it is happening in a large enough percentage of people, it would also be politically significant.

And with the CDC now saying that autism effects 1/59 children (1.69%), I would lean toward the number of those lacking an inner voice being at least as high.

Forgot link:

autismspeaks.org/science-news/cdc-increases-estimate-autisms-prevalence-15-percent-1-59-children

Point 4 is wrong. I already pointed that out.
There is also no link between autism and lack of inner speech. Your first paper actually specifically gave a possible link between autism and atypical inner speech. Meaning of a different variety, not lacking altogether

>If someone lacks inner monologue, does that mean that the totality of their thought is limited by the input they get via television, other media, and conversations of others?

...exactly!

Attached: 1417872864001.jpg (940x529, 64K)

I'm going to bed. None of what you're saying is scientifically underbuilt and I'm bored.

Let me start with autism, and I'll get back to point 4....

I did not say there was a link between autism and a lack of an inner voice, only that I believe the percentages of people lacking an inner voice would be HIGHER than the percentage on the autism scale.

I say this because the generally accepted definition of autism (at least according to google) is...

"...a mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts.."

Since this is in the same ballpark of what we're talking about, I would suspect (with no evidence since I don't think there has been a study) that a larger percentage of autistic (compared with non autistic) would be lacking an inner voice. And since there are people functioning in the world who are non-autistic and report having no inner voice), mathematically there's a good chance that the percentage of people without an inner voice would be equal to or greater than the percentage of those with autism.

Now, back to point 4...

Your position (at least in an earlier comment) is that the study was flawed because what people were ACTUALLY reporting is that they were not using their inner voice while the question was being asked.

This is absolutely legitimate, and if the only thing we had to work with was this study, I would agree that there is nothing to this theory or question.

But that's not all we have. Once this study came out, it created a larger conversation on the subject, and we had a lot of people not in the study reporting that they too have no inner voice, and some claiming they never have.

The example that comes to mind is (see image). Now it is entirely possible that this person is simply lying; he/she wouldn't be the first to lie on the internet.

But we also have statements from other people, who take the time to discuss how they "think" without an inner voice etc. For example...

(continued)....

For example, we have this link (reddit, another bad source I agree)...

reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/7tqjvd/how_do_people_with_no_internal_monologue_think/

You also mention the lack of scientific studies, and the fact that someones personal account isn't science.

Again, I agree there should be more science, but even in psychology, much if it is based on the patents reflection and other non-provable personal descriptions of thoughts and feelings.

And that is the reason why i think it's important to understand (and if possible) put some numbers behind this.

In the book "1984", there was a section dealing with Newspeak. Their idea was that by destroying words and simplifying the language, you would eventually make it impossible for people to even conceive of certain ideas.

I think it is the same thing here. In a normal thinking person, their "input" is everything they have seen, heard, read, and taught. Then, through self-reflection and organized thought, they process all of this information and draw their own conclusions and form their own beliefs.

But if they are incapable of organizing complex and abstract thoughts (which I think is the case if they have no inner monologue), they can only remember (or not) what they have had inputted into them.

It would be like someone raised in a box. If they had never had access to information, they would have no ability to think because they would have no way to conceptualize ideas.

I’m so glad that I’m not the kind of person to go this deep into a Jow Forums meme

Attached: 7A182429-B21C-4886-AC5E-FC69E07D0B6A.jpg (540x650, 64K)

But we're not talking about the meme, we're talking about the concept that created the meme.

I’m so glad that I’m not the kind of person to go this deep into other people’s sense of mortality and relevancy

Attached: 1233AA77-9702-4B18-BE2B-EE779E0E5107.jpg (513x650, 67K)

Hey, some people like discovery, and science.

Until Aryabhata and Newton started thinking about gravity, people didn't know the world; and yet gravity still existed.

This is a topic that is light on study, but still presents enough interesting ideas to warrant more research.

However, people have already figured out what the sociological damage would be if the initial observations are proven true; so they are fighting back against even doing more research.

You don't like science. You've been flaunting your ignorance this entire thread.
People like you disgust me. Acting like you take on the rational side even tho you don't even read the material you keep spamming.

says the man who didn't make it through the first 6 paragraphs of any link I posted.

True, I can respect the research gone into this study. Learning more about how we interact with others and pur surroundings is one of the most important steps as to figuring out who we truly are. It’s just topics and methods like these that I’m not particularly inteested in. I’d consider myself more of an applier rather than a discoverer

The content of the thread proves otherwise

Attached: 1530847907646.png (680x514, 72K)

This is the most (recently) famous of statements by those without an inner voice.

It's entirely possible that this person is just lying. However, enough people have come forward with similar stories to make it worth researching more.

(frankly, I would feel more comfortable believing that the person is lying than telling the truth)

Attached: Patient_one.jpg (931x486, 148K)

The reasons it floors me is because of statements made such as in the image here. If it is true (IF, mind you), and IF there is any significant population who is like this, it is a significant problem.

At the heart of all western political theory is the idea that "all men are created equal". In other words... that there is a human equality of opportunity where, with work and education and some luck, people can move forward in their lives and their communities.

Concepts such as those in the image call this into question. I still question how someone lacking the ability to self-reflect COULD think on a higher level, especially with abstract concepts.

As I said earlier, I would love to find someone who claims to be like this, just to question them on their method of thought.

Should have referred to the image here:

I am an npc and I don't care what people say.

>article is a tough read
>lemme formulate opinion without reading it

I'm an NPC
ama

>16 posts about a meme you don't like
Who hurt you?

Jesus christ, just go back and stay there, and I mean Plebbit, gtfo Jow Forums you autistic screecher

4