6 ms·

For myself personally, it depends on what I'm thinking about. Thinking about writing this sentence, I hear each of the words I'm going to type in my head before

by donatj 7y ago

For myself personally, it depends on what I'm thinking about. Thinking about writing this sentence, I hear each of the words I'm going to type in my head before I type them. However, if I'm working out how to assemble a table, I'm not hearing "And now I screw the leg on" I just abstractly know that's what I'm going to do. I have to imagine that's the case for at least most people. Thinking out complicated abstract concepts in internally verbalized words just seems like it would take forever.

robofanatic 7y ago
> However, if I'm working out how to assemble a table, I'm not hearing "And now I screw the leg on" I just abstractly know that's what I'm going to do. This is funny. I can't imagine anyone doing that. There is no end to that. Like imagine someone thinking while walking down a lane "I am walking down the lane, and now I am going to turn left ... " this is endless ...
- TOGoS 7y ago
  This is what I don't understand when people claim things like "language is required for higher thought" or whatever (no link but I'm sure I've seen that claim numerous times across various articles). We necessarily do plenty of thinking without words. Certainly you can be someone who focuses more on the words or less on the words, and maybe word-based people are naturally better at talking because their thoughts are mostly in word-form to begin with, but you can't put all the thoughts in words.
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    A google came up with this long article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the language of thought hypothesis, which seems fascinating. Mentions Turing, NNs etc.. "The language of thought hypothesis (LOTH) proposes that thinking occurs in a mental language. Often called Mentalese, the mental language resembles spoken language in several key respects: it contains words that can combine into sentences; the words and sentences are meaningful; and each sentence’s meaning depends in a systematic way upon the meanings of its component words and the way those words are combined. .. LOTH emerged gradually through the writings of Augustine, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and many others. William of Ockham offered the first systematic treatment in his Summa Logicae (c. 1323), which meticulously analyzed the meaning and structure of Mentalese expressions. LOTH was quite popular during the late medieval era, but it slipped from view in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. From that point through the mid-twentieth century, it played little serious role within theorizing about the mind. In the 1970s, LOTH underwent a dramatic revival. The watershed was publication of Jerry Fodor’s The Language of Thought (1975)." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/#MentComp https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/#MentCom...
    - cat199 7y ago
      > LOTH emerged gradually through the writings of Augustine, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and many others. William of Ockham Based on the people mentioned, this theory sounds hugely and heavily influenced by western-christian theology, philosophy, and anthropology, which, since we don't 'know' scientifically, is neither good nor bad, but simply one strain of hypothesis. Other religions have other concepts - eastern christianity followed different lines (cf. 'logismoi', palamas, etc), and of course other religions have differing concepts e.g. chakras, etc. without being an expert at all, it seems to me that at least on a higher than biological level (e.g. 'proto concious'), internal representation is to some extent malleable and based on ones own philosophy and conceptualization, something which some more esoteric or 'symbolic'/'structural' religious groups focus on - and perhaps (or perhaps not) - one representation may or may not be adaptive or maladaptive to our biology or not..
  - jmiskovic 7y ago
    At least language is a huge help. For me crucial insights won't come readily formed in words, they come as abstract occurrences that need to be converted to words. Some of insight is lost in this conversion, I think, because the mind has to switch over to linguistic mode and serialize the memory content. Still, when putting ideas to words it also makes them more clear and distilled. As they say, you don't really understand the phenomenon unless you can explain it clearly.
- resonator 7y ago
  This reminds me of an electrician I know. He spends a long time working by himself. Sometimes he explains to his tools what he is doing. "okay mr drill. Now we are going to make a whole here to get the cable through. Ready?". Occasionally his customers hear him.
- vineyardmike 7y ago
  I don't do that with most thought but if (hypothetically) i dropped the screw and had to reach down and search for it, and that took some period of time, i might actually think "I have to put this screw in the hole i just drilled" to remind myself what i was doing.
- sah2ed 7y ago
  > This is funny. I can't imagine anyone doing that. There is no end to that. Like imagine someone thinking while walking down a lane "I am walking down the lane, and now I am going to turn left ... " this is endless ... Funny you say that. Growing up, I was almost exactly like that, though thankfully, the habit has shifted elsewhere. By elsewhere, this amounts to active subvocalization of distinct physical attributes of the person in front of me: shape of head, type of eyes, (ir)regularity of teeth, cut of jib, unusual piercings, color of clothing, etc.
thrwaway69 7y ago
Now, I am super self conscious of the otherwise ignored voice which reads everything I type and see. It is much sexier though than irl. I wonder why is that? On the other hand, I can speak much faster yay. Why? Is your voice reading this comment too? Maybe. Do you feel like you are conversing with an oddly being? Maybe. I am alive. Where is my mind reading tech?
- ASalazarMX 7y ago
  > It is much sexier though than irl. I wonder why is that? Well, now it is. Thank you (and me I guess for being so susceptible).
  - loopz 7y ago
    Now your read this sentence in Darth Vader voice. Not the first time though.
    - WJW 7y ago
      Just wanted to comment that I don't seem to be able to do internal Darth Vader voice. No idea why.
      - notJim 7y ago
        Can you do an impression of Darth Vader out loud? Just curious, because when I do Darth Vader voice in my head, I get a strong urge to do it out loud. Makes me wonder if they're connected.
      - rrobukef 7y ago
        The memories of not hearing the voice of professor Farnsworth when reading the meme (from before I watched Futurama) feel very weird.
      - henrikschroder 7y ago
        Can you do anyone else's voice? Friends? Family? SO? Can you remember someone saying something they said, in their voice? Start with the memory, and then tack on the new sentence at the end of it. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. Now you read the rest of this sentence in Darth Vader's voice.
daveslash 7y ago
Came to make the same comment. Normally, I avoid giving the "Me Too!" comments, but I think in this context it's appropriate. If I'm casually thinking about life, the universe, and everything then I typically have a monologue. I don't "hear" it, per say, but I am thinking in sentence structure. If I'm analyzing a problem, working on a project, or trying to digest a situation, then I do not think in such sentence like ways. If I'm performing a low-cognitive-load activity (like a long road-trip), then I've got an inner-monologue going on with words & sentences. If I'm really in need of my focus (driving in Manhattan), there's zero inner-monologue.
- rrobukef 7y ago
  I think Ihave control over how I think. An internal monologue is great for remembering in order. But I rebuild as an image of keywords which is great for connecting but the words blur. I rebuild as a map to navigate with a mental car. I rebuild as a shape to trigger my eyes, a sound for my ears... However the last week I've been stuck on naming "a complete thought", not just a vision which is just an image. But one that breaks through unconnected to any sense. A thought so full that it first needs to be unpacked in language, image, shapes and steps before it can be expressed. Thus like the article: does anyone else have this? Does anyone have a name for it?
  - SeekingMeaning 7y ago
    To be honest, I’m genuinely not sure what you’re saying.
ghostpepper 7y ago
I am also somewhere in between these two extremes, and I actually find that the process of taking an abstract thought and forcing myself to form it into words is a great way to find out how well-conceived the thought is. In other words, I may find that I can't easily put it into words and that will indicate to me that I need to put more time into thinking about it and deciding what I really think.
Elof 7y ago
I'm the spell it out type and I don't think it takes for ever. I more or less talk my self though abstractions and visualize the steps in my head. Usually in chunks if it's a complicated thing, but often as a whole. I think a cad model would be the closest parallel I can think of. My inner monologue is talking me through it as I visualize whatever I'm working on. So, it's not saying and.. now.. I.. put.. the.. next.. leg.. and so forth, it's this is how these 4 legs are going to fit
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I don't necessarily think about all the words, they just appear at the keyboard (I touch type). A bit like if you're speed reading and skip the internal vocalisation, the word is before my mind, but not in a vocal sense. Like when you imagine a square, but don't imagine a picture of one -- or perhaps when you imagine a 5 dimensional hypercube and don't imagine a picture of one (much easier!).
rladd 7y ago
I think almost entirely in images, usually moving and relating to each other in 3D space. There are words mixed in, but when they come up they are usually just single words or a phrases which are attributes of something I'm thinking of, or an action I should take. Sometimes I think more in words, but that's usually when something is really unclear to me or if I am obsessing over something. I think that years of training myself not to obsess over things probably reduced my internal monologue almost to the point that it would be good to have a bit more of it sometimes.
- RealityVoid 7y ago
  I'm pretty much the same, but my internal monologue sometimes manifests itself as, I don't know how to describe it, but, as "feelings". This is somewhat usefull, but I need a more formal method sometimes to explain me to myself.
  - cregaleus 7y ago
    I'm starting to think that I have a weak minds eye. I can not easily mentally visualize ideas, but I do feel them. When I am thinking about something new there are no words, images, etc. just feeling my way through ideas. It feels kind of like acting on instinct. For example if I am wrestling with an idea I get an impression of "resistance". Feeling my way through the path of least resistance from impression to impression. I do say words, or see flashes of images but only for ideas that I have already felt out. Words are kind of a breadcrumb trail so that I can retrace the exact train-of-thought that I had taken before and images like mile-markers.
CriticalCathed 7y ago
As with the ostensible Aphantasia I believe that this is a problem with people being able to describe their inner experiences accurately. It makes way more sense to me that >99% of people fall into the behavior category that you described, rather than that 10% of people don't have an internal monologue. FWIW, my experience lines up very closely to yours.
dangerface 7y ago
> Thinking out complicated abstract concepts in internally verbalized words just seems like it would take forever. I do this but the internal monologue fits the time it takes me to do the thing or I go onto the next thing. It gives me a good sense of progression, what I have accomplished and the goal im focused on. If the task is routine like buttering toast the monologue is about something else.

by donatj 7y ago

robofanatic 7y ago

> However, if I'm working out how to assemble a table, I'm not hearing "And now I screw the leg on" I just abstractly know that's what I'm going to do. This is funny. I can't imagine anyone doing that. There is no end to that. Like imagine someone thinking while walking down a lane "I am walking down the lane, and now I am going to turn left ... " this is endless ...

TOGoS 7y ago
This is what I don't understand when people claim things like "language is required for higher thought" or whatever (no link but I'm sure I've seen that claim numerous times across various articles). We necessarily do plenty of thinking without words. Certainly you can be someone who focuses more on the words or less on the words, and maybe word-based people are naturally better at talking because their thoughts are mostly in word-form to begin with, but you can't put all the thoughts in words.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  A google came up with this long article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the language of thought hypothesis, which seems fascinating. Mentions Turing, NNs etc.. "The language of thought hypothesis (LOTH) proposes that thinking occurs in a mental language. Often called Mentalese, the mental language resembles spoken language in several key respects: it contains words that can combine into sentences; the words and sentences are meaningful; and each sentence’s meaning depends in a systematic way upon the meanings of its component words and the way those words are combined. .. LOTH emerged gradually through the writings of Augustine, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and many others. William of Ockham offered the first systematic treatment in his Summa Logicae (c. 1323), which meticulously analyzed the meaning and structure of Mentalese expressions. LOTH was quite popular during the late medieval era, but it slipped from view in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. From that point through the mid-twentieth century, it played little serious role within theorizing about the mind. In the 1970s, LOTH underwent a dramatic revival. The watershed was publication of Jerry Fodor’s The Language of Thought (1975)." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/#MentComp https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/#MentCom...
  - cat199 7y ago
    > LOTH emerged gradually through the writings of Augustine, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and many others. William of Ockham Based on the people mentioned, this theory sounds hugely and heavily influenced by western-christian theology, philosophy, and anthropology, which, since we don't 'know' scientifically, is neither good nor bad, but simply one strain of hypothesis. Other religions have other concepts - eastern christianity followed different lines (cf. 'logismoi', palamas, etc), and of course other religions have differing concepts e.g. chakras, etc. without being an expert at all, it seems to me that at least on a higher than biological level (e.g. 'proto concious'), internal representation is to some extent malleable and based on ones own philosophy and conceptualization, something which some more esoteric or 'symbolic'/'structural' religious groups focus on - and perhaps (or perhaps not) - one representation may or may not be adaptive or maladaptive to our biology or not..
- jmiskovic 7y ago
  At least language is a huge help. For me crucial insights won't come readily formed in words, they come as abstract occurrences that need to be converted to words. Some of insight is lost in this conversion, I think, because the mind has to switch over to linguistic mode and serialize the memory content. Still, when putting ideas to words it also makes them more clear and distilled. As they say, you don't really understand the phenomenon unless you can explain it clearly.
resonator 7y ago
This reminds me of an electrician I know. He spends a long time working by himself. Sometimes he explains to his tools what he is doing. "okay mr drill. Now we are going to make a whole here to get the cable through. Ready?". Occasionally his customers hear him.
vineyardmike 7y ago
I don't do that with most thought but if (hypothetically) i dropped the screw and had to reach down and search for it, and that took some period of time, i might actually think "I have to put this screw in the hole i just drilled" to remind myself what i was doing.
sah2ed 7y ago
> This is funny. I can't imagine anyone doing that. There is no end to that. Like imagine someone thinking while walking down a lane "I am walking down the lane, and now I am going to turn left ... " this is endless ... Funny you say that. Growing up, I was almost exactly like that, though thankfully, the habit has shifted elsewhere. By elsewhere, this amounts to active subvocalization of distinct physical attributes of the person in front of me: shape of head, type of eyes, (ir)regularity of teeth, cut of jib, unusual piercings, color of clothing, etc.

thrwaway69 7y ago

Now, I am super self conscious of the otherwise ignored voice which reads everything I type and see. It is much sexier though than irl. I wonder why is that? On the other hand, I can speak much faster yay. Why? Is your voice reading this comment too? Maybe. Do you feel like you are conversing with an oddly being? Maybe. I am alive. Where is my mind reading tech?

ASalazarMX 7y ago
> It is much sexier though than irl. I wonder why is that? Well, now it is. Thank you (and me I guess for being so susceptible).
- loopz 7y ago
  Now your read this sentence in Darth Vader voice. Not the first time though.
  - WJW 7y ago
    Just wanted to comment that I don't seem to be able to do internal Darth Vader voice. No idea why.
    - notJim 7y ago
      Can you do an impression of Darth Vader out loud? Just curious, because when I do Darth Vader voice in my head, I get a strong urge to do it out loud. Makes me wonder if they're connected.
    - rrobukef 7y ago
      The memories of not hearing the voice of professor Farnsworth when reading the meme (from before I watched Futurama) feel very weird.
    - henrikschroder 7y ago
      Can you do anyone else's voice? Friends? Family? SO? Can you remember someone saying something they said, in their voice? Start with the memory, and then tack on the new sentence at the end of it. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. Now you read the rest of this sentence in Darth Vader's voice.

daveslash 7y ago

Came to make the same comment. Normally, I avoid giving the "Me Too!" comments, but I think in this context it's appropriate. If I'm casually thinking about life, the universe, and everything then I typically have a monologue. I don't "hear" it, per say, but I am thinking in sentence structure. If I'm analyzing a problem, working on a project, or trying to digest a situation, then I do not think in such sentence like ways. If I'm performing a low-cognitive-load activity (like a long road-trip), then I've got an inner-monologue going on with words & sentences. If I'm really in need of my focus (driving in Manhattan), there's zero inner-monologue.

rrobukef 7y ago
I think Ihave control over how I think. An internal monologue is great for remembering in order. But I rebuild as an image of keywords which is great for connecting but the words blur. I rebuild as a map to navigate with a mental car. I rebuild as a shape to trigger my eyes, a sound for my ears... However the last week I've been stuck on naming "a complete thought", not just a vision which is just an image. But one that breaks through unconnected to any sense. A thought so full that it first needs to be unpacked in language, image, shapes and steps before it can be expressed. Thus like the article: does anyone else have this? Does anyone have a name for it?
- SeekingMeaning 7y ago
  To be honest, I’m genuinely not sure what you’re saying.

ghostpepper 7y ago

I am also somewhere in between these two extremes, and I actually find that the process of taking an abstract thought and forcing myself to form it into words is a great way to find out how well-conceived the thought is. In other words, I may find that I can't easily put it into words and that will indicate to me that I need to put more time into thinking about it and deciding what I really think.

Elof 7y ago

I'm the spell it out type and I don't think it takes for ever. I more or less talk my self though abstractions and visualize the steps in my head. Usually in chunks if it's a complicated thing, but often as a whole. I think a cad model would be the closest parallel I can think of. My inner monologue is talking me through it as I visualize whatever I'm working on. So, it's not saying and.. now.. I.. put.. the.. next.. leg.. and so forth, it's this is how these 4 legs are going to fit

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

I don't necessarily think about all the words, they just appear at the keyboard (I touch type). A bit like if you're speed reading and skip the internal vocalisation, the word is before my mind, but not in a vocal sense. Like when you imagine a square, but don't imagine a picture of one -- or perhaps when you imagine a 5 dimensional hypercube and don't imagine a picture of one (much easier!).

rladd 7y ago

I think almost entirely in images, usually moving and relating to each other in 3D space. There are words mixed in, but when they come up they are usually just single words or a phrases which are attributes of something I'm thinking of, or an action I should take. Sometimes I think more in words, but that's usually when something is really unclear to me or if I am obsessing over something. I think that years of training myself not to obsess over things probably reduced my internal monologue almost to the point that it would be good to have a bit more of it sometimes.

RealityVoid 7y ago
I'm pretty much the same, but my internal monologue sometimes manifests itself as, I don't know how to describe it, but, as "feelings". This is somewhat usefull, but I need a more formal method sometimes to explain me to myself.
- cregaleus 7y ago
  I'm starting to think that I have a weak minds eye. I can not easily mentally visualize ideas, but I do feel them. When I am thinking about something new there are no words, images, etc. just feeling my way through ideas. It feels kind of like acting on instinct. For example if I am wrestling with an idea I get an impression of "resistance". Feeling my way through the path of least resistance from impression to impression. I do say words, or see flashes of images but only for ideas that I have already felt out. Words are kind of a breadcrumb trail so that I can retrace the exact train-of-thought that I had taken before and images like mile-markers.

CriticalCathed 7y ago

As with the ostensible Aphantasia I believe that this is a problem with people being able to describe their inner experiences accurately. It makes way more sense to me that >99% of people fall into the behavior category that you described, rather than that 10% of people don't have an internal monologue. FWIW, my experience lines up very closely to yours.

dangerface 7y ago

> Thinking out complicated abstract concepts in internally verbalized words just seems like it would take forever. I do this but the internal monologue fits the time it takes me to do the thing or I go onto the next thing. It gives me a good sense of progression, what I have accomplished and the goal im focused on. If the task is routine like buttering toast the monologue is about something else.