6 ms·

I’m pretty skeptical of people that make this claim. It’s just surprising to me that a base level feature would work so differently. I’d expect some variation i

I’m pretty skeptical of people that make this claim. It’s just surprising to me that a base level feature would work so differently. I’d expect some variation in models (like that old Feynman video about counting), but if you can speak and use language it’s hard for me to accept literally no internal voice is going on. I’ve always kinda suspected people making this claim are lacking introspection to such an extreme extent that they don’t even recognize the inner voice that’s omnipresent.

impjohn 5y ago
Language is still a learned skill. It is quite normal to assume someone not raised in civilization and doesn't speak any human languages does not have an inner monologue expressed in words. While we do all thinking in terms of words (thats how we express ideas) it doesn't necessarily follow. I do have quite a loud "copilot" but I can see how it's a configurable behavior
- gonehome 5y ago
  If you don’t have language I’d guess a lot of things are different about how you think. If you can speak, read, and write though?
  - impjohn 5y ago
    Meditation is exactly the practice of letting your inner monologue chatter until it dies away and you're fully tethered to your sensations and surroundings. So if one can learn to meditate, in theory one can meditate all the time (therefore not have inner chatter/monologue) The more interesting question is what is the usefulness of inner dialogue in itself. A way to rehearse/articulate thoughts to be communicated to someone else? A roleplay with yourself to prepare for a future encounter? Thinking doesn't necessary need the 'echo' of hearing a voice. That's separate, that's more intriguing to me
    - gonehome 5y ago
      Meditation is recognizing the omnipresent voice and trying to quiet it down. It’s partly why I suspect those that think they don’t have an internal monologue just aren’t recognizing it. I think you can get better at quieting the voice or letting thoughts pass, but I don’t think you can really turn it off for longer than a few moments. Gurus that claim they have and have “reached enlightenment” just seem to be lying either to themselves or everyone else (or both).
      - psyc 5y ago
        How or where did you acquire such specific beliefs about what minds can or cannot do?
        gonehome 5y ago
        My skepticism probably comes in part from an anti-religion, anti-mystic reflex. There’s a lot of woo around this stuff so it often puts me on guard. Obviously nobody is claiming psychic powers here, but I wouldn’t expect brains to operate that differently - so it’s surprising to me.
        traverseda 5y ago
        You might enjoy "37 ways words can be wrong". https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th...
        LocalH 5y ago
        >but I wouldn’t expect brains to operate that differently Everyone's neurotransmitter balance is different. Of course that will cause brains to sometimes operate wildly differently.
        gonehome 5y ago
        Sure, but there are 4 billion years of selective pressure behind us that make us a lot more alike than different. Maybe this runs at a higher level in the 'brain software stack' that has more variation, but it seems like it'd be a more common lower level type of thing. Ultimately this is just a hunch though about what I suspect is more likely, I can obviously be wrong.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Waterluvian 5y ago
A few thoughts: - Maybe! - Don't accidentally get caught in the fallacy of "how I experience existence must be how everyone does - Is it possibly just a semantic distinction at that point? If you are completely consciously unaware of an internal voice that speaks your language, does it matter if it's there or not?
- gonehome 5y ago
  I’m with you on 2, but it doesn’t seem like just me - it seems like vast majority except the occasional person claiming it’s different for them. It’s not a semantic distinction to me, since the mechanism underlying it would then be the same and it’d just be their recognition of it that varied which is way less surprising.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    Indeed, there are legions of non-dual meditation apps and meditation teachers who train people to deal with this inner voice in ways that are helpful. If such people were not rampant, I do not think these teachers and apps would be so popular.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      A lot of therapy is also focused around self-talk and rumination too.
fontofzeor 5y ago
I truly believe this can be quite different between people. Personally I don't have "a" inner voice, but a quorum of three, all of which together form "my" thoughts
- gonehome 5y ago
  That kind of variation isn’t too surprising to me. The claim that there isn’t one at all though I don’t really buy.
  - mach1ne 5y ago
    If I would hazard a guess, I'd say it's possible that the region of the brain processing language has developed elsewhere than with your average human, leading to less connections from language (Broca's region) directly to auditory region. This hypothesis would explain hearing the inner monologue when reading, as reading actually transcribes visual data directly to their phonetic counterparts.
- rileyphone 5y ago
  probably better than a bickering Italian couple! https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/25/the-last-great-mystery-of-the-mind-meet-the-people-who-have-unusual-or-non-existent-inner-voices https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/25/the-last-gre...
jhedwards 5y ago
Is it that much different from aphantasia? My sister cannot "see" anything in her mind at all, whereas for me mental images are so strong that I sometimes stop seeing the world in front of my eyes in favor of the one in my head. That's a pretty radical difference in a "base level" feature.
- gonehome 5y ago
  I think it’s different - there was an old post by an early FB employee who has no ability to visualize images after a head injury and has to adapt as a result for that. Thinking of images is also different than thinking of words (since all of us speak the language). I’m not saying it’s impossible, but that I suspect its more likely a lack of introspection - I’d need to be persuaded empirically somehow and don’t know how to test it.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > Thinking of images is also different than thinking of words (since all of us speak the language). No more of speak the language than see with our eyes. Personally while I do have some kind of inner voice, my thoughts tend much more heavily to the visual. And memories too. If I need to recall a phone number or spelling then I'll imagine it written.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      Thanks - something for me to think about. These HN threads do have a history of changing my mind (or at least softening my position) on topics where the true answer can be harder to know.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    My introspection is quite good on this; I've been doing meditation on and off for decades. Sorry, but I don't have an internal narrator. Instead, the meditative interruptions that come with words are generally imagined discussions with other people or things to write about. Like you, I had a hard time believing people were different in this. The whole idea of an internal narrator seemed absurd to me. Why would anybody need a narrator for themselves? They're right there! But enough people claim that this is their real life that I'm willing to believe it, however tedious and exhausting that sounds to me.
krageon 5y ago
> I’m pretty skeptical of people that make this claim. Your essential point for justifying this skepticism is that you cannot imagine people are this different. In my experience people are always a little bit more different than you can imagine. After all, there are people that tirelessly work to charitable ends on one end and people that run death camps on the other. > people making this claim are lacking introspection to such an extreme extent It's perfectly acceptable to you to imagine that you are (essentially) fundamentally better or more complete than them, but not that perhaps they are your equals and merely experience life differently. I think it could be valuable to figure out why one is easy to you while the other is hard.
psyc 5y ago
Do you not consider introspection a base level feature? I think the point of these aphantasia-related discussions is that people make wrong assumptions about what is base-level.
traverseda 5y ago
I have an inner monologue when reading (or otherwise interacting with language), but mostly not when actually doing stuff. There must be some stuff you do where you don't have an inner monologue? I think it's a matter of degrees, like when programming my inner monologue consists mostly of variable names, but not like a procedural "I'll do this, then this, then it will do this". If you're having a hard time grasping that, try doing or thinking about things while doing a mantra. I think you'll find that you're still able to "think" while the only thing your inner dialogue is saying is some kind of mantra. (It may take some practice) You can also try speed reading apps which force you to absorb information without the time for an inner monologue. I find this helps with introspection as you can observe ideas without the (direct) bias of language. Being able to recognize and observe the thing that's making your inner monologue happen is a useful skill, I think. I can't really imagine being bound to language like you're describing, and it often takes me a while to put more complicated ideas into words. Languages categories are never going to be accurate. Is a whale a fish or a mammal? Well technically a mammal, but if you want to put someone in charge of them it's probably better if it's the department of fisheries than whoever's in charge of buffalo. One of of them has boats. The word is just a word, a pointer at a vague collection of things with similar properties. Being able to think about and work with the things directly without the distraction of language is very important to me.
- VRay 5y ago
  Man, this is a really weird thread. I don’t vocalize my thoughts internally either unless I need to formalize and remember them. My guess is that the people who can’t imagine not having an inner monologue just don’t take control of that process, since I can’t imagine they’re unable to think at all without mentally vocalizing things. And now it sounds like a lot of meditation is training to be able to think the way you or I do, haha. Is there any useful, productive research out there about this stuff? The only time I’ve come across any convincing or scientifically rigorous psychology was when Feynman did some for fun in his spare time and wrote about it
doliveira 5y ago
Does you inner monologue have an accent? Can you recognize a definite tone to it? I heard someone mentioning "I loved your accent, so I'll imagine you narrating my thoughts from now on" and the idea of your thoughts being pronounced in your mind with accents sounded completely alien to me.
- psyc 5y ago
  I can apply any character voice I can imagine to the inner voice. The default that I "hear" most of the time isn't even my voice - the timbre is a bit lower and more neutral, and it lacks my distinctive vocal affectations. But if I want to hear it as an Irish woman, or whatever else, I just do. Perhaps it's relevant that I always did character voices and accents out loud as well, since I was a kid wanting to be an actor.
andrem 5y ago
Well here is one other random sample who has to turn the inner voice on when necessary :) Instead of a voice I have a constant song playing in my head when I am not focused. The song changes multiple times per week but if I am on idle I have a song. When I speak the song turns off, but no voice comes on, unless I consciously prepare my words. Now when typing this comment, I have a voice (which is my own voice) say the words I am about to type milliseconds before I type them.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  I also have a song playing in my head most of the time (even while reading but not writing , like you). I’m a hobbyist musician; maybe that’s part of it. But I also have an inner voice . I think the music stops when the voice starts, not sure. For the last week I’ve had “right down the line” by Gerry Raferty (70s pop song) playing.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    This is the best thread on HN. Thank you everyone for being so goddamn interesting.
  - te0006 5y ago
    This repetetive inner soundtrack thimg can be really annoying sometimes, hampering or even killing concentration on "real thoughts". Any pro tips on how to turn that off? Best approach I found is bulldozing it over with a really powerful but not too beautiful/memorable song. The famous "rickrolling" piece seems to work OK for this. (I.e. not by actually hearing it, just by intentionally "playing it internally".)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
indrax 5y ago
For many cognitive processes, I don't see a clear survival value to conscious awareness of that process, so I don't expect that awareness to be a reliable feature. The survival relevant result of that cognition can still come through. I also think that an internal voice that doesn't get conscious awareness is likely to become a process that doesn't present as voice. So it's not like someone can just pay more attention and hear something, because it stopped talking a long time ago.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
SeanSpearo 5y ago
Everyone's brains operate the same from a basic view, but have very different details. We all think in different ways, we all experience life differently. We just apply similarly understood terms that make it seem like it's all the same. Who knows how varied our actual consciousness is.
mdp2021 5y ago
It is not surprising. That you can use verbal language does not mean something inside must use it continuously. In fact, it makes sense that it is used only when relevant. That you can move your hand does not mean you continuously use them. If an «internal voice is going on», you are somehow letting it. This is especially valid for people with heightened introspection (owing to the higher control that internal assessment gives).

impjohn 5y ago

Language is still a learned skill. It is quite normal to assume someone not raised in civilization and doesn't speak any human languages does not have an inner monologue expressed in words. While we do all thinking in terms of words (thats how we express ideas) it doesn't necessarily follow. I do have quite a loud "copilot" but I can see how it's a configurable behavior

gonehome 5y ago
If you don’t have language I’d guess a lot of things are different about how you think. If you can speak, read, and write though?
- impjohn 5y ago
  Meditation is exactly the practice of letting your inner monologue chatter until it dies away and you're fully tethered to your sensations and surroundings. So if one can learn to meditate, in theory one can meditate all the time (therefore not have inner chatter/monologue) The more interesting question is what is the usefulness of inner dialogue in itself. A way to rehearse/articulate thoughts to be communicated to someone else? A roleplay with yourself to prepare for a future encounter? Thinking doesn't necessary need the 'echo' of hearing a voice. That's separate, that's more intriguing to me
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Meditation is recognizing the omnipresent voice and trying to quiet it down. It’s partly why I suspect those that think they don’t have an internal monologue just aren’t recognizing it. I think you can get better at quieting the voice or letting thoughts pass, but I don’t think you can really turn it off for longer than a few moments. Gurus that claim they have and have “reached enlightenment” just seem to be lying either to themselves or everyone else (or both).
    - psyc 5y ago
      How or where did you acquire such specific beliefs about what minds can or cannot do?
      - gonehome 5y ago
        My skepticism probably comes in part from an anti-religion, anti-mystic reflex. There’s a lot of woo around this stuff so it often puts me on guard. Obviously nobody is claiming psychic powers here, but I wouldn’t expect brains to operate that differently - so it’s surprising to me.
        traverseda 5y ago
        You might enjoy "37 ways words can be wrong". https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th...
        LocalH 5y ago
        >but I wouldn’t expect brains to operate that differently Everyone's neurotransmitter balance is different. Of course that will cause brains to sometimes operate wildly differently.
        gonehome 5y ago
        Sure, but there are 4 billion years of selective pressure behind us that make us a lot more alike than different. Maybe this runs at a higher level in the 'brain software stack' that has more variation, but it seems like it'd be a more common lower level type of thing. Ultimately this is just a hunch though about what I suspect is more likely, I can obviously be wrong.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Waterluvian 5y ago

A few thoughts: - Maybe! - Don't accidentally get caught in the fallacy of "how I experience existence must be how everyone does - Is it possibly just a semantic distinction at that point? If you are completely consciously unaware of an internal voice that speaks your language, does it matter if it's there or not?

gonehome 5y ago
I’m with you on 2, but it doesn’t seem like just me - it seems like vast majority except the occasional person claiming it’s different for them. It’s not a semantic distinction to me, since the mechanism underlying it would then be the same and it’d just be their recognition of it that varied which is way less surprising.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Indeed, there are legions of non-dual meditation apps and meditation teachers who train people to deal with this inner voice in ways that are helpful. If such people were not rampant, I do not think these teachers and apps would be so popular.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    A lot of therapy is also focused around self-talk and rumination too.

fontofzeor 5y ago

I truly believe this can be quite different between people. Personally I don't have "a" inner voice, but a quorum of three, all of which together form "my" thoughts

gonehome 5y ago
That kind of variation isn’t too surprising to me. The claim that there isn’t one at all though I don’t really buy.
- mach1ne 5y ago
  If I would hazard a guess, I'd say it's possible that the region of the brain processing language has developed elsewhere than with your average human, leading to less connections from language (Broca's region) directly to auditory region. This hypothesis would explain hearing the inner monologue when reading, as reading actually transcribes visual data directly to their phonetic counterparts.
rileyphone 5y ago
probably better than a bickering Italian couple! https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/25/the-last-great-mystery-of-the-mind-meet-the-people-who-have-unusual-or-non-existent-inner-voices https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/25/the-last-gre...

jhedwards 5y ago

Is it that much different from aphantasia? My sister cannot "see" anything in her mind at all, whereas for me mental images are so strong that I sometimes stop seeing the world in front of my eyes in favor of the one in my head. That's a pretty radical difference in a "base level" feature.

gonehome 5y ago
I think it’s different - there was an old post by an early FB employee who has no ability to visualize images after a head injury and has to adapt as a result for that. Thinking of images is also different than thinking of words (since all of us speak the language). I’m not saying it’s impossible, but that I suspect its more likely a lack of introspection - I’d need to be persuaded empirically somehow and don’t know how to test it.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > Thinking of images is also different than thinking of words (since all of us speak the language). No more of speak the language than see with our eyes. Personally while I do have some kind of inner voice, my thoughts tend much more heavily to the visual. And memories too. If I need to recall a phone number or spelling then I'll imagine it written.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Thanks - something for me to think about. These HN threads do have a history of changing my mind (or at least softening my position) on topics where the true answer can be harder to know.
- wpietri 5y ago
  My introspection is quite good on this; I've been doing meditation on and off for decades. Sorry, but I don't have an internal narrator. Instead, the meditative interruptions that come with words are generally imagined discussions with other people or things to write about. Like you, I had a hard time believing people were different in this. The whole idea of an internal narrator seemed absurd to me. Why would anybody need a narrator for themselves? They're right there! But enough people claim that this is their real life that I'm willing to believe it, however tedious and exhausting that sounds to me.

krageon 5y ago

> I’m pretty skeptical of people that make this claim. Your essential point for justifying this skepticism is that you cannot imagine people are this different. In my experience people are always a little bit more different than you can imagine. After all, there are people that tirelessly work to charitable ends on one end and people that run death camps on the other. > people making this claim are lacking introspection to such an extreme extent It's perfectly acceptable to you to imagine that you are (essentially) fundamentally better or more complete than them, but not that perhaps they are your equals and merely experience life differently. I think it could be valuable to figure out why one is easy to you while the other is hard.

psyc 5y ago

Do you not consider introspection a base level feature? I think the point of these aphantasia-related discussions is that people make wrong assumptions about what is base-level.

traverseda 5y ago

I have an inner monologue when reading (or otherwise interacting with language), but mostly not when actually doing stuff. There must be some stuff you do where you don't have an inner monologue? I think it's a matter of degrees, like when programming my inner monologue consists mostly of variable names, but not like a procedural "I'll do this, then this, then it will do this". If you're having a hard time grasping that, try doing or thinking about things while doing a mantra. I think you'll find that you're still able to "think" while the only thing your inner dialogue is saying is some kind of mantra. (It may take some practice) You can also try speed reading apps which force you to absorb information without the time for an inner monologue. I find this helps with introspection as you can observe ideas without the (direct) bias of language. Being able to recognize and observe the thing that's making your inner monologue happen is a useful skill, I think. I can't really imagine being bound to language like you're describing, and it often takes me a while to put more complicated ideas into words. Languages categories are never going to be accurate. Is a whale a fish or a mammal? Well technically a mammal, but if you want to put someone in charge of them it's probably better if it's the department of fisheries than whoever's in charge of buffalo. One of of them has boats. The word is just a word, a pointer at a vague collection of things with similar properties. Being able to think about and work with the things directly without the distraction of language is very important to me.

VRay 5y ago
Man, this is a really weird thread. I don’t vocalize my thoughts internally either unless I need to formalize and remember them. My guess is that the people who can’t imagine not having an inner monologue just don’t take control of that process, since I can’t imagine they’re unable to think at all without mentally vocalizing things. And now it sounds like a lot of meditation is training to be able to think the way you or I do, haha. Is there any useful, productive research out there about this stuff? The only time I’ve come across any convincing or scientifically rigorous psychology was when Feynman did some for fun in his spare time and wrote about it

doliveira 5y ago

Does you inner monologue have an accent? Can you recognize a definite tone to it? I heard someone mentioning "I loved your accent, so I'll imagine you narrating my thoughts from now on" and the idea of your thoughts being pronounced in your mind with accents sounded completely alien to me.

psyc 5y ago
I can apply any character voice I can imagine to the inner voice. The default that I "hear" most of the time isn't even my voice - the timbre is a bit lower and more neutral, and it lacks my distinctive vocal affectations. But if I want to hear it as an Irish woman, or whatever else, I just do. Perhaps it's relevant that I always did character voices and accents out loud as well, since I was a kid wanting to be an actor.

andrem 5y ago

Well here is one other random sample who has to turn the inner voice on when necessary :) Instead of a voice I have a constant song playing in my head when I am not focused. The song changes multiple times per week but if I am on idle I have a song. When I speak the song turns off, but no voice comes on, unless I consciously prepare my words. Now when typing this comment, I have a voice (which is my own voice) say the words I am about to type milliseconds before I type them.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
I also have a song playing in my head most of the time (even while reading but not writing , like you). I’m a hobbyist musician; maybe that’s part of it. But I also have an inner voice . I think the music stops when the voice starts, not sure. For the last week I’ve had “right down the line” by Gerry Raferty (70s pop song) playing.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  This is the best thread on HN. Thank you everyone for being so goddamn interesting.
- te0006 5y ago
  This repetetive inner soundtrack thimg can be really annoying sometimes, hampering or even killing concentration on "real thoughts". Any pro tips on how to turn that off? Best approach I found is bulldozing it over with a really powerful but not too beautiful/memorable song. The famous "rickrolling" piece seems to work OK for this. (I.e. not by actually hearing it, just by intentionally "playing it internally".)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

indrax 5y ago

For many cognitive processes, I don't see a clear survival value to conscious awareness of that process, so I don't expect that awareness to be a reliable feature. The survival relevant result of that cognition can still come through. I also think that an internal voice that doesn't get conscious awareness is likely to become a process that doesn't present as voice. So it's not like someone can just pay more attention and hear something, because it stopped talking a long time ago.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

SeanSpearo 5y ago

Everyone's brains operate the same from a basic view, but have very different details. We all think in different ways, we all experience life differently. We just apply similarly understood terms that make it seem like it's all the same. Who knows how varied our actual consciousness is.

mdp2021 5y ago

It is not surprising. That you can use verbal language does not mean something inside must use it continuously. In fact, it makes sense that it is used only when relevant. That you can move your hand does not mean you continuously use them. If an «internal voice is going on», you are somehow letting it. This is especially valid for people with heightened introspection (owing to the higher control that internal assessment gives).