4 ms·

For those who can’t and don’t think in words this is unsurprising.

by fnordpiglet 2y ago

fsndz 2y ago
absolutely !
neom 2y ago
How would someone think in words? You mean the words in the pictures or...?
- mjochim 2y ago
  By "hearing" words, sentences, dialogues in their mind. Just like imagining a picture, but audio instead.
  - Teever 2y ago
    but words, sentences, and dialogues are all features of language.
- vivekd 2y ago
  I think in words. For me during thought there is a literal voice in my putting my thoughts into words.
  - BarryMilo 2y ago
    Are there really people who don't know about inner monologues?
    - IAmGraydon 2y ago
      I think it's more likely that they lack the awareness to recognize it.
  - jerf 2y ago
    I have the standard internal monologue many people report, but I've never put much stock in the "words are necessary for thought" because while I think a lot in words, I also do a lot of thinking in not-words. We recently put the project I've been working on for the last year out into the field for the first time. As was fully expected, some bugs emerged. I needed to solve one of them. I designed a system in my head for spawning off child processes based on the parent process to do certain distinct types of work in a way that gives us access to OS process-level controls over the work, and then got about halfway through implementing it. Little to none of this design involved "words". I can't even say it involved much "visualization" either, except maybe in a very loose sense. It's hard to describe in words how I didn't use words but I've been programming for long enough that I pretty much just directly work in system-architecture space for such designs, especially relatively small ones like that that are just a couple day's work. Things like pattern language advocates aren't wrong that it can still be useful to put such things into words, especially for communication purposes, but I know through direct personal experience that words are not a necessary component of even quite complicated thought. "Subjective experience reports are always tricky, jerf. How do you know that you aren't fooling yourself about not using words?" A good and reasonable question, to which my answer is, I don't even have words for the sort of design I was doing. Some, from the aforementioned pattern languages, yes, but not in general. So I don't think I was just fooling myself on the grounds that even if I tried to serialize what I did directly into English, a transliteration rather than a translation, I don't think I could. I don't have one. I'm also not claiming to be special. I don't know the percentages but I'm sure many people do this too.
  - binary132 2y ago
    Like, at the speed of speech?
  - neom 2y ago
    I'm an idiot. I thought this meant, for some reason unknown to me... written words, something I couldn't imagine being able to think in. Spoken words, sure.
  - perryizgr8 2y ago
    So if you want to look at your phone there's a voice going "I shall pick up my phone and swipe the lock away now."? Trying to understand if ALL thinking is in words or some subset.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
Could you imagine the impossibility of riding a bike if you had to consciously put words to every action before you did it?
Razengan 2y ago
Can you count without using a "language"? Try it now: Tap your hand on the desk randomly. Can you recall how many times you did it without "saying" a sequence in your head like "1, 2, 3" or "A, B, C" etc? If yes, how far can you count? With a language it's effectively infinite. You could theoretically go up to "1 million 5 hundred 43 thousand, 2 hundred and 10" and effortlessly know what comes next.
- kachnuv_ocasek 2y ago
  Interestingly, I feel like I can "feel" small numbers (up to 4 or 5) easier than than thinking about them as objects in a language.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    By feel, I can without language or counting, play mostly X . . X . . X . . . X . X . . . and every so often switch out for variations, eg: X . . X . . X . X . . . X . . . or X . . . X . . . . . X . X . . . but I'm no good for playing polyrhythms, which many other people can do, and I believe they must also do so more by feel than by counting.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      Practice a few polyrhythms, get used to things like: X . X X X . X . X X X . A . . A . . A . . A . . B . B . B . B . B . B . and: X . . X . X X X . X X . X . X X . . X . X X . . X X . X X . X . . X . X X . . X X . X . . X . . X X X X . . X X X X . . X . . X . X X . . X X . X . . X . X X . X X . . X X . X . . X X . X . X X . X X X . X . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . Learn to do them with one limb (or finger) per line, and also with all the lines on the same limb (or finger). And then suddenly, they'll start to feel intuitive, and you'll be able to do them by feel. (It's a bit like scales.)
cassianoleal 2y ago
I remember back in school, a language teacher once was trying to convey the importance of language. One of his main arguments was that we needed words and languages in order to think. I still recall my disbelief. I spent the next few days trying to understand how that process worked. I would force myself to think in words and sentences. It was incredibly limiting! So slow and lacking in images, in abstract relationships between ideas and sensations. It took me another few years to realise that many people actually depend on those structures in order to produce any thought and idea.
- truculent 2y ago
  I once realised that, for me, subvocalising thoughts was a way to keep something "in RAM", while some other thoughts went elsewhere, or developed something else. Perhaps slower speed helps in that respect?
- bonoboTP 2y ago
  I think people are just using the word "think" differently. They may have picked up a different meaning for that verb than you. For them, thinking == inner vocalization. It's just a different definition. They would not call imagining things or daydreaming or musing or planning action steps as "thinking". Also, many people simply repeat facts they were told. "We need words to think" is simply a phrase this person learned, a fact to recite in school settings. It doesn't mean they deeply reflected on this statement or compared it with their experience.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
Right, I think it's less than 50% of people that have an "inner voice" - using language to think. Other animals with at best very limited language, are still highly intelligent and capable of reasoning - apes, dogs, rats, crows, ...
- mcswell 2y ago
  "Highly intelligent" is not a word to be used with apes, dogs, rats or crows.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    If that's your opinion, then define intelligence in a meaningful/reductive fashion (not just "i know it when i see it"), then defend this opinion based on that!

For those who can’t and don’t think in words this is unsurprising.

fsndz 2y ago

absolutely !

neom 2y ago

How would someone think in words? You mean the words in the pictures or...?

mjochim 2y ago
By "hearing" words, sentences, dialogues in their mind. Just like imagining a picture, but audio instead.
- Teever 2y ago
  but words, sentences, and dialogues are all features of language.
vivekd 2y ago
I think in words. For me during thought there is a literal voice in my putting my thoughts into words.
- BarryMilo 2y ago
  Are there really people who don't know about inner monologues?
  - IAmGraydon 2y ago
    I think it's more likely that they lack the awareness to recognize it.
- jerf 2y ago
  I have the standard internal monologue many people report, but I've never put much stock in the "words are necessary for thought" because while I think a lot in words, I also do a lot of thinking in not-words. We recently put the project I've been working on for the last year out into the field for the first time. As was fully expected, some bugs emerged. I needed to solve one of them. I designed a system in my head for spawning off child processes based on the parent process to do certain distinct types of work in a way that gives us access to OS process-level controls over the work, and then got about halfway through implementing it. Little to none of this design involved "words". I can't even say it involved much "visualization" either, except maybe in a very loose sense. It's hard to describe in words how I didn't use words but I've been programming for long enough that I pretty much just directly work in system-architecture space for such designs, especially relatively small ones like that that are just a couple day's work. Things like pattern language advocates aren't wrong that it can still be useful to put such things into words, especially for communication purposes, but I know through direct personal experience that words are not a necessary component of even quite complicated thought. "Subjective experience reports are always tricky, jerf. How do you know that you aren't fooling yourself about not using words?" A good and reasonable question, to which my answer is, I don't even have words for the sort of design I was doing. Some, from the aforementioned pattern languages, yes, but not in general. So I don't think I was just fooling myself on the grounds that even if I tried to serialize what I did directly into English, a transliteration rather than a translation, I don't think I could. I don't have one. I'm also not claiming to be special. I don't know the percentages but I'm sure many people do this too.
- binary132 2y ago
  Like, at the speed of speech?
- neom 2y ago
  I'm an idiot. I thought this meant, for some reason unknown to me... written words, something I couldn't imagine being able to think in. Spoken words, sure.
- perryizgr8 2y ago
  So if you want to look at your phone there's a voice going "I shall pick up my phone and swipe the lock away now."? Trying to understand if ALL thinking is in words or some subset.

kjkjadksj 2y ago

Could you imagine the impossibility of riding a bike if you had to consciously put words to every action before you did it?

Razengan 2y ago

Can you count without using a "language"? Try it now: Tap your hand on the desk randomly. Can you recall how many times you did it without "saying" a sequence in your head like "1, 2, 3" or "A, B, C" etc? If yes, how far can you count? With a language it's effectively infinite. You could theoretically go up to "1 million 5 hundred 43 thousand, 2 hundred and 10" and effortlessly know what comes next.

kachnuv_ocasek 2y ago
Interestingly, I feel like I can "feel" small numbers (up to 4 or 5) easier than than thinking about them as objects in a language.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  By feel, I can without language or counting, play mostly X . . X . . X . . . X . X . . . and every so often switch out for variations, eg: X . . X . . X . X . . . X . . . or X . . . X . . . . . X . X . . . but I'm no good for playing polyrhythms, which many other people can do, and I believe they must also do so more by feel than by counting.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Practice a few polyrhythms, get used to things like: X . X X X . X . X X X . A . . A . . A . . A . . B . B . B . B . B . B . and: X . . X . X X X . X X . X . X X . . X . X X . . X X . X X . X . . X . X X . . X X . X . . X . . X X X X . . X X X X . . X . . X . X X . . X X . X . . X . X X . X X . . X X . X . . X X . X . X X . X X X . X . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . Learn to do them with one limb (or finger) per line, and also with all the lines on the same limb (or finger). And then suddenly, they'll start to feel intuitive, and you'll be able to do them by feel. (It's a bit like scales.)

cassianoleal 2y ago

I remember back in school, a language teacher once was trying to convey the importance of language. One of his main arguments was that we needed words and languages in order to think. I still recall my disbelief. I spent the next few days trying to understand how that process worked. I would force myself to think in words and sentences. It was incredibly limiting! So slow and lacking in images, in abstract relationships between ideas and sensations. It took me another few years to realise that many people actually depend on those structures in order to produce any thought and idea.

truculent 2y ago
I once realised that, for me, subvocalising thoughts was a way to keep something "in RAM", while some other thoughts went elsewhere, or developed something else. Perhaps slower speed helps in that respect?
bonoboTP 2y ago
I think people are just using the word "think" differently. They may have picked up a different meaning for that verb than you. For them, thinking == inner vocalization. It's just a different definition. They would not call imagining things or daydreaming or musing or planning action steps as "thinking". Also, many people simply repeat facts they were told. "We need words to think" is simply a phrase this person learned, a fact to recite in school settings. It doesn't mean they deeply reflected on this statement or compared it with their experience.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

Right, I think it's less than 50% of people that have an "inner voice" - using language to think. Other animals with at best very limited language, are still highly intelligent and capable of reasoning - apes, dogs, rats, crows, ...

mcswell 2y ago
"Highly intelligent" is not a word to be used with apes, dogs, rats or crows.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  If that's your opinion, then define intelligence in a meaningful/reductive fashion (not just "i know it when i see it"), then defend this opinion based on that!