Live data from Hacker News

Not everyone has an internal monologue

ryanandrewlangdon.wordpress.com

641–650 of 904 posts

Re: Not everyone has an internal monologue

#641
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For 1 alot of info on "gaslighting" online. For 2, there needs to be reciprocity and honesty (even silent). We shouldn't regard ourselves as below/above, but may be ingrained and diminishing.

Has there been a deflation of the word "gaslighting" recently? I used to understand it as "making person X or others believe person X is crazy (in order to discredit them)" but I see it used much more widely nowadays and I don't really see what it has to do with the scenario in question.

It lost it's subtle manipulation element too. Gas lighting was causing doubt to spread, using manipulation tools the abuser thought were flying under the radar of the victim. The victim fell oblivious to the changes in worldview. It lost all connection to psychotherapy when it became a politicized term.

Re: Not everyone has an internal monologue

#642

This topic (comments here, the OP, and comments in threads elsewhere) exposes some conflicting definitions of what an "internal monologue" is or means. - Some people describe hearing their internal monologue, which I take to mean something like: they have an internal monologue, and it manifests as a voice that only they hear. These people are analogous to those who see things they picture in their mind's eye . - Some…

For people who experience having an internal monologue: Suppose you see a bagel on the kitchen table in the morning and decide whether or not you're hungry enough to eat it. Does that process involve an internally experienced stream of words (whether "audible in your mind's ear" or not) like "I'm pretty hungry" or "I bet that bagel would taste good"? Is this what it would be mean to have an internal monologue? Becaus…

For me it really depends. I have two ways of representing my speech.

1) experience the words as if I'm saying them out loud but don't vocalize them. This is similar to how a lot of people read, so I figure I'm technically subvocalizing them.

2) especially when doing math or programming I simply know what I was about to think using method 1) without any specific words springing up.

I can't figure out if method 1 is me having an auditory internal monologue or if it's non-auditory. But at least you have a second experience to contextualize with.

EDIT: I would also like to add that sometimes when programming my mind switches to a graph-like representation that I start to manipulate physically. That is, I'll actually move my fingers in the air and move around the idea of this graph to "view" it from different perspectives and at different levels "Minority Report"-stye. Yes, that is something I try not to do anywhere but at home.

Re: Not everyone has an internal monologue

#645
post #314

I have a serious question to people here describing themselves (as I understand it) as thinking in words and whole sentences: How can you think about concepts which cannot be put into words or for which no words exist? Do you have to come up with elaborate verbal descriptions of abstract concepts in your head before you can think about them? If so, don't you think that any verbal description is essentially incomplete…

Whenever I am encountering an abstract concept internally, it does not appear as a clear visual representation but rather as its gestalt. Then there are two things happening. 1. most of these seem to bring their own set of keywords with them. 2. on the basis of these keywords I can further probe the concept using my internal monologue, like using a spotlight to get more details and pulling it out of the twilight of its gestalt. Step 2 is only necessary to explain the concept to others or put it in writing. All in all the transfer from gestalt concept to language sure leaves something behind but it also adds something that it could not have on its own.

Re: Not everyone has an internal monologue

#646
I would say I don't have an internal monologue. But that doesn't mean my mind isn't wandering all over the place. I don't talk to myself, I don't play out conversations in my head. Instead it's more like a collection of "thoughts", or "images", or visualizing myself "doing". I can get extremely caught up in this. There's also an awful lot of contemplating objects, observing features, visualizing how they interact.

Very little "words", however, unless I'm actually talking aloud or writing.

Come to think of it, I wonder if this could have anything to do with why I always found "reading comprehension" tests curiously difficult & strangely capricious in school.

Re: Not everyone has an internal monologue

#648
I think the author should be more explicit in their definitions.

1. On one end of the spectrum, people may think and act without tying words to concepts at all.

2. Then, they may think by forming words in sentences, but not consider it "talking to themselves" or consider themselves as "hearing" a voice in their head.

3. Next, one may say words and sentences to themselves and seem to hear them, but their audatory nerves are not involved in any way.

4. Finally, there may be people who actually "hear" the voice, but somehow know that it isn't coming in through their ears.

I would be in camp 3 whenever I am "thinking" but in camp 1 whenever I am just doing something I've done before and don't need to think about it. I talk to myself out loud, and to my dog, and sing and crack jokes when nobody is listening.

People in camp 4 who also don't associate the voice as coming from themself are generally considered mentally ill. Sometimes on the edge of wake and sleep you might hear a voice, not your own, clearly aurally, but that's not too unusual of a hallucination to have.

I've heard that in the early 20th century, anyone in camp 3 or 4 was considered insane, perhaps even camp 2 was unusual, and that normal people were in camp 1, and anybody who talked to themselves out loud was definitely insane. And I suspect that television and a lack of long boring quiet work changed how we think. And I suspect being in camp 3 or 4 is associated with anxiety and depression, but also with higher intelligence. I have no data to back up any of these suspicions.

Oh, and Buddhist style meditation drops you back into Camp 1.

Re: Not everyone has an internal monologue

#649
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe I am similar. I have often thought that I would not consider locked-in-syndrome to be as bad as others express as a worse-than-death fate. I think I would just happily continue wandering within my meandering mind. I think it is detrimental to achieving things though. Actually doing things takes far more discipline and that's time that could be used for coming up with more internal ideas. As a side note to t…

Yeah, if you don't have images you probably don't have sound. Thinking mind only.

Yeah, I don't know about that. I definitely have aphantasia but have a strong inner monologue and can (roughly) hear things in my mind.

The only reason I have an understanding of what a "mind's eye" might be like is that I do dream visually. This is apparently not uncommon among aphatasics.

Re: Not everyone has an internal monologue

#650
I went to an English-speaking school where the majority of the students did not have English as their first language. I remember asking them what language they would think in. Everybody understood the question (so maybe they all had internal monologue?) and the answer would generally be that they thought in their native language for “everyday” things, but in English for the “academic” things that they had learned at school.
Post reply on HN