[estearum]

IMO it's far more likely that people don't agree on what it means to "have an internal monologue" than that people actually bifurcate that dramatically on cognition. Surely there are some people with an actual difference from baseline, but I don't think it's the near-equal split that seems to appear when you just ask people about internal monologue

This is in contrast with aphantasia (complete lack of mental imagery) which can be correlated with outwardly detectable responses. E.g. people who can imagine mental images will dilate pupils when imagining a bright light with eyes closed, while people with aphantasia will not. Not sure there's an analog for internal monologue but if anyone.

[amalcon]

I don't think a bifurcation of cognition is necessary to explain this. You get both people who claim to always think with words (to the point where they don't understand how it's possible to think without one), and people who claim never to outside of linguistic tasks like writing (to the point where they need "internal monologue" explained to them). In my experience, if you get down to it -- most people will have experienced cases of the thought preceding the word (you can skip the word, or not, but either way it demonstrates a thought without a word) and of the word preceding the thought (people who claim not to have an internal monologue will usually still do this sometimes when writing).

It's just that subvocalization is one powerful technique for organizing thoughts, but not the only one. If you had a swimmer who only ever learned the crawl stroke (freestyle), they might wonder how someone can swim without it. The difference, of course, is that the breaststroke is a demonstrable physical act whereas cognitive techniques are not. The monologuers are just more practiced at subvocalization-based reasoning, and the non-monologuers are more practiced at other types.

It's not that hard to exert limited control over which technique you're using -- and I think there are multiple nonverbal techniques. I'd encourage people to explore the space a bit. Subvocalization-first approaches are very good for linear progressions, whereas subvocalization-last (or never) approaches are usually better for big-picture reasoning.

[estearum]

I still think it's far more likely that people aren't describing the same thing. People are very, very bad at interpreting and experiencing their mind's inner workings. Then getting them to describe and compare those inner workings is, IMO, largely a fool's errand. I'll wait until someone develops an external validation of this to believe it.

I say this as someone who pays a lot of attention to my mind's inner workings (meditation etc, near-complete aphantasic) and the more I pay attention to the inner workings, the less I know the answer to whether or not I have an inner monologue.

[RaftPeople]

> I still think it's far more likely that people aren't describing the same thing. People are very, very bad at interpreting and experiencing their mind's inner workings.

Are you thinking that the term "internal monologue" is being interpreted too literally and that any system of organized thought, even one without the apparent usage of words, could still be considered an internal monologue?

[estearum]

I think that is one of many dimensions of ambiguity and therefore of confusion on this topic, yes.

[vitamark]

Well, I can't say for the general population, but for me there's just nothing unless I actively try to think of words, sentences and other things. One moment you don't have an idea and the next you do, like a state switch.

I really feel like humans argue too much about how computer programs think and at the same time too little about how humans think. The topic is criminally underresearched and the existing research is all over the place.

[saltcured]

You make it sound like there are no ideas until words arrive? For me, my normal ground state is full of thinking that is not linguistic. My mode switch is more like having to turn on the whole language subsystem and pay attention to it, often to the detriment of my native concentration.

When I do think with words, it is usually something I am manipulating with a purpose. It is not the thoughts themselves. I have a thought, and I attempt to render it into words.

Outside of recollection of past speech, it is extremely rare for me to feel like words arrive with a thought I wasn't already holding. Most often, it happens when making jokes and puns in real-time. I am in a mood to be playful, and may have a vague feeling that there is something funny to interject, but cannot separate it from the word combination that comes to mind.

But I can't really think and deliberate verbally. It feels like an act of puppetry.

[vitamark]

No, I actually say that there are no words unless I think of them. Ideas appear out of nowhere and are made of nothing, like they just are integral part of my mind state

[infinite_spin]

I'm very reluctant to believe people when they say they don't have an internal monologue. Studies on the matter all appear to rely on self-reported data, not objective measurements. It's been shown that electromyography can be used to measure myoelectric signals produced when a person subvocalizes their speech (i.e. an inner monologue). It works well enough to reconstruct and synthesize that speech.

So we could test this objectively, and I'm not sure why we haven't.

[idiotsecant]

I'm not sure what you think all these people have to gain from tricking you. I have no internal monologue. None whatsoever. If I have something like an internal monologue I don't have any conscious access to it at all. When I want to think through a spatial type problem, I can visualize shapes, images, rotations, relationships, etc but it has no verbal component. If I want to think through a text or verbal heavy task, like perhaps planning some code, I type it out. I do have intrusive thoughts but they are in the form of memories of a thing that happened or simulations of something that could happen, I guess. I most surely do not have an internal narrator or anything that approaches any kind of inner verbal life.

[infinite_spin]

> I'm not sure what you think all these people have to gain from tricking you.

Asking for objective evidence of a phenomenon being self-reported by enough people to make the news isn't really about me. I don't know why you're being defensive in a thread that wasn't directed at you, but this is not a good sign.

[idiotsecant]

Weird that you go right to assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is defensive. I think you need to recalibrate your outrage sensors.

You said a thing doesn't exist. I pointed out that the thing does, in fact, exist. That's all that happened here.

[infinite_spin]

> I'm not sure what you think all these people have to gain from tricking you.

Your very first response is attacking me, not an argument I've made.

> Weird that you go right to assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is defensive.

Your second response is also attacking me, not an argument I've made.

> I think you need to recalibrate your outrage sensors.

I'm not outraged at all.

> You said a thing doesn't exist.

I'm assuming by "thing" you mean "people with no inner monologue", and I have not claimed they don't exist, I made a statement concerning my disbelief. There is a difference.

> I pointed out that the thing does, in fact, exist.

Your claim that you experience this should be verified before we accept it as a scientific fact. If that were not the case, telepathy would be considered a fact.

These responses from you have made me even more suspicious of the veracity of your claims. Again, not outraged, just wish to verify what is true.

A person who is honest about their experiences, and has reported those as fact, should welcome verification.. you've clearly decided against that.

[RaftPeople]

> I'm very reluctant to believe people when they say they don't have an internal monologue.

Why would you choose internal monologue as the default position and no internal monologue needs to be proved?

It seems the natural position for an unknown would be to assume it is not the case unless there is evidence for it.

[infinite_spin]

Because most people I know can read without mouthing the words. At any rate, we can just test both cases if people who claim one or the other are willing.

I'm not sure why this seems like a problem, or why you have to criticize my default position, but my own personal views on the matter aren't important here.

[vitamark]

I don't see how reading has anything to do with internal monologue. Do you hear the words you read when reading? If so, it surely has to be slow as hell.

I did get relatively good scores in reading speed back in primary/middle school when we took such tests, so maybe there's an explanation. At the same time, writing/speaking is a very resource-intensive task for me so I tend to be silent a lot (and then drop a pile of sentences on the unsuspecting people I'm with)

[infinite_spin]

well, all the same, I think we should verify these claims .. I think part of the pushback to this is that it might make a group of people look dishonest if we can in fact detect subvocalization in people who have made this claim, but it's entirely possible that you are experiencing both and not realizing it. A bifurcation of sorts? In any event, we should support/expect further testing.

[devmor]

This is in the same vein to what I wanted to say here as well - I find it very likely that people with no internal monologue are executing similar mental processes, just without them being so “front and center” in the mind.

[rolph]

Metacognition

https://oecs.mit.edu/pub/zjuzickv

not everyone is aware of the "methodology", they just think it through, some however have an executive layer to cognition vs reflex.

imnot sure enough to form an opinion quite yet but thinking about thinking, modifying the methods of cognition, may be a learned skill, perhaps with a developmental window.

a comparison between extroverts and introverts [1] for perceived modality of cognition might be interesting.

it may very well be that a difference in neural development is the cause of this disparity.

1] this is about focus on internal conceptualization vs external perceptualization.

myself, i think in terms of a mono/dialogue if i am preparing to disseminate.

if i am thinking for my own benefit i percieve it as idetic imagery and run thought experiments to qualify for IRL candidacy.

[devmor]

> myself, i think in terms of a mono/dialogue if i am preparing to disseminate.

> if i am thinking for my own benefit i percieve it as idetic imagery and run thought experiments to qualify for IRL candidacy.

I’m very similar personally, though I often have background dialogues going over “sub threads” of whatever I’m thinking about.

I have also wondered if people who say they don’t have this kind of thought process actually do - but the real difference is that for some reason it persists in memory for us, whereas it is immediately discarded for them, leaving only the result.

[Fraterkes]

Do you have a source for the pupil dilation thing? Sounds fascinating!

[lightedman]

I scored a 68 on the VVIQ and I can watch my pupils dilate in response to me 'seeing' something in my mind. It doesn't have to be a bright light in my mind's eye, I can imagine something that would trigger a fight or flight response and make the same thing happen.

[estearum]

Yeah this is another test they use: imagine something frightening and "normal people" will get clammy hands and elevated heart rates while aphantasics will not

[justbees]

My mom has aphantasia and we were both shocked to discover it even exists.

She saw something about it online and then started asking everyone in the family if they could picture an apple in their mind. We all said - yes of course, what are you talking about?

And she said, "When you say the word apple, I think of the concept of an apple. It's juicy. It's crisp. It's red, etc, but I don't SEE an apple. I just know what it is."

She had no concept that other people literally saw the apple and I had no concept that people couldn't see the apple.

I asked her what she thought the phrase "in your minds eye" meant for her entire life and she said she thought it just meant exactly what she was describing and not literally seeing anything...

[estearum]

Yeah this was my experience too as a near-complete aphantasic. Doing the apple test around the dinner table was enlightening, and it also made a whole lot of other things make sense through my life as well: I have virtually no concrete memories from a first-person point of view (I remember the fact that events happened, I do not remember subjectively being there)

It's unfortunately very insulting when someone says, "hey remember when we did that very important thing together?" and my answer has always been "uhh... I remember that we did it?"

[justbees]

That's so interesting to me! I actually have a terrible memory for events and names so my answer is almost always - sort of. So I can visualize an apple, but if you say - remember that time we went apple picking with Greg? I might only vaguely remember that, and not know who Greg is. But, if you showed me a picture of Greg I would probably say - oh that's that guy we went apple picking with. Why did we do that?