[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.