I think about the amount of people who have no internal monologue a lot. If having it is the actual wiring of the brain or just a different kind of filter that demands everything be articulated in case it needs to be spoken. They say only half of everyone has it and neither side knows the other exists. It's unnerving.
I've also heard that a lot of people think in printed words, seeing their thoughts lined up in their mind in real time like newspaper type.
These things can't be a measure of intelligence, there are way too many people who are genuinely smart that fall into either category. It just seems strange.
Do you think the internal monologue separates (as a whole, I'm sure there's exceptions) introverts from extroverts? Maybe the reason extroverts seek out others, is that's how they bounce ideas, whereas the introverts are busy thinking, and the interruptions are tiresome.
Possibly, sure. I hate to use the term but personalities are on a spectrum and it would take a study to sort it all out. Part of me would be afraid to read the results because we might find out that there are a growing number of people who think only in emojis.
whereas the introverts are busy thinking, and the interruptions are tiresome.
While you are probably onto something, this is the line of thinking that creates the insufferable idea that "introverts are just smarter than everyone."
Most of them are probably too busy thinking, but often over thinking until they've created a paranoid reality for themselves until they are paralyzed with anxiety and depression.
Maybe. I wasn't going in that smart/dumb direction. I was just thinking that introverts would be more likely to have that internal soundboard. Even if the endless rumination was attached more often than not.
Right, I didn't think you were. Just pointing out that its the kind of first steps that can lead to that kind of thinking, the same way that "they have no internal monologue" doesn't necessarily make someone less intelligent either in reality but for a lot of people online the "internal monologue/apple test/breakfast question" has become their shorthand to call someone retarded.
I still wonder about that. I've always thought that there's a good chance that some people just say their internal thoughts are "heard" because that's the closest physical phenomenon to describe it to someone else.
We lack consistent language for describing things that we can't be certain are being experienced by another person in the same way. Make a noise, we can describe what both people experience as "hearing." But when both have a thought, there's no common reference stimulus to tie to the sensation.
There may be no (direct) common reference between the two people, but there is a common reference. If a person hears a sound, and then later their mind reproduces that sound (say, remembering a song) they'd say they 'hear' the sound in their head (or at least I've never met anyone that doesn't unless they're making a fine distinction between the subjective experiences of hearing with the ears vs 'hearing' with the mind.) If someone says 'I don't hear my own thoughts/memories', particularly in reference to a common experience (take the song example from earlier) we can reasonably infer that their subjective experience is very different from someone who does 'hear' their own thoughts.
I know that personally, I am quite capable of hearing (or seeing) thoughts/memories, and the experience is near enough to the real thing that I wouldn't use any other term other than to clarify that I'm not undergoing some sort of self-induced hallucination.
I think about the amount of people who have no internal monologue a lot. If having it is the actual wiring of the brain or just a different kind of filter that demands everything be articulated in case it needs to be spoken. They say only half of everyone has it and neither side knows the other exists. It's unnerving.
I've also heard that a lot of people think in printed words, seeing their thoughts lined up in their mind in real time like newspaper type.
These things can't be a measure of intelligence, there are way too many people who are genuinely smart that fall into either category. It just seems strange.
Do you think the internal monologue separates (as a whole, I'm sure there's exceptions) introverts from extroverts? Maybe the reason extroverts seek out others, is that's how they bounce ideas, whereas the introverts are busy thinking, and the interruptions are tiresome.
Possibly, sure. I hate to use the term but personalities are on a spectrum and it would take a study to sort it all out. Part of me would be afraid to read the results because we might find out that there are a growing number of people who think only in emojis.
While you are probably onto something, this is the line of thinking that creates the insufferable idea that "introverts are just smarter than everyone."
Most of them are probably too busy thinking, but often over thinking until they've created a paranoid reality for themselves until they are paralyzed with anxiety and depression.
Maybe. I wasn't going in that smart/dumb direction. I was just thinking that introverts would be more likely to have that internal soundboard. Even if the endless rumination was attached more often than not.
Right, I didn't think you were. Just pointing out that its the kind of first steps that can lead to that kind of thinking, the same way that "they have no internal monologue" doesn't necessarily make someone less intelligent either in reality but for a lot of people online the "internal monologue/apple test/breakfast question" has become their shorthand to call someone retarded.
I still wonder about that. I've always thought that there's a good chance that some people just say their internal thoughts are "heard" because that's the closest physical phenomenon to describe it to someone else.
We lack consistent language for describing things that we can't be certain are being experienced by another person in the same way. Make a noise, we can describe what both people experience as "hearing." But when both have a thought, there's no common reference stimulus to tie to the sensation.
There may be no (direct) common reference between the two people, but there is a common reference. If a person hears a sound, and then later their mind reproduces that sound (say, remembering a song) they'd say they 'hear' the sound in their head (or at least I've never met anyone that doesn't unless they're making a fine distinction between the subjective experiences of hearing with the ears vs 'hearing' with the mind.) If someone says 'I don't hear my own thoughts/memories', particularly in reference to a common experience (take the song example from earlier) we can reasonably infer that their subjective experience is very different from someone who does 'hear' their own thoughts.
I know that personally, I am quite capable of hearing (or seeing) thoughts/memories, and the experience is near enough to the real thing that I wouldn't use any other term other than to clarify that I'm not undergoing some sort of self-induced hallucination.