Up to as much as more than half of all people.
Maybe its cause they have baths?
I for once have an outer monologue. Makes for awkward moments whenever my SO hears me…
Buddy you can just think out loud in the shower, nobody will stop you. For that matter you can think I got a lot pretty much anywhere, though you do get looks in the grocery store I find.
Lack of inner monologue doesn’t mean lack of thoughts. People without an inner monologue just don’t think in words. They can still think up concepts and ideas like everyone else.
As someone with an inner monologue, how do they think?
I don’t really have an inner monologue unless I very intentionally think in words. Otherwise I just think in thoughts. 🤷♀️
Thoughts are words though?
When you’re thinking about how to throw a basketball to get it through a hoop, do you use words for that?
When you are thinking of the tune to a particular song, is that in words?
I think a lot of people overestimate the role of words in thinking. There’s a lot of non-verbal thought.
I do both of those using auditory words. Can’t imagine any other way and didn’t know anyone else could function so differently.
Aiming a basketball: Ok let’s get this in, a little higher, to the left, ok looks good.
Thinking of music: what’s the lyrics to that song, I think they were…
deleted by creator
Thoughts can be words.
What everyone else here said but also keep in mind it’s not binary.
If you ask me to picture an Apple on a windowsill I can kind of do that. And then if you ask me to make it polka dot, I could kind of do that. In my mind’s eye though it’s like it’s severely myopic. It’s not fuzzy but the details are not there.
When I’m drawing things, the act of me putting the marks on the paper is where the object is formed. I generally don’t have a solid concept in my head that’s coming out on paper. I could definitely do the 2D outline of an apple, But if you want me to perspective skew it there’s no way. I might be able to draw the 2D outline and then slowly modify that to make it look more 3D, But I’ve got to be making changes to something already on paper rather than having something come out that’s just kind of the right direction.
I just think in concepts/abstractions, I don’t know how to explain it, lol.
I definitely don’t think in pictures, like other person said. My mind can’t create pictures out of thin air. That might be more like artists think I guess.
Having a minds eye or not is a different thing from having a inner monologue or not. People can have both, one of it or none.
Lack of an inner eye is called Aphantasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
I have a inner monologue but not a glimpse of an inner eye.
I am very very much not an artist, and yet also cannot imagine not being able to conjure up images of whatever.
It is fascinating how the brain works! Even if we barely understand it!
With imagery, or in abstracts. I have an internal monologue but not everything is a monologue. If I’m working on a project of some kind I’ll usually keep a mental model of the current piece I’m working on in my head. There’s no monologue attached, it’s just a “working copy” of my current task.
Or for example if I’m reaching somewhere I can’t see to plug in a usb port or something I’m visualizing in my head what my hand is doing, but I’m not talking myself through it.
There was a thread on r/SamHarris (maybe 2 years ago) where some people without inner monologue answered questions. It was interesting to read.
In pictures, for one example
This is the best example, thank you.
Conservatives explained.
Google gave me mostly AI slop and pop psychology, but this article is an in-depth summary of the literature on the topic of inner speech, for anyone interested (and dedicated - it’s long and very technical).
It doesn’t seem to justify dichotomizing people into those who “have it” and those who don’t. Research looks mostly focused on what cognitive or developmental purpose it serves.
Inner speech can be defined as the subjective experience of language in the absence of overt and audible articulation. This definition is necessarily simplistic: as the following will demonstrate, experiences of this kind vary widely in their phenomenology, their addressivity to others, their relation to the self, and their similarity to external speech.
So, it’s on a spectrum, highly subjective, and difficult to talk about with precision.
I personally do not normally think in words, but I certainly rehearse/relive conversations. I also complain to myself with words when I am really miserable, I think it’s comforting to “say it out loud” (inside). Do I have an inner monologue?
A spectrum is what I’m thinking. Some people can turn it on or off at will. Complete silence or make it yap yap yap. At least that’s my case.
You just described how you monologue like a villian in your head, so yeah you’re monologueing xD
Just because you don’t have an inner monologue doesn’t mean you are incapable of thought, or showerthoughts if we’re getting specific
Correct, a lack of inner speech isn’t the same as an absence of thought
It just seems like a true shower thought requires a narration to get so incredibly off tangent that it amounts to more than a simple epiphany
Like Mitch Hedberg, he is a great example of someone who let their inner speech run free
https://mander.xyz/post/20289088
I’d still argue against that. I’ve had one true showerthought and it didn’t manifest as monologue, even though I do have an internal monologue. I had a concept and images for it. I spent some time trying to put it into words.
I still don’t see how a showerthought (or any thought) has to have a verbal origin in the thinker’s mind; I would argue any internal monologue is but a secondary step after a thought has occurred. I’ve never heard of anyone being unable to predict what their own internal monologue is saying, and I’ve never heard of anyone being unable to make quick decisions because they had to first hear a command in their minds.
I process thoughts visually, as typed text. It’s like a fucking ticker tape when I get going having random thoughts and I definitely experience shower thoughts.
Tangentially related, but the fox game show “1% club” is, perhaps unintentionally, a fascinating demonstration of how vastly different people think through logic problems.
The premise is the contestants go through a series of questions already asked to a sample of Americans and progress in order of how “difficult” they are based on how many got them wrong.
The interesting part comes when there can be a significant gap in what I perceive the difficulty to be between questions. Sometimes I may have trouble with an “easy” one but get a significantly “tougher” one no problem.
It seems like lunacy to me, but all it really means most times is the format or mechanics of the logic needed for the answer is just more natural to me than the majority of the sample.
I refuse to believe this statistic. The only way to study this is by asking people and I bet most simply aren’t aware that they do have it. I didn’t pay much attention to it either untill I started meditating and now I’m painfully aware of it.
In addition to in-depth interviews, one of the primary methods used in the study was for volunteers to carry a timer that would go off randomly and they were to journal what they were thinking at the time
The thoughts of someone without an inner monologue are not the same as someone with an inner monologue
That’s still just asking people, which isn’t exactly the most scientific method. If you were to stop me and ask what I was thinking, a lot of the time I wouldn’t be able to tell you - but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t thinking. Thinking without being consciously aware of it is basically what I’m doing all day, every day. It’s mostly when I try to just be and let the world come to me that I become aware of how quickly I get lost in thought.
Probably a good thing they asked volunteers interested in the study to do it instead of someone such as yourself, who isn’t.
I remember the researcher saying that it took some time for the participants to get used to the routine of being mindful of their thoughts and journaling at the drop of a hat
I know I wouldn’t want to do that either
Probably a good thing they asked volunteers interested in the study to do it instead of someone such as yourself, who isn’t.
Ignoring the ad hominem, I don’t see how that’s supposed to be an argument against what I said - it only highlights that the participants weren’t even randomly selected. If you’re cherry-picking participants, there’s even less reason to generalize the findings to the entire population.
As I mentioned in my other comment: you could just as easily run a study asking people to self-report whether they have a blind spot in their visual field, and everyone would say no - and everyone would be wrong.
Just because someone isn’t aware of something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I’m not asking you to change your opinion - I’m simply saying I’m highly skeptical of it.
Do people without an inner monologue “hear” the words they read as they read them?
I do in monotonous “voice”, yeah. Unless I know what voice somebody could have, then I use that voice instead. Usually happens when character that appears in the book also is portrayed by some actor in a movie or a video game.
Many people do not hear as they read. In fact the skill of speed-reading depends on turning the auditory experience off:
There are three types of reading:
- Subvocalization: sounding out each word internally, as reading to oneself. This is the slowest form of reading.
- Auditory reading: hearing out the read words. This is a faster process.
- Visual reading: understanding the meaning of the word, rather than sounding or hearing. This is the fastest process.
Subvocalization readers (Mental readers) generally read at approximately 250 words per minute, auditory readers at approximately 450 words per minute and visual readers at approximately 700 words per minute. Proficient readers are able to read 280–350 wpm without compromising comprehension.
Nice. I’m definitely in the auditory reading category. I tend to just pick out the key words in a sentence when I am trying to read faster.
As a child and into my teens, I had an inner monologue that was switched on all the time. After practising meditation and reading without subvocalisation, I was finally able to ‘shut up’ where stopping the monologue was as easy as stopping talking. Anyway, I’d encourage anyone to give it a try. Now being able to think without distracting chatter is well worth it for me.
I distinctly recall thinking inner monologues were a “neat idea” after seeing them on TV as a child and thinking it would be a useful skill to learn. I never did though
… Are you suggesting we are incapable of thought? My mind wanders just like anyone else’s.
Wait am I confused on what an inner monologue is? Is it different from a train of thought? Do I just think I have one? Do people have a non metaphorical inner monologue where they physically hear thoughts? What percent are they in control of the thoughts?
If your mind wanders, isn’t that the inner monologue?
The inner monologue is thinking by ‘hearing’ your own voice ‘speaking’ in your mind. It’s the mental equivalent of literally talking to yourself.
Do people have a non metaphorical inner monologue where they physically hear thoughts?
Yes, in the sense that they hear themselves ‘voicing’ out their own thoughts. If you have the ability to form images in your mind, it’s like that, but with sound.
I was today years old when I learned that many people don’t have an inner monologue. The human body is so fascinating.
Oddly enough, if I don’t take my ADHD meds, I tend to talk to myself out loud a lot because my inner monologue gets kind of “muffled” in the “noise” and I rely on it very heavily to think through.
when I learned
You didn’t learn anything…
You saw a random social media post and instantly believed what it said
What the fuck is wrong with people?
Maybe other people have read this research before as I have
Maybe that’s what’s wrong with them
Feel free to post that research at some point.
All 50+ years of it?
Google is also an option
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. That’s how this works.
You can’t say there’s science to back up your claims, then not use science (burden of proof) to back up your claims.
If I claimed there was a pink polka dot elephant in the trunk of my car, that can teleport to other dimensions with its trunk; I would be required to post proof of that. If I told people to Google it, because there’s science out there that backs up my assertion, they’d tell me to get bent.
Don’t be lazy and fall into that pit trap. Post a proof, any proof, to back up your assertions, or every single person in this thread is free to ignore you and assume you’re making this up.
Edit: Looks like someone did your job for you, and is suggesting that your claims are incorrect and takes the wrong conclusions from the study.
This is why it’s important for you to cite your sources when you make a claim. Typically people refusing to cite their sources or saying “just google it” are often wrong about the conclusions they draw from whatever research was done. This is why peer review is important, even though none of us are in that field, it’s important to be able to have your claims withstand peers criticizing it. If it can’t stand up to that, then it’s likely incorrect and we can put that in the “failed hypothesis” bin.
Which is where your hypothesis would go.
And that’s science. Kinda.
Just, like, one of it. The issue isn’t that its been studied, as you seem to think. The issue is that you made a claim and are now vaguely gesturing at literature to back it up :)
