Do you ever feel like your internal thoughts/monologue can affect or even manipulate external reality?

[WhiteShark]

Thought is supposed to be intuitive.
When speaking to someone, do you actually think about and plan out what you'll say next in the middle of conversation? Or do you just naturally engage?
The truth is if you do have what you call an "internal monologue" you're actually schizophrenic.

Not every situation is a live conversation. Did you think about what you would write before you wrote it? Do you consider the arguments you intend to use before you post them? These aren't schizophrenic things to do.

[WhiteShark]

Wasn't there a recent study that showed a significant portion of humans don't have internal monologue?

I strongly doubt this is true. How could people never think with words, even accidentally?

From this study: https://files.catbox.moe/18zunn.pdf

[maidenhaver]

I wonder if those with inner speech are more or less religious.

[Atlantico]

Thought is supposed to be intuitive.
When speaking to someone, do you actually think about and plan out what you'll say next in the middle of conversation? Or do you just naturally engage?
The truth is if you do have what you call an "internal monologue" you're actually schizophrenic.

There's also the question of what kind of thoughts you ponder. Regular everyday thought process doesn't require any verbal based deliberation. What to have for dinner, when to pick up the kids etc. That doesn't require an inner monologue.

But questions like: what is the meaning of life. What is being a good person? What career am I going for when I grow up? Are the Jews behind it all? questions like that, if pondered, must include an inner monologue because they're verbal in nature. They're not instinctive and they're not reliant on memory. They rely on reason and understanding, which are supremely verbal attributes.

Some people simply never ever ever ask these kinds of questions and therefore think they don't have an inner monologue or whatever they want to call it — or it is so rare for them that they simply don't recognize it when it happens. Inner monologue isn't a voice speaking, it's the brain processing a problem verbally.

Exactly how to explain that to a person who rarely uses verbal reasoning, I do not know.

[SDG]

Watching Hando try to act like an intellectual will never not be cringe.

[Tweed]

Heed thine inner voice!

[Thor Kaufman]

Wasn't there a recent study that showed a significant portion of humans don't have internal monologue?

I strongly doubt this is true. How could people never think with words, even accidentally?

From this study: https://files.catbox.moe/18zunn.pdf

The sample size was 30 because the author wanted to make sure the cohorts understand the methodology.

lolwut. Talk about a non-sequitur. The author is either bullshitting or just an idiot. Probably a bit of both.
30 is just the absolute minimum that is required to use a t-test (which also presupposes a Gauss curve of the distribution of the factor you are evaluating in the "standard population", which is also not always a given). The "standard population" also does rarely consist of a mix of normal people but is usually all students, usually from the same faculty. Statistical significance doesn't really mean shit, either. And that is just an intro to the bullshitting that is going on, but I digress. Could probably write a small essay about how basically every study is a complete sham, not just in execution but also in philosophical grounding. Tbf psychology students get taught at least decent basics of statistics in contrast to say medical students and there is no tinkering from financiers with such cheap low level studies. So there's that at least.

Anyway, let's just assume his study is kinda valid and very likely his subjects were all (psychology) students that also says a lot about students, doesn't it? From my limited sample size when I studied psychology they really do be NPCs. Psychology students usually have some kind of numerus clausus so my educated guess is you find them around the 110-115 IQ midwit range.

So what we are likely talking here is high level NPC midwits that have no internal monologue. Not just some 65 IQ niggers. Let that sink in.

[Tweed]

Do people have an internal radio? When I'm not thinking of something or hashing something over and my mind isn't engaged with some task there's almost always music playing in my brain.

[madbringer]

Wasn't there a recent study that showed a significant portion of humans don't have internal monologue?

I strongly doubt this is true. How could people never think with words, even accidentally?

I think its strange to people who are not very social or extroverted, but I have no problem at all believing sociopaths only hear static.

[jcd]

Are the Jews behind it all?

I don't need to do a lot of thinking to figure out this one.

[Atlantico]

Are the Jews behind it all?

I don't need to do a lot of thinking to figure out this one.

[maidenhaver]

Are the Jews behind it all?

I don't need to do a lot of thinking to figure out this one.

Yes, the jews are an almighty cabal while being genetically inferior. Even though their genetics are adapted to thriving in the world, and they have power over the world, they should not be followed or listened to, because they are le bad.

[Fedora Master]

Magical thinking is for niggers and women.

[agentorange]

I remain unconvinced that some people can't actually have an inner dialogue or "aphantasia" actually exists, since the ratio of those kinds of people is so low it is basically covered by the ratio of people who are so stupid, obstinate or autistic that they don't understand the term the same way as most others and therefore they declare that "don't have it".

Like myself, I can easily imagine a scenario with all kinds of details, so I don't have aphantasia. But wait, if I understand that as not being able to actually see that in front of me with "my imagination", then I am of course a fucking moron and suddenly have aphantasia.

Same with inner dialogue. It's part of the thought process, so of course I have an inner dialogue. But wait, if I understand that as actually hearing voices and talking to them, then again I am of course a fucking moron and suddenly don't have any inner dialogue.

I tend to agree with this. The process of thinking and what it really is isn't even definitively understood nor is it easy to put into words, and there is a lot of room for misunderstanding or stubborn refusal by people to define their way of thinking with certain terms (as in, someone might not want to say they are hearing voices in their head even though that is one way to describe the thought process).

Is it possible for something like real aphantasia to exist, because even for people who lack a well trained imagination they are still able to, for example, recognize a familiar person's face, which means that person's face has to exist somewhere in their mind; or, if you ask them to hand you that book over by the lamp, chances are they will be able to do it (unless they are completely mentally disabled), instead of accidentally handing you the phone over by the radio, which must mean that they have those corresponding images (lamp, book, etc) somewhere in their head and are able to identify things based on them. You can brush it off with "intuition," but then, what is that.

Like the thing with imagining an apple, when you are asked to do that are you really picturing an apple in your head, or are you describing to yourself what an apple looks like, or is it some combination of both, or how do you effectively distinguish between describing it as "seeing an apple" or "holding the image of an apple in my mind." Even as someone with a lot of experience drawing pictures from my imagination I can't effectively describe what is going on with my thought process: say, when I'm thinking of a room with walls and a tiled floor with a figure in it, the line between thinking of that scenario descriptively in words, imagining it as an image, and intuitively drawing it are very blurry.

[madbringer]

An interesting thought experiment is processing how you experience information other people give you. How do you internalize it? Do you sum up that person in some abstract way, give it a voice associated to such abstraction and disseminate the data? If you do, that is internal monologue. It does not have to be you own voice that internalizes the information, although, and I'm speaking only for myself, when my brain is idling, I do tend to "speak to myself" in my head and sort thru daily events, plans etc

[madbringer]

Another interesting thing is examining what goes thru your mind when you are bored or doing something tedious and repetitive. For me it is, a lot of times, my mind recalling songs I like or engaging conversations.

[WhiteShark]

Is it possible for something like real aphantasia to exist, because even for people who lack a well trained imagination they are still able to, for example, recognize a familiar person's face, which means that person's face has to exist somewhere in their mind; or, if you ask them to hand you that book over by the lamp, chances are they will be able to do it (unless they are completely mentally disabled), instead of accidentally handing you the phone over by the radio, which must mean that they have those corresponding images (lamp, book, etc) somewhere in their head and are able to identify things based on them. You can brush it off with "intuition," but then, what is that.

Imagination and recognition are different functions. I think it's possible that someone may have a damaged or underdeveloped imagination center such that he cannot consciously call to mind images yet still have the ability to subconsciously remember them, making recognition possible.

[Klerik]

[jcd]

Is it possible for something like real aphantasia to exist, because even for people who lack a well trained imagination they are still able to, for example, recognize a familiar person's face, which means that person's face has to exist somewhere in their mind; or, if you ask them to hand you that book over by the lamp, chances are they will be able to do it (unless they are completely mentally disabled), instead of accidentally handing you the phone over by the radio, which must mean that they have those corresponding images (lamp, book, etc) somewhere in their head and are able to identify things based on them. You can brush it off with "intuition," but then, what is that.

Apparently there are people who had a functioning imagination and then lost it, so they can compare their experience before and after. Assuming they're not lying it lends credence to the theory. It might be just conscious access to imagination that's impacted, similar to blindsight - the eyes are functioning correctly, but the visual cortex is damaged, so you're effectively blind, but you can still process the visual information unconsciously and e.g. catch a ball tossed to you, because it's processed by different areas of the brain. There are various forms of visual agnosia, e.g. prosopagnosia, where you're unable to distinguish between people's faces despite seeing them clearly. My girlfriend has a form of hearing loss where her inner ear is undamaged but the auditory cortex is damaged, so she can't hear anything above ~1000Hz consciously, but reacts to some sounds, like smoke alarm, which she shouldn't be able to hear, and just like the people with blindsight, invents a reason why she did after the fact, completely unaware.

Actual occurrences of aphantasia are definitely rarer than the facebook polls indicate, but they still exist.

[Atlantico]

Is it possible for something like real aphantasia to exist, because even for people who lack a well trained imagination they are still able to, for example, recognize a familiar person's face, which means that person's face has to exist somewhere in their mind; or, if you ask them to hand you that book over by the lamp, chances are they will be able to do it (unless they are completely mentally disabled), instead of accidentally handing you the phone over by the radio, which must mean that they have those corresponding images (lamp, book, etc) somewhere in their head and are able to identify things based on them. You can brush it off with "intuition," but then, what is that.

Apparently there are people who had a functioning imagination and then lost it, so they can compare their experience before and after. Assuming they're not lying it lends credence to the theory. It might be just conscious access to imagination that's impacted, similar to blindsight - the eyes are functioning correctly, but the visual cortex is damaged, so you're effectively blind, but you can still process the visual information unconsciously and e.g. catch a ball tossed to you, because it's processed by different areas of the brain. There are various forms of visual agnosia, e.g. prosopagnosia, where you're unable to distinguish between people's faces despite seeing them clearly. My girlfriend has a form of hearing loss where her inner ear is undamaged but the auditory cortex is damaged, so she can't hear anything above ~1000Hz consciously, but reacts to some sounds, like smoke alarm, which she shouldn't be able to hear, and just like the people with blindsight, invents a reason why she did after the fact, completely unaware.

Actual occurrences of aphantasia are definitely rarer than the facebook polls indicate, but they still exist.

"What is intuition" lmao

And here you are with a functioning brain but suffer from blindbrain, that's the condition where the brain is seemingly normal but is in fact suffering from the condition of believing just about anything as long as it has a veneer of scientific tone. "Blindsight" lmao that's post trauma

You don't distinguish between traumatic reasons for depressed abilities and never having had them at all. Prosopagnosia is a massive disability btw, there is no disability at all found with people on Facebook who are also suffering from blindbrain and claim to have aphantasia. They're just morons, stupid or autistic.

Like your conclusion that because all sorts of traumatic damage exists, then this must exist

[jcd]

Why are you so insecure?

[madbringer]

I find it disturbing that people who should know better buy into jewish manufactured magic words to describe their reality and how people function. The whole "field" of psychology has been hijacked and shit like adhd has been pushed forward as an answer to the crippling anxiety people feel living under a crushing totalitarian, and frankly, insane, system.

[jcd]

I find it disturbing that people who should know better buy into jewish manufactured magic words to describe their reality and how people function. The whole "field" of psychology has been hijacked and shit like adhd has been pushed forward as an answer to the crippling anxiety people feel living under a crushing totalitarian, and frankly, insane, system.

Nobody's denying that there is a reproducibility crisis afflicting psychology, but stuff like ADHD is firmly established, well studied, and thoroughly understood.

[Emphyrio]

I didn't have any internal dialogue with words until I saw someone thinking with words on a TV show and realized I could do it too. This was in like primary or middle school. I think it's a phase everyone starts at and some people never get out of.

I remember the first moment I realized that I was "there". I have earlier memories, but the first moment when I felt like I was in control of my own body, thoughts, decisions, was 3rd grade. Before that everything I did was basically autopilot.

My internal monologue was most active in my teens and 20's. As I've gotten older I think that my internal monologue has lessened and I'm operating on autopilot more often. Especially in social situations, when I was younger I thought carefully about everything I said before speaking and now I operate on instinct. I'm frequently saying impolite things or things I wasn't supposed to share with that person.

[maidenhaver]

My internal monologue's quieted down since I got my first smart phone eight years ago, but it was very intrusive.

[MadPreacher]

My internal monologue's quieted down since I got my first smart phone eight years ago, but it was very intrusive.

The internal monologue or the phone was being too intrusive?

[J1M]

TLDR: Turns out humans are herd mammals.

[Klerik]

[Emphyrio]

I have attempted astral projection for the last three days. No success so far.

[MadPreacher]

I have attempted astral projection for the last three days. No success so far.

Did you check the power or change the bulb?