It absolutely melts my mind every time I come across the two facts that:
- People experience their thoughts very differently
- We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do.
I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking, so my assumption would always be that of course, thinking isn't very linguistic (even if we can use it as a tool while thinking).
It seems like there's a large number of people who experience their thought exclusively as language.
That sounds absolutely nuts to me, but I've heard people say the exact same in reverse. Even more fringe is that there's a sizable number of people who when thinking about words (i.e. remembering names) visualize their words as text. What!? I can't imagine that anymore than I can imagine how a jellyfish feels?
Often times i can actively feel how laggy my brain is in wrapping the thoughts in language. Before i even have the words ready, my thinking is already way ahead at the next thought. Not sure if that's just ADHD. I like to think secretly it's because i am not too dumb and actually a quick thinker. On the other hand, my analytical thinking is not that good.
While i enjoy the process of thinking about things alone for hours, when presented with problems like in school or sometimes even today when someone gives me a riddle, i can also very strongly feel that i am not "thinking" actively. I am just thinking that i should think and often seem to make myself appear as if i was thinking – and that's it. It feels a lot like "fake it till you make it". Often times i have ideas other people call "brilliant" as well, or i seem to have s lot of refreshing takes on things according to others (stated to hide my weirdly self-conscious arrogance), it's not that i actively pursue it. I sometimes feel like i am standing on the piazza, waiting for this beautiful thought to walk past me. Too scared to talk to it, because she would realize i am too dumb to understand her and a con-artist anyway... but then, every once in a while this beautiful thought turns around and takes over my brain.
> I sometimes feel like i am standing on the piazza, waiting for this beautiful thought to walk past me. Too scared to talk to it, because she would realize i am too dumb to understand her and a con-artist anyway... but then, every once in a while this beautiful thought turns around and takes over my brain. But maybe, i am truly just mad.
I have a huge quote "Notes" from all the books i've read. This is the first time a quote has made it into the notes that has come from a random comment on the internet. I think i'll carry this quote in the back of my minds eye for the rest of my life.
Oh, well, if i had known this, i would have checked the typos and the grammar. Didn't even think people would comment on my weird ramblings. So:
Sorry for bad english quote now in you mind forever!
But seriously, thank you for taking the initiative & time to comment & letting me know this. Weirdly, it means a lot to me. And actually touched me. Which sounds even weirder, but it's true. That someone liked & resonated with this, even when in such a bad form...
Anyway, I really appreciate it & you. I try to leave out no chance to say something positive or let people know they had a positive impact on me, even if it's just such a small thing. Probably because i wish people would let me know more often, as confirmation that all my efforts aren't for nothing.
But your comment is actually the only confirmation of me leaving just the slightest trace... you've helped this lonely, broken soul. A lot.
Please keep this in the back of your minds eye as well, when carrying the words there.
I'm clearly not in your exact case, but having idea before the words to express it happen to me too (less the more i grow old tbh, when i was in my early twenties it was almost everytime, nowadays it is a bit more limited to subjects i know deeply). It usually end up with my tongue tied and having to take a deep breath and reformulate everything since the beginning with a better exposition plan.
One thing that help is improv theater and pen and paper role play game, because you don't only have to thin about your idea, but how you are going to deliver it, and this is true in professional settings too. Doing that slow down my thought just enough to be clear. Hopefully this advice works for you too
I recognize this "thinking the thoughts twice", and sometimes feel that the "fast" thoughts have to wait for the slow ones (language wrapping) to catch up. Then I try to skip the second phase and let the fast ones roam at full speed, expecting brilliancy. Never succeeded yet, but not giving up.
Funny all the criticism LLMs get for hallucinations/conflabulations as if humans aren't often worse offenders at this very behavior unintentionally or intentionally.
I think you're not mad, but rather demonstrate a learned behavior to a very common situation any person finds themself in. IE they don't know or aren't sure if they don't know and any case don't want to appear as if they don't know certainly so they put in the least amount of effort to obscure ascertaition with some fancy distracting magicians hoodwink.
I think getting answers to nuanced/frontier or non-frontier problems can involve different sets of brain processes and behaviors. For already solved problems with knowledge thats pervasive throughout society, the solution is simply observation and copying, OR recollection and re-execute from memory.
For other problems one can figure out through reasoning and extrapolation.
For other problems no amount of armchair reasoning and theorizing will figure out (frontier problems not yet solved by any humans or at least humans accessible ) it, and they will need to do some trial and error exploration within reality on the path to solving a problem. Thinking in language, recalling by search and retrieval isn't going to find a solution to the problem at hand in these situations, but humans will try and jam the square peg into the circular hole especially if thats easier to do (and it is) than expending a lot more trial and error energy to do reality based experiements instead of pure clean easy brain processes of keyword/descriptor search and retrieval.
Search and retrieval with or without words is a very quick and easy brain process, perhaps anything you do that solely involve those brain processes you perform excellently at. Not all problems solely rely on these process such as analyzing new unsolved puzzles put on your doorstep. Perhaps there's a habitual behavior where you're trying to over-rely on the quick processes and doing the magicians trick to obscure the lack of actual solution with the hopes of retaining social standing. Instead of slowing things down attempting the slow bog down of actually finding the problem while communicating as such OR making use of human language for its actual purpose and networking for someone who has already solved the problem and deferring to their authority.
But all and all humans collectively are driven to collect (no, hoard greedily) solutions to problems at or not at the frontier and incorporate/encode those into their brain in a way that the solutions can be searched and retrieved in an efficient reflex like manner that's conducive to your ADHD speed.
I suck at language but am good at analytical stuff and because of that I'm not going to put any more effort into reducing this lengthy TLDR literature rambling into a concise conducive to reading snippet. My apologies to those that don't skip over this and trudge through this Thesis length reading.
Do your Human Design profile and see how much it fits.
Our society expects everyone to be a Generator (in HD terms) - all people who are not then feel like they're totally weird. In reality, they're just wired differently, and have other strengths and weaknesses.
Humanity is like a big puzzle piece.
As someone who never was into astrology, Human Design was a shock.
I didn't want to even consider that idea at all, but as I got my design read by someone I never met, and it matched 95% of what I already knew about myself, I had to admit that it just fits. And so it is for most people - it fits.
Whereas astrology always was a lame 50/50 "could be true or not true" kind of thing. HD is different.
For example I have open head centers - in HD this means I take in thoughts from others and get carried away with them; I also have an easy time to still my mind and have no inner dialogue.
And in my life I had already observed if I am talking to someone who is genuinely really excited about something, I get excited about it too - to the point where I am joining their project or decide to buy a book etc - but when they leave and it wears off I am thinking... "wait... why was that so exciting again?"... Now I know how to watch it, and how to distinguish their emotions and thoughts from mine, very useful skill.
Human Design seems like unscientific babbling to me. First of all the connection to astrology should already be a huge red flag and it mixes random stuff and magically we come up with four personality types (then later a fifth one is "discovered"). Shockingly these can be arranged into exactly twelve profiles.
It may be surprising to you but as someone who is well read in mentalism I can fairly confidently tell you that a 95% match is not hard to fabricate in readings. Admittedly is the area of mentalism I don't perform but I have read plenty of theory. Your HD reading was probably based on Barnum statements/cold reading. If you're interested to learn more about this I'd suggest "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" by Ian Rowland. For a more fun exercise, get a reading at a medieval fair or from some "medium" (please don't pay a lot) and compare it to your HD reading.
I had never heard of Human Design until now. It looks like absolutely maddening junk to me. To each their own but nonsense pulp like that is just about the exact opposite of what draws me to hn, and avoid almost all other forms of social media.
Full disclosure: I loathe astrology, to a disproportionate and somewhat irrational extent.
Thanks for the book rec though. As a "fan" of James Randi, that seems interesting.
> Do your Human Design profile and see how much it fits.
How would one do that? Is there a website for it, or something? I tried looking it up and it purportedly uses date and place of birth, but those hardly have anything to do with me, so I don't see how that calculation could be any more useful than, say, a star sign.
The concepts seem interesting for sure, just not sure how to find what applies to me.
>it purportedly uses date and place of birth, but those hardly have anything to do with me
While astrology is bogus, you'd be surprised how much "date and place of birth" has to do with you.
There are statistics and studies showing higher than chance similar behavior/tendecies in people born in the same months (for things like depression, health outcomes, etc). Could have to do with exposure to sunlight during early days or whatever.
And for place of birth, of course normally (if you're not in some mix-and-match country like the US, or if your parents don't immigrate immediately) this affects inherited genetic constitution, and of course culture, access to resources, diet, and many other factors.
Makes sense to me. But my date and place of birth don't define me, they only correlate me with others. Astrology's just a particularly bogus way of not doing that, but anything that would try to derive anything about me from just my date and place of birth, without any actual data to correlate with my answers, isn't really worth my time.
i.e. you'd need to know "people born around this date in this place tend to have whatever human design" in order to provide me actual predictions based on only date and place of birth, but no such data has ever been collected.
>Astrology's just a particularly bogus way of not doing that, but anything that would try to derive anything about me from just my date and place of birth, without any actual data to correlate with my answers, isn't really worth my time.
Well, it depends on the degree which we require it to define you. In a looser degree, it would define most people quite a lot.
Put another way your "place of birth" alone, would be a huge information point towards predicting lots of things about someone vs someone from another place of birth, given they're different enough (say, India vs Italy, not Spain vs Portugal or Germany vs Austria).
If betting and money was involved about e.g. income, wealth level, studies or not, food preferences, religion, politics, morals, and so on, knowing the place of birth would be a great boon (all other information being equally shared). Repeated many times with different people, you'd be correct way more.
>i.e. you'd need to know "people born around this date in this place tend to have whatever human design" in order to provide me actual predictions based on only date and place of birth, but no such data has ever been collected.
If we were to bet on whether a person is black or white, freckled or not, has epicanthic fold or not, etc, I don't need no special "data collected" to know what people born in Lagos vs Dublin would look like for example. It's common knowledge.
And in some cases where this changes over time, the data of birth would also come in handy. E.g. in the tendency of a random London citizen to have say South Asian features in 2024 vs 1950.
> If we were to bet on whether a person is black or white, freckled or not, has epicanthic fold or not, etc, I don't need no special "data collected" to know what people born in Lagos vs Dublin would look like for example.
Yes you do. In order to make an educated guess, you'd have to know, given where they were born, whether that place is more likely to produce certain traits or not. You could then use that information to make your guess about how likely they are to possess those certain traits, having been born there. But without any information on how likely those traits actually are for people born there, knowing where they were born grants you nothing.
> It's common knowledge.
It's not common knowledge what my Human Design type would be given only when and where I was born. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Astrology or not, the entire idea of giving me an answer solely based on when and where I was born, will always be bogus.
Now, if they had an actual dataset of the Human Design types of people from all around the world, and wanted to correlate me with that, then maybe I'd be inclined to give it a try, just out of curiosity.
But I'm not even the slightest bit curious about bogus astrology (or any other types of divination). I'd be glad to take a personality test, for example, because they ask actually relevant questions. Just not this.
> And in some cases where this changes over time, the data of birth would also come in handy. E.g. in the tendency of a random London citizen to have say South Asian features in 2024 vs 1950.
I'm not arguing against correlating this with other data. The entire point is that one needs to correlate it with other data in order for my answer to be at all useful, and what I have a problem with is that correlation is not being done. The alignment of the planets alone is not going to reveal my personality type, and not even when combined with my location.
An interesting test would be to correlate birth date results with people from the southern hemisphere. "Western civilization" is very north biased IMHO.
The question about visualising three dimensional objects is fascinating to me. Because my answer has changed radically in the last five or so years, and I'm not a young person!
I used to consider myself 3D-impaired -- unable to maintain and rotate a 3D image in my head, which also made 3D software frustrating. (I also have, it turns out, some binocular vision issues and some other mild cognition weirdness).
But a few years back I started on a hobby project, and I started to assemble my own DIY kit (because the commercial stuff is too expensive). To do that I had a lot of mental puzzles to try to solve.
Then I decided the best way forward was a 3D printer so I tried to find 3D tools that would work for me on even a basic level -- OpenSCAD, CadQuery, FreeCAD etc.; as many different ways to approach the problem as would shed light on ways to think about it.
I'm no longer really an OpenSCAD person but once my first successful models came out of my printer, my brain was changed forever, and now I visualise mechanisms in my head.
(One of the most powerful things I have learned about how to imagine any man-made, real world object, is to imagine the tools making it.)
As someone with Aphantasia, this is fascinating to me. There have been other aphantasics who report gaining the ability to visualize after mental exercises, and what you’re describing sounds somewhat similar. No luck for me yet, but I’m really interested in the idea that I could actually learn these skills…
This is such an interesting topic. I believe I also have aphantasia and I find that communicating about the topic is rather challenging as the right vocabulary doesn't seem to exist (or I'm ignorant of it).
I have no "mind's eye" and can't produce an image in my head. But confusingly, I am quite good at the mental 3D manipulation. I can spin the cow in my head and describe its orientation, but I don't actually see the cow, I just know it. I suppose my brain just has a different way of approaching this problem than visually.
This is where the language is tough. I'm not visualizing or imagining as those words describe the act of using a mental image. I'm perceiving the cow? It is hard to communicate.
> I find that communicating about the topic is rather challenging as the right vocabulary doesn't seem to exist (or I'm ignorant of it).
Right. This is enormously challenging in itself. And I think because nobody talks about it, it's possible, or maybe the default, to assume that you're simply broken in an obvious, universal way, and not that there might be variation or even routes to change your outcomes with metacognition or thought experiments.
What often comes up is stuff like "oh I thought 'the mind's eye' was just a figure of speech, I had no idea people meant it in a meaningful sense"
I have a form of aphantasia, but with that lack of visuals I also have a rich internal sense of touch. Like you, I can create and manipulate 3d objects in my mind; I really feel them down to texture and temperature (and I must say, that cow has textures I didn't want to feel, thanks for nothing) Most of my dreams are like this too -- I know where everything is, but I don't see it.
But my aphantasia isn't complete. Sometimes when I think of a person I get a dim image of their face for about a tenth of a second. And very rarely, I do see things in dreams.
You're deriving the cow. You don't see the cow, but you know things logically about the cow, and you can describe it just as well as would someone who does see it. But you are not, and don't need to be, actually seeing the cow.
A while back, I did an experiment: drawing a typing keyboard. It's something I see and use every day, so it should be easy, right?
Well, I was able to, but it didn't come from first principles or even visualizing it. It came from imagining myself at a keyboard and "simulating" typing. In my mind's body, I would type a sentence, which enabled me to extract the location of the keys, which I could then translate into part of the visual sketch on paper. The initial sketch came out with key sizes and shapes heavily distorted, but all of them spatially located in the correct relative horizontal ordering, and a second sketch made it possible to regularize them.
Not sure what it means, but it was an interesting exercise.
The weird thing obviously is that next to nobody with a mind's eye is actually seeing the cow.
A tiny tiny fraction of people talk about their mind's eye being part of their visual field, to the point that they can sort of functionally see -- hallucinate -- an imaginary object on a table like AR.
Another small number of people talk about imagining complete objects out of nowhere that they then have to analyse to describe; the imaginary thing has complete shape before its shape is described.
Most children can sort of whimsically play the imaginary-drinking tea game, imagining the shape of the teacups, imagining spilling tea or milk, but the mental images might not have attributes like colour or weight until they are specifically assigned to the visualisation. Like: what colour are the teacups? They don't have colour until you pick one, and then they do. Is it a heavy cup? It's not, but I do have a saucer. The more you add to the visualisation, the less translucent/ghostly/formless/conceptual it is.
The fascinating thing about broad aphantasia is that it appears to be way beyond even that; it's like things only happen conceptually, yet they still happen. Like the sibling comment from andrewflnr perceptively said: as if it's a conceptual blind-sight.
And when you consider our evolutionary pathway, perhaps it actually is the same phenomenon: a part of the brain successfully doing part of the task, without the support of the visualiser.
> Another small number of people talk about imagining complete objects out of nowhere that they then have to analyse to describe; the imaginary thing has complete shape before its shape is described.
But this is different from the kids tea party. I can easily pretend to hold a teacup without closing my eyes and visualizing a teacup, I don't think one has anything to do with the other.
If you ask someone to actually imagine seeing a teacup but what they're imagining doesn't have a colour or size, _what are they imagining_?
My point is this: if I tell you to close your eyes and form the image of a teacup in your mind, images certainly have colour and shape, so either your image does too, or you don't have an image. It's really just down to a differing definition of image.
If you ask me to imagine seeing a maze with hundreds of turns, rather than saying I have a nonspecific image, I'll say I'm having trouble forming a concrete image.
If you ask people to imagine a teacup, some will imagine seeing one, others will imagine holding one, others will have no images or feelings in their mind.
I'm pretty sure, like others are, a lot of this is just down to ambiguous or poorly specifies language.
> My point is this: if I tell you to close your eyes and form the image of a teacup in your mind, images certainly have colour and shape, so either your image does too, or you don't have an image. It's really just down to a differing definition of image.
Not really. I mean, I have some aphantasia-type aspects with faces. But my mind's eye is quite amenable to the semi-lucid mental image of a cup that doesn't have colour until I ask myself what colour it has, doesn't have fine shape details until I consider them.
After all, not all of our eye even sees in colour! Part of our visual apparatus only provides black and white imagery to our brain. So there's plenty of colourless imagery within our cognition.
I obviously failed to communicate my point, I'll try one last time.
If I ask you to imagine you can see something, and you haven't decided on basic details like what it looks like, this is exactly equivalent in my mind to me saying "imagine a number" and you not being able to tell me any digits of the number - you didn't really do what I asked.
We can go through and tediously define every word we're using but hopefully the above paragraph will allow you to tell where our definitions differ.
> "imagine a number" and you not being able to tell me any digits of the number - you didn't really do what I asked.
I don't really feel like that's true. If you asked me to choose a specific number, sure. But if the task really were just to imagine the concept of a number, unbound to anything, it wouldn't be a specific number until it needed to be.
Similarly, when thinking of a cup, unless I'm explicitly trying to imagine a specific cup, as close to reality as possible, it is merely a cup. Not a red cup, or one with a tiny annoying handle that I can only fit one finger into.
There are two questions there. Select the properties of a randomly chosen cup, and relay them to me. At which point i'd feel like im making it up as you ask for specific properties. Or just picture a cup, squashing, stretching, rotating. I think very much that these mental images are deeply baked into the ways we interact with the world (and are not literally seeing so much as attention to details of idealized concepts). It can't be a coincidence my mental image having transformations applied to it effortlessly is because of my work with 3d modelling and robotics.
If my mind wanders into those things, I could imagine the cup morphing between those scenarios, unreality forming into reality. Seeing with the minds eye is not seeing, in a literal sense.
I believe that there is a sense in which if we were forced to actually see the real world as it is, every detail of everything all at once, as a camera sees it, it would be far too much (consider things like optical illusions, human blind-spots in the visual field). Hence all sorts of mental shortcuts are taken where below the concious layer things are stiched together to make a false sense of cohesiveness out of a distinctly disconnected and incoherent stream of input data. Every sense even has varying time-lag, to the point the brain predicts nerve signals before they come in, hence phantom limb pain etc. It ends up that so little of you is actually the concious mind you.
Objects in the minds eye are similarly abstract objects. You cannot see every detail unless you decide upon what you choose to see. An apple, in my mind, has the blotchy, slightly coarse texture on the outside most apples have. But is it a red apple or a green apple? It's somewhere between the two. The digits of my number are a blur approximating all digits, the digits I expect to see, until I look closely. Similar to how the room in your peripheral vision is still the same. Probably.
If I cover your eyes and put a teacup on your open palm so you can't see the colour or feel the size, _what are you holding_?
I'm imagining a teacup - made of china, decorated in some way, capable of holding a few mouthfulls of ~75C thin liquid, smaller than a big mug, larger than a shot glass, with a handle sizes for the tip of one finger, delicate, ceremonial; concept space constrained to broadly teacup-ish area. But not a specific teacup unless it becomes important whether it's a plainer heavy duty cafe teacup or a grandma's Royal Jubilee promotional teacup.
> If I cover your eyes and put a teacup on your open palm so you can't see the colour or feel the size, _what are you holding_?
I obviously failed to communicate what I was saying.
If you give me a teacup and tell me to imagine I can see it, I have to know what it looks like before I can form that image.
This is all just a failure of communication because to me, part of the definition of having an image of something in your mind is that you know what it looks like.
Since knowing the colours and shapes are required to form an image, if you don't have those, you don't have an image.
Imagining a teacup is possible without imagining you can see a teacup.
I've watched something about an autistic person with a photographic memory who said they had trouble with the concept of "a church" because in their mind they could only picture specific churches and they all looked different. I've seen anecdotes of people with perfect pitch saying that if a tune was transposed to a different octave or played in a different key or interpretation, everyone else says it is "the same tune" but to them it has different notes so it's a different tune.
I don't know if it's weird; generalising a category from specific examples is saves memory space over remembering every individual teacup we've ever seen, so going the other way starting with a general concept of a teacup and only specifying as and when needed seems to make sense.
On the other end of the spectrum, Nikola Tesla's visualisations were so strong that as a child he would vividly hallucinate objects when their names were spoken to him.
It might be that what I am describing falls short of aphantasia (though my difficulties recalling motionless faces do suggest it).
I sometimes wonder if what it actually is, is a kind of fundamentally unexplored thought or experience.
There's a bunch of other examples.
Like... I can't _really_ tell my left from my right on an instinctive level, though I believe this to be inherited because I have relatives who can't.
Ask me directions in a hurry and I'll get them wrong even when I am sure they are right. I don't really have a "left" and a "right"; I have two sides that don't feel that different.
So I also can't really use mirrors well.
I have surprisingly quick and accurate reflexes for catching falling things but I can't catch a ball thrown to me.
The question about all of these things is: are they just things I have never found the right way to deliberately work through into a conscious process? Are they things I can't do now because I didn't learn when my brain was fresh?
OK so -- on this score. I have, I believe, a kind of partial aphantasia. Though maybe it's normal and people just don't really see the distinction?
I used to think -- until maybe ten years ago -- that I could not imagine the faces of friends and loved ones.
That is, if I try to visualise a person's face, I get an incomplete glimpse in my mind that dissolves away within an instant.
(People in my dreams do not really have detailed faces, if I can ever really look at their faces at all; it's like I don't make eye contact. Though they are not face-less horrors.)
This has been distressing, particularly when my mum died.
But then I discovered two really interesting things:
1) I can sometimes imagine a "still" face if I visualise a photograph of that person (maybe only slightly more if I took it)
2) I can bring someone's face to mind much more successfully if I associate it with an emotion or an action, and once I've done that, as long as I keep them in motion I can visualise a lot more for longer.
A quarter of a century after she died, if I want to remember my mum, it's a real challenge. She hated being in photos so there aren't many. But it's possible to start by imagining her angry (sorry mum) or the annoyed look on her face when she was trying to solve a puzzle game on the computer. Then I might be able to keep her face in my mind for long enough.
My dad passed away a couple of years back and for this loss I was ready; I have some photos, but more importantly I had spent the previous years learning his face experiencing different emotions. My favourite route to imagining my Dad's face is to imagine a situation where he might show puzzled, half-smiling amusement or fascination when presented with something he didn't understand or didn't work quite the way he expected. I will be able to recall his face in motion, just as my face starts to leak around the eye sockets :-/
So on the one hand: even now I can't visualise still faces at all! I struggle to describe faces of people I don't really know well. As soon as a face is still, it goes.
On the other hand, I have taught myself a visualisation process that can conjure up meaningful animated recollections that are filled with emotion. I have to do it deliberately, but it's lovely to do.
One final quirk: despite all this, I appear to potentially be a super-recogniser. I can't visualise a still face, but I do not "forget a face"; I can tell you with eerie accuracy whether I've seen someone before and where. And I do rather well with the "which of these faces did you see in this clip" type test, and very well at the tests like "which of these faces is this face from another angle".
This is all extremely interesting. I also struggle to remember faces, and most of my are tied to emotions, sounds, smells, sensations, etc. When I recall something/someone, I don't see it/them, I just "know" + feel.
And I find myself very easily fooled by subtle changes in a person's appearance. If someone gets a major haircut or changes their hair color, they might as well be a different person to my brain, initially.
> If someone gets a major haircut or changes their hair color, they might as well be a different person to my brain, initially.
That is true aphantasia.
I don't have this aspect of the problem -- indeed, I often have the weird super-recogniser problem of correctly identifying that I have seen someone unknown to me before, and where. I might be able to even describe the clothes they were wearing that last time or something they were holding or doing.
But I would struggle to describe their face to someone else.
This is very interesting, when I was a kid I didn’t think with words but with “abstract” ideas. When I realized every other kid used language for thinking I tried to do it myself and not only I was able to do it, but it never stopped after that. Now I probably think 90% with language, but I’ve been trying to practice other forms of thought recently.
One of the most challenging things I find in life is explaining to a non-programmer how I visualise code. Because I don't really know how I do it; it is simultaneously grammatical and architectural, and a lot of the processes that guide me are really emotional or almost visceral. Code sometimes does not feel right.
Interesting test. I apparently am about as high as you can likely get a percentile score to go for the number of questions here on inner voice and representational manipulation, and as low as possible on mind's eye and orthographic representation
The inner voice and mind's eye don't surprise me, I'm among the more hyperlexic people I know and seem to have total aphantasia, but I didn't realize (though I guess it seems like an obvious possibility in retrospect) that there were people who processed words as text in their head - I guess the survey itself said that surprised them too.
I also didn't consider that there could be a large degree of variability in representational manipulation, and assume that this kind of inevitably leads to some pretty hard to bridge inferential gaps when speaking across that divide. Honestly maybe I'm misunderstanding what's meant by that, because the other extreme sounds to me like there are some people who just can't do metacognition which sounds insane. I'm guessing however that this is similar to an experience I had with a (now ex-)lover who was shocked when I mentioned I don't have visualization, and asked "So you're telling me you have no imagination at all?", which like, I wouldn't say is true? My imagination can be prosaic, narrative, auditory, abstract, olfactory, emotional, or kinematic, just not visual. I kind of assume that's similar to what I'm doing here, like whatever "manipulating representations" means here is a useful capability by which to do metacognition but not the thing itself... but it seemed like their questions pertained to a lot of different kinds of manipulation of abstractions or mental models, so I can't really figure out how you'd examine your thoughts per se without that ability. Maybe there's someone more knowledgeable about this field here that could help me understand the distinction?
How does one even get high inner voice score there? I dialogue in my head all the time and answered “sa” to most of the inner voice questions, but fell on the far left side on that graph. Feels like other questions subtract from it silently. Instead I got high score in object rotation which I can do easily but it isn’t my main mode of thinking. I usually think abstractions and/or speak myself into convincing they are good enough.
I probably failed due to this agree/disagree test laziness. You never know what they meant by things like “I often enjoy X”. What does strongly disagree mean here? Never? I don’t enjoy? What if I don’t enjoy it, but do often? Why not ask it directly like “I X: never sometimes often” or “I relate to X: hare it … love it”. Even then it’s unclear what “sometimes” means. Once in a year, in a month, in a day? This indirection and vagueness adds so much noise to the result.
I guess all this tells how I think more than the test itself.
Weird, based on the wording of the questions and the categories they presented I kind of just assumed that each question only pertained to one of them. If they're doing something more complex I didn't notice it. But maybe they have some baked in assumptions that some of these modalities are like, mildly anticorrelated? That's the thing that kinda irked me about psychology when I was studying it more seriously. The epistemic integrity of psychological research reads to me as basically castles built on sand, where people get excited about results that seem super weakly supported based on reading the paper, which is often itself laden with a ton of assumptions that don't seem justified, but people who cite them just take the conclusions the authors drew as established, build their own studies with those assumptions baked in, ad nauseum. I was not shocked at all when the replication crisis hit this field as hard as it did, and since the issue is often in the way the hypotheses are operationalized in the first place, there are inherently going to be tons of flawed studies that are hard to even detect through the heuristic of replicability.
As far as the Likert scale nonsense, I am right there with you, all these psychological instruments are pretty poorly framed from my perspective, and while there's some discourse deep in academia about the rigor of various experimental methodologies even in the most broken of social sciences, in practice they don't seem to care much because it's publish or perish baby!
It really doesn't seem like most sciences are quite this broken, though some are clearly trying. Obviously there are people in psychology trying to do good rigorous science, it seems like institutional pressures are not working to support them, and certainly won't amplify rigor over making bold claims that get a lot of press
Like, all this to say that it's definitely worth taking these things with a massive grain of salt, but if you do that, it can still be pretty interesting.
>Interesting test. I apparently am about as high as you can likely get a percentile score to go for the number of questions here on inner voice and representational manipulation, and as low as possible on mind's eye and orthographic representation
Interesting, it's the same for me. I'm 94th and 98th percentile on the first two, but 2nd and 25th percentile for the other two. Since we're both on a (primarily) science and tech oriented website, I wonder if there's any correlation between ones occupation/hobbies/skills and their method of thinking.
Also, I'm surprised to hear that I'm an extreme outlier when it comes to the mind's eye. When I think about it, even recalling the face of my partner (who I see daily, including this morning) is not easy and comes out very fuzzy. But I have no problems with imagining complex geometry, maps, navigation, etc.
Pretty close to me too. 98th percentile for Internal Verbalization, 88th percentile for Visual Imagery, average for all the others.
I'm constantly talking to myself in my head as if I'm talking to a duplicate of myself. Asking questions, providing answers, having full back and forward conversations (especially with programming). There are certainly days though where, if you have a lot going on, you can start to burn yourself out with conversation (since every single action of the day comes with a conversation). Even if it's just "Oh I should make a coffee. Did I have a coffee yet? No, I think you had one this morning. What about if I made one anyway. Yeah I think that would be fine. Oh do I need to boil water? I suppose I should check if the water is hot. Yep looks like I do have to boil some". and after a while you just get sick of talking to yourself. But you can't switch it off and it drives you a bit batty sometimes.
I asked my wife once if she constantly narrates her own day, she said absolutely no. She said she only really has an internal monologue when reading things from text. And she writes down a lot of stuff on text. But other than that, she answered confused by my question "...nothing? I guess? Quiet?"
>It absolutely melts my mind every time I come across the two facts that:
- People experience their thoughts very differently
- We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do.
Well, the first is not exactly right. People might experience thoughts differently, but not that widely so. It's not like "anything goes", more like there are a few cases, and people fall into one or the other (e.g. some can have aphantasia).
And the second, while right, is hardly "mind melting". Why would people assume otherwise, since the only immediate empirically seen thinking they have access to is their own?
(Especially since different modes of thinking is not exactly "anything goes" as we said, so the second-hand examples of thinking they have, e.g. people describing or mimicking thinking and inner monologues in movies and books, match how the majority thinks)
Same here. I had a conversation with friends who said, language influences thinking.
I said, no, I have thoughts, and I communicate them with language but the thoughts are not language.
Later we spoke about being able to have no thoughts - still mind. I said I can do this any time, I can stop the thoughts and be still. At the time I had no training but I could do it for 10, 20, 30 seconds easily. And I knew with training I'd be able to extend that time, it was effortless.
To them, that was crazy - they couldn't stop thinking at all!
So yes, we learn how our minds can work completely differently from one another.
The study of Human Design takes this to the next level - this strange science states that humans can be classified in 5 different general types which operate totally different from one another - it has taught me a lot about other people.
My base assumption that everyone is more or less like me - turned out to be completely off.
> Later we spoke about being able to have no thoughts - still mind. I said I can do this any time, I can stop the thoughts and be still. At the time I had no training but I could do it for 10, 20, 30 seconds easily. And I knew with training I'd be able to extend that time, it was effortless.
> To them, that was crazy - they couldn't stop thinking at all!
I have the same experience of being "unable to stop thinking". Are you by any chance neurotypical, or close to neurotypicality? My impression is that neurotypical brains have a higher degree of synchronization than autistic brains, which would make suppressing thought easier.
I'm autistic, and I don't just have thoughts; they have themselves. Thoughts just spontaneously come into existence, and just think on their own. I can think about them myself, but only by picking up existing thoughts. Thoughts come into existence whether I intend them to or not, so it is not possible for me to suppress them.
On one paw, the fact that thoughts seemingly think about themselves allows me to fit a lot of logic in my head at once without getting overwhelmed. But on the other, being unable to control which thoughts are in my head can be really infuriating.
> I have the same experience of being "unable to stop thinking".
I am doubtful that anyone can truly stop thinking. But people can have more or less awareness of their thoughts, and they can be having thoughts that they don’t consider to be thoughts. For example, if you notice that your shirt is wet, that is a thought even if you don’t “think” anything about it.
I haven’t personally tried one, but I believe the purpose of a sensory deprivation tank is to create an environment where your thoughts are unavoidable.
> But people can have more or less awareness of their thoughts, and they can be having thoughts that they don’t consider to be thoughts.
Yes, that is my experience. If I try not to have thoughts, then what happens is not that thoughts stop happening, it's that I stop noticing them until they're more fully developed. This "not noticing" results in a relative lack of remarks upon those thoughts, but the thoughts themselves are not made of or depending on language. They just are things. Technically, they are "derived meaning".
When on psychedelics I can have thoughts that not only don't depend on language, but don't have language. It's not possible to describe them because they represent indescribable things. It's possible to feel them and interact with them in a way that seems to makes sense to me, but it's not possible to communicate them. If I try, they can actually result in words being generated, but those words sound like a bad phone autocomplete - stuff like "can have a haves and take a three sixteenth quarters" (real excerpt from a past trip).
(My guess is that my brain has some sort of internal format that real-world concepts are translated into in order to be operated on. That's the "meaning" that gets derived. I wonder if psychedelics allow me to create or perceive meanings that no real-world concept would ever actually translate into, and therefore don't have any way to communicate as a real-world concept.)
> I am doubtful that anyone can truly stop thinking.
This statement is a perfect example of benrutter's point:
> - We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do.
Don't be so sure that nobody has thoughts that can truly stop, even just for a short time.
I think to a large extent this is because people define "internal monologue" differently, so let me just clarify:
a. There is a voice inside your head, and your consciousness is not the one talking: schizophrenia.
b. There is a voice inside your head, it's you doing the talking i.e. you're doing everything but moving your lips and producing sound - the words are literally being narrated in your mind: internal monologue.
c. No language is being "spoken" inside your head. If you're not talking, you're not forming sentences at all: apparently some people have this experience.
My experience is b, but it is possible for me to also think without having to narrate everything (a bit of c). If anyone has a different internal experience, please reply.
For me it was mindblowing the fact that before my brain tumor surgery I had something like a conscience voice and a richer internal dialogue. After that the voice dissapeared and my train of thought is more logic focused instead of instrospection focused, not sure why.
This reminds me of this old Feynman video where he talks about how people use different methods in their heads when counting, seems relevant: https://youtu.be/Cj4y0EUlU-Y?t=135
Love it! I use something similar to remember long numbers. If a code or a pin has let's say 8 digits, I'm unable to remember it the normal way. So I remember the first digit in the inner voice, and the other 4 digits as a picture of the digits.
+ Rudolph Flesh, The Art Of Clear Thinking (1951). He has visualizations in there how people concepualize the months in a year as an ellipsis, and so on.
That test was indeed interesting.
But, one thing it didn't mention was audiation. Various people I know (including me) can hear music in their heads, almost like a recording. This is very useful when performing as I can pretty much play along to this internal track. Some people appear not to be able to do this at all.
> Various people I know (including me) can hear music in their heads, almost like a recording
Same, happening to me right now, happens automatically almost every morning when I wake up, which kind of gives me my own "soundtrack of the day" and enjoy the ride.
Sometimes the song is stuck in repeat though and the only way to kick it out of loop is to actually listen to it.
An interesting bit is that this internal jukebox is actually playing faster than real time, even though it sounds absolutely correct and natural in my mind and definitely not as if it was a 1.2~1.5x play rate that would give this funny "Benny Hill effect"; so when I perform the song at the time scale that I hear it it is clearly too fast (higher BPM) to outside observers or when compared to an original recording.
It's as if my experience of mind-time is skewed vs real time so I've developed a bunch of coping strategies like padding (e.g making every beat having a "late by ~x" feeling), forceful downclocking (some sort of detached zen mode where I let go of the internal clock, which gives a very surreal feeling of perceiving the world), or active continuous ratio compensating (sort of like the world is going at 0.8x compared to my reference clock so remapping makes it sort of bullet-timesque)
Socially it's all very disconnecting and exhausting.
I have the internal audio. I wish I could just hook up an audio interface to my brain for that sometimes as it would be so convenient for making new music.
In theory I could translate it to a DAW (but I'm not that great at transcribing music...it's possible, kinda, but slow), but I can't easily repeat the music in my head (not what I make up at least, proper released songs tend to be easier to repeat), so it would be difficult to recreate it enough to be worth the effort.
Curiously, I have this but I lack the musical education/experience/talent(?) to really use it. I can make up and "hear" music with multiple instruments and stuff, but I'm utterly useless at writing it down. Even just reproducing part of a melody on a keyboard is a frustratingly time consuming chore. :-(
I know what you mean.
What I found very helpful in getting music out of my head via an instrument was a lot of very tedious scale practice, and similar exercises. This appears to get my fingers habituated such that I may often hear a (simple) line on the radio then immediately pick up an instrument and play it.
I wonder if it would help if I wrote a little program that plays short note sequences and then asks me to recreate the sequence (possibly modulo transposition).
You're thinking of ear training software. Lots of those out there.
Your ear (the ability to recognize intervals, scales, chords, chord progressions, rhythms etc) is one of (if not the) your biggest asset as a musician. And it's the only way to get the music out of your head, so cultivate it. Practice practice practice! Don't have to do more than a couple of minutes per day to see some results.
Ear training is something all creative musicians have to do. Many who are self-taught simply do it through picking up other people's tunes by ear (= transcribing), working it out on their instrument, starting with easy stuff and over time learning to "decipher" more difficult pieces. Dedicated ear training can really boost this process.
I was surprised to learn the other day from HN that not only some people, but some commenters here, consider the notion of "not opening one's mouth to start a sentence before knowing how it's going to end" an impracticable ideal.
Hmmm, I don't think I know exactly what words I want so say when opening my mouth, but I usually do know exactly what point I want to express. Also, after having expressed my point I stop making noises. Some people seem to really need to say something, but then just go on meandering without giving any indication that they actually have any point to make.
I am, apparently, someone well on the linguistic side of the spectrum, yet I too was somewhat taken aback by this statement from the abstract: "Here we bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied disciplines to argue that in modern humans, language is a tool for communication, contrary to a prominent view that we use language for thinking" [my emphasis].
My own thinking on this has been to consider the origins of language. In a community of hominins on the verge of developing a language, would they not need, as a prerequisite, some non-linguistic ability to consciously grasp that at least some of the vocalizations of their peers represented feelings that they recognized in themselves? But that, by itself, would not be enough for them to develop a language; in addition, I feel, it would take both a desire to communicate their thoughts and feelings to others (motivated in part, I would guess, by recognizing that it would be useful to do so) and the recognition that this might be accomplished through artificial sounds and/or gestures with arbitrarily-allocated yet specific meanings. I feel that there's a bootstrap problem in regarding language as primarily a means of thinking that was found to be useful in communicating.
Like you (and, apparently, the survey compilers) I am surprised to learn that a sizable minority of people report frequently visualizing words as text. On reflection, however, that sounds somewhat like a form of synesthesia, and I occasionally get enough of a hint of that to put it just barely in range of my personal experience - but then, I don't regard people whose experiences differ markedly from mine as wierdos.
> I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking, so my assumption would always be that of course, thinking isn't very linguistic (even if we can use it as a tool while thinking).
I always had thought this is the case too. Thinking isn't linguistic but it can be helpful as a tool while thinking, especially while thinking about communication.
It also seems obvious to me that language is a tool for communication rather than thought, although sometimes it also includes communication to yourself (in future).
In some cases, I can visualize words as text too, especially if thinking about written communication.
> - We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do.
I wouldn't say that. What I would rather say is that everyone starts with the expectation that they share thought with others.
There is overwhelming empirical evidence that people can tell when others think like them. Not everybody treats this indicator the same way. Some are fascinated when others think differently. Some get uncomfortable when they can't tell what another is thinking or feeling.
I'm sure not everyone understands why there can be others that don't think like them. To a simple mind, it might just seem like there's something wrong with them or that they have unaligned goals/interests; you actually can see that assumption from certain neurotypicals. (I don't know if it's truly specific to neurotypicals.)
However, it is possible not to believe, even secretly, that everyone experiences thought the same; I certainly don't. I try my best to understand exactly how thought can differ between each person, of course, but in the process of doing that research, it does become abundantly clear just how much I don't know, and just how differently others think than how I do.
> We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do.
Not a universal law. I don’t think I work in the same way as other people at all, as I cannot see what is obvious to others, and they cannot see what is obvious to me.
I don’t think, per se, the information and the integrated results of information are just there. People call it “intuition” but it isn’t some magical sixth sense, it’s just not using one’s language centre for compute, which is what many seem to do.
The moment I start consciously considering something, it all usually goes to hell - so a large part of how I operate is preventing myself from lapsing into “conscious thought”, and instead to keep whatever it is just below the surface until it’s cooked.
I infuriated teachers throughout my childhood by apparently paying zero attention but then inexplicably having the correct answer to whatever was posed to me, and have never quite related to other people, as it usually feels like I’m trying to bridge an immense gap of comprehension - not, to be clear, that I think other people are stupid - just more like I am running fundamentally different software, and everything has to go through an extensive translation and abstraction layer to make sense to others.
If I speak my thoughts directly, then they often emerge as allegory, as it’s the only way I can try to encapsulate the otherwise rather inchoate froth of connection which leads to a result. Sometimes others understand the allegory, but more often than not, they do not, as the symbols mean something else to them.
So yeah. I don’t think my mind works like most other people I encounter. The only other person I know who I think operates in the same way is my sibling, and people who have observed our conversations find them downright bizarre. They sound like beat poetry half the time, as with five well chosen words presenting the correct allegory we can transmit deep meaning to one another.
I don't automatically do what you describe, but I've had good experiences with it: "preventing myself from lapsing into conscious thought". Especially in how I experience ADHD, if I just wait for my subconscious to cook up something for me, it's a good trick for seeing past the weeds to what is actually relevant today, here and now.
This feels to me very similar to my experience - I tend to joke that in order to express a thought to others I have to translate it into words first; and in doing so I also flatten the thought.
And before it, the time of having a raw thought in my brain it just feels like… something, it’s not sound, not light, but “a thing” which I know means the item or concept I am thinking of. And the process of thinking is kind of these “semantic things” bouncing off each other - which usually happens much faster than I can translate it into words.
When solving a problem, I usually tinker with it for a while and then let my “big subconscious coprocessor” deal with it for a while, and more often than not if not a solution but the clear idea of direction and reasoning emerges the next time I look for it.
At the same time I tend to make a fair bit of puns based purely on spelling alone - feels a bit magical to have all the omonyms kind of flash in the head all at once, and then make-pretend pick the wrong one for fun.
That’s pretty similar, from the sound of it. The flattening analogy fits - it’s like trying to describe a multidimensional sculpture using only three letter words.
As to the big processor - I definitely do the same if no answer is immediately forthcoming - send it to the boys upstairs and wait for an answer, which usually comes while I’m in the middle of a conversation about something else entirely.
Puns, to an extent, although more often than not I just go off up and down an etymological tree, as the semantics behind so many words and concepts reveal further layers of interconnection and peculiar shreds of history. Physics is my play park, where I enjoy posing and chewing on gnarly problems, which often result in “inadequate data, please try again later”. Didn’t make me popular as an undergraduate as I asked all sorts of awkward questions about presuppositions and usually ended with a professor waving their arms and telling me to just accept it as so. “Dark matter” was what made me finally spit on the ground and decide to not pursue academia, as it’s just so blatantly wrong, and it hurts to see so many accept it as a hard done and dusted solution to something that is anything but solved - because our presuppositions are almost certainly wrong. Piles upon piles of monkeys supposing that they are the centre of the universe, with the perfect sensorium to know it.
Anyway. Like I say, I find it hard to see eye to eye with a majority of people, and I know I don’t make it any easier for myself.
I can totally relate. In my case I feel deeply connected to Poincare writings about unconscious processing. It’s not that I have sudden eureka moments, but I observed that if I try to consciously search for an answer, I just won’t find it, like I need to soak on information and do something else to actually get the result after a while.
It's difficult to say what thought is, but LLMs also solve more problems more correctly if you allow them to feed back through themselves multiple times (ask them to show their working) apparently for the obvious reason that it allows more computation to happen. I hypothesize that different people build different recurrence circuits, by chance. Some go through the audio cortex, some through the visual. Helen Keller described herself as driven solely by emotions, like a beast, before she had any kind of language: https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/1jyo53/hellen_kel...
This test really threw me for a loop because it didn’t cover my main mode of thought. For me, I can consciously use my internal voice or visualize things, but if I am not actively trying to, they never happen. Typically, the results of my thoughts simply enter my conscious mind, and what brought them about is opaque to me.
I just did that quiz and the question about the sound of a trumpet getting louder made me notice that my imaginings of talking and instruments actually activate my vocal chords and neck muscles a bit; and imagining a trumpet is more like imagining someone make an imitation trumpet sound.
Also was hoping that quiz would ask about other senses; how easily people can choose to imagine tastes and smells, e.g. on their agree/disagree scales:
1. You can easily imagine the smell of freshly baked bread.
2. You can easily call to mind the taste of peanut butter.
3. You are melting chocolate and somebody suggests adding basil, you can vividly imagine how that would taste before trying it.
4. When remembering an event that happened to you, there is a strong smell memory included.
5. You can imagine feeling the weight and texture of a brick in your hands.
I'm in the 'visualising the words as text' category, and I've always thought I have a bad memory compared to other friends, though I can recall every little detail of large software projects that I've been in.
During exams, where I had to cram lots of theory in a small amount of time, I recall trying to 'access' the slides via how they looked like in my mind and trying to somehow read the stored image, because that's for me easier to remember than the actual text when I'm not doing any deep understanding, but just memorization :/ I hated these kinds of exams, what's the point of repeating 500+ slides out of 14 weeks of courses word by word ?
Open book exams + internet + tricky questions were the best.
This is a big part of why I think LLMs can lead to AGI: humans clearly exist who can think equally well despite having some major gears in their brain going in different directions from each other. If you told me that there was a human who could only think by speaking and who experienced their entire reality and cognition in a textual form, occasionally augmented by flashes of visual or auditory data, I would not be willing to comfortably put an upper limit on their IQ despite all that. I'd just say "yeah, I guess? Weirder things have happened."
This somewhat related to universals and how they are view from Platonic idealism and Aristotelian realism. With language we capture a symbolic representation of the ideal form, the red apple, or do we just imagine the last particular apple we saw. Or maybe if you're really modern you imagine the molecular structure and photonic reflective spectrum.
Anecdote: I once tried to suppress my internal monologue. I found thinking elaborate thoughts and checking them for soundness was a lot harder. Might just be not being used to it.
These days I mostly use words but there are many concepts that don't have a short number of words corresponding to them, which makes recalling them much harder for me.
I score low in all categories. I wonder if that means I'm just not very aware of how I think while I'm not doing it. I think a lot though. A little bit too much
I wonder if the quiz is missing questions / scoring around thought awareness.
I'm not convinced it's a fact we all think as differently as implied. Try and get a room full of people to even agree what "internal dialogue" means or whether you actually hear a voice when you recall it.
Can you express your internal monologue in words? If not then it is clearly not an internal monologue. I can't express mine in words, hence I am certain it isn't an internal monologue.
Similarly I doubt others would say they have an internal monologue if they couldn't express it in words. Hence I am fairly certain that they think in a different way, or at least they think they do.
Look at how different we are from each other. Then consider that humans actually have less genetic variance than most mammal species. Now imagine meeting actual aliens whether from space or from our own AI efforts.
I definitely have an inner monologue im some situations, reading is a good example. I can speed read in which case I don't really have a perception of the sounds, but if I'm closely reasing something then I do have a sense of the sounds if words as I'm reading.
The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me (although lots of very clever people report doing it, so obviously it isn't for them!)
> The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me
So, as a person who definitely has an inner monologue, I absolutely agree. It's not like I'm literally sounding out words in my mind all the time. The vast majority of things I do I do without explicit use of language.
I think my understanding (mostly coming from Chomsky and in disagreement when OP) is that language is a mechanism for thinking that is mostly not accessible through conscious introspection.
> mostly coming from Chomsky and in disagreement when OP
Is Chomsky's idea that language is not necessarily the same as spoken language, it is an alternate brain mechanism that provides structure to thought as opposed to being the wild west of fluid/analog non-discrete/non-symbolic type of information processing?
The idea would be that language first evolved as a mechanism for thought and only later became used for communication. Spoken language would still be connected to the underlying mechanism though.
My conscious thoughts are verbalized in my head, and it is somewhat slow, but I also have a sense of intuition, which is very fast, though works best in silence. I can pull things from intuition into conscious thought, but explaining why I feel something is the same slower process.
So thinking about something isn't a one speed operation, but being able to communicate those thoughts is.
I think almost exclusively through inner monologue, and I find I can't speed read at all. If I'm not vocalizing I'm not thinking, so when I try to not vocalize in order to speed read I don't retain anything. It's like my brain is incapable of processing the words if they aren't being vocalized.
> The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me
While I seem to be a fast reader relative to people I know, I very much feel my reading speed is limited by sounding the words in my mind, so I agree - it's near-unbearably slow.
It seems obvious to me that thinking critically about what you read or hear takes effort and time. I wouldn't call it unbearable, though, because the alternative is polluting your mind with unvetted notions.
Linguistic thinker: I reach conclusions by feel, pretty much jumping to them, and then sniffing out the "warp trail" from that jump and putting that into words. It doesn't feel like inventing post facto rationalizations, but rather retracing the reasoning that happened in the background. And I do need to do that step - the conclusion doesn't seem "stable" unless I trace it back like this.
Words are also based on the same intuition, you just verbalize it and restrict yourself to what you have words for instead of all concepts and thoughts.
For example I do math entirely without any words in my process, and I easily got a master in math that way, barely had to study. No problem, you just translate it at the end. Limiting myself to words just makes it harder to think freely.
That just sounds so different to how I solve math problems. I was naturally good at maths, but it was always from monologue kind of bruteforcing different solutions until one of them seemed to work. I guess it might be a reason also why I find LLMs really exciting since I feel like if I can do it, LLM should be able to do it. I don't feel like I am doing anything special.
I always had problem with trusting my intuition or gut so I was worse in a lot of other real life things however. But math seemed abstract and solvable by words and brute force.
I wish things just magically came to me, but I think I always have to go through things with my inner monologue.
Like if I was to do multiplication in my head e.g. with same numbers, for example 62 x 62. I would have to go through it as a monologue.
I first remind myself of the strategy to do it, which is first I will do 60 x 60. Then it is 3600, then I add 2 x 60, 3720, and then there is 2 x 62 left, but I have to keep reminding myself occasionally what the last numbers were, that initial multiplication was 62 x 62, then I got 3720, and now I have to add 124... okay lets go 3820, 24 left, now 3844. Of course it is easier to remember as I am typing this, but in my head I have to keep reminding myself. And now I am not sure if I did a mistake so I go verify that on the calculator.
> I first remind myself of the strategy to do it, which is first I will do 60 x 60. Then it is 3600, then I add 2 x 60, 3720, and then there is 2 x 62 left, but I have to keep reminding myself occasionally what the last numbers were, that initial multiplication was 62 x 62, then I got 3720, and now I have to add 124... okay lets go 3820, 24 left, now 3844. Of course it is easier to remember as I am typing this, but in my head I have to keep reminding myself. And now I am not sure if I did a mistake so I go verify that on the calculator.
I do multiplication in my head similarly, just strip out the words, the numbers just flickers through and operations happens by themselves and I'm done in a second or two when I'm not rusty. Now that I'm rusty I do it more like (60x60=3600, 2x2=4, 60x2=120, 3600 + 4 + 120 + 120 = 3844), without doing any words, I just did that in my head right now and I am 100% sure not a single word, just the steps, I do sometimes verbalize the numbers so what I wrote in those parentheses is the most verbal my process for mathing that out gets.
Edit: Looking at that, I think it might be easier for someone to correct your thinking if you think in words, but thinking without words is way faster and way more creative since it removes the restriction of only thinking about concepts you have words for.
Edit2: I think your verbalization there is a ritual for the concepts to get to you. For me all I need to do is see 62x62 and imagine I want to solve it and all those thoughts flow to me automatically, basically a shortcut instead of having a large verbal ritual to piece together the concepts. I never did math verbally the way it is taught, so I am not sure how people think that way, to me this was always automatically this way.
If you can or ever were able to do this in 2 seconds that is unimaginable to me. Not in a doubting way, I just have no idea how I could do it in 2 seconds. It would take me 20 to 30s and at least. But most people wouldn't even try to multiply this top of their head.
Also this multiplying of two digit numbers I was never taught, I just came to a strategy that I explained with my thoughts. And I used to do these for fun as a kid. But I would only get faster than that if it was something I had memorized, but not numbers from scratch. And I had to constantly try to repeat numbers in my head that I had stored for addition down the road.
What is usually tougher top of my head and especially if I am tired at all, is something like 68 x 68. Then here first I have to decide whether I go from 60 x 60 or 70 x 70. Since it's that close to 70, I think 70 is more likely be easier. So I think okay 4900 - that's from memory right. Then I start to think what I have to take off from 4900 and what is 68 x 68 lacking compared to 70 x 70. So I will think that if I add 2 x 68, it will make it 68 x 70 and then I have 2 x 70 missing. So I need to deduct 140 and 136. So now at this point, this is much easier done in writing but here I frequently have to repeat numbers or redo some steps because I am not certain or I forget. But otherwise 4900 - 140, this comes easily instantly 4760 - maybe that's how it is for you with 62 x 62. And then now I take 100 off, it's 4660, and further 36 it would be 4624. Right now testing this in my head it took more than a minute because I wasn't sure whether I could just use the logic that I was thinking out of the box and I'm quite tired.
What if you were to have to do something more difficult e.g. 3 digits multiplication or 4?
I got to 4624 in 8 seconds on that now, and I haven't done significant amounts of mental math in over a decade. The 60x8 etc took a couple of seconds each but other than that it just happens automatically. A decade ago each of those would take a fraction of a second and it takes about the same time to calculate as to write it, I tend to calculate the numbers left to right instead of right to left as you are taught since you write it left to right, also more useful when calculating approximations since I just do what I normally do but stop earlier.
> Not in a doubting way, I just have no idea how I could do it in 2 seconds
Words are just slow. I never did math with words, so arithmetics is fast, and so is all the other things you learn in a math degree. I think word based processing in math is a big reason people have such a tough time with it, it really makes it much harder to think, like you are bogged down in a fog instead of up and free and agile with clear sight of everything.
Maybe it was easier for people to get past this stage when calculators were less prevalent. Calculators lets people get away with keeping their arduous word based math instead of just internalizing the concepts.
> What if you were to have to do something more difficult e.g. 3 digits multiplication or 4?
When on tests I write down some intermediate values. I am not a human calculator, I am just fast at math reasoning and being relatively fast at arithmetic's comes for free from that.
I did some physics tests without a calculator, you can approximate all those special functions using regular math logic you learn in high school. I did still ace the test, it isn't that hard once you have internalized it all.
I read the words and then imagine them until I internalize them. I tend to space out a lot when I do that, so I don't really listen during lessons but I tend to learn most things during the lesson that way.
Makes me really bad at following instructions though, since unlike math or physics you shouldn't internalize them instead you should just execute the words and that is really annoying, my brain really doesn't want to think in words. so try to translate everything...
Anyway, I think internalizing things might be harder or impossible if you haven't already done so with all the previous steps. If all your thinking and knowledge is word based then it is hard to break that, and vice versa, I can't think about math in terms of words really. I can slowly translate some things to words but I can't really drive thought with the words.
I used to do math olympiads in high school and the concepts I saw there were always something I hadn't seen before. I always used inner monologue to figure out solutions though. I had never practiced much for math olympiads, I performed relatively well for my area, not good enough to make it to international levels though.
I can't follow verbal instructions as well though, I couldn't listen to the teacher etc. But I think it's because my inner monologue takes all the focus so I just follow my inner monologue which is probably completely another topic than what the lesson is about. I can't really focus away from my inner monologue. When I try, then I would just have philosophical meta discussion about my inner monologue. But also this meant that I couldn't actually learn the subjects as well during the class. I either had to learn from my free time or not at all.
Also have to watch films with subtitles, because audio language I have troubles focusing on.
I think all I have is my inner monologue, no good visual imagery, or other types of "thinking". I think makes me really poor at navigation as well. I never remember how to get somewhere. And also in general for anything 3d, like 3d games I will perform bad at, awareness wise.
Might sound weird but does the look of the operator matter? Say × vs x vs • vs *, I would assume it doesn't but I'm curious if there's a visual change, for lack of a better term.
No, I translate that to the same concept in my head and then I do it.
Edit: Thinking more about it, in my head the numbers are numbers, but the operators are invisible, not sure what to call it but I don't think of the multiplication operator as anything tangible, I just know it is a multiplication of the two numbers.
> That is thinking slow for you?? How do you reach conclusions or how do you know the reasons why you reached the conclusion?
Are you thinking that using words during thinking helps with reaching conclusions and knowing why you reached the conclusion?
For me it's just there, the thoughts, the facts, the logic, the sequence, the connections, etc. Expressing all of that in words happens afterward (if it happens).
I don't even know how to think without words. I thought thinking literally means using words in sequence to problem solve. At least I used to think so. If someone says they are going to think about something I have always thought that they were going to focus on their inner monologue of sequence of words.
Not OP but I also don't think with an internal monologue most of the time. For me it's often more like mentally manipulating abstract shapes or quantities and trying to make them fit together. When I'm writing software I'm literally thinking about pointers and bytes etc, not thinking about the words "pointer" and "byte". This is highlighted by the fact that after intense programming sessions I have dreamed about code, like I am computer memory and I'm being allocated by a memory manager or something.
Sometimes I do explicitly think with an internal monologue, though. Like if I'm debugging something I'll sometimes narrate what the program is doing in words. Also if I'm trying to figure out how some event happened I'll try to tell a story in my mind. It helps then as it forces me to serialise things.
When I read there is sometimes an internal monologue. When I write, there isn't. I don't talk like this. I think it's quite clear sometimes when people write with an internal monologue as their text reads like speech (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on its purpose).
Reading your comment, I don't subvocalize at all. In order to get through my college degree, I taught myself speed reading. Now, I just naturally do it. My eye flicks to the middle of every 5-10 word chunk and flies though the text. If you did speech synthesis at that speed, it'd be a incomprehensible chipmunk. So I don't subvocalize at all. It'd be way too slow. To suppress subvocalization I used to hum (in my mind) instead, but I don't need to anymore. If something is hard to understand I will slow way down, then the subvocalization might kick in. When typing, I do subvocalize everything, since I can't write that fast.
I think this post/paper was more about your personal thought process rather than reading though. I very rarely have any internal monologue. In fact, the rare times I do have one are usually very awkward social situations where I wanted to say something but don't. Otherwise never. My whole life has been that way. An internal monologue sounds like a nightmare to be honest. Constant talking that nobody else can hear? No thank you.
I read much faster when I can focus on reading instead of vocalizing; in this case I am no longer internally vocalizing the text. If I do vocalize what I read it goes a lot slower, but then it helps me to synthesize conplex concepts in a text.
Thanks for your comment. It just occurred to me that I have an inner voice narrating the text when I am reading in English.
This does not happen when I read in my first two languages.
This explains why I read slower when I read in English.
I don't have an internal monologue at all (I am able to speak to myself in my head if I want to, but I seldom have a reason to). When I read, the information just gets uploaded to my brain. I don't vocalize words in any way, silently or otherwise. I don't read one word at a time either. When I read something quickly I can "feel" that my understanding of the material is lagging "the cursor", sometimes by even a paragraph at a time.
The experience of thought differs from brain to brain. For example, autistics generally experience thought differently from neurotypicals.
This happens, in part, because autistics have a different distribution of synaptic connections, which are shorter on average than is neurotypical. This typically results in an experience of disorganized thought, where multiple different parts of the brain contain independent thought, because there aren't enough connections directly between them to enforce synchronization. There are enough localized connections to allow general thoughts to happen and be operated on, but they are exactly that; localized.
Detail-oriented thinking is another well-known side effect of this, because each individual detail can easily be fit somewhere without being lost in the "big picture". Autistics are usually who you'll find sweating details that most people wouldn't necessarily care about, but they're also who you'll find sometimes getting lost in those details rather than sticking to a single clear vision. Neurotypicals, on the other paw, can miss those details if the picture as a whole looks okay to them, but they also usually won't get stuck on them in the process of executing their vision.
Note that every person is different, whether autistic or non-autistic, so there are autistics who are good at thinking in terms of the big picture and neurotypicals who are good at considering every detail. The fact that the physical mode of thinking differs doesn't necessarily mean that another can't be emulated - it just means that even if two people appear to be doing or thinking the same thing, the way it's actually implemented "in hardware" (meatware?) can differ greatly depending on neurotype, even from autistic to autistic and neurotypical to neurotypical, as the brain has no single switch between fully autistic and fully neurotypical.
I've been informed that the author of the article doesn't generally do good work, but I've personally reviewed the article and believe it to still be sufficiently accurate. Additionally, this particular description of autistic disorganized thought is what originally tipped me off to the fact that the way I think is different from others. If you're not autistic and/or it doesn't describe you, please know that it perfectly describes me, which should be enough to understand how exactly the experience of thought can differ from brain to brain.
Also, psychedelics can significantly change one's mode of thinking. I use them recreationally from time to time. Somehow, they give me better executive function than my ADHD meds do.
> It seems like there's a large number of people who experience their thought exclusively as language.
They must listen to a large amount of verbose drivel telling them how to weave their way through a crowd, or how to rotate a suitcase to fit it into a trunk.
- People experience their thoughts very differently
- We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do.
I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking, so my assumption would always be that of course, thinking isn't very linguistic (even if we can use it as a tool while thinking).
It seems like there's a large number of people who experience their thought exclusively as language.
That sounds absolutely nuts to me, but I've heard people say the exact same in reverse. Even more fringe is that there's a sizable number of people who when thinking about words (i.e. remembering names) visualize their words as text. What!? I can't imagine that anymore than I can imagine how a jellyfish feels?
The University of Wisconsin did a cool study that comes with a fun quiz you can do to see just how much of a wierdo you truly are: https://uwmadison.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3NMm9yyFsNio...