People who have unusual, or non-existent, inner voices
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
It was weird for me - my mind doesn’t have a voice like that. “Hah maybe I don’t have an inner critic” I thought. But I still felt crippling shame after bad scenes in class. In quiet moments my mind is full of thoughts - there’s just no voice and no words attached by default. It’s all non verbal unless I think about vocalising it. This mode of thinking makes a lot of sense for imagining algorithms. There’s no words - just a kind of an imagined symbolic mechanism shifting to my will.
I know now I do have an inner critic. It just speaks in my body with emotions like guilt and gut wrenching shame. I have an “inner voice” - but having a thought and having words for that thought are different steps for me. Some of my most interesting thoughts I don’t have the words for at all.
And then if you talk to yourself about everything, how do you think about things you can't talk about? When I imagine going to the store I can imagine all the different routes etc in a second, there is no way I can talk about the different routes in a second in an inner voice, so to me the inner voice seems utterly useless at best or it hurts your ability to think at worst.
I'm not convinced our minds are actually different in kind, as opposed to just having quality differences in how we perceive ourselves. We can run the experiment right now. Does anyone actually have an internal voice narrating the feeling you get watching a sunset?
At other times, when I’m in a relaxed and unfocused state, particularly in the shower, my inner voice goes in circles and explains the same thing over and over. This tends to happen when I find an explanation really logically satisfying or interesting. This is perhaps a less interesting situation than the last one, because going through an argument repeatedly to understand it better is probably something that everyone does. But when it goes in circles too many times, I get sick of the topic, and there’s a distinct sense of “will you just shut up already”. Then I have to actively come up with something else to think about.
In both situations, my inner voice is becoming slightly intrusive, acting like a distinct entity from my conscious focus; and it always comes in the form of words even if I’m not actively seeking words. I think that goes beyond just “do I know the words for what I’m thinking”.
Mine's not even normally restricted to being an inner voice. I live by myself, and I talk to myself out loud constantly. It's mostly just narration, but I think being explicit about things helps my executive function weaknesses.
"Alright, smeej. Up from the couch. Let's put the dishes away. Grab those two first. Then let's shower because it's getting kind of late this morning."
I catch myself muttering out loud in hardware stores (which are somehow less overwhelming than grocery stores), but who hasn't seen somebody looking for something and muttering to themselves? I'm just that person!
The same way you do, presumably.
I thought about it and tried to develop awareness, because I was aware that my mind generated feelings of guilt, shame, fear, etc. out of seemingly nowhere.
Guess what. I found the inner voice. And it was harshly critical. It constantly contradicted things I did and tried to put me down.
Moreover, I recognised it as the “voice of my family”. I somehow likened it to the way my family members responded when they were at their most critical. While they are not always like that, my voice was always like that. It was like the worst of them in my head all the time.
It still called me by the name he gave me, not the name I call myself.
So now it's under the same restrictions he is. It doesn't have my permission to speak to me anymore.
From my family members who are still in touch with him, I hear that my dad sends me angry or manipulative messages fairly frequently, but just like I have all my electronic forms of communication set to delete his messages without opening them because I've firmly decided I don't care what they say, the rest of my mind dismisses his voice in my head as pathetic, irrelevant, and not even worth hearing.
Once I realized the opinions of that voice deserved to be regarded with contempt--specifically contempt, and _very_ occasionally pity--it became much easier not to be their victim.
This is not exact science, I would say. It is good to have a basic understanding of plenitude of voices, some of them being delicate and fragile, some aggressive and dominating in nature and try to make ever better distinctions (which is which? which part of my behavior is which voice?). It is not that there is only me and my Inner Critic inside me. It is most likely that shame you're feeling after performance comes from a delicate self, which can be called your Vulnerable Child, rather than from your Inner Critic. Lots of sadness, anxiety, shame, retraction comes from such child-like selves (developed during your childhood and still existing functionally in the repertoire of your CNS). These emotions coming from this child like energy are very often accompanied by internalized aggressive energies critical of ourselves. The picture is nuanced, with many parts inside us, interacting with each other.
Accessing this Inner Child energy directly in conversation (sometimes with less words, more like evoking it and just being with it, especially at the beginning) is a profound experience with far reaching consequences (including, once you see it a separate entity inside you, possibility of taking care of this Inner Child by yourself, inside yourself - you just start to take care of this child, which is in fact you... taking care of... you.) It sounds ridiculous, but it is very real.
That's a really interesting idea, I wonder if leaning so heavily on language can limit our available thought-space. Certainly a Sapir–Whorf tie-in there!
I find when I over-do it with coding I can't stop thinking about everything in terms of coding related concepts and it drives me nuts because I can tell it's gumming up my clarity of understanding
Where would new words come from, then?
thats your inner voice!
Maybe another way to describe it is - I understand my thoughts before I know the right words to use to describe my thoughts out loud. In conversation I sometimes find I'll start explaining something; only to notice that the words aren't the right translation for the concept in my head. "Sorry, thats not quite right - its more like ... this".
The other day I had a feeling which was a mix between boredom and anger. Like, a sort of judgemental boredom. I don't think english has a word for that feeling; but neither "boredom" nor "anger" would be a sufficient translation of what I felt. Its like that.
Or another example - I was practicing drawing yesterday. I drew a character's nose, but my line looked wrong and I had to rub it out and redraw it. I don't have any words for the shape my wonky line made. I couldn't tell you in words how it made the face look, or how it needed to be fixed. I could try, but any words I use would be an awkward approximation. I know exactly what was wrong with the shape. But words to describe it would be a sketch compared to my mind's photograph. (Except its not like a photograph either! Aah its happening now too.)
Lots of thoughts work the same way. At least for me. Is it really not the same for everyone?
If you've thought "Hah maybe I don't have an inner critic", how did this come about if not through an inner voice?
Might you have any additional takeaways since gaining that perspective?
and a few folks have an overactive vocalization system where most of their subvocal thoughts actually come out of their mouths. i'm always partly fascinated by these folks (just walked past one today), since i tend to be relatively economical in my vocalized thoughts.
I do talk to myself out loud, constantly, but it's still actually only a very tiny percentage of the thoughts that are in my mind. I wonder if it would look like most of my thoughts were coming out of my mouth from the outside.
At any given time there are at least 6 tracks running in my head, sometimes twice that many, thinking about all kinds of different things at varying levels of depth.
The mouth can only give voice to one of them at a time, though, so it helps me prioritize. It normally directs my actual actions so that the voice that gets the practical life things done can be heard over all the other ones just running in circles around problems until they finally break open.
This sounds interesting. Can these tracks all proceed fine in parallel, can you collect and write down the simultaneous lines of thought afterwards if you wish? I feel like I have just one execution pipeline, which I consider to be my conscious self. Bit similar to how I literally can't talk and watch a movie at the same time (even though that is about I/O I suppose), one action takes the whole processing capability.
When one of them does reach an important point, it's like it pops up a notification and reminds me about itself, so then I'll either write down what needs to be done or just take the action if it's quick.
It's rare that they alert at the same time, but yes, when they do, I can just record the statuses consecutively as quickly as I can.
For example, in college, I'd often compose whole papers in my head over the course of weeks for several subjects at once, and then just sit down and write them down in an afternoon.
This was extremely frustrating to my thesis advisor, who wanted to see "progress" at various checkpoints, but I didn't have anything deliverable until I pressed the metaphorical "print" button in my head and wrote 100 pages in the final week.
The whole project was in my head already. It just didn't exist in discrete, completed form until it was finished processing. I didn't write the chapters separately.
I went through exactly the same situation around 10 years ago, but it was about mental imaging. Do you know people can actually visualize and see things when they close there eyes? You probably do, but it took me 25 years to figure out that for most people closing their eyes is not like closing a black curtain.
If that is a surprise to you that people can create and see mental images, you probably have aphantasia as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
Since then I'm convinced that not two brains experience the world the same way. Inner voice and mental imaging are probably two of the many things we assume to be the norm.
I don't think my mind's eye is particularly strong for example, don't have very vivid imagination. But I also don't know where the frame of reference should be!
Close your eyes and imagine a triangle. Now, quickly, what color was it? If you have an answer, you do not have aphantasia. If you have no answer, you likely have aphantasia - your mind instantiated a concept of a triangle, but until the question of color came up, it was irrelevant and was not considered
Edit: oh yeah, I didn't close my eyes, sorry. I just thought about it as I was reading and the image flashed for an immeasurable time unit multiple times each time I gave it a bit of thought.
It's extremely easy for me to just, almost like daydreaming, to have my vision darken and have my minds eye take over for microseconds for me to picture things. Guess like built in AR.
My inner voice is also incredibly controllable and more than just a voice. It's just a playback device at this point. Whatever I want i can make it audible.
However, when asked to think of Tony the Tiger and his stripes, not only do I perceive orange fur and red bandana, but I'm struck by just how freaking blue his nose is and it is uncomfortably persistent.
The answers are easy enough to find without having to perform any imaginary rotation but just eliminating candidates one by one by looking at which features would match or not.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001094522...
The authors also include the GitHub with the code for the experiment. Very interesting
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vividness_of_Visual_Imagery_Qu...
Now, what was the colour of the ball, and what kind of wings did it have?
As I type this comment I've got an image of a girl I saw yesterday fixed in my mind, as if looking at a picture of her.
I also assumed this was the norm.
I have a quite good memory and will easily recall events but the image is not very precise. I might not remember how you were dressed just 10 minutes ago; hard to build precise pictures with such a visual memory.
Relatedly, if you tell me a story, I'll probably not have a precise picture of it in my mind. I noticed some people do have pictures very quickly and may take advantage of it when speaking to have some fun.
I still picture things in my mind. And I don't need to close my eyes. If you tell me about some event I'll probably locate it in my (not very precise) representation of the month / the year if you said when it happened / will happen. I will have some visual representation of what you are telling me or what I am reading, but do not ask me what colors are things or how people are dressed.
If you wonder how I manage to picture things without being able to tell the color they have, well, I can't figure it out neither.
Towards the end I debeloped a photographic memory for faces. I could go out for an evening, and later I could see all the faces I interacted with that evening crystal clear, and draw their likeness referencing only my mind's eye.
When I stopped practicing portraiture the magical ability went away.
When I draw 3D shapes, I just "visualize" the shape on the surface and trace it.
Music Through Computation, Carl McTague, 2003 International Mathematica Symposium https://www.mctague.org/carl/music/computer/talks/music-talk...
And it does indeed have a nice picture for "Helix of Fifths" that is a dry black and white sketch of what was on that poster.
Do most people mean "multiple voices" when they say "inner monologue" ?
You will find different conceptualizations of this phenomena, but generally speaking it is very prolific to treat mind (term used imprecisely) as comprised of many sub-parts (sub-personalities/voices/selves/states). You can treat them as separate, functional patterns of behavior with their own agendas, feelings, beliefs, etc. The fun part is that you can engage them and talk to them, eg. you can talk to your Inner Child (you will feel it as separate and feel its child like nature) or your Lazy part or any part you recognize as a bigger pattern. You can even talk to your Sorrow, Silence, Energy of Being (as opposed to doing), etc. You can talk to parts of yourself which were dormant or disowned/repressed (eg. Anger, Romantic Self,...). You can talk to your demonized, aggressive Inner Critic.
The changes which occur due to shift in perspective which results from such dialogues are... beyond the scope of this comment. ;)
edit: Seems I am late for the party, but definitely for a treat here (including the article). (I do Voice Dialogue for a living, which is a practical method of meeting those different parts of ourselves.)
I can easily speak in my mind, but it's just me, and I'm in total control. There are no other personas. I of course sometimes get spontaneous thoughts, sometimes even very unwanted ones, but they are my thoughts and I can easily dismiss them. I don't do dialogues in my mind, and there's no critique or negative feedback, just self-reflection. Thoughts in my mind do not keep me awake at night. I don't feel like I'm missing anything really.
So it is more about realizing these highly different kinds of energies or modus operandi are accessible to you (more easily than you can imagine) and finding out what status they have (Can I enjoy this kind of energy? Is it too strong in me, demonized, out of control? Unknown to me, dormant? Am I afraid of it?)
You seem (from my perspective and only from reading your comment) to be highly identified with a self which likes to be much in control and in Voice Dialogue (see below) is called Protector/Controller.
Once you realize nature of this process (many energies inside you) you can literally _talk_ to them (including Protector/Controler - being very important voice), but this is not required. Voice Dialogue is a method where one person talks with energies/voices of another person, but you may spend your whole life without any need to talk to your energies, simply being in this or that energy, where need be. However, from my experience, doing Voice Dialogue has a tremendous impact on a person - it is a complete shift, a very real phasic transition. Even getting in touch with this perspective (by reading a book about it or hearing about it) can make this shift happen.
As in the very article linked here - this will differ person to person. Even in Voice Dialogue, focused on conversation (to put it simply) you will encounter energies or people who operate more easily with images, some not very talkative, and so on. However, the strange point still stands - one can literally talk with your Inner Child and you can feel it.
This might seem a strange perspective, but throughout the years I have only met with curiosity and only twice (?) wtih total 'I reject it. Get away from me.' Some people fear that this view might disintegrate them, where in fact it has a great integrative character. Some may fear it. So you simply can talk to this part which fears it... and the fun begins.
I hope I somehow stayed on the point replying to your questions.
Wow.
I have seen television shows and art that treat humans as the amalgam of a faceted personality where each facet is depicted by a separate character (representing, I assumed, the embodiment of that fact), but I had never considered this might be demonstrative of the way people might actually think (or think they think).
I am myself partial (with multiple reasons) to Voice Dialogue perspective as presented by Sidra and Hal Stone in their work, but you will find this perspective of multitude in many places, reaching back to antiquity - theoretical, practical, with neuroscience following.
When reading fiction I have different tones for people but it's barely noticeable. I read without sub vocalizing much (reading too fast for that but I can pause it to enjoy the scene or the writing or the experience of reading, it depends).
I too make up voices for female and male authors of tweets, blog posts, articles, comments, etc. but it's automatic and they aren't discernable unless I have heard the person then it'll always be their voice.
And there's a huuuuuge bias because the default is a male voice with all of my stereotypes attached to it.
I don't have "me" up there most of the time. Usually only when (a) I'm reading to myself or (b) if I'm practicing/going over a conversation or 'debate' on a concept. Otherwise my mind is usually quiet.
Then again what would I think what is "me" if I didn't have that constant 'observation of the world (outer and inner)' ?
Maybe I don't have inner dialogue but anxiety is eating my mind (anxiety as in: being aware of the world all the time, observing it all the time) and it gives an illusion of monologue/being ?
I think that's where a lot of blogging, livejournaling, tweeting etc comes from as well - it's a way to channel an internal monologue.
When I am trying to piece how someone else think/would react/feel, when I am trying to be empathic I do not rely on roleplaying that person and I do not write sentences I would listen to with their own tone. It's an analytical process. (But I am pedantic with the definition of empathy and compassion).
> I spent a lot of time thinking in the style of writing a post on the forum I was active on at the time
My inner monologue (which can be a dialogue in the sense that when I ponder things I tell myself "what if I do that ?" for instance) is a part what defines me as an individual. It's me but not completely me (it misses the unconscious, as in what I don't have in mind at the moment and what I don't know about myself.. I don't have full knowledge of who I am or why I do things I do).
Do you have some intrusive thoughts, like things you can't help thinking about and that you can't tune out ?
Do you control when those plays are happening or is it all the time ? Maybe in the background of your mind, like conversations in a cafe when you don't focus on it, and only when you decide to pay attention to it you do hear the conversation and the words ?
I wonder if in your case it's some kind of imagination going unbridled and you getting in the spectator's chair and in my case I don't have that kind of imagination anymore (or not the kind that invokes(?) those voices) and it has been tuned out/repressed for such a long time that there is now only one voice - mine - that I can hear ?
I also wonder what "listen to your inner voice" means to different people.
And the role schizophrenic thoughts played in our culture (`hearing voices`). Is there a connection ?
Yet some people respond with “You can see pictures? You can hear voices? WAT?? I see nothing and hear nothing!”
I don’t see how those people could be having the common experience and still be so shocked to hear how others experience it in simple terms.
I can only get a taste of that experience when deeply engaged in reading books. I am hoping the prototypes for deep-dive VR will soon be better than dreaming (for some people that struggle with recollection and other mental exercises) so that we can build what were once only mental palaces and OOBEs.
It is of course always you, but putting concepts of me/ego/identity aside, you can treat your "you’re being an arsehole" as a certain kind of energy in your consciousness, which tends to make similar remarks and shows up when you're actually acting like an arsehole. The idea here is even bigger - you can talk _both_ to this 'arshole' energy/self (you behaving in a certain way) _and_ to this voice saying "you’re being an arsehole.", critising gently appearance of this 'arsehole' you.
> for some people these thoughts occur unbidden
It is a common experience. Even your examples (“that was dumb” or “you’re being an arsehole”) are not consciously, deliberately invited thoughts and indeed, in in many cases voices can become really strong and talk to you all the time.
When you look at your mind as comprised of different selves/states, which are a bit like independent people inside you operating within you, very interesting things happen.
When we focus on the fact that these parts are _talking_, we can refer to them as voices and _converse with them_, but generally these are your energy patterns, eg. your Lazy energy/part or Workoholic energy/part (or your Arsehole energy/part) shows up. Sometimes (very often) some of them are too strong and show up and stay uninvited.
I find it fascinating reading about how others' heads are working.
I tied to learn to read faster, and one of the techniques is to stop your inner voice, but I failed. Though maybe I enjoy reading more and acting out the text in my head
I can sometimes have a train of thought that I could vocalise if I wanted to but I don’t actually hear it as a voice.
Can you all hear things like music and other sounds too?
Yep, and pretty much constantly. Mostly my own, but if I think about someone else speaking - like, say, recalling a conversation or even something from TV/film/radio - then I hear the voice of the original speaker.
My own voice, especially during a period of mental ill-health, gets so fast and/or loud that it can drown out everything else. I've been to gigs while depressed and literally "not heard" entire songs because I was too busy inside.
> Can you all hear things like music and other sounds too?
Can't speak for "all", but definitely for me. Music comes and goes throughout the day; if I choose (or otherwise have cause) to think of a song, I can hear it clear as day. I can be rickrolled just by seeing a line from the song.
Visually I am considerably more blank, however. I can recall things like walking/driving routes, views/vistas, the order of shops on a street, the layout of an airport terminal, etc etc - but I can't legitimately claim to be able to see these things in my mind's eye. They're just somehow there. But it's only a past tense thing - I can't do any active visual thinking about things that don't exist. Ask me to think of an apple and I'll recall one, not conjure one up. But ask me to imagine what a room would look like painted a different colour and I absolutely cannot - even with a swatch of paint already on one wall.
Just to be clear, I do not hear my own voice in the way I would if I am listening to a recording with my voice. There is just a continuous train of thoughts, in one of the languages I know well, coming as if it has bypassed the ears and came directly to my attention or conscious access. I clearly know that it's not coming via the ears.
>> Can you all hear things like music and other sounds too?
Yes. Just in the same way as the above.
There have been times when lyrics of a song played back in my mind where I had no a priori awareness that I even remember those lyrics.
I imagine what the guys that create music from gadgets like printers, steam irons, etc. [0] must go through daily. Every little noise sounds like a note/chord that they then are reminded of a song. I'm guessing it gets old/annoying after awhile.
Yes. I do, at least. Not always, but I can imagine music and "hear" it in my head. It's not as though it actually sounds like music (that is, it is perceptually distinct from actually hearing something, I'd never confuse an imagined with a real sound), but I can hear it. It was very useful when I actually played musical instruments, imagining how a piece would sound and then trying it later.
Do you find you're quicker to read and process things than others seem to be?
Music definitely, it's been stronger at some points in my life, I can't do so easily these days but at one point I could hear and improvise music so clear it felt like everyone else would hear it too if you put an audio jack in my ear
Yes. It's my voice, unless it's something written by a person whose voice I'm familiar with.
> Can you all hear things like music and other sounds too?
I can hear music sometimes. Especially just a moment before waking up.
Is your train of thought in the same order as the spoken/written words that it converts to?
It's gotten to the point where sometimes when I'm alone I'll vocalise these names I call msyelf out loud. It sort of helps to relieve the stress of reliving cringey memories... But I'm not sure anymore.
It sounds harsh but the best advice I've ever received is that "people don't care about you". The context in which it was said was that people engage with you when you're there but when you're not you can expect them to be caught up in their own life, problems, issues and listening to their own inner voice.
Still, i find myself wondering if maybe by chance people do remember and do judge me for things I've said and done. But that can't be true all the time, and yet, I still dwell on these things...
Nevertheless thanks for your comment.
If you've done something negative, acknowledge it to yourself and any anyone else that was impacted by it and move forward from it. Knowing your flaws, acknowledging them and working around them is an important thing to do. 'Water under the bridge' and all of that...
I have learnt my lesson in all these cases but I often feel anxious, paranoid, that people don't know that, and assume I am the way I was before when I said those things.
In a way I have come to terms because I have learnt my lesson but it the thought of me doing that almost torments me still.
I think any emotion held long-term is definitely distorted, if not stigmatic.
Thanks for the advice :)
I can have stretches of time where I don't have images (or words) in my head. My mind is blank.
I don't have the voice when reading or writing, but I do when I'm planning around what to write. Incidentally, I read at over 800wpm with an extremely high retention rate, which makes me an outlier.
I have an inner voice, but it slows me down, and I choose to engage it when I need to really work something through accurately and with lots and lots of steps.
I've only recently started paying attention to how I think and I think it's really quite a bit different than the binary "has or doesnt have" that these articles portray. I can't imagine I'm the only person like this. I wonder if the question itself misleads people into overthinking their use of it: "do you have an inner voice?" "yes!"
I'm focusing on it right now. It speaks in my head as I'm planning out the next sentence I'm going to type, but then once I'm typing it goes away until I need to stop and plan the next words. I also read very quickly, sometimes multiple lines at a time, reassembling the words in context.
The voice certainly doesn't follow me around chattering in my head the way some people's seems to.
I have a very "strong" internal monologue, talking to myself all day. I supposed there could be a connection.
Anybody else have similar experiences?
When I'm awake it happens during periods of deep day-dreaming.
It seems that I can create a monologue in my mind, but I have to be consciously thinking of the words and almost subvocalising them to get it to work how several of the examples are described in TFA.
This makes me wonder, if I'm not seeing images for my mental representations, and I am not hearing inner audio compositions, then what is my thinking consisting of?
When I sit here, just now, creating and solving math problems of moderate difficulty, it's like, there's nothing except maybe a feeling of some sort? A drive or desire? The closest maybe that it feels like is the abstract symbols, from the article, "Other people don’t have a voice at all, or they speak in abstract symbols that don’t involve language." Except they aren't image-symbols in any way. Just like, feeling symbols.
Anyway. I don't know.
Fascinating.
For me it's easy to "fly" around my neighborhood just by closing my eyes and remembering what the streets and trees and houses look like as I take a lap. I can see off into the distance, I can see the sidewalk cracks, I can see people... all of them are obviously fuzzed versions of reality but nonetheless they're relatively easy to see. I figured everyone was able to do that to some extent.
My wife can see like full Technicolor motion pictures in her mind with special effects and superstar cameos.
I am jealous.
My mind is seriously black when I close my eyes.
On the plus side for me, it is super easy for me to fall asleep whenever I want, because it's just black and blank and boring when I close my eyes at bed time. :)
I’m super curious now and hope you don’t mind.
If you are currently not outside your house, and I ask you to tell me how many windows your house has – and I also ask you to not step outside your house and not go from room to room, literally counting the windows – how would you do this?
When I do this, I can‘t help to go from room to room in my mind, visualizing each room in my mind, and, well, basically count the windows from the images in my mind.
I can’t imagine how else one could do this! And I assume you are nevertheless able to tell me from memory the number of windows in your house, even without physically visiting each room and also assuming that you don’t just happen to know the number by heart (I don’t for my house, and it‘s a small house – yet I have to „visit“ each room mentally and visually).
Or are you? As said, really curious!
I mean, if you don’t happen to know the number by heart, and you also aren’t allow to count them in person, but you ALSO only see a blank space when closing your eyes – in a way, you shouldn’t be able to answer that question…? Or am I missing something?
I have an inventory of concepts, data, and other random thoughts in my head. If you ask me how many windows are in each room, I can recall this information (probably even relatively accurately!). I cannot picture the room or the windows, however.
So, I can tally up the windows and be reasonably certain, only because I know how many there are (in this house, I know how many are in each room, so I can add them up; in past houses I have counted them before and can simply recall that information). If I had not at some point paid attention to the number of windows in a room, and then left that room, I am not sure I could accurately tell you how many windows were there, because I cannot recreate it in my mind in a visual way. I think I would have to make a mental note first. However, I think I do actually do this unconsciously throughout the waking day. I can certainly remember things from during the day.
I think that I can know the number of windows in each room even though I cannot picture them in the same way that I can recognize anything that I have encoded in memory before. The information is there for both of us, encoded in synapses like usual.
When you are "visiting" each room in your house, I think you are walking through a recalled simulation that is created in your working memory, e.g. a visuo-spatial sketchpad, using the same type of information that is stored in my brain. The difference is that I cannot recall into a visual simulation that encoded information in the way that you can. So, I think the information is there for both of us. You can just do something with it that I cannot. Maybe. Anyway, memory encoding is not where my research is, so don't quote me. :)
I haven't seen one of these online yet, and I took it as part of a battery of mental health/intelligence tests nearly 20 years ago, but I wonder how hard it would be to make one and conduct studies from it today.
It's an interesting idea. But I don't think most people remember faces for example like that.
E.g., https://brainblogger.com/2015/10/17/how-the-brain-recognizes... (with a few journal references)
Nah, it's not like that. When we imagine something it's not like we actually see those things like real visual stimuli. The experience is more abstract than that. There is a vague visual aspect to it, but it's not hi-def like real vision, just fragments appearing then disappearing in your mind.
So it's not at all like dreaming.
* at least for me.
I take you at your word for your experience. I likewise have no reason to think my wife, for example, is exaggerating to me. My wife has a photographic memory, and she can literally recreate stuff down to almost absurd details. I think it is possible you may be underestimating what other people see in their minds. :)
So I'm pretty sure your friends were exaggerating, or meant hi-def in a different sense.
"Our discovery, or rediscovery, that around 2-3% of the population, with aphantasia, lack a mind’s eye, and that a somewhat larger percentage, with hyperphantasia, have imagery that is ‘as vivid as real seeing’ has captured huge public interest, and led to a sustained surge of citizen science. We have been astonished – and delighted – to receive over 14,000 contacts from members of the public with extreme imagery since coining the terms in 2015."[1]
> ‘as vivid as real seeing’
I can only take others' word for it, but why would I disbelieve this? Especially when I myself have the other extreme of nothingness? Why would so many people lie or exaggerate about seeing mental imagery "as vivid as real seeing"?
[1] https://sites.exeter.ac.uk/eyesmind/2020/05/04/an-update-on-...
Is this just figurative phrase or some people need to close their eyes to visualize images? I can imagine things, but they are not real visual stimuli that I see, they are more abstract going directly to the mind. Thus it doesn't matter whether my eyes are closed or what I'm looking at, it is independent from real sight.
I can picture the concept of Mount Everest. But it's more of an abstract idea. Like I don't actually see a mountain in color as if it were in front of me. But there's this "mental concept" sitting in front of me.
Are you able to actually "see" a picture? Are most people able to do that?
I've never noticed a limitation in myself - I can easily visualize how things will look if arranged, but I don't see a picture like a painting, rather I see the concept of the object. So I figured I was typical.
For example, what is the color of the laser beam of the death star? Do you „see“ the colored beam in your mind? I do, and it‘s the only mental mechanism I have to answer that question. Without that, I would have to look it up via Google Image Search or whatever, make a mental note of the specific answer, and would have to recall the answer instead of recalling the image, I guess…?
This [1] is a decent place for more info.
I cannot see anything personally without a visual reference right before closing my eyes. I can begin to use words to reason my way around the block, but even then despite seeing them so often, I cannot picture them.
I always thought people who hear entirely understandable voices were the mentally ill people you hear about in the news and in fiction, not for that to be the norm. I do wonder about the statistics on the "internal monologue". I think I saw some stats on aphantasia (not being able to picture things) but that didn't include the internal monologue.
All in all, while I think the capacity to actually visualize things would definitely be welcome, I think I'd go crazy with a constant internal monologue droning on in the background.
If you don't see images in your mind, do you see images when you dream?
If you don't have an "inner voice", do you hear sound when you dream?
I have no point I'm trying to make here. I just wonder if there's a correlation with dreams.
If you place your hand on a wall, then close your eyes, then remove your hand, I suspect you'll still feel where the wall is. Even if you picture something completely different in your head, the wall is still there I suppose? My guess is that my extend proprioception (or whatever the right name for this would be) is more fine tuned and apt than someone with a mind eye, but I can't really know. :|
I also do not hear sounds while dreaming, but then again I don't really have an inner monologue anymore, that went away at the same time I learned programming and I don't think it's a coincidence. I do verbalize in my head when reading conversation-like stuff (HN, slack, etc.), but you won't catch me with any internal monologue while reading ingredients, jira tickets, etc.
While dreaming, I can have conversations but there's no gradual arrival of content, it's instantaneous, it was not yet "said" or it was.
You could be better equipped for deep meditation and deep thinking than most of us, but maybe you just need to do some practice.
Anyway I had read that when you “vocalize” inside your head during e.g. reading you severely slow down. Isn’t that the same with any kind of thinking? Brain works with abstractions won’t involving your “voice” functions force you to early concreteness hampering, well, your heuristics? I have no idea
I've found that sometimes I'll vocalize a thought, and in the middle of it think "why am I vocalizing? I've already thought the entire thought" and just stop vocalizing altogether.
People used to one way or another from childhood don't really recognize any drawbacks to their way of thinking or not.
"I" can veto everything but there are other threads relating to specific things. Anxiety has always had a prominent seat at the table but recently we brought in consultants to see if we can dislodge all of the old guard. We got rid of depression's seat last year
They don't have a physical form or anything like that. Purely held within imagination as a way to quickly grab all angles on a thought. Like a mind palace except it also has a meeting room
In the real world I'm just sitting there wearing my usual poker face. Someone asks what I'm thinking, "Not much"
Oh it turned out I have ADHD. The consultants are the UK equivalent to Ritalin. Depression was finally ousted with citalopram and by treating the ADHD
Interestingly enough, I haven't been diagnosed with ADHD, at least not yet, but after discussions with professionals, it seems probable that I may have it, to some degree anyhow
When I read a book the characters do feel realistic to me and I do sometimes see (in a patchy way I suppose) scenes. But when reading, the words have no sounds, they just go straight from the page into my brain. Written puns and poetry don’t really work for me.
When people say to visualize or imagine something in their head, they actually mean that quite literally. These people can actually see visual images in their head.
My understanding is that some people are also unable to control it, so when you say something they immediately conjure an image.
In my case, I can take concepts and ideas and think about what it would be like to have that mental image, but I can't actually see it. It feels more like as if I were simulating having that mental image rather than actually having that mental image. I can add properties like sound or physics, but it has to be deliberate. My way of imagining things still lets me get easily lost in thoughts and daydreams though.
I can hold the concept of a ball or cat in my mind without instantiating. My ability to conjure mental images is limited though. For example: with a concept of Tony the Tiger, even if I instantiate it I couldn't tell you how many stripes he has.
When people talk about the heart or soul, they're referring to the "place" where their conscious experience happens. If you believe in dualism then it would distinguish between your soulspace and meatspace. If you don't believe in dualism then your soulspace is just a virtual space simulated within meatspace.
HN: How does your mind work? Do you have a dialog, monolog, abstract concepts, something else entirely?
I also feel like I have access to a very limited range of active memory, and when I store old information it can be very hard to find. Like a slow and fragmented HDD on a new-ish computer.
I've had this wonderful experience after learning sign language that for the first time I feel like I can talk to other people with the voice in my head! And when they sign back I hear a voice speaking aloud each sign. What I discovered is I'm quite a different person when I don't have to use my physical voice to talk, I'm much more expressive and fun, which I guess I find difficult to translate through the voice of a late 20s man. Something to work on!
Something I've wondered about is how noisy people find images: https://www.reddit.com/r/noisygifs/ is fun to explore. I find all repetitive motion has sound, like anything, no matter how abstract, I cannot help hearing some weird audio pattern when I look at it
Sometimes just visuals, especially when I’m trying to understand geometric problems.
The broadcaster Jenni Murray lives in author Hannah Begbie’s brain.
Well, not Murray exactly, but a facsimile of Murray, with the same
kind but quizzical voice, and a scarf flung loosely over her shoulder.
“My inner voice is a duologue, like I am in a constant state of
interviewing myself,” says Begbie, who is 44 and lives in London.
“The interviewing always happens in a plush radio studio,” she says.
“There’s nice rich crushed-velvet walls. There’s a warmth and a colour to it.”
I must just not understand what they're talking about? I have an inner dialog, but I'm very aware that it's just me. In my head I can rehearse things I want to say, or argue a topic back and forth, but it's exactly the same as playing chess against myself. I know what I'm saying and I have infinite knowledge into what the "other side" will say because it's just me. At no time are there other voices, no unexpected insight posited by an old radio announcer.For the most part I also feel fully in control of my inner dialog. Any time I'm not in control, as in the thoughts are racing and my mind keeps skipping from topic to topic and maybe circling back to a specific topic, that means I'm having some kind of anxiety episode. I probably need a glass of wine or a smoke, and some quiet time to mull over what my brain is trying to get me to process (aka meditation lite).
The very first thing I think of when reading this article is that everyone interviewed except Hopkins is having near-constant auditory hallucinations. An inner voice that consists of an old Italian couple arguing in the kitchen? Really? Am I that disconnected from this concept?
Agreed. The closest I’ve come to this kind of thing is when I take more than 400 mg of caffeine in a single day (I’m genetically sensitive to caffeine). If I do that, then yes, my inner voice will become quite strange.
https://www.23andme.com/topics/wellness/caffeine-consumption
People who don’t have this sensitivity can drink coffee at any time. I can only drink early in the morning, and if I have it after noon, I’ll never get to bed.
Similar to playing chess against myself, there's only use if I am super strict about trying to make "each side" as honest as possible.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
Having read the article I find I have no idea whether I have an inner voice or not. I can't imagine an inner voice that I cannot shut down if I want to. And it certainly isn't some other persona; it's just me, 'speaking' without actually making the sounds.
Example, this was a dialogue I had in my head this morning:
"Avenue X has a lot of stop signs which is annoying. But Avenue Y is narrow and it's garbage-pickup time, so I can get unlucky and really stuck behind a garbage truck. That's not worth the risk, I'd rather deal with the stop signs so I am taking avenue X"
What is your equivalent of that? Basically, how do you evaluate two alternatives? And how do you know how you made your choice? EG in my case, I know I picked Avenue X because I prefer the annoyance of stop signs to the risk of getting stuck, because that was part of my conversation. How is it for you?
Do people actually think in terms of complete sentences like you describe in this passage, or is there some nuance to the experience I’m not understanding? Thinking for me feels more like watching thoughts flow between black boxes representing some known factor than talking to a friend.
I do full sentences when I’m thinking about how to handle a conversation.
> Thinking for me feels more like watching thoughts flow between black boxes representing some known factor than talking to a friend.
I also do that. It’s situational, I guess. [I’m learning more about myself by questions like yours, so please keep asking :)]
For me, at least, most thinking feels like a version of that, but generalized. That doesn't mean it's necessarily easy- I can't come up with a fancy new algorithm by just desiring it momentarily- but most things just don't need words to be thought.
If I want to figure out if, say, some geometric modification obeys some property, the content of the thoughts is the spatial reasoning directly. I can go back and explain the thoughts verbally, but the words are just labels for the more 'native' reasoning.
In my case, I can still think things verbally, though it does seem closer to subvocalization than full inner voice as described. No aphantasia for me either.
If I can afford five minutes of truck wait I’ll rock out in the car. If I cannot, stop signs earn precedence.
The upside of doing it this way is that I can solve the puzzle without needing the variables to be well-defined, because it’s easy to nail down where the crux points are and then leave the .. I don’t have a word here, the subunit of puzzle? .. unresolved until information exists.
I arrange all of the conditions in my head and then logically and rapidly resolve them. In your example, I wouldn't engage my inner voice for something that simple.
If it was planning much more steps than that, I would separate them into blocks and use my inner voice to mentally arrange the inner blocks.
For me, my inner voice kind of repeats it, if that make sense. Can't wrap my head around what "understanding" would be without that lol.
Wow. What?
If I'm trying to figure out whether what I've just written will make any sense to other human beings, sometimes I'll say a fragment of it out loud to hear the emotion and make sure it's landing properly. My edit history on HN is probably >99% of my comments have edits within sixty seconds of sending it, because Fixed-width reads different than Sans-serif, and I can't absorb many Fixed-width fonts very well in white-on-black, certainly not whatever the browser defaults are. (InputMono Light dethroned Menlo Regular after ten years in my Terminal, and I miss it any time I'm in the browser. Yes, I know I how to fix that in the browser.)
Reading is the inverse but the same: sometimes I have to do five passes on a paragraph or page, just to fully grasp whatever it's trying to say.
Definitely worth speaking with an appropriate medical professional for diagnosis.
I read whole paragraphs and/or sentences in one go. I don't really know "how" I do it, and there are limits (it really, really helps to know the author and their writing style). My eyes hit the paragraph, flick to see the end of it, traverse back up half-scanning each line, then I scan through the lines from the top, and afterwards I know what the paragraph was saying. It takes a few seconds per paragraph.
I can't recite it verbatim but I can effectively describe the content of the paragraph accurately.
If I have to read something word-for-word it's so slow that I tend to get bored or frustrated quickly. I don't find that slow, word-for-word reading gives me much more than by inhaling paragraphs whole.
The question might be too broad but how do you know you have no inner voice?
Citation?
I've seen informal Twitter polls on this and most respondents (like me) said they have no inner voice. I know that's not a very scientific source, but though this is a "science journalism" article I see nothing referenced to back up this claim. It almost seems as if it's just the writer's opinion/assumption?
But what I have is a sidekick, someone I constantly talk to. This someone has no face or shape, and no voice - it never speaks, yet it is very real.
It's so real that I often find myself telling it "okay, you were right!" even though it never uttered a word. I somehow know what it thinks, and I answer back.
It kind of ressembles a typical scene in movies when a character talks to a dog or to a statue to figure out what they're going to do (except it's not just one scene, it never stops).
The brain is weird.
Of course, I don't really hear any voice. It's clearly a thought in my head - yet it takes the form of a voice. It's what makes it actually a coherent thought instead of just a set of vague ideas.
Although multiple personality disorders grab attention, it may be that less dysfunctional forms of multiple personalities exist in more common and constructive ways — such as two Italians arguing in one’s head, or as seemingly autonomous fictional characters who are transferred by artists into novels and film. Or in the case of “tulpas”, as imaginary friends that provide relief from loneliness and isolation.
If consciousness is produced by the brain, rather than being a non-material 1:1 artifact of a soul, then fundamentally there is nothing to stop a single brain from producing multiple consciousnesses.
It might be hard for most of us to understand what it feels like to be a secondary consciousness (what it feels like to be Frodo), but that doesn’t mean secondary consciousnesses don’t exist. “Tulpas” certainly argue for their own existence and sentience, which at the very least makes for a fascinating read.
People used to think this voice was "God"
Personally I don't have this "inner voice", it's something you lose (if you ever had it) when you mediate and develop your consciousness.
The basic direction is not to get away from it (to supress it using radio), but welcome it, get interested (edit: how would name those six voices?). Of course I can not go any further than tell you, that it is possible to change, imo, if you want to.
I shouldn't write it here, but just try talking to them. Ask 'who are you?' to one of them and wait for the answer.
Of course one could say that this is indiscriminate chatter due to activity of parts of your brain, but I would still insist that if you make an effort you will see patterns in this noise and will be able to make sense of it and change it (where sense is not directly in the content, but rather in a broader view of it all).
As I work with myself and other people, I have never experienced anything like prolonged presence of a voice taking qualities of "someone I know in real life" - I would be curious to find whys and hows here.
But the very simple framework of recognizing kinds of energies inside us (agressive vs. delicate, goal oriented vs. being oriented, protecting/conservative (even protective of accessing other energies inside) vs. seeking/adventerous and so on) and states they are in (is energy on/off, over the limit, so on)... has showed me time and again that trying to get in touch with them by engaging in a conversation with them brings remarkable results.
All the best.
Not everyone has an internal monologue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22193451
But underpinning all the reporting I read on it is a fundamental assumption that's very strange to me. A lot of people seem to work under a model where brains and lived experiences should be very similar to each other, and I just don't see that actually bearing out anywhere. So what I often come away wondering is: Why is this assumption so pervasive?
I've met plenty of people who rusj to judge that they think in a certain way, or that they prefer one mode of learning, or that they visualize instead of verbalize. All of those are valid perspectives and opinions. Some may be real, some may be imperfect descriptions, some may only be true at the time of speaking when the person is asked.
I'm loving this comment thread, thanks guys!
When I picture something in my mind and close my eyes, it’s not equivalent to sight… it’s a representation of my a priori knowledge of something. Kind of a mental mirage.
But you don't actually hear anything either, right? I mean, does it sound like a recording of you talking? Or is it you thinking in words / having an inner monologue (dialogue?)
Have you ever imagined something that disgusted you so much that you wished you could "bleach" the image out of your head?
E.g. if you read a detailed description of the kinds of things a facebook content moderator might have to look at, is it possible for those words to generate an image and for you to regret reading the description?
I find this so hard to believe. Are these people even conscious? I can solve math equations, think about my life, write code... all without any inner voice, especially when I'm in a flow state. When I do have an inner voice, I would describe it more like talking to myself without actually mouthing words. But never, ever did I have no "inner thought" at all. Like, I'm always aware of myself and that I'm thinking.
The “mind’s eye” stuff you described very well, I think.
Interestingly enough, my inner dialogue is usually me as a tutor, describing my actions to someone (myself?) as I go. As I'm writing code and I realise one of my explanations doesn't quite make sense, I realise that the code isn't probably that great so I rethink the problem
Am I alone here?
It's not so explicit for me to say that it's just like it's actually happening. However, perhaps a few same neurons are firing as if it were for real.