Though there are recent experiments showing that unconscious brain retains language processing abilities [1], so the two might be as well independent systems
This is in contrast with aphantasia (complete lack of mental imagery) which can be correlated with outwardly detectable responses. E.g. people who can imagine mental images will dilate pupils when imagining a bright light with eyes closed, while people with aphantasia will not. Not sure there's an analog for internal monologue but if anyone.
https://oecs.mit.edu/pub/zjuzickv
not everyone is aware of the "methodology", they just think it through, some however have an executive layer to cognition vs reflex.
imnot sure enough to form an opinion quite yet but thinking about thinking, modifying the methods of cognition, may be a learned skill, perhaps with a developmental window.
a comparison between extroverts and introverts [1] for perceived modality of cognition might be interesting.
it may very well be that a difference in neural development is the cause of this disparity.
1] this is about focus on internal conceptualization vs external perceptualization.
myself, i think in terms of a mono/dialogue if i am preparing to disseminate.
if i am thinking for my own benefit i percieve it as idetic imagery and run thought experiments to qualify for IRL candidacy.
> if i am thinking for my own benefit i percieve it as idetic imagery and run thought experiments to qualify for IRL candidacy.
I’m very similar personally, though I often have background dialogues going over “sub threads” of whatever I’m thinking about.
I have also wondered if people who say they don’t have this kind of thought process actually do - but the real difference is that for some reason it persists in memory for us, whereas it is immediately discarded for them, leaving only the result.
I really feel like humans argue too much about how computer programs think and at the same time too little about how humans think. The topic is criminally underresearched and the existing research is all over the place.
When I do think with words, it is usually something I am manipulating with a purpose. It is not the thoughts themselves. I have a thought, and I attempt to render it into words.
Outside of recollection of past speech, it is extremely rare for me to feel like words arrive with a thought I wasn't already holding. Most often, it happens when making jokes and puns in real-time. I am in a mood to be playful, and may have a vague feeling that there is something funny to interject, but cannot separate it from the word combination that comes to mind.
But I can't really think and deliberate verbally. It feels like an act of puppetry.
It's just that subvocalization is one powerful technique for organizing thoughts, but not the only one. If you had a swimmer who only ever learned the crawl stroke (freestyle), they might wonder how someone can swim without it. The difference, of course, is that the breaststroke is a demonstrable physical act whereas cognitive techniques are not. The monologuers are just more practiced at subvocalization-based reasoning, and the non-monologuers are more practiced at other types.
It's not that hard to exert limited control over which technique you're using -- and I think there are multiple nonverbal techniques. I'd encourage people to explore the space a bit. Subvocalization-first approaches are very good for linear progressions, whereas subvocalization-last (or never) approaches are usually better for big-picture reasoning.
I say this as someone who pays a lot of attention to my mind's inner workings (meditation etc, near-complete aphantasic) and the more I pay attention to the inner workings, the less I know the answer to whether or not I have an inner monologue.
Are you thinking that the term "internal monologue" is being interpreted too literally and that any system of organized thought, even one without the apparent usage of words, could still be considered an internal monologue?
She saw something about it online and then started asking everyone in the family if they could picture an apple in their mind. We all said - yes of course, what are you talking about?
And she said, "When you say the word apple, I think of the concept of an apple. It's juicy. It's crisp. It's red, etc, but I don't SEE an apple. I just know what it is."
She had no concept that other people literally saw the apple and I had no concept that people couldn't see the apple.
I asked her what she thought the phrase "in your minds eye" meant for her entire life and she said she thought it just meant exactly what she was describing and not literally seeing anything...
It's unfortunately very insulting when someone says, "hey remember when we did that very important thing together?" and my answer has always been "uhh... I remember that we did it?"
So we could test this objectively, and I'm not sure why we haven't.
Asking for objective evidence of a phenomenon being self-reported by enough people to make the news isn't really about me. I don't know why you're being defensive in a thread that wasn't directed at you, but this is not a good sign.
You said a thing doesn't exist. I pointed out that the thing does, in fact, exist. That's all that happened here.
Your very first response is attacking me, not an argument I've made.
> Weird that you go right to assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is defensive.
Your second response is also attacking me, not an argument I've made.
> I think you need to recalibrate your outrage sensors.
I'm not outraged at all.
> You said a thing doesn't exist.
I'm assuming by "thing" you mean "people with no inner monologue", and I have not claimed they don't exist, I made a statement concerning my disbelief. There is a difference.
> I pointed out that the thing does, in fact, exist.
Your claim that you experience this should be verified before we accept it as a scientific fact. If that were not the case, telepathy would be considered a fact.
These responses from you have made me even more suspicious of the veracity of your claims. Again, not outraged, just wish to verify what is true.
A person who is honest about their experiences, and has reported those as fact, should welcome verification.. you've clearly decided against that.
Why would you choose internal monologue as the default position and no internal monologue needs to be proved?
It seems the natural position for an unknown would be to assume it is not the case unless there is evidence for it.
I'm not sure why this seems like a problem, or why you have to criticize my default position, but my own personal views on the matter aren't important here.
I did get relatively good scores in reading speed back in primary/middle school when we took such tests, so maybe there's an explanation. At the same time, writing/speaking is a very resource-intensive task for me so I tend to be silent a lot (and then drop a pile of sentences on the unsuspecting people I'm with)
If language is required for thinking and conscious experience how did we manage to develop language in the first place.
I could see language development bootstrapping abstract thinking over generations in humans.