What it's like living without an inner monologue (2020)(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
What it's like living without an inner monologue (2020)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/inner-monologue-experience-science-1.5486969
25 comments
> But I'd ask if the audio of that voice is capable of drowning out the noise around you
Yep, to some degree. It's usually called "getting lost in thought", and traditionally in movies and media someone else snaps you out of it by yelling your name a few times.
Yep, to some degree. It's usually called "getting lost in thought", and traditionally in movies and media someone else snaps you out of it by yelling your name a few times.
I agree it's possible to distract yourself with your inner monologue, but I wouldn't say it's due to the volume of your inner voice.
I liken it to people who claim they can visualise a photorealistic image right in front of them, superimposed over the real world (yes, I've met such people). If you ask them to visualize a black box that grows to take up the entirety of their vision, blocking everything else out, they have to admit that they can't do that. Because while they've identified what they're experiencing as "vision", it's not that. It's something else that kind of feels like vision, but they lack the language to articulate it.
I liken it to people who claim they can visualise a photorealistic image right in front of them, superimposed over the real world (yes, I've met such people). If you ask them to visualize a black box that grows to take up the entirety of their vision, blocking everything else out, they have to admit that they can't do that. Because while they've identified what they're experiencing as "vision", it's not that. It's something else that kind of feels like vision, but they lack the language to articulate it.
I think this “vision” they see or the “sound” we hear in our heads is literally the deeper mechanisms of those parts of the brain being either more or less strongly connected to our overall perception system. We can’t override the direct sensor feedback, but we can cause enough self-induced “backpropgation” to affect the overall result we experience. In this case I also think it’s totally reasonable for some to not even have a “inner monologue” as there are stranger perception based mutations such as the one where you can’t recognize faces. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/face-blindness/#:~:text=Prosop....
Hm. I mean, you're right it's for sure not the same as vision, but it's also reasonable that if people say they can do this sort of thing, even weakly, and others say they can't, there is likely some sort of fundamental difference between them. Regardless of what, exactly, that difference is.
I don’t generally think in words at all. I predominantly exist in a state of "unsymbolized thinking” according to the terminology in the article. Even when I’m doing difficult things like reasoning about/problem solving with code. Almost everything I do happens “behind a curtain” im my subconscious.
Me too. If I'm writing code or working with my hands, it's more instinctual. I'm not thinking the words "I need to connect this piece here to this piece over here". I'd never get anything done that way.
But I would still describe myself as having an inner monologue. As I was washing my hands a moment ago, I found myself rehearsing this reply in my head, speaking the words internally, because it's a habit I've developed over the years. My guess is that people who claim they don't have an inner monologue simply never developed any such habits.
But I would still describe myself as having an inner monologue. As I was washing my hands a moment ago, I found myself rehearsing this reply in my head, speaking the words internally, because it's a habit I've developed over the years. My guess is that people who claim they don't have an inner monologue simply never developed any such habits.
Weird. I have more of an external monologue, I have to speak to consolidate my thoughts. I can't read a book silently and retain any information. I have to read each page out loud, but the volume doesn't matter. It's more the act of translating thoughts to words.
After reading this, I feel like I can say I don't have a very active inner monologue at all really. I haven't given much thought to this; like the article mentions, I just kind of assumed everyone was like this. It would explain some things though. If I examine my own thoughts, it's almost robotic in a way, and I wasn't always like this.
Quiet. I’m guessing it’s quiet.
Pro tip, your inner monologue can be turned off. It’s nice, I recommend it. Come to my ted talk to learn how. Or just think about it quietly for five minutes.
Pro tip, your inner monologue can be turned off. It’s nice, I recommend it. Come to my ted talk to learn how. Or just think about it quietly for five minutes.
I find beer helps dial it down, part of what makes alcohol help relax
End up having dialogues too with how I'd imagine people I know would respond
End up having dialogues too with how I'd imagine people I know would respond
It's funny that the expert in the article says exactly the opposite of the article:
> "I think most people are mistaken about it," said Hurlburt. "People are hyper-confident. 'Yes I have inner monologue.' And other people say, 'No I don't have a monologue.' And the chances are pretty good that both sides of the debate are mistaken."
> Hurlburt said what he calls "armchair introspection" likely won't teach you much about your own mind because the act of paying attention "screws up your everyday inner life."
I mean it’s all but spelled out in this quote.
> "There are very big individual differences," he said, "Some people have absolutely none and some people have pretty close to 100 per cent
> "There are very big individual differences," he said, "Some people have absolutely none and some people have pretty close to 100 per cent
I missed that part. Seems like its the key point. And I'm super interested in what strengths and weaknesses each mode has and if the percentage breakdown is set in stone.
Using different parts of the brain can give you one or not. Sometimes I have one, sometimes not. Being able to turn it off is a skill meditation teaches you. Being able to turn it on is a different type of meditation teaches you. Then you try to find that middle way
I don't have an inner monologue as I find it explained in many of these articles, in the sense that I don't notice myself addressing myself with it. I would rather say I have a constant _dialogue_ with what I would describe as projections of people I know. I guess I must have developed that as a strategy to prepare for conversations, to evaluate how they might respond, but now it's so automatic that it can be really annoying, and even with a lot of meditation exercise I haven't managed to switch it off yet. There's a lot of arguments going on between different "people" in my mind quite often, most of the time actually, each "telling me their opinion". Which I know is simply me imagining how they might think of something.
I am also considering that this may be what people describe as "different parts of themselves"? In these sense that I sometimes find it hard to make a decision because I am "still engaged in conversations around it inside me". It also feels sometimes like I am never alone: there are always lots of witnesses to anything I do.
I am also considering that this may be what people describe as "different parts of themselves"? In these sense that I sometimes find it hard to make a decision because I am "still engaged in conversations around it inside me". It also feels sometimes like I am never alone: there are always lots of witnesses to anything I do.
>I would rather say I have a constant _dialogue_ with what I would describe as projections of people I know. I guess I must have developed that as a strategy to prepare for conversations, to evaluate how they might respond
This part is called "scripting" in asd and adhd circles.
This part is called "scripting" in asd and adhd circles.
> There's a lot of arguments going on between different "people" in my mind quite often, most of the time actually, each "telling me their opinion". Which I know is simply me imagining how they might think of something.
This is called internal family systems and it's super useful in therapy. It can be fun to give them names, likenesses and personalties too. But the value is as you say helping you identify competing motivations, where an emotional reaction might be coming from, externalize them (mindfulness for cheaters), and make decisions where there are trade-offs.
I've kept my IFS since I was a tween and it's sweet to look back and see how much they've all grown and matured.
This is called internal family systems and it's super useful in therapy. It can be fun to give them names, likenesses and personalties too. But the value is as you say helping you identify competing motivations, where an emotional reaction might be coming from, externalize them (mindfulness for cheaters), and make decisions where there are trade-offs.
I've kept my IFS since I was a tween and it's sweet to look back and see how much they've all grown and matured.
Oh God, I lost my friend to that cult. There is a lot of resentment, anxiety and emotional turbulence for members of IFS.
Constantly nurturing internal representations of the world, leaves very little time for nurturing one's self. It creates a sense of accelerationism.
I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
Constantly nurturing internal representations of the world, leaves very little time for nurturing one's self. It creates a sense of accelerationism.
I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
> sense of accelerationism
What do you mean by this?
Also, your parts are all part of you just as much as your Self is. Do you think it wise to not engage with the Parts that have a great deal of influence and input into your experience of your life or how you react/behave in relation to what happens in it?
What do you mean by this?
Also, your parts are all part of you just as much as your Self is. Do you think it wise to not engage with the Parts that have a great deal of influence and input into your experience of your life or how you react/behave in relation to what happens in it?
Parts are part of who? me?
Yes, I think it is healthy to disengage with IFS at every conceptual level.
Yes, I think it is healthy to disengage with IFS at every conceptual level.
> accelerationism
Would like to know what you meant by this even so?
Would like to know what you meant by this even so?
This is the closest description of what my brain is like that I’ve ever read. I always attributed it to being alone most of my childhood.
[deleted]
People who do vipassana meditation and apply it to their daily life have an entirely silent inner life. Our awareness isn’t what in Thailands version is referred to as the monkey mind that chatters away distracting us from the present. Our inner mind has no voice, it’s what underlies everything we do and it simply is. The mind with a voice is a tool of the real mind, our awareness, but most people confuse their monkey mind with themselves. In Buddhism a great deal of our suffering stems from confusing ourself with that chattering tool. As such, it’s a useful tool for structuring ideas and analyzing, replaying the past and anticipating the future. But a key to happiness is the recognition it’s neither necessary nor sufficient, but is a tool to be used as needed and no more. Our silent inner mind is necessary, sufficient, and forms the exclusive entirety of our existence.
I think this is the answer. I think it's likely we're all experiencing something similar, but we're all describing it in different ways. People in the article who seem shocked at the idea of an internal monologue are getting hung up on this assumption that people are hearing an audible voice commenting on their every move, but I don't think anyone is actually experiencing that unless they're schizophrenic.
Some people reading this will say "no, I really do hear a voice!" But I'd ask if the audio of that voice is capable of drowning out the noise around you. I'm guessing it isn't. And if that's the case, we've discovered we're both working with different definitions of what it means to hear.
I think the more likely explanation is that many of us have developed a habit where we activate this pseudo-voice in order to have pretend conversations in our head, and others just didn't develop that same habit -- although they could probably do it if they tried.