Here’s an interesting article on what it’s like to not have an inner dialogue. I wasn’t aware it was possible not to have one until Ryan brought it up 
Some of the comments mentioned in the article give the opposite impression. Especially for communication, it sounds like not “thinking in words” can be a hindrance.
I wouldn’t say it’s a hindrance. I can put thoughts into words at the same pace I speak. Quicker than I should speak really, I often slip into speaking too fast. I’m perhaps more eloquent in written language, but I have no problems whatsoever communicating without needing to parrot whatever some internal voice tells me to say.
I can’t speak for others, but my inner dialogue does not work that way exactly.
When I’m talking, I’m just talking, no inner dialogue.
when listening, i am mostly listening, to the other person, again, pretty much no inner dialogue.
But, when thinking, it might be inner dialogue (as in, thinking through both sides) or could just be thinking.
I guess it’s hard to say precisely when it’s just thinking, and when it’s a dialogue.
I guess, when trying to reason?
Like, when driving, and one sees another person do something bad, one might just think “what an idiot” which to me, is not really a monologue, nor dialogue.
But, when reasoning the pro’s and cons of having a third slice of cheesecake, I might go back and forth in my head, like:
‘do I want more’
“yes”
‘have I already had enough’
“yes, but still gonna”
‘I should really cut back’
" "
nom nom nom nom
Or, like deciding on a computer case,
“not enough 5 1/4 bays”
‘but looks super cool’
“plastic window instead of glass”
‘still looks really cool’
“yeah, is cool…”
Or in queue in a bar
“beer of shorts”
‘only gonna be out for 3 hours, prolly short’
“but, it is super hot out, and we gonna be in the sun”
‘beer is super compelling’
“beer wins…”
I don’t always have a back and forth, I would say less than one time a day, more than 2 times a week?
So not constantly.
And, the two sides, are both me, not external voices / other people / schizophrenia.
I have not (yet) wondered if any particular pair of jeans would or would not make my ass look fat, which would just be a thought, but if I considered pro’s/cons, then I would count that as a dialogue.
I think.
Anyone else dissagree / have a better way of putting it?
Unless I am just being a weird freak.
(thanks for reading my tedx talk. no wonder everyone hates the x version, it’s a pale comparison)
Yes, but only because you talk yourself out of having cheesecake, and still want 5 1/4" drive bays.
3rd slice is probably the most one should have… in one sitting…
Just out-psych that nagging dialogue and dont slice it. One cheesecake isnt 3 inefficient servings.
Nah, that’s an internal monologue. Sorry dude, you’re just an NPC acting out a script.
Homer [the Simpson not the poet] depicted a dialogue at least a couple times in disagreements. Id certainly reason in my head but I dont have a conversation speaking aloud to my self. Although I have known those types too that reason aloud and specifically they were “brilliant scienticians”.
Then the procrastinator autist motto:
“All right, brain. I don’t like you and you don’t like me, but let’s just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer.”
Joke about Korg Volcas and shoving it… and the Korg Monologue being much bigger 
But isn’t the “condition” the lack of a literal inner Monologue, i.e., a person whose thoughts are not organized via language (as in the actual language centers of the brain are not active)?
People who, during contemplation, think not in words but perhaps strictly in visuals or feelings.
I would go so far as to say that this style of non-language contemplation is exactly what many would describe AS meditation.
I myself have only been able to achieve what I would actually call a meditative state, a few times and I was only able to achieve that through breath control and quieting my inner monologue.
I think we should apply Occam’s Razor to the issue. One group of people just think. The other group suffers hallucinations and delude themselves into believing that’s what thought is.
It seems quite clear which group are suffering from a condition here.
And some dont dream in color.
So?
You guys need to read the Trivium. Some examples regarding how things exist before we actually name them could shed some light on this discussion.
Buffered brain vs. unbuffered brain ? That looks an interesting idea, worth exploring.
To add more complexity to the topic, since ancient times there is a way to classify human temperament into 4 archetypes: choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic and sanguine. I wonder if the existence or not of inner dialogue or not has something to do with that as well. Clearly some people live more introverted lives, while others live more extroverted lives.
I wonder if there’s a correlation between being introverted + inner dialogues vs being extroverted + unbuffered conscious.
Consider the possibility there is a degree of cofunctions between though and imagination here. Imagination is a mental process, but it is resynthesis of visual and auditory information. You don’t need words to imagine sights or sounds or even sensations.
Thought as in reasoning however doesn’t work like that, you need the words to reason, logical problems need labels so you can know the attributes and properties of things and the logical options and structures this can facilitate. Things don’t need our labels, we need the labels so we can communicate things, accumulate, structure, process and exchange information.
In that context thought is nearly impossible without words. It would be impossible to accumulate the requisite information for complex thought to begin with. Words are not superfluous or constraining in the least, and many words carry more meaning than people manage to make out of their entire lives.
Even the most dim-witted people in the world think - they just happen to suck at it. So I don’t think we should refer to thought as in “any thought” but specifically “rational, intelligent, logical problem solving thought” - though that investigates, analyzes, renders insight into complex systems and processes and ways to alter their outcome.
The inner dialogue is intended to serve as quality control, it is your first peer, the first point of scrutiny over your though, before it is output into the world. It is a chance to acknowledge and correct your own biases. It takes a special kind of stupidity to be so full of yourself to consider yourself above your own scrutiny, which is one of the reasons why someone might lack inner dialogue.
Also consider the difference between dialogue and chatter. Talking yourself through your activities doesn’t constitute meaningful dialogue, a dialogue is the exchange of meaningful information.
Inner dialogue people are not fast to spit out results, but they can produce results that listers can’t produce given unlimited amount of time. Listers are fast to yield results but shallow in their range of available output, they can’t be expected to solve deep logical problems, and they do things through memorization rather than understanding. Listers are task to task, tasks are scripted routines, there is no greater process that would call for strategy or planning that calls for original intelligent thought. As a results listers are poor troubleshooters and problem solvers. They are easily discouraged from engaging in challenging undertakings and scared off complex subjects.
Listers are not that much different, merely victims of a system that exists on pushing itself to do the thinking for us. Any unused desirable trait becomes eroded and ultimately lost to evolution.
Listers are the classical “idealists” who see the world as a set principle, that comes and works as-is, a back-box if you will and all you do is fit in it realtime, where inner dialogue people are classical realists, who acknowledge that reality is governed by a set of rules and principles that can be studied, understood and altered, which takes time.
Ultimately, Listers are the “doers”, inner dialogue people are the “thinkers” and inhuman psychopaths are the thuggish establishment that controls it all. That last part pretty much makes the “listers vs inner dialogists” argument redundant, as clearly both groups are insufficiently intelligent to know any better than facilitating the corrupt order of the establishment of even dumber people…
Where are you getting the idea that people without internal monologue can only operate according to “lists”, and are unable to reason or strategise about things? Just accept the fact that not everyone suffers from internal monologue, and those of us who don’t have one aren’t inferior to your kind in any way. I can imagine things. I can reason, I can strategise, I can troubleshoot, I’m not scared of complex things as clearly shown by my profession and hobbies. Get over yourself and keep your insulting and thoughtless theories to yourself.
You are clearly feeling triggered from your very first post, and without anyone explicitly labeling you or anything. You came out of your way to promote and defend your absence of inner dialogue. With the full grace of a knee-capped elephant.
For the short term, you’d display great progress by merely taking your own advises to hearth. And in the long term - you go learn how to inner monologue and come back and tell me what is thoughtless.
You may not realize it but it only stings because it is true, and most of the sting is not the truth itself, but your denial of it.
Your profession is a matter of training, and your hobbies are repetition. Doing none of those is exceptional, now if you have any particular personal achievements to present for evaluation, I’d be happy to evaluate your claim of merit.
But you can’t prove it by hypocritically whining about being insulted. You are not establishing a winning argument over your opponent, you are merely smearing dirt, which is not a very intelligent form of recourse, and is something people do when they really don’t have anything better to offer.
So put up or shut up. I am genuinely open and interest in being proven wrong, as that would mean I will know even better.
@Susanna See you wrong, because this aint math and physics.
Sounds like dialogue to me
I’m not trolling
Dont care about good/bad/right/wrong/sane/freaky/normal
I just wonder if inner mono/dia-logue is the more common, or less common state/ability/affliction/disability/super-power
I am not meaning to call out our one member, but the general sentiment, seems to be the average/median, is to have the internal voice, rather than to be free/lacking/clear/not-afflicted
Not saying it is good, nor better, just common?
Like, religion is basically a delusion of external imaginary stimulus/ mid atributaion of events to a specific external entity, and is very common, across many places, peoples and tribes/religions.
Where I see this mono/dia-logue thing is not external, but internal.
And it is distinct from the likes of schizophrenia or hallucinations, which present as entities that are not the afflicted persons conscious thoughts.
At least to my way of looking at it.
Again, I would love to hear where I am mistaking the concept.
I presumed, perhaps naively, that voices was the “norm” or more common
0 voters
Poll is missing an option for cheese. There should always be an option for cheese.