What is it for?
Because sometimes the rubber ducky would be embarrassed at the questions I ask so I ask me the questions first.
I think one key in the success of our species is the ability to plan ahead and mentally simulate what will happen before actually doing it.
Doing this with language is not very different from imagining what will happen when doing a physical action.
I have imaginary conversations all the time where I simulate interactions with the people in my life and work. I’ll say something and then imagine their response and often go back and revise what I would say. This is how I prepare for conversations that might be delicate, where I want to get something across but not in a way that creates negative consequences.
Other people say that they verbalize literally everything, as in, “I need to throw this rock in a gentle arc if I want it to hit that other rock there, oh dear perhaps I should adjust my grip and throw underhand instead.” My opinion is that this is functionally impossible. You can’t drive a car by verbalizing every command as you go - put a blindfolded friend at the wheel and try it sometime! I think one of two things is happening to people who say their monologue is exhaustive: they are only counting verbal thoughts as thoughts and ignoring the sea of inchoate impulses that churns beneath them. Also, I think any time we turn our attention to our thoughts themselves, those thoughts become verbal. To say it another way, any thought you want to think about you have to first pin down and define. You render it in words by directing your attention to it. I believe this leads people to believe that all their thoughts are verbal because all the thoughts they’ve looked at are always verbal.
But I’d say this to those folks: have you ever forgotten the right word for something? There it is on the tip of your tongue but the word won’t come. This happens to everyone. And you’re clearly able to think about the whatness of the thing even in absence of the right word.
Truly nobody knows, it’s an open research question. And to complicate matters more we know (as others have mentioned here) that everyone doesn’t think in the same way.
I can offer you a very small example of a difference in thinking that I experience.
I’m a grown ass man and I can’t easily tell my left from right. The best example of this is when I’m gaming and the tutorial tells me to press ‘left thumb stick’, I usually fuck it up. It took me a long time and a lot of thinking on it to realise what was going on. For me, left and right is not instinctive like up or down, but rather, it’s either a feeling, or not a feeling.
The reason for this is because when I was 5 I nearly lost my left index finger in an accident. It was reattached, but during the healing process I was constantly told my left finger was the one I hurt, so I literally learnt left from right as ‘injury’ or ‘no injury’, which I then attributed to as ‘hurt’ or ‘not hurt’.
So now, when I have to choose left or right, my brain has to remember an injury and where it was, then kind of feel that injury and tell myself that yes, I feel it so that’s left, or no, I feel nothing so that’s right. These steps take more time than a normal person’s automatic reaction to left or right direction.
Imagine someone touching you and saying, “does this hurt”. It takes time to figure out if it hurts or not and then reply. Thats what I’m doing every time I need to identify left or right, and if there’s no time for that, like “quick, make a right turn here”, I’m forced to guess.
And there is no way for me to unlearn this.
We do actually know quite a bit about the Internal Monologue and other forms of intrapersonal communication.
There isn’t one single use for it or benefit of it (in the same way water has many uses)
Removed by mod
One interesting corollary to the bicameral mind theory is that our brains have multiple sentient centers to them- that in turn might explain that feeling of struggling with a decision and being able to see the same thing from more than one point of view. It also explains why different parts of the brain light up in different situations
I’ve never heard of that idea before, but it’s really interesting! I wonder how they’d be able to prove something like that?
I heard a Ted Talk that claimed they had some evidence for it. Still think it is bullocks
What I find interesting is that supposedly, not everybody actually has an internal monologue, I just can’t even imagine what that must be like. But then I start to wonder, do I even have an internal monologue, is what I experience an actual “internal monologue”? I assume that I have an internal monologue, I definitely talk to myself and I have thoughts running around my head all the time, but I don’t know that I “hear” an internal monologue or what having an internal monologue is supposed to be like. Is what I experience the same thing as what everybody else is experiencing?
I hate to sound heartless, but haven’t you met anyone that isn’t that bright? Like they may have a heart of gold but they couldn’t figure out a math equation if they were given all day. There are high school graduates that can’t even find directions on a compass for a map. I imagine that the lower end of intelligence does not have a inner monologue. And some other fringe reasons.
It seems to me that you’re attempting to equate an internal monologue with intelligence, and I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. An internal monologue is just a brains way of formatting its thoughts and feelings about the information that flows in. There are many ways to do this, and one way isn’t necessarily “superior” to another. That’s just how brains work. And while many intelligent people do have this internal monologue, it’s absolutely not necessary for intelligence.
Side note, one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever met is aphasiac, and doesn’t have an internal monologue.
I’m sure it depends on how you define intelligence.
There are probably people without internal monologues who can solve any problem you put in front of them. But I do think there is a certain level of emotional intelligence that can’t exist without an internal monologue. I suppose one could externalize this process and just talk aloud to themselves in order to mull something over. But even then, you likely couldn’t do that all day every day. Those of us with internal monologues must glean some sort of benefit from essentially self-reflecting all day.
Granted, all of this hinges on my limited understanding of consciousness being somewhat accurate. It’s possible that everyone has an internal monologue and some people just lack a connection in their brain that brings it to the forefront of their consciousness. Maybe some people’s IMs are in their subconscious and inform their actions in ways they simply aren’t aware of.
Speak for yourself! I have internal stereologue.
I have an external monologue!.. Yeah, I just never stop talking
Peasant…Go quadraphonic or go home!!!
THX noises
🫨
Me, too! No I don’t! SHUT UP, STEVE. NO ONE ASKED YOU.
Chomsky would say that the original purpose of language is to structure thought, with communication being solely secondary. (Or something like this, I don’t recall it word-by-word.)
If that’s correct, then internal monologues are simply a result of your brain processing your thoughts.
Yeah, language is an added analytical layer on top of our thoughts. We are clearly able to have thoughts without language (feral children for example are able to process their environment, plan and predict). But language adds a formality to it. Not to challenge Chomsky on his own turf but I don’t see how this can be separated from communication, since communication is how we acquire language. Does he really posit that even a feral child will have its own internal set of mouth sounds for organizing thoughts, even when it never speaks those to anyone? Seems backwards.
What do you think evolved first - verbal communication or thoughts? Presumably we were able to think before we could speak, no? The words we have in our language are like pointers to internal concepts, and it seems to me that those internal concepts would have existed before language was a thing. The mouth-sounds as you put it are not the thoughts themselves, rather just labels for specific concepts. It might be possible and even convenient to think in mouth-sounds but it’s not necessary for logical thought.
Yeah I agree with you. There might be something to the other side of the coin though. For example, a feral human with no language will have “thoughts,” as we both agree. But they will probably be quite different than thoughts from someone with language. Having a word for something has a way of crystallizing a concept. With a lot of those at your disposal you might be capable of more sophisticated thought. It’s really hard to say since we don’t have feral people to study and we couldn’t examine their “thoughts” even if we did.
Chomsky’s concept of UG (universal grammar) is able to handle this. Since there would be a chunk of language that is innate (universal), that feral child would share it. So, as a conclusion from that, even if the feral child isn’t expressing it through vocalisation, since they lack an “application” of the UG (like Nahuatl, Mandarin, Quechua, English, Kikongo etc.), they’d still have some rather simple internal monologue.
…that said I think that Chomsky’s UG is full of shit. I do agree with him that the faculty of language might have developed first to structure thought; but my reasoning resembles a bit more yours, the role of language would be to formalise thought. Thinking without language is possible in the same way as moving across a village without roads - it’s doable but clunky, and you’ll likely take far more effort than with proper roads/ a language.
Not to challenge Chomsky on his own turf
Don’t worry. Everyone and their dog challenges him. Including himself, he’s often contradicting his own earlier statements.
Haven’t read the work, but if I can extrapolate based on assumption, this seems like something that makes sense in an innate way.
Colour would be the best example. And I think it’s an interesting one. The utility in recognising district colours is fairly obvious. Our conscious and memory need a way to label the experience of encountering different wavelengths of light, Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to recognise them again surely? You at least need a form of language internally to have the ability to recognise a pattern you’ve experienced. To me that speaks to the utility of internal dialogue/monologue.
Your own experience of a specific colour can differ wildly from another person’s. However, because the wavelength is the same, you can attach a common label to it.
The question of which originated first is interesting to me, but because of the further point, a fundamental system of attaching common labels must exist. Kids can often sort objects in categories before language skills develop.
Seems to me that we do have a universal internal language innate to all of us and we learn a common language later. It also stands to reason that the origins of external language must be based on ancestral internal language.
Perhaps those without verbal internal monologue/dialogue have a more persistent innate language, that is not overwritten by common external language?
/Ramble
[Note: this is my personal take, not Chomsky’s]
We can recognise colours and things even without properly labelling them. (Colour example: I have no clue on how to call the colour of my cat’s fur, but I’m fairly certain to remember thus recognise it.) However, it’s hard to handle them logically this way.
- if you are outside and it is raining, then you get wet
- if you get wet, you might get sick
- so if you are outside and it is raining, you might get sick
And at least for me this is the main role of the internal monologue. It isn’t just about repeating the state of the things, it’s about connecting pieces of info together, as if I was explaining the link to another person.
Perhaps those without verbal internal monologue/dialogue have a more persistent innate language, that is not overwritten by common external language?
Possible; I don’t know, really. It’s also possible that the “innate language” doesn’t really exist, only the innate ability to learn a language; but that ability is already enough to structure simple reasoning.
Ok, I have a question for you guys.
I consider myself to have an internal monologue, but it doesn’t just run all the time. Like, sometimes my thoughts have words, and sometimes they don’t. Is it like that for the rest of you who have an IM? I always assumed it would be, but considering some people don’t have one at all, it wouldn’t surprise me that much if some people had one constantly.
I really tried to word this in a way that makes sense… sorry if it doesn’t lol.
One of the “constantly” group here. It’s a bit more like having someone to talk to all the time who is also me. I can turn it off, but it has to be a concentrated effort and as soon as I’m not concentrated on keeping it silent it comes back.
I’ve spent many years wondering at the nature of the little voice, especially after I learned that not everyone has it. It’s not controlling or contradictory, it’s a bit more like a narrator for my feelings and a driving point for logic.
I’ve come to the conclusion that what it actually is is my subconscious manifesting as a conversational partner. Kind of like an avatar that represents the part of me that isn’t the literal point of consciousness inside my head. Make of that what you will.
Don’t get me wrong, I still think in pictures and non-verbal inclinations. That doesn’t really go away either. But it’s like having a narrator alongside it that also speaks in the first person.
You don’t consciously control yours? Mine is conversational with myself, but it’s a single entity. Like if it’s critical, it’s me being critical of myself, not one part of me blaming another part. It’s not a two-way conversation; it’s a monologue that I have full and conscious control of. I can cut it off but still know what it was going to say.
There is a voice I consciously control, and there is one that I don’t. They kind of intermingle into a single monologue, but I can still hear the one I don’t control when I consciously turn off my monologue. It’s still a quiet presence almost in the back of my mind.
One way I’ve rationalized it, it’s like when you meditate and your thoughts still flow over you. You don’t actively control those thoughts, that’s kind of the point. I’m finding that those thoughts have a coherent voice for me. They speak through my monologue, but they are still there when I shut my monologue off. Under the surface, quieter, with the rest of the thoughts I don’t control.
My experience is the same as yours. I have an inner monologue, but it is not constant. My thoughts do not always come in the form of words.
In fact, I would say that wordless thoughts are my default and the IM comes when I am trying to figure something out.
Wow I’m like the complete opposite of you. Inner monolog is default and if I’m trying to figure something out it’s like pictures or a 3d model in my brain or, if in deeper thought, I’m not even here but in like, a different plane solving the issue in my head space.
Same. It’s like a different part of my brain works for spatial reasoning, which I guess is true? Lol but yeah when truly focused you leave your plane to view something else. It isn’t only visual though it’s almost all encompassing in some ways. And generally is the “flow” state for me.
Hm, interesting.
I can also have images when trying to figure certain things. For example, if I’m moving then I will have images of where to place boxes and furniture in the truck or in the apartment, but these images are typically combined with words like “if I put this here, then…” Or if I’m trying to remember where I put something then it’s memory combined with “after I got home I…”
In fact, the easier a problem is, the fewer words I use. But when something is really stumping me, the words are more prevalent. And angrier. More like “This doesn’t make sense! If the positive and negative are both connected then power should flow through. Maybe this f*cking thing is broken”
I’m not even here but in like, a different plane solving the issue in my head space.
Exactly, I can be so completely gone, I don’t sense anything around me.
Same. Kind of both. When I’m doing like a Jimmy neutron brain blast, it’s all pictures and like… 3d models in my brain.
it never off, annoying af
it may be many voices speaking simultaneously at different levels of consciousness. you don’t know how noisy it is until you do some zen cock garbage and temporarily experience inner quiet.
I’m by no means a medical expert, so just a stab in the dark here - our brains constantly process all sorts of information. Whether that’s memories, input from your various senses, or a million other things. During that process, your brain is also trying to make sense of it all (“Why?”, “What does it mean”, “How?”, etc).
Our ability to communicate and express language is intertwined in this process, which of course is what gives you the perception of dialog. So in essence, I think its just our brains trying to make sense of… its process of making sense, if that makes sense?
On a side note, I’m practically dosing myself with semantic satiation with how many times I’ve used “sense” here (that last one being more tongue-in-cheek)…
Do you think we had internal monologue before having language?
It’s a bit difficult to say, but perhaps we did in say, maybe through the repetition of flashing images from our memory, or sounds, etc.
Even without language, that internal “making sense” of things / interpreting the world around us still exists - I’d imagine if you were to ask someone who was deaf (starting at a very early age) they’d probably say there is a monologue of some sorts, even if not by “sound”, whether that be the flashing images of various hand signs, or written words, etc.
I think it’s possible that internal language did exist before it could be vocalised. That is, before we evolved the necessary structures in the throat to make words, we were thinking according to basic grammatical rules e.g subject-verb-object. Words in human language are like labels for internal concepts, and those internal concepts would have existed before language was a thing.
I think you’re right. I want to add though that those internal concepts aren’t nebulous things, they’re themselves made up of other dimensions of understanding. Like, i have the word “dog”, and I have an internal concept of a dog, but how exactly is “dog” conceptualized? In terms of senses. It looks like this, feels like this, makes these sounds. And it’s not only the classic 5/6 senses, it’s also time (it acts/moves like this) and hormones and other chemicals (it makes me feel this). Language (it’s called this) is a higher level abstraction of those, but when push comes to shove a word is just one more connection/correlation with dozens of other connected sensations that together form that internal concept
That makes perfect sense, thanks! Seems like I was certainly onto something then. Part of me wishes that I had gone into this field as its very intriguing - perhaps in another life!
I use it for reasoning. It’s a way to talk to myself without having to do so out loud, which I do a lot.
There is a segment of the population who, apparently, don’t have one. Even deaf people apparently have an inner monologue of hand signs visualized. But this segment just lacks one entirely. I don’t understand how they think, how they come to a conclusion. Things just pop into my mind, when I take my mind away from other matters and let my subconscious bake on an item… is this the way they think about everything? I don’t know.
So I’m one of those people without an internal monologue ( but I can choose to subvocalize if I want).
I don’t know if this will help you understand but for me everything is quiet. All the time. I don’t say to myself “I should take a bite of the apple” - I just take a bite. As I type this reply out I have not determined what the next world will be before writing it, I just write. If I need to build a mental image it is simply there.
When I need to make a decision, is made. I might have been pondering it for some time, but it’s not a surface thought. Again I can subvocalize - but it’s more speaking to the room as opposed to having an internal argument.
And when I say quiet, I mean quiet. I did not realize for most of my life that monologues in books where anything more then a story telling device.
I’m going to take a guess - survival.
By which you mean, it’s the part of our brain that we no longer really listen to, so it developed the ability to flat out tell us: “damn that’s a bad idea.” And “I told you so, idiot.”
In my experience, it’s for 2 things:
-
Witty comebacks half an hour after the discussion is over and you’re on your way back home.
-
Overanalyzing every stupid decision and mistake you have ever made.
-
Team Aphantasia!
I think I think differently than most. I have a very active internal monologue but when it comes to visual thought I can very easily overlay my thoughts onto my vision. Almost like a diagram or writing something on something but in my head only. I feel that if I was smarter I would be able to do something with it.
I’m somewhat similar, but I’m also extremely easily distracted. I can’t hold multiple things in my mind for longer than two or three steps ahead. And then anything that comes along to break me out of it and I’m just done. It’s super frustrating, especially because I have the kind of mind that bounces different perspectives around all the time. It’s like I just want to reach out and grab a thought to think it through thouroughly before I get to the next but… nope
Consider looking into what was formerly called Asperger’s. I resonate strongly with what you’re saying and recently found out in my 30s, that I’m autistic. I have a good sense of humor and decent social skills so I never even thought to check, but 1) turns out I knew jack shit about what autism actually is, and 2) the ADHD was actually hiding quite a bit of it. If you have questions or want resources feel free to dm me.
That is very different from me, I can visualize but it breaks down if it gets just a bit complicated. For instance geometry or 3D relations.
But maybe that’s not what you mean?
because it keeps me sane and level headed.
