The 26% who can't help but 24/7 rely on "inner speech" to think is stupid, right?
Like, y'all seriously need something to be conveyable in simple sentences (presumably, since I don't think most "inner speech" includes many subordinates) from your (presumably as well) first language in order to grasp it?
Either you have impressive intuitive expressive capacities (which is unlikely, since these are to be distinguished from the type of expressive capacities displayed in oratory or writing; areas in which a remarkable ability is relatively rare and thus recognized as a "talent") or whatever you muse and consider through the day must be quite simple.
google.com
The 26% who can't help but 24/7 rely on "inner speech" to think is stupid, right?
dont try to justify your soulless npc ways, user
Nah it's innerspeakers who "think" like an AI desu. They point is that if their way of thinking is mainly linguistic they could hardly feel something they could not express with words, which is quite limiting even if they were notably linguistically proficient (which I guess won't be the case for most of them)
You're assuming people with an inner voice cannot think in any other way. You could hardly be mre wrong.
t. think with inner voice by almot find the solution of mathematical problems by visualization
No one thinks with their mind, mostly - we use heuristics to make 95%+ of our decisions. These are mental shortcuts that we take, and it means that the remaining ~5% of decisions to make are made consciously.
I'll use rumination in a sense intendedly faithful to its ethymology: ruminatio was how medieval monks called silently reading or reciting a text.
Nah I'm not ruling out the possibility of innerspeakers thinking in some other way but I'm talking about the reported 26% who permanently and mainly thinks in inner speech. I sometimes intuitively verbally think to myself as well but I'd say it's quite secondary (because my spontaneous inner speech is quite oral, that is, simple, in its style; things are obviously different when I pay a little attention to what I'm considering and this feels a little more like writing or oratory, but my verbal rumination in these cases is sort of a "translation" of what it's somewhat clear enough by other means of thinking) when it comes to getting a picture of or grasping whatever I'm considering.
Yeah I know nobody thinks "the pan, the oil bottle, the steak" when they're about to cook. But when you're musing about a situation you were in last night, do you really need to go through "there was Eliza, she looked sort of mellow, the possible causes for this might be this or that" and does your thought really march along with that rumination?
I think with an inner-voice every waking minute of my life, but I'm still more than capable of experiencing emotion that I can't put into words.
>I'm still more than capable of experiencing emotion that I can't put into words
How often do you do so? How detailed, complex and semantically deep is your inner speech and how difficult is it to conceive your """""mental life""""" without it?
Bump
>do you really need to go through "there was Eliza, she looked sort of mellow, the possible causes for this might be this or that"
No, but even images etc are just another form of symbolism. It's not different from favoring french to german, in principle. You don't think without language for the same reason you can't see without eyes.
This could just as easily be a product of a wide emotional spectrum as it could a thin vocabulary.
>but even images etc are just another form of symbolism
Not necessarily. The visual or auditory memory of someone you know laughing doesn't need to be allegoric, and whatever that memory suggests you doesn't need to march along articulated, noticeable inner speech. First you taste the muffin, then you find yourself going through your memories and thinking about them and then you translate those thoughts into the right text.
If you mean that visual thinking is identical to inner speech thinking because both of them have signs with referential power and may have their own syntactical structures, you're right that those similitudes might exist, but you're wrong that they do necessarily and, obviously, you're wrong in implying that they are identical because of that.
>You don't think without language for the same reason you can't see without eyes
If you mean linguistic abilities are a necessary condition for complex thought, you're probably right. If you mean everyone consciously uses their linguistic abilities in all of their conscious thinking processes, you're just wrong.
This post is terribly (and intrinsically) poorly (so poorly) written that it hurts (pain pain pain) to read. Just say what you fucking mean faggot.
>y'all
no im not reading your post
All those alternatives you've listed to language are just deeper layers of it. Even the most intimate sensations are still just translations of noumena.
This is utter nonsense you brainlet npc
Bullshit and I don't think you really know what noumena means
>innerspeakers who can't follow subordinate clauses
Your major problem is trying to categorize language into simple sentences, complex sentences, compound sentences, and compound-complex sentences. Think of it this way: would it be difficult to "think" compound sentences. No, it wouldn't, so why would it be so for complex sentences. Subordinate clauses aren't more complex verbally than simple sentences. Furthermore, it's the analogue to the use of species as a classifier of living creatures. The classifier doesn't create the living creature, nor does the term create the phenomenon.
someone post that excerpt of Nabokov calling innerspeakers fucking idiots and automatons
it always caused /pol/ to clam up back when the NPC meme was still ripe
That would be a valuable insight if it didn't come from nabokov. I'll throw it into the trash with the rest of his work
>Bullshit and I don't think you really know what noumena means
>a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.
There's a reason why noumena and phenomena are separate words user. There aren't ways things look, there are ways you see them. It's layers of language.
That's synesthesiast, so I think it hardly counts for anything.
It's only 26% of us? I had no idea it was that low, and before last year, I thought everybody had inner speech.
link
I find when I force myself to have an inner voice, I am far more verbally articulate than usual. Most of the time I'm a stuttering incoherent mess and it takes ages for me to translate the primordial signals of ideas and emotions that fire off in my brain into actual speech. It becomes easier with an inner monologue
>not thinking in language
autist
Help
Sorry, spamming "y'all" does not make you sound like a goy. Sage for low IQ
I think it's supposedly 26% who exclusively think in words and sentences, but (and I hate that I need to point this out) you should always bear in mind whenever you hear that X% of people do/ are Y and so on that I wasn't included in this survey
>he hasn't transcended human interaction with lesser being into a full-blown microuniverse of distinct people in its head with whom to talk to
And I thought Yea Forums was the smart guys board
Mane you ain't ever read Kant or philosophy of language and yet try to somewhat mix both in the way people who like to boast about the last stuff they found about in a Wikipedia article do and it shows
>his thoughts have to march along with the cadence of the language he's been programmed into, its syntax and its learnt lexicon
You're literally a bulkier version of SHRDLU playa
Plus it seems the main study was conducted in some university. So, only 26% of uni students primarily rely on their inner speech for thinking. Just saying. google.com
Everybody is a soulless automaton except me.