Inner voice missing? Your brain may be wired differently

People who don’t have that voice are people who think differently? I said I don’t have/hear that ‘voice’. It’s just thinking.

Differently, apparently.

Differently from an inner voice, yes. Without assuming how it is you experience thought, yes.

I’ve been asking about your inner experience and how it differs from my own to get a better understanding. If you’re more interested in poking at the language and assuming that I mean “different” means “bad” or whatever, then just say you’re not interested in sharing. I’m so much more interested understanding how people experience this than I am in this assumed baggage.

ETA: “interested” was missing

And I answered: I think.

I don’t necessarily “hear” a “voice”. I don’t necessarily see imagery. I think.

More detail? It’s not a process I analyse or think about. Maybe sometimes I think in words, maybe sometimes I might visualise something. Depends what I’m thinking about, or why. Does any of that qualify as an “inner voice”? Well, I don’t “hear” anything so these researchers would categorise me as having a greater likelihood of worse verbal memory and rhyming judgement. I say bullshit.

I made no judgement about different being bad. The researchers appeared to imply that people without an “inner voice” have other problems.

The study … demonstrates these differences have real cognitive impacts. Participants with less inner speech performed worse on verbal memory and rhyme judgment tasks.

The study demonstrates no such thing and I severely doubt the study’s results would be replicated. The study has no real idea what the differences in thought processes/experiences might imply, as it cannot be clear that all subjects are describing the same thing, or even the thing the researchers think they are describing.

I don’t see what you consider bullshit here. Based on the rest of this snippet, you would likely rate your agreement with the statement as very low. Other respondents would rate their agreement as quite high. Seems like a legitimate way to conduct research.

That people recruited (who, how, why?) for a study, who claim to have a conversation with themselves can be considered to be more likely to perform better on verbal memory (remembering words?) and tasks involving rhyming. I’m saying it all sounds flaky as fuck, to me.

Is it because they hear an inner voice? Because they have a conversation with it? Or is it simply that people who are more likely to characterise their thoughts in those terms (than actually think in those terms) would have those qualities.

Yes, it might be characterised as high or low agreement with the statement - but what does the statement actually mean? Do they have two voices, two protagonists in their thoughts taking turns too speak, like a debate? Do they “hear” them, as if they are a third party? Are their thoughts always structured as a “conversation”, even if it just them (the same one person) just considering alternatives? If it is just all their own thoughts, how and when can it be considered a “conversation” or “inner speech”?

So, given the pushback, I started to read the article.

First para:

Most of us have an “inner voice,” and we tend to assume everybody does, but recent evidence suggests that people vary widely in the extent to which they experience inner speech, from an almost constant patter to a virtual absence of self-talk.

I need a citation for the first seven words. Maybe the virtual absence of self-talk is simply describing people who do not think or analyse much, who are instinctive reactors and do not analyse/plan - i.e. think. Maybe the characterisation of “inner voice” simply means people who DO think a lot.

And then:

“Past research suggests inner speech is key in self-regulation and executive functioning, like task-switching, memory and decision-making,” says Famira Racy, an independent scholar who co-founded the Inner Speech Research Lab at Mount Royal University in Calgary. “Some researchers have even suggested that not having an inner voice may impact these and other areas important for a sense of self, although this is not a certainty.”

Again, define “inner speech”. I would say (yeah I would, wouldn’t I) I am reasonably good at task-switching, memory, and decision making, the last of those because I DO think about my decisions. I don’t just act/react. Or is just acting instinctively without thinking now what is classed as being good at decision making.

As I say - it’s just thinking. And maybe we all think in different ways (those of us that actually, think, of course).

Anyway, I’m off to bed to think, now. (And have a damn good talk with myself!)

Well, that’s no bullshit, for sure.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.