Thread

Replies (75)

↩ replying to Kajoozie Maflingo
Ah! that makes so much sense, because I can't see anything visible in my head, even if I try to imagine something "visual" I only can get the name of it. Like when I think about seeing or visualizing an apple, all I can "see" is thinking of the word apple. Though I have been training for years now to visualize things. I can now visualize a short 1-2 seconds video. almost like watching a video on your phone. but I can't hold it for longer than 1-2 seconds. yet.
Based on how people are self reporting here, that number seems way too high. I wonder if it's wrong (I'm pretty sure I've heard lower numbers in the past), if this self reporting nostr group is a statistically anomaly, or if there are other relationships which lead nostr, at present, to be a non-representatives group.
I am a therapist and sometimes I have to work on helping people develop the basics of being conscious awareness. To be conscious means it is always like something to be you: Take a table- it is not like anything to be a table. So when I ask my clients β€œwhat was it like right now to. Remember that/say that/share that with your spouse, etc., and they tell me it was fine. I felt nothing. I tell them you are not a table. We want to get as far away from being a table on the consciousness spectrum as possible! Some people have never had anyone help them to not be tables! Tables also are not aware of their internal monologue. They just need a little help..people that is, not literal tables…of course. πŸ€“
The concept that a significant portion of the population does not have an internal monologue has gained attention in recent years, partly due to a study by the psychologist Russell T. Hurlburt. Hurlburt, who has conducted substantial research into people's inner experiences, including their internal dialogues, used a technique called Descriptive Experience Sampling (DES) to explore this phenomenon. Hurlburt's work, along with similar research, suggests that the presence of an internal monologue varies widely among individuals. Some people report having a constant verbal narrative in their heads, while others experience thinking in more abstract or sensory forms, like images or emotions rather than words. This suggests that 50-70% of people might either rarely or never experience the internal monologue as a continuous verbal stream. Instead, their thinking may involve non-verbal elements such as images, emotions, or pure, wordless concepts. While there isn't one singular study that definitively claims "50-70% of people don't have an internal monologue," this figure is often cited based on broader survey-based research and anecdotal reporting. It's also connected to popular psychology and informal discussions that reveal how diverse mental experiences can be. The DES method, used by Hurlburt, is particularly focused on capturing participants’ thoughts as they happen, using random beeps to prompt individuals to record their internal experiences. The findings revealed considerable diversity in inner experiencesβ€”some had frequent verbal monologues, while others did not. The method's data revealed that internal verbalization, or "talking to oneself," wasn't as ubiquitous as previously thought.
Those who use internal monologues exclusively are unable to have awareness of ideas, beliefs, feelings, states, that don’t have the words to express them in the language they know. I don’t really know if this is true I just wanted to have a different take than, β€œthe world is filled with NPCs”. maybe the NPCs are those that can only read their scripts.
The problem I have is many times, MY lips are moving while I am deep in discussion with myself. My wife calls me out and I laugh, when strangers do I simply say, "Do the voices inside my head bother you?" And they run away... ...and if I openly discuss Bitcoin with anyone, they run away. So, the moral here, is follow your own path and listen to your thoughts regardless what other people think, say, or feel.
Π”Π²Π΅ Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅Ρ‚ΠΈ популяции Π½Π΅ Π²Π΅Π΄ΡƒΡ‚ Π²Π½ΡƒΡ‚Ρ€Π΅Π½Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³, Π½ΠΎ Π² коммСнтариях Π½Π΅ нашлось Π½ΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ‡Π΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ°. View quoted note β†’