/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23228041]

>tfw I read books from front to back entirely in my inner voice

You have an inner voice don't you anon?

it's amazing to me that 30-50% of the population has no inner voice. That is more than half of all people. I can't even imagine not having one.

[Anonymous No.23228059]

bump

[Anonymous No.23228068]

>>23228041
I mostly use my inner voice to say things like “you are doing well” “this person is a retard” etc.. or if I have something to contemplate/solve/think about. I would actually be so lost without my inner voice. Without an inner voice how can someone ask the right questions about themselves and introspect? It’s insane to me, without an inner voice how can you find better ways to go about things? I read online that people without an inner voice are just as intelligent, but it really seems like you can’t have meta cognition or sus out bullshit without an inner voice. If anyones done research on this I’d love to read your thoughts/opinions/facts.

[Anonymous No.23228104]

>>23228041
Everyone has an inner voice, I think those who claim otherwise simply misunderstood the question

[Anonymous No.23228112]

>>23228104
Its from a study

[Anonymous No.23228129]

I am not a hylic NPC, and I obviously can articulate my thoughts internally with language yet I don’t really narrate things in that sense.
It seems to me that a lot of people are saying that they have themselves and then another voice that narrates/responds to what they’ve already perceived as a means of grasping it consciously, and that just doesn’t make sense.
You have already thought it by the time that you repeat this LARPing voice inside your head.
It seems to me that what is supposed to be a marker of a pneuma is actually just a confused mind/self divide.

[Anonymous No.23228134]

>>23228104
This is probably true. OP says he reads it in his inner voice, but i can't believe that either, that sounds as if he reads each word "aloud" in his head. When i read that only happens when i'm momentarily disconnected from the book or not concentrated. Once i'm in the flow the information just sort of absorbs into my brain and if it's fiction the story unfolds in something of a continually produced imagination. I would say if you read with your inner voice it feels to me more like you're dyslexic having to sound out the word and analyze the meaning.
Without inner voice you still have thoughts but they just aren't expressed through language. I would guess the inner voice is the dominant thoughts translated to language but just not spoken aloud. I really don't think that 30-50% can't just not say a thought aloud and think it. Maybe i made some wrong assumptions but these are my two cents.

[Anonymous No.23228140]

>>23228134
You sound like an NPC if you can't read aloud in your head for the entire book

[Anonymous No.23228142]

feels good being in the top 20%. I can already feel the cope coming from the dudes here that can't read aloud in their heads

[Anonymous No.23228144]

>>23228134
When I read philosophy I typically read it with my inner voice, it’s called sub vocalization and it aids in comprehension but reduces reading speed. It also allows you to reduce and criticize an idea easier imo.

When I read fiction the monologue is barely on.

[Anonymous No.23228146]

>>23228140
Notice how you dodge the post that actually argues the contrary.
Why are you narrating verbally something you have already perceived? You’re treating yourself like a man inside your brain rather than an embodied whole, all the while convincing yourself that this is soulful.
You are reading yourself a story as if you are external to your own reading.

[Anonymous No.23228149]

>>23228112
I know, I think those who responded negatively didn't understand the scope of the question. I have, in casual conversation, mentioned internal monologues multiple times and no one has ever been confused. Stream of thought books are built on an sprawling mental monologue and are widely understood as such. Free writing is taught in mental health or self help workshops. Even writing requires the writer to be cognisant of his own thoughts as language, if you've ever written an email you've used your interior voice to map out the content. As such I believe almost everyone (besides maybe the retarded or stunted) has an internal monologue.

[Anonymous No.23228152]

>>23228144
I posted this >>23228129
But would agree with you that philosophy and poetry do often need this sub-vocalising.
But if you’re narrating your everyday reading and your own actions and shit like that you’re acting like you’re mecha pilot in your own body.

[Anonymous No.23228156]

I always knew I was more special than most people.i can do both this and the apple

[Anonymous No.23228165]

I also regularly recite to poems to myself when I need emotional support. Apparently that’s unthinkable to over half the population lmao

[Anonymous No.23228178]

>>23228041
That’s not as impressive as you think, brainlet, you’re subvocalising with your throat. Now try graphing the surface f(x,y)=sin(x) in your mind, and shift it in all 6 directions, spin it in three different axes. This is what truly separates goyim from golem.

[Anonymous No.23228185]

>>23228041
Those people get to play cool movies in their head as they read. In that light, your condition isn't superior, on the contrary, it's a disability.

[Anonymous No.23228194]

>>23228041
Wasn't one thread enough for you? Copy-pasta bait thread, check archives. Don't bother with it.

[Anonymous No.23228209]

>>23228129
I used to subvocalize my every action and thought and it led me to an almost psychotic break where I thought I was a "small" person trapped inside of a "bigger" body that hardly reacted to my control. I moved aimlessly through life because I thought it was useless to interact with the world as I (I was the voice inside) couldn't experience anything directly but secondhand through my "body interface". It led me to develop extremely narcissistic thought patterns and I became incapable of sincerity, as every time I thought about doing anything another "superior" (n+1) voice would appear and analyse what I said and how it would be perceived, and then another voice (n+1) would repeat that process, and so ad infinitum. A maddening infinite regress.
Thanks for reading my blogpost and I hope none of you fall into the same pitfalls as I did.

[Anonymous No.23228237]

>>23228129
>>23228134
Not op, but I read everything with my inner voice, “aloud in my head” like the first anon says.

[Anonymous No.23228248]

>>23228185
I realise that you may be baiting, but why would you assume that we can’t do both? What exactly makes you think that having an inner voice means we can’t visualise pictures and feelings?

[Anonymous No.23228365]

>>23228041
I have inner voice but it slows my reading down.

[Anonymous No.23228409]

Everything I read has a voice. I even read in other accents, or have different voices for characters. I also have hyperphantasia. I basically have a movie in my head while I read, it's pretty great ngl

[Anonymous No.23228412]

>>23228041
I actually read aloud so I don't forget how to speak.

[Anonymous No.23228414]

>>23228041
The best way to tell if you’re a NPC is if you don’t see what you’re reading, whether descriptions or action

[Anonymous No.23228472]

How come my outer voice never sounds as good

[Anonymous No.23228488]

>>23228409
>ers. I also have hyperphantasia
God this board is so gay and reddit

[Anonymous No.23228589]

>>23228140
>muuh NPC
Friend you can't even understand what you read even with your cool voice in your head. I never said i can't read with a voice in my head i said if that happens it's annoying to me because it's symptomatic that i have distanced myself with the contents of the book.

[Anonymous No.23228614]

You guys use different voices when reading different characters, right?

[Anonymous No.23228630]

>>23228209
You sound mentally weak

[Anonymous No.23228648]

why do we have this thread every day

[Anonymous No.23228653]

>Soulless automatons think having a uncontrollable inner babble is a sign of intelligence
One of the funniest things pseuds on 4chan have misunderstood. Never gets old.

[Anonymous No.23228661]

Daily reminder that inner monologue (which some innately people lack) is a different phenomenon than subvocalization while reading.

[Anonymous No.23228667]

>>23228041
When i think with words (specifically words, not images, schemas or sounds) or read something i usually skip sound part and just transfer words into meaning into connected meaning into full meaning with associations, metaphors and other things processed. Unless something (which might be part of the text, random association or memory, random external stimulus or anything else) will make me to do so - in that case i start generating sounds for that thing in the text/thoughts, that i had been attending to during this trigger - might be a voice of a character or a voice if a narrator, music played in the text, random "soundtrack" my mind will consider to be first available on memory/emotional/other association, specific sound etc. Same thing is for visualisation - most if the time i just understand, what is happening, getting visuals nearly at random or on demand, but never on the constant uninterripted basis without willing it consciously. Of course, imagining complex things on my own without text description (marketplace full of people, stands, fruits, drinks, other food and items or a man in a room cutting a figurine from wood in realtime) will most likely call for additional sounds/words/ideas/emotions/smells, just as a song might either make me imagine something song-related, restore and remodel some of my memories or model entire new sitiation, events if which would corellate with emotion song provides me with. It's complex, but random, unless called willingly, then it us whatever you had called plus that random things you don't actively supress.

[Anonymous No.23228672]

>>23228653
You started browsing here last year, newfag

[Anonymous No.23228688]

>>23228648
because people keep getting baited

[Anonymous No.23228743]

>>23228144
i also agree when reading philosophy, scientific literature, dense information or thought provoking concepts an inner monologue that isn't annoying happens which is helpful to propably dissect the information or something like this.

[Anonymous No.23228749]

>>23228688
It is, actually, good. People start to think about the ways they think. Aside from obvious "people start to think", analyzing your own thought process helps you to fix some of your minor faults (considering that you have been able to properly analyze yoir thought processes).

[Anonymous No.23228754]

>>23228156
why would you post that? If you need validation at least do it in a subtler way than "guys i'm actually very special, just so you know"

[Anonymous No.23228767]

>>23228156
Congratulations. That qualifies you as being able to do some of the basic things only subhumans can't perform. You have made your first steps on the way to become normal midwit.

[Anonymous No.23228849]

>>23228041
weird repost that's near verbatim of mine, that the mods 404'd because they might be some types of aspies.

[Anonymous No.23228853]

>>23228104
>Everyone has an inner voice, I think those who claim otherwise simply misunderstood the question

no, they don't. look into it.

>>23228194
>Wasn't one thread enough for you? Copy-pasta bait thread, check archives. Don't bother with it.

the thread was 404'd. mods be faggots.

[Anonymous No.23228869]

>>23228041
>You have an inner voice don't you anon?
Yes, but it constantly repeats stuff like "killing and looting niggers and crafting a chair with their drops" or "gnawing the bedframe like Thomas Pynchon getting pegged" so I have to silence it if I actually want to focus on a book for more than one minute.

[Anonymous No.23228918]

>>23228869
sounds healthy

[Anonymous No.23228923]

>>23228041
>30% is more than half the people

[Anonymous No.23228934]

>>23228209
Were you able to solve this?

[Anonymous No.23228940]

>>23228149
> I think those who responded negatively didn't understand the scope of the question
cooe

[Anonymous No.23229056]

>>23228134
I like what you said here. I feel like there are multiple processing steps associated with the inner voice. For example:

- Seeing the word
- Pronouncing the word with your inner voice
- “Hearing” the word
- Associating the sound of the word with its meaning
- And shortly thereafter associating the word’s meaning within the context of the sentence, paragraph, etc.

Going from seeing the word to immediately processing all levels of meaning is preferable, but dependent on what you’re reading. For example, I’m reading Eumeswil by Ernst Jünger right now and finding that I’ll get to the end of a paragraph and have no idea what I just read. The meaning escaped me. To address this, I slow down and use the inner voice to allow my interpretive facilities to crunch a little harder. If I’m reading something that requires more thought, I tend to use the inner voice.