[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / marx / miku / orthodox / sl / wmafsex / wooo ]

/x/ - Paranormal

Oh shit! What was that?
Winner of the 82rd Attention-Hungry Games
/tikilounge/ - Relax, take it easy

June 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Read the rules before posting | Meta thread for discussing /x/ itself | /x/ library | Script that notifies you when a new post is made |

File: ea78b44663c5998⋯.jpg (17.55 KB, 182x268, 91:134, they live 2.jpg)



>Chris Heavey and I gave random beepers to a stratified random sample of 30 students from a large urban university and interviewed them about the characteristics of their randomly selected pristine experiences. Five main characteristics emerged, each occurring in about a quarter of all samples (many samples had more than one characteristic). Three of those five characteristics may not surprise you: inner speech occurred in about a quarter of all samples; inner seeing occurred in about a quarter of all samples; and feelings occurred in about a quarter of all samples. The other two phenomena occurred just as frequently but are not so well known.

>Consider inner speech. Subject experienced themselves as innerly talking to themselves in 26% of all samples, but there were large individual differences: some subjects never experienced inner speech; other subjects experienced inner speech in as many as 75% of their samples. The median percentage across subjects was 20%.

>inner speech occurred in about a quarter of all samples

This means that the average person only thinks in speech about 25% of the time.

Other related links






So it isn't normal that I read books to myself with my inner voice when I read them?



It is normal if there's a voice in your head when you read something. If you didn't have that voice in your head you'd be an NPC. If you can do it without reading you're definitely not an NPC.



even your post was read by a voice.

If I'd knew what your voice would sound like it'd had been your voice reading this post.

Am I save? Am I free of the NPC course?


It is not wrong to read or think with inner voice, it is just counterproductive. You read/think much faster without it.


Okay but what reason is there for identifying with that voice? Who said you exist? The ego sure is a great storyteller but it is full of emptiness and sweet, sweet lies. The illusion being withdrawn, all that is left is what's happening. A voice happens. A distinction can be made from inner and outer voices but these are just inner and outer happenings, and the experience of being a person is a very elaborate happening. Is the experience joyful? Is it frightening? Is it compelling? Persuasive as it is, who is there to fool but more emptiness?



Its nothing to do with reading in your head. Its whether you think in words. If you can't even conceive of it then yeah you may not be real.


I remember reading a theory that in ancient (antediluvian) times, humans thought through images and communicated telepathically, and spoken language is a relatively recent development. I've always thought it was bullshit, but now I don't know any more. Has this study ever been replicated?


File: 646ad5d40212340⋯.jpg (83.7 KB, 680x960, 17:24, Please_do_not_hesitate_to_….jpg)


Interestingly enough I hear my inner voice permanently pretty much apart from when I'm reading. I can make it read the words if I want too but it's slower and less enjoyable for me.


File: d33b99776bc6d45⋯.png (92.63 KB, 274x202, 137:101, Chocolate game.png)


Wait, so some people don't even have the inner voice or vision? I thought that was a factory standard feature across all models. I've always predominantly used my inner voice reading but a lot during thought. Even reading this article there was a lot of, "wtf?" moments. Some people also cant use inner vision, I would watch movies from memory in my minds eye all the time when I was bored as a kid ay school. Holy shit, am I surrounded by NPCs? The funny part is the voices can change, like the reading in someone elses voice thing.



I thought this was standard as well.

Now I'm stuck wondering what exactly happens with these people. There's a fuckton of base implications and it's a bit overwhelming.


It leaves me wondering if the students understood the questions right or what the actual questions looked like. How can you perform homework and tests without being able to think to yourself with images and word? Some people don't have dreams at night, ever, so you may find that to be something interesting to look into.



It's more that most people forget their dreams in the morning because of how long ago they were.



According to one guy, some people don't have dreams according to brain scans. But now that I looked it up, I'm not finding anything. Maybe I was lied to again…


What if your inner voice is really a daemon that possesses you, trying to convince you to do heinous shit?



Inb4 auditory intelligence which will deal with auditory judgment and the ability to create sounds with your mind's ear and mind's mouth.

"Defined as the human audial capacity that provides the ability or mental skill to solve auditory problems, replays tunes as well as recognition of samples."

Well, you see, all those people who created classical music or those who trained by the ear had an auditory intelligence that was miles above of those of normal human being. Har Har Har.

I swear, if this becomes another intelligence, I'll fucking shoot myself.






What's a good and easy way to determine if someone uses inner voice or not?


This sounds like a psyop to get us to hate other "lesser" races. I doubt the validity of the study



Faster is not necessarily better though. In my experience, speed reading impairs reading comprehension.


If you think in words, you have an inner voice.


I didn't read the study, but does it actually say that there was a difference between how various races performed?


File: 25285c50922a629⋯.webm (1.91 MB, 482x360, 241:180, Peter narrating his own l….webm)

File: 3cad8e4615f3d76⋯.pdf (178.16 KB, heavey-hurlburt-2008.pdf)

>some subjects never experienced inner speech

I can’t be the only one who was reminded of Bella from Twilight, right?



>sample size of 30

As worrying as the results may be, I don't think it's quite rational to jump on the bandwagon. The whole "Everyone else is an NPC but me" philosophy is grossly egocentric. At the same time, I can't imagine a human being that doesn't think with inner speech or read with an inner "voice" so to speak.



I didn't read Twilight because I'm not a faggot. I seem to remember from the movie that Edward couldn't read her thoughts for some reason, is that what you're referring to? Or was that True Blood?


The NPC theory would still be true even if this study was disproved. Most people act without thinking, a fact that's been recognised by philosophers and meditation masters for millennia.



Tiny sample size, and also a social "science" / psychology, so take with a huge mountain of salt. Also archive that shit.


A psyop to encourage racism? Who do you think is conducting it, a western government, or the Hitlerian remnant that escaped to the center of the hollow earth in 1945? Because if it's the former I may have some shocking news…


Not clicking that link, but the breakdown on /pol/ said the racial composition was more or less similar to the american population. With a sample size of thirty, they would never dare try to distinguish differential performance of races (there would be about 4 or 5 groids in a sample of 30, not nearly enough to draw conclusions, then again they shouldn't be drawing any conclusions with a sample of thirty anyway). There was also no distinction made between whites and non-whites.

So pretty much any way you slice it, their controls were sub par and sample size minuscule, not worth worrying about until we can be more certain.

Rule 2

Post last edited at


Idk what to make of this. I usually think in words but i prefer and have been trying not to. It seems like a waste of time when you think about it. Words are there to describe the instantaneously created paragraphs and paragraphs of thoughts and feelings to OUTSIDERS. If you already have the understanding of what your thought are, then why would you bother thinking the words up, when you already understand it yourself? Just absorb that understanding and move onto the next feeling/thought. Straight connection to the subconscious rather than dealing with the buffer of english.


HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.

Fast thinking= Don't talk internally

Slow thinking= Talk internally

Unless you are an aussie "have to move my arm aproximately 90 degrees on y axis, open palm, hit face"



There is a second entry on the blog about "unsymbolized thinking" but it doesn´t says much


If someone have more informationa about this abstract way of thinking I would love to see it



>I would watch movies from memory in my minds eye all the time when I was bored as a kid

Holy shit I used to do the same thing, I thought I was the only one. I know terminator 2 play by play right down to the specific sound effects.



So there are different ways of thinking? Would that mean that the people who don't have an inner voice could possibly be redeemed as not being an NPC with few conditions?


I work on a mall and the next local have loud music outside that I avoid listening like regueton, it´s about15 different songs repeating all day long for the past month. Now I have those stupid songs stuck in my head and I have found myself singing those songs in my mind instead of having an inner talk.

Could it be that people with no inner voice just sings stupid catchy songs all the time in their minds?


File: d6cfc18a43c9288⋯.gif (904.25 KB, 500x532, 125:133, 1497460109661.gif)


Christ….I did the same thing.


they are literally not human

souless golems



no thats just the alien parasite


File: 09a5768b90fba6c⋯.jpg (918.46 KB, 1600x1584, 100:99, panopticon pointsdactu-do….jpg)

An inner voice is like an intermediary step. It's useful at times, but it has drawbacks as well. Particularly while reading, an "inner voice" is a symptom of subvocalization, which slows down reading speed/comprehension. Subvocalizing limits your reading speed to a maximum of around 140wpm (the fastest you could possibly talk under any conditions), because your vocal cords are in fact moving along with the text. Speedreading techniques focus on eliminating this bad habit and instead read sentences/paragraphs as whole pictures, translating the information much more quickly in your head.

Another important gap to overcome is the "all voices are one because they sound the same" illusion. The voice that is listening is never the one speaking, and the speaking voice is always hearing itself. Translating the catalyst:

This is the secret of three. As I speak to you, I am also speaking to me, this creates three.


File: 13e455cb5848029⋯.jpg (48.72 KB, 500x759, 500:759, mekey.jpg)


>having a voice in your head constantly narrating every single action you do and every single thought you have

>this makes you less of an NPC

I'd argue that having a voice in your head constantly reading off a script of your actions makes you more an NPC than less of one.

"Inner voices" take many different forms and can still exist even if they are not traditional narrating voices like you're playing fucking Divinity: Original Sin. Yikes.



i have my voice

then the alien parasite

both hate the elite rip


File: 19fe5623b1e998e⋯.png (697.48 KB, 733x1000, 733:1000, pumpkinmin.png)


>alien parasite in my head

Always reminds me of Duncan Trussells NasaJim youtube parody channel thing from back in the day.




Honestly think the NPC meme is BS. Before my mental illness kicked in I would have inner speech although I now I haven't heard it in years.


I'm constantly thinking in words. Most of the time it's just "What the fuck!? Holy shit! Oh God, make it stop!" and screaming.



an 'inner voice' is mainly the ability to think in words, as opposed to thinking only in base emotions

for instance, those with an inner voice may have meaningful, in-depth discussions with themselves

it is required for any and all advanced thought


File: db5b3f23009d380⋯.png (353.62 KB, 1310x2779, 1310:2779, kleeng.png)


Advanced thought requires a multi-linguistic model of self-communication. Verbal is 1/3rd of the equation. You need to be able think in pictures, actions and words. Any one of the three is missing the full picture.




Go back to the closet Tom Cruise.




they don't know they are human shells, the only way they can be like us is by trying to mimic what we do, they literally can't create anything new, only copy what they see and redo it over and over to make it look right.


File: cb0339885593b61⋯.jpg (305 KB, 1028x579, 1028:579, steve rambo fallout.jpg)


Halloween is coming up. That means there are plenty of spooky games we can play in the closet.



>playing manbaby videogame

Can you be more incel?



creating a tulpa, not even once



isn't thought through imagery faster than thought through speech? If I think apple the act of saying apple in my head takes longer than the flashing image of an apple. I say this as someone who has internal monologue but it feels slow and clumsy.



Because when you think "apple" basic information about apples, such as what an apple looks like, is processed first. When you think "apple" through speech the Broca's area of the brain now has to translate the concept of "apple" into language, hence >>41503.


This. Some people subconsciously think in words even when they have no intention to communicate, while others think mostly in images.



That makes no sense at all whatsoever. Reading words without speech is not something that is done by anyone, at any time. Language is AUDITORY, it is structured into visual cues simply to stimulate the appearance to the mind of being SPOKEN TO, and in order for that to take place, the visual cues (words) MUST be translated into auditory signals in the brain in order for it to be processed as language AT ALL. This is true for all languages, and it is true even for languages without syllabaries or alphabets (such as Chinese).


File: 9fb63e271415072⋯.gif (1.69 MB, 244x249, 244:249, I'm Here to DANCE.gif)


You're talking about non-verbal thought. But that is not necessarily not verbal. It can be verbal for the purpose of being more clearly defined or made into more permanent form. For if I see something and can notice all of its nuances, then perhaps I can recall it precisely and in detail, and perhaps I can reenact it if it were, say, the movements of Agent 47 as he did some spins on a dance floor. But if I can't demonstrate it holographically, if I can't project the vision from my head into another head, then I have to be able to use words to describe it. And that requires a special kind of thought that translates experience into language. If it is well-developed, it becomes easier to do, and in fact augments the ability to perceive if it becomes strong enough, because it gives a dual lexicon for ongoing experiences. I can see his spuriously flashy, arrogantly curt spinning moves without being able to say those words to describe it, but if I have those words to describe it, then I don't lose the non-verbal component.

It is good to have both. If I have the verbal component, it indexes the experience which becomes no less real, but even more salient because it has nodes of artificially created designations that map onto and chart the overall structure of the experience. So someone might just say that Agent 47 went up to the dance floor and did a dance, but that doesn't say much. And if they don't have a very powerful intuitive visual memory, they may even begin to lose that image themselves. But if they can describe it well, then they can theoretically name every aspect of the event. Including the way that his tie swung around diffidently as if to slap the faces of the onlooking crowd of stunned NPCs, who for some reason all froze like a like a herd of antelope all trying to determine the threat that was before them. Mesmerized, they watched his entire sequence of rapid, rigid, and whiplike spinning, and moved immediately after, and only after he left the floor, just as curtly as he came.




But you two are talking about ACTIONS that needn't be verbally described in order to be done. The index of thought for that is simply voluntary motor planning, or when it is not necessary it is done automatically. But when there is a sequence of ideas that must be brought into play and applied to concrete reality in a specific way not automatically known, or when such ideas must be related to one another in a way not systematically prescribed by some set of internalized rules (like when doing some logic proof), then one must either visualize the sequences of events or the process of the ideas and their relations to one another or those events, or one must at least hit the highlights that could be described in words. And one can do this without words, and would have to in order to reach insights faster whether to go further in thought in a short time for the sake of epiphany or to engage in brisk action or fast decisions. But to fail to see that there is an intimate relation between language and thought that has a unique aspect that REQUIRES language to be actively engaged would be simply not understand language.

Language creates a permanent objective form which, when structured well and in a way that is PHILOSOPHICALLY rich (as in has a semantic and syntactic structure that builds a dynamic ontology parallel to reality and not merely a set of ad hoc labelling), then you have something much more vast than simple intuitions.

<The days of treating language and linearity as being soul-less and merely formal extrusions of passion-less thought are OVER



If someone else was going to the store and I needed something, I could browse the shelves in the store in my mind and see everything they sold. Dunno if it was remote viewing or photographic memory though.



i also hear my inner voice permanently, all the time, the only way he shuts the fuck up is if i like focus on breathing or something, its really hard to get myself to shut up inside my head.. i thought this was normal



lol, the cope.



did this with old episodes of Garfield, thought I was the only one till today





The entire concept of 'shut off your brain' or enjoying 'mindless entertainment' is a concept I can't wrap my mind around too. It's never quiet up here. I'm also somewhat resistant to talmudvision tricks. Is this just a part of having above-average intelligence or are they, as they say, NPCs?



How does one think without an inner voice? It seems like it'd be really hard to do. Whenever I think or do anything, there's an inner voice the vast majority of the time - me, I assume, or variation thereof. Maybe not when I'm grabbing a cup of water, but I actively think "water sounds like a good idea right now".

I can't imagine not thinking in words, or ideas. I challenge my thoughts, too, usually. Does anyone else do this?



No idea. Even when I'm watching something I know "quiets" my mind, or distracts me, I'll get inner dialogue or thoughts. The older I get, the more frequent it is. Sometimes, though, I can achieve total, mindless consumption. It's nice to just… not think once in a while.

But I can't imagine doing it all the time, or even half of the time. I can't even fathom it. I always have a game plan for my day, a way I process the world and how I think about things, usually with said inner voice. Sometimes I do it visually, but there's always something going on in my head, testing the "what ifs" of the world, consequences to those, where I fit in, etc.


File: c5933dc001cdaee⋯.jpg (19.13 KB, 500x607, 500:607, 2k48t0.jpg)

I'm probably the closest thing to a real npc you guys will meet. I barely use inner speech outside of reading/writing. I've never had what this article describes as a inner narrator, I mostly just know what I'm thinking without words or images. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inviting-monkey-tea/201710/how-quiet-the-little-voice-in-your-head.

I have total aphantasia and sdam. I can't imagine a dot or a line or a color or any sounds beyond poorly trying to imitate the sound in my inner speech and can't play songs in my head besides just singing it to myself with no instruments. I can't re-experiance memories with any sense beyond just factually knowing the event happened semantically.

I have very little emotions as well. I can slightly feel anger, I can cry and I can feel adrenaline rush fear, that's about it. 99% of the time I feel nothing. I have no idea what things like love, depression, guilt or anxiety feel like and have never felt what people describe as butterflies in the stomach. https://mosaicscience.com/story/life-without-emotions-alexithymia-interoception/



How intelligent are you? Seems like those conditions would make you retarded.



So, what's going on in your mind when you're not focusing on doing something in particular? Nothing? You say you can't feel love, not even for your parents or friends? Can you still feel sexual attraction?


I do experience inner thought and will sometimes have conversations with myself. Until reading this article I didn't know this was not how everyone thought.

It is fascinating to discover that levels of consciousness vary within individuals of the same species, but I guess we should not be surprised.

I think it's important to note that "NPCs" are not necessarily less intelligent, creative, or "feeling" than a player-character.

The analogy that came to mind for me was a black-out drunk person that is actually sober. Or perhaps they are as very young children, with all the thoughts, memories, and motivations of a PC, but just having no "ghost" to tie it all together into a stream-of-consciousness perception of being. Speaking of which, do y'all remember when you "came online", so to speak? I was 4.



Poorly made experiments.



My inner voice gets annoying so I envy these people sometimes



My inner voice is objective and ruthless towards me



I hope you get to feel one day tinman



I see what you mean by your statement, but I have a retort. Amongst all other things that are happening within an "information overload" society, things seem to accelerate exponentially. If you can not slow down and interpret your thoughts in a thorough manner, you miss the perspective of knowing the self. I also tend to find that as information speeds up, it almost coincidentally pushes you to function as a machine rather than a critical component to our existence with original thought. If reading a whole paragraph at a time is "efficient", then I propose that not maintaining an inner dialogue allows the superficial message to be clear without the meaning in subliminals. A dynamic that is critical in discovering truth from lies and deception. Being able to discuss within yourself what information you are taking in allows deeper understanding and assists in formulation of new ideas and new solutions. Being capable of reading as fast as possible, and "free" from internal dialogue, does not seem likely to me that concepts and perspectives can truly be understood nor challenges when one finds a contradiction in said information.



that is normal. reading without doing this (subvocalizing) is what's called speed reading.



Is it normal that I have arguments with inner voice and used to make

in my head?


I don't know what my own voice sounds like. Should I be worried?



Lost of people don't understand. They merely memorize. All they do is talk in quotation and references. No inherent thought.



This is skewed, they left out that its cause these people end up in the zone and the other times when they do have internal monologue see aydin paladin for another look at the study these morons misread.



Just means yer arguing schizo or just maybe you dislike your higher self's advice.



>thinking in words and being restrained by language

>not thinking in concepts and thinking as fast as your brain can



I just read your post without talking to myself. How do you explain that?



this, you're a retard if you think that converting a thought into a restrictive language every time you think is somehow better



>The whole "Everyone else is an NPC but me" philosophy is grossly egocentric.

Yea, welcome to the 21st century where everyone is unique and holds their own very personal "truths".

>At the same time, I can't imagine a human being that doesn't think with inner speech or read with an inner "voice" so to speak.

You're taught in speed reading to shut your inner voice (subvocalization) off to increase speed. Reading with your inner voice is unnecessary as your brain will still understand the words without the read-along.




This is flat out wrong. Everytime you approach a STOP sign, you actually read and subvocalize the word STOP or do you just stop? When walking through the mall and a store has a big SALE sign, do you subvocalize sAlE for every sign? Of course, not unless you're some retard. Subvocalization is optional in reading.



Same, I assumed it was my austisticigism.



"This means that the average person only thinks in speech about 25% of the time."

So…you think that because other people have multiple forms of inner thought processing, THEY'RE NPCs…but not you since your statement appears to insinuate you are limited merely to inner dialog?

Like, without any hyperbole at all…you might be 'tarded.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / marx / miku / orthodox / sl / wmafsex / wooo ]