83
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 24 points 1 week ago

Just because you don't have an inner monologue doesn't mean you are incapable of thought, or showerthoughts if we're getting specific

[-] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Correct, a lack of inner speech isn't the same as an absence of thought

It just seems like a true shower thought requires a narration to get so incredibly off tangent that it amounts to more than a simple epiphany

Like Mitch Hedberg, he is a great example of someone who let their inner speech run free

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 6 points 1 week ago

https://mander.xyz/post/20289088

I'd still argue against that. I've had one true showerthought and it didn't manifest as monologue, even though I do have an internal monologue. I had a concept and images for it. I spent some time trying to put it into words.

I still don't see how a showerthought (or any thought) has to have a verbal origin in the thinker's mind; I would argue any internal monologue is but a secondary step after a thought has occurred. I've never heard of anyone being unable to predict what their own internal monologue is saying, and I've never heard of anyone being unable to make quick decisions because they had to first hear a command in their minds.

[-] kirkoman@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago

Google gave me mostly AI slop and pop psychology, but this article is an in-depth summary of the literature on the topic of inner speech, for anyone interested (and dedicated - it’s long and very technical).

It doesn’t seem to justify dichotomizing people into those who “have it” and those who don’t. Research looks mostly focused on what cognitive or developmental purpose it serves.

Inner speech can be defined as the subjective experience of language in the absence of overt and audible articulation. This definition is necessarily simplistic: as the following will demonstrate, experiences of this kind vary widely in their phenomenology, their addressivity to others, their relation to the self, and their similarity to external speech.

So, it’s on a spectrum, highly subjective, and difficult to talk about with precision.

I personally do not normally think in words, but I certainly rehearse/relive conversations. I also complain to myself with words when I am really miserable, I think it’s comforting to “say it out loud” (inside). Do I have an inner monologue?

[-] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

You just described how you monologue like a villian in your head, so yeah you're monologueing xD

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

A spectrum is what I'm thinking. Some people can turn it on or off at will. Complete silence or make it yap yap yap. At least that's my case.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

I process thoughts visually, as typed text. It’s like a fucking ticker tape when I get going having random thoughts and I definitely experience shower thoughts.

[-] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Conservatives explained.

[-] teft@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Lack of inner monologue doesn’t mean lack of thoughts. People without an inner monologue just don’t think in words. They can still think up concepts and ideas like everyone else.

[-] Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

As someone with an inner monologue, how do they think?

[-] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In pictures, for one example

[-] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago

I refuse to believe this statistic. The only way to study this is by asking people and I bet most simply aren't aware that they do have it. I didn't pay much attention to it either untill I started meditating and now I'm painfully aware of it.

[-] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

In addition to in-depth interviews, one of the primary methods used in the study was for volunteers to carry a timer that would go off randomly and they were to journal what they were thinking at the time

The thoughts of someone without an inner monologue are not the same as someone with an inner monologue

[-] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

That’s still just asking people, which isn’t exactly the most scientific method. If you were to stop me and ask what I was thinking, a lot of the time I wouldn’t be able to tell you - but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t thinking. Thinking without being consciously aware of it is basically what I’m doing all day, every day. It's mostly when I try to just be and let the world come to me that I become aware of how quickly I get lost in thought.

[-] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Probably a good thing they asked volunteers interested in the study to do it instead of someone such as yourself, who isn't.

I remember the researcher saying that it took some time for the participants to get used to the routine of being mindful of their thoughts and journaling at the drop of a hat

I know I wouldn't want to do that either

[-] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago

Probably a good thing they asked volunteers interested in the study to do it instead of someone such as yourself, who isn’t.

Ignoring the ad hominem, I don’t see how that’s supposed to be an argument against what I said - it only highlights that the participants weren’t even randomly selected. If you're cherry-picking participants, there’s even less reason to generalize the findings to the entire population.

As I mentioned in my other comment: you could just as easily run a study asking people to self-report whether they have a blind spot in their visual field, and everyone would say no - and everyone would be wrong.

Just because someone isn’t aware of something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I’m not asking you to change your opinion - I’m simply saying I’m highly skeptical of it.

[-] MinorLaceration@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Do people without an inner monologue "hear" the words they read as they read them?

[-] modeler@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Many people do not hear as they read. In fact the skill of speed-reading depends on turning the auditory experience off:

There are three types of reading:

  • Subvocalization: sounding out each word internally, as reading to oneself. This is the slowest form of reading.
  • Auditory reading: hearing out the read words. This is a faster process.
  • Visual reading: understanding the meaning of the word, rather than sounding or hearing. This is the fastest process.

Subvocalization readers (Mental readers) generally read at approximately 250 words per minute, auditory readers at approximately 450 words per minute and visual readers at approximately 700 words per minute. Proficient readers are able to read 280–350 wpm without compromising comprehension.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading

[-] MinorLaceration@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Nice. I'm definitely in the auditory reading category. I tend to just pick out the key words in a sentence when I am trying to read faster.

[-] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

As a child and into my teens, I had an inner monologue that was switched on all the time. After practising meditation and reading without subvocalisation, I was finally able to 'shut up' where stopping the monologue was as easy as stopping talking. Anyway, I'd encourage anyone to give it a try. Now being able to think without distracting chatter is well worth it for me.

[-] JackLSauce@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I distinctly recall thinking inner monologues were a "neat idea" after seeing them on TV as a child and thinking it would be a useful skill to learn. I never did though

[-] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I was today years old when I learned that many people don't have an inner monologue. The human body is so fascinating.

Oddly enough, if I don't take my ADHD meds, I tend to talk to myself out loud a lot because my inner monologue gets kind of "muffled" in the "noise" and I rely on it very heavily to think through.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

when I learned

You didn't learn anything...

You saw a random social media post and instantly believed what it said

What the fuck is wrong with people?

[-] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

... Are you suggesting we are incapable of thought? My mind wanders just like anyone else's.

[-] ChexMax@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Wait am I confused on what an inner monologue is? Is it different from a train of thought? Do I just think I have one? Do people have a non metaphorical inner monologue where they physically hear thoughts? What percent are they in control of the thoughts?

If your mind wanders, isn't that the inner monologue?

[-] cholesterol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The inner monologue is thinking by 'hearing' your own voice 'speaking' in your mind. It's the mental equivalent of literally talking to yourself.

Do people have a non metaphorical inner monologue where they physically hear thoughts?

Yes, in the sense that they hear themselves 'voicing' out their own thoughts. If you have the ability to form images in your mind, it's like that, but with sound.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Is it just quiet all the time?

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Nah, I get background music because I don’t need “sound” for my thoughts. Generally it’s nice, sometimes it’s baby shark

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Sometimes it's only baby shark D:

[-] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

In my case, in the sense of "hearing" then yes. I still have thoughts and my mind wanders and whatnot; it just doesn't need something else overtop of that

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

That's what's confusing me, unless I'm specifically trying to create an image, hearing me talk to myself is all I got going on in there. What am I missing out on?

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago

I remember as a kid, hearing the phrase "Don't think about elephants" and elephants being the only thing I could possibly think of.

I don't know when exactly, but by 40, I had learned to shut off my inner monologue. I realized it when I came across that phrase again, and realized that I could, indeed, consciously stop thinking about elephants.

[-] SolidShake@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago
[-] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago

You don't have to. It's a thoroughly researched study, your belief in its existence is irrelevant.

[-] Acamon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I think you are completely misrepresenting the literature in the field. There has been decades of research on inner monologues, but whether anyone truly has no inner monologue is still a matter of debate, and suggesting that it could be as much as 50% is absolutely wild.

One recent example is Nedergaard and Lupyan (2024), who used questionnaires on 1,037 participants and found no one who reported a complete lack of inner speech. They did show a link between lower frequency of internal speech and lower performance on sole verbal cognitive tasks.

But this was frequently misreported in popular science news, which may be where you got the idea. For example, Science Daily's headline "People without an inner voice have poorer verbal memory" and subheading "Between 5-10 per cent of the population do not experience an inner voice" certainly make some bold claims (although still well below your "up to 50%" statistic). But just a few lines into the article it's been rephrase as "between 5-10 per cent of the population do not have the same experience of an inner voice". This is more accurate, as all studies agree that there is a variety of experiences of inner voices / monologues, but a different experience is not the same as an absence.

In another comment you make reference to the experience sampling study (where a buzzer would sound and participants would record whether they were experiencing an inner monologue) which I assume is the work of Heavey and Hurlburt. It's true that they claim that 5 of their 30 participants recorded no instances of inner voice, but let's be clear about what the experimental procedure was: the participant would turn on the buzzer, which would buzz at a random time (an average of every 30 minutes) and the study was based on two periods of five samples. So, ten data points collected over approx five hours.

Even people with strong inner monologues report different frequencies of inner speech depending on their activities. Many people do not experience inner speech when actively engaging in other verbal activity - talking with friends, watching a video; while quiet focused activities such as golf show much higher reporting of inner speech. So the absence for five individuals of any inner speech during those ten particular samples is in no sense equievlant to "16% of peole have no inner monologue". Indeed even the study's authors acknowledge "it is possible that these participants may all have actually had quite similar inner experiences; it is merely the reports of those experiences that differed."

Tldr: I think you're making some very wild claims about this subject, without posting sources. No significant study I know of claims that any sizable percentage of the population have no inner voice, (although there certainly is an interesting variety in how frequent and clearly it is experienced.)

[-] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

Internal monologue is entirely a subjective experience, and I don’t think there’s any other way to study it than by asking people. Just because someone isn’t consciously aware of it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Just like if we asked people whether they have a blind spot in their visual field, everyone would say no - and everyone would be wrong.

[-] 200ok@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I can't tell whether I'm envious or scared

[-] GooberEar@lemmy.wtf -3 points 1 week ago

I think it's more than half, and I think the other half just touches themselves in private areas too taboo to mention on a Christian oriented site like Lemmy. Let's just say, stay away from the devil' jewels kiddos.

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

You're in the right lemmy instance I see

this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
83 points (90.3% liked)

Showerthoughts

35938 readers
636 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS