.

avatar
(Edited)

x



0
0
0.000
4 comments
avatar

I have both present, although the internal dialogue far outweighs the visual. The visual seems to become more active when it is working in tandem with the dialogue. I became interested in the internal dialogue as a teen reading the Castaneda books. He recommended stalking the internal dialogue, as he asserted the mind wasn't ours, but a foreign installation. His premise was if we stalked the thoughts inside, we would be able to see them as separate, as well as understand that they are not us, but a tool that for many has become a jailer.

On a side note, while I never considered not everyone has an internal dialogue as mentioned here, it doesn't surprise me. I now wonder if men are more prone to the internal dialogue than women. My significant other is what I have always called heart smart. She has an uncanny knack for arriving at correct conclusions without having the necessary data to have done so. My mom is the same way.

Thank you for a most interesting read.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the reply!

I became interested in the internal dialogue as a teen reading the Castaneda books. He recommended stalking the internal dialogue, as he asserted the mind wasn't ours, but a foreign installation. His premise was if we stalked the thoughts inside, we would be able to see them as separate, as well as understand that they are not us, but a tool that for many has become a jailer.

Sounds interesting. I hadn't heard of Castaneda. Will have to look into his writings.

I now wonder if men are more prone to the internal dialogue than women

I was wondering that too, but I'm saving that search for another day. ; -)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

hi
this is an important topic
and thanks for the info provided in the post. It was useful for me.

"In reality, it seems that many people actually use both modes of thinking in differing degrees."

just would like to try to add something useful to the info already provided in the post.

According to the info provided in the book called "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
there're 2 modes of thinking :
1/
fast
this one happens automatically. It evolves from the animals.
This type of thinking is the subject to errors/biases.
I suppose it corresponds to the thinking with the help of images/visual thinking.

2/
slow
This is the opposite of that mentioned above.
I suppose it corresponds to the thinking with the help of words/narrative.

So, I believe it's very unlikely that some people might have just the first one/one.
Because the 2nd one/both of them is what makes us human.

The research summarised in the paper
"Dissociation of Mechanisms Underlying Syllogistic Reasoning"
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11034858-dissociation-of-mechanisms-underlying-syllogistic-reasoning/)
provides some evidence/basis for the info given by Kaneman.

According to that info, there're 2 theories of thinking:
1/ mental logic
"The claim here is that deductive reasoning is a rule governed syntactic process where internal representations
preserve structural properties of linguistic strings in which the premises are stated."
I'd say it's like in programming we have the words (if, then, function etc.) which are part of the programming language itself.

This theory corresponds to narration/inner-voice mentioned in the post.

2/ mental model (developed by Philip N. Johnson-Laird. He wrote a book called "How we reason")

" The claim is that deductive reasoning is a process requiring spatial manipulation and search.
Mental model theory is often referred to as a spatial hypothesis and predicts that the
neural structures for visuo-spatial processing contribute the basic
representational building-blocks used for logical reasoning"
This theory corresponds to visual thinking.

As far as I know, the authors of the paper came to a conclusion that both theories works together.
which corresponds to the statement given in the post
"In reality, it seems that many people actually use both modes of thinking in differing degrees."

"And now, the obvious discussion question."

"What mode(s) of thinking do you use?"

I believe I use both of them.
Visual Thinking happens in the first place and then with the help of language I can correct errors/biases produced by the fast automatic visual one.
this is what I think happens in my mind.

As for "A second article that I found, An asymmetrical relationship between verbal and visual thinking:
Converging evidence from behavior and fMRI is behind a paywall, so I could only read the Abstract, which says:"

I downloded it here
https://scihub.bban.top/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811917302379

click "сохранить" on th left if the download didn't start.

Sci-Hub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub
https://scihub.bban.top/

they periodically shut down it, so there's
https://whereisscihub.now.sh/

allows to get access to all the papers/articles.

I understand it's not very good, because scientists need money.
but sometimes I think we can use it if we really need it.
I suppose in the near future blockchain will allow scientists to get $ for their efforts
so that they wouldn't need to set paywalls.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the reply!

I appreciate the additional perspectives that you brought to the topic.

Thinking, Fast and Slow has been on my to-read list for a long time, but it hadn't occurred to me in relationship to these particular blog posts. One of these days I hope I'll make time for it. And now I guess I'll have to add, How we reason, too. I think both would be fascinating.

Also, I really hope you're right that blockchain will eventually move scientific publishing out from behind paywalls and into the open.

0
0
0.000