What inner speech is, and why philosophy is waking up to it

[Nearly Sane]

When I found out not everyone had am inner voice, or on my case voices, I stuggled and still do to even imagine what ot is like. I think we often make the too easy assumption that, while we may not know what it is like to be a bat, it is fairly easy to know what being a person is like as we are basically the same. One thing that often comes across strongly when I read Alan Burns on free will is that what it is like to be me and him have significant differences.

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-speech-philosophy.html

[Outrider]

When I found out not everyone had am inner voice, or on my case voices, I stuggled and still do to even imagine what ot is like. I think we often make the too easy assumption that, while we may not know what it is like to be a bat, it is fairly easy to know what being a person is like as we are basically the same. One thing that often comes across strongly when I read Alan Burns on free will is that what it is like to be me and him have significant differences.

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-speech-philosophy.html

As the chair of a neurodiversity working group at my work-place, the variation in the mechanics of how people think amazes me. For me it was finding out that these people who have that inner monologue are 'hearing' their own voice (usually) inside their head boggled me - I see text, and I see different voices in different typefaces. I've worked with people who recognised voices because of the colour that it invokes... we're so, so far from understanding exactly how we work it's crazy.

O.

[splashscuba]

When I found out not everyone had am inner voice, or on my case voices, I stuggled and still do to even imagine what ot is like. I think we often make the too easy assumption that, while we may not know what it is like to be a bat, it is fairly easy to know what being a person is like as we are basically the same. One thing that often comes across strongly when I read Alan Burns on free will is that what it is like to be me and him have significant differences.

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-speech-philosophy.html

I also recently found out that some people do not have an inner monologue. It is incredibly hard to imagine how that works, for me, so really makes me think about how I try to empathise with others and to not assume someone's thoughts are the same as mine.

Another interesting thing is that I can visualize people's faces in my mind (my daughter can as well), but my wife can't.

[Nearly Sane]

As the chair of a neurodiversity working group at my work-place, the variation in the mechanics of how people think amazes me. For me it was finding out that these people who have that inner monologue are 'hearing' their own voice (usually) inside their head boggled me - I see text, and I see different voices in different typefaces. I've worked with people who recognised voices because of the colour that it invokes... we're so, so far from understanding exactly how we work it's crazy.

O.

I'm very dubious of the term neurodivergent because it presupposes neurotypical. Conceptually I think it might be better to think of people as being neurocongruent with certain circumstances but that may not apply in different citcumstances or diffetent terms for reasons that might be external, internal or a mixture of both.

[Outrider]

I'm very dubious of the term neurodivergent because it presupposes neurotypical.

Society already presupposes neurotypicality, and the social effects of being outside of that are immediately obvious to anyone who exists there. It's not scientific term, to my understand, it's a social one.

Implicit in the concept is the admission that we're on several broad spectra of mental faculties, I'd agree, but implicit in that acknowledgement is that there's a centre-ground and some fringes on each of those spectra, and society has always managed to differentiate between those two, even if the boundaries aren't recognised or understood.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I also recently found out that some people do not have an inner monologue. It is incredibly hard to imagine how that works, for me, so really makes me think about how I try to empathise with others and to not assume someone's thoughts are the same as mine.

Another interesting thing is that I can visualize people's faces in my mind (my daughter can as well), but my wife can't.

I remember the effect reading The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat by Oliver Sacks had. It made it obvious that often it's only when there is a severe failure do ee get to see the huge complexity of what is to think and be conscious. That's where I first read about synaesthesia which I have to extent with numbers, and from Outrider's post, I would think he has some form of.

I think the vast majority of people aren't necessarily ever in a position where it would be thought of, or they would question whether they think 'normally' or how they think.

Possibly that is a good thing.

[Nearly Sane]

Society already presupposes neurotypicality, and the social effects of being outside of that are immediately obvious to anyone who exists there. It's not scientific term, to my understand, it's a social one.

Implicit in the concept is the admission that we're on several broad spectra of mental faculties, I'd agree, but implicit in that acknowledgement is that there's a centre-ground and some fringes on each of those spectra, and society has always managed to differentiate between those two, even if the boundaries aren't recognised or understood.

O.

I think that's enormously simplistic. As already noted it assumes that circumstances and individuals are fairly static. As we have moved to a more complex idea of mind, I think we've moved into an easy label of neurodivergent/neurotypical and my unease with that is in no way assuaged by that being a social rather than a scientific label. Rather it is made worse as I think we try and imlement social policies based on a pseudoscientific justification that relies on self diagnosis, often of very complex conditions.

[Outrider]

I think that's enormously simplistic.

Much of what societies do is.

As already noted it assumes that circumstances and individuals are fairly static.

Arguably. I'd argue, as you would, that this is wrong, but at the practical level of going out and operating in that society, rather than sitting at home typing about it, THE REST OF SOCIETY is making those judgements and operating upon them. You and I can both agree that's simplistic, but that doesn't change the fact that it's happening.

As we have moved to a more complex idea of mind, I think we've moved into an easy label of neuriduvergent/neurotypical and my unease with that is in no way assuaged by that being a social rather than a scientific label.

Academia and, to an extent, healthcare have moved to a more complex idea of mind. Education is starting on that journey. But the workplace? Families? Which 'we' you think about makes that statement range anywhere from absolute certainty to blatantly false.

Rather it is made worse as I think we try and imlement social policies based on a pseudoscientific justification that relies on self diagnosis, often of very complex conditions.

If you want to implement policies you need to structure them in a way that they will be implemented, you need social acceptance. If that means adopting the language of everyday even whilst you try to illuminate the nuances and distinctions that's what you do.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Much of what societies do is.

Arguably. I'd argue, as you would, that this is wrong, but at the practical level of going out and operating in that society, rather than sitting at home typing about it, THE REST OF SOCIETY is making those judgements and operating upon them. You and I can both agree that's simplistic, but that doesn't change the fact that it's happening.

Academia and, to an extent, healthcare have moved to a more complex idea of mind. Education is starting on that journey. But the workplace? Families? Which 'we' you think about makes that statement range anywhere from absolute certainty to blatantly false.

If you want to implement policies you need to structure them in a way that they will be implemented, you need social acceptance. If that means adopting the language of everyday even whilst you try to illuminate the nuances and distinctions that's what you do.

O.

Not sure where adopting the language of the everyday justifies self diagnosis of complex conditions, or perhaps that's not what you are saying?

[Outrider]

Not sure where adopting the language of the everyday justifies self diagnosis of complex conditions, or perhaps that's not what you are saying?

I'd never suggest that 'neurodiversity' was a diagnosis - as I say, it's a social cue rather than a scientific or medical one. It encompasses a number of 'formal' diagnoses which can go as far as being disability diagnoses (autism, ADHD) some atypical neurological effects or experiences (synaesthesia, aphantasia) and some conditions which probably (to my knowledge, at least) don't ever present seriously enough to qualify as disabilities but are medically recognised (prosopagnosia).

Being semi-active in and around various autism movements and charities, reference to neurotypicality are the norm there, when you need to make the distinction, and from there I've seen it expand into other areas.

And, for clarity - and if it wasn't clear I apologise - I don't get any synaesthetic effects myself, though I know people who do, but I am aphantasic and I have that unusual internal manifestation of my stream of consciousness.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd never suggest that 'neurodiversity' was a diagnosis - as I say, it's a social cue rather than a scientific or medical one. It encompasses a number of 'formal' diagnoses which can go as far as being disability diagnoses (autism, ADHD) some atypical neurological effects or experiences (synaesthesia, aphantasia) and some conditions which probably (to my knowledge, at least) don't ever present seriously enough to qualify as disabilities but are medically recognised (prosopagnosia).

Being semi-active in and around various autism movements and charities, reference to neurotypicality are the norm there, when you need to make the distinction, and from there I've seen it expand into other areas.

And, for clarity - and if it wasn't clear I apologise - I don't get any synaesthetic effects myself, though I know people who do, but I am aphantasic and I have that unusual internal manifestation of my stream of consciousness.

O.

We're obviously not doing great at communicating - I didn't mean to suggest that neurodivergence was the 'self diagnosis, but that a number of conditions that are grouped under neurodivergence are then self diagnosed, sometimes with little effect beyond a Tik Tok but some having important political effects such as ranking on regional lists.