/lit/ - Literature

>>14687438
>Not everyone has schizophrenia
Jokes apart, yeah, women are not really humans. Not in the sense men are, at least.

People on this board seriously need to get laid.

>>14687438
What is the point of an internal monologue? I can say stuff in my head if I want but it's so much slower than nonverbal thought.

>>14687466
JESUS CHRIST

>>14687438
All women are NPCs.

>>14687438
Kek. That explains it

You can’t think abstractly when all of your thoughts are being condensed into language, brainlet.

I fucking love that that one paper made the rounds about how some people have an inner monologue and some don't, and the inner monologue tards somehow took that to mean that the people who think conceptually/nonverbally are the NPCs lmao

>>14687548
fuck yeah, dude

>>14687558
I can't comprehend how someone who only thinks "nonverbally" can be anything other than a complete fucking mongoloid.

>>14687481
Im serious. My internal monologue just goes through the same process as the nonverbal one except slower, and I get distracted more easily.

gusi wait no wrong board

>>14687438
Weird me and the women in my family has it. This is gonna sound crazy, but it depends on the person

>>14687567
Have you ever read Plato’s cave allegory? Well basically nonverbal thinkers are the people that can see the sun, and you’re one of the prisoners staring at shadows on the wall.

>>14687438
How did this inner monologue conversation get started? Everytime I see a post about it I can't help but laugh how ridiculous it is to think people even have a inner monologue unless you're a complete schizo. I went all my life without a inner monologue except for when im reading.

>>14687603
You gotta be trolling

>>14687567
That's because you literally have 1D brain, of course you wouldn't be able to comprehend anything greater
I can think verbally when I choose to, and sometimes I automatically do while I'm intoxicated, but by default I think in forms, images, textures, and feelings. By default my creative and/or and problem solving processes subjectively occur as a synesthetic explosion of shifting/aligning abstract forms that represent (I guess?) both the objects of consideration and my thought process itself. I solve problems and generate creative ideas far quicker that way. The alternative is taking the time to think through the problem linguistically, which I typically only find helpful or faster when I need to parse the precise meaning of complicated sentences or mathematical expressions and need to see the structure of it "all at once" in my mind, although once I understand it viscerally it's always faster to switch back to abstract thought

>>14687463
>women are not really humans. Not in the sense men are, at least.
no shit sherlock, thats because the modern concept of a "human being" is just gay liberal bugtalk designed to atomize society. men are men, women are women, and niggers are niggers.

>>14687558
OMG schizos!! I have a non-verbal thought, like, I picture myself the written word in order to think. It's conceptual. If I want to think of a dog, I imagine a little doggy: woof woof! If a door, the word "door" &c. y'all

>>14687466
exactly

>>14687664
You wouldn't want these sour old grapes anyhow, Mr Fox

>>14687603
>DAMN YOU SCHIZOS AND YOUR STUPID EVOLUTIVE FEATURES, WHY CAN'T YOU BE LIKE ME, A CAVEWOMAN WHO HAS TO REPRESENT HERSELF A GOAT IN ORDER TO THINK??

>>14687572
Fucking bait. I don't believe you.

>>14687438
>"don't worry, Anon, you'll find a girl who loves you and comprehends you"
>reading this
>mfw

>>14687599
>another "women are special, men bad. Just look at all the successfull matriarchies in the world" response

>>14687599
You are one of those who can't even think they could be in a cave and thinks everyone who thinks so is a schizo

>>14687718
stop browsing 4chan for women advice

>>14687465
care to help us out there? spread your legs like a ogod gilr gmymm uymm yumm yumm pussy

>>14687663
And you're a subhuman.

>>14687558
The funny thing is that paper was a joke. The people that answered to not having an inner monologue didnt understand the question properly.

>>14687438
>reading OP
>"Oh boy, another incel bait thread"
>read and there are actually women defending their lack of internal monologue
please help

>>14687799
>op pretends to be women to keep his shitty bait thread alive

>>14687628
If you had an inner monologue you wouldn't write such overblown tedious nonsense.

>>14687466
It organizes your day-to-day experiences into a narrative that be easily can be contemplated upon. It's a key component for introspection.

>>14687438
I'm glad I can think and have an inner monologue.

>>14689196
Believe me, you still form narratives when you think abstractly

>>14689215
Lmao

>>14689216
Do you mean >>14687628 when you say think "abstractly"? Thinking in the styles of that is better if you want something spontaneous and creative, as in a conversation or making art. How do you go about planning things in general, though? Like, coming up with a strategy dealing with something that spans over long periods of time?

>>14687438
I don’t think it’s a matter of man or woman, isn’t it just some small percentage of all people that don’t experience an inner monologue?

Does anyone else think in terms of symbolic imagery? Like my mind is a stream images, layered upon dialog, layered upon emotion, layered upon music. In my mind one thing will link upon something else, and it might seem unrelated but it all works together to form intuition. I also day dream a lot, especially when listening to music which helps me think things through.

>>14687558
People who have an inner monologue can also think conceptually/nonverbally.

>>14689279
What do you mean? When I think about the coming weeks or months I conceptualize an abstract shape with different facets representing discrete days/months and recall which events or tasks are assigned to each corresponding facet as words or images overlaid on them. When I’m planning I just take time into account in my usual problem solving method and use the same sorts of abstract form to consider the relevant lengths of time spatially. I’m curious, what does it feel like to perform those tasks through an inner monologue instead?

>>14687438
The fact that this blatantly off-topic thread has not been deleted yet is proof of just how totally shitty /lit/ has gotten.

>>14689313
Yeah but the conceptual thought is structured around a continual guiding monologue, at least according to people I’ve talked to who say they have it. If that’s not the case for you, maybe you’re just be a conceptual thinker who still has the ability and to carry on a monologue and does by default

>>14689279
Not that anon but it's just a sort of...'envisioning' of future possible scenarios. Like flashes of things happening and relating, the only words are usually little connectors like 'if' and 'then' and even they don't always appear, instead a sort of 'ifness' will appear as a mode of thinking. Im extremely paranoid and constantly think about various possible eventualities that involve me having to map the possible motives and actions of a large number of people in complex web of relationships, and its pretty much entirely nonverbal. I imagine specific phrases people might come up with but they're just sort of automatically generated placeholders for a more complex scenario involving a place, a story leading to the mometn, a motive for this person, the effects of the act, etc. I can do an internal monologue about this but it's so slow and lacking in nuance in comparison that it causes me a great deal of anxiety, which I already have due to the paranoia anyway, the desire to think through all the possibilties as quickly and thoroughly as I can.

>>14689341
This is pretty normal, albeit a bit stretched by anxiety/neuroticism monologue thinking. When it comes to parsing the future or potentials I basically project a low res avatar of myself into low res representation of the situation.. The resolution is on the level of "gymness" instead of gym when I think about planning to exercise at a later time. Because material reality is condensed to categorical resolution instead of explicit representation speed increases.

I'm capable of concrete visualization, but it is rarely needed or worth the effort. If I'm creating something physical, I'll go through the effort of constructing it mentally. Both visualization and numerical assignment of measurement. Otherwise I don't bother with anything other than low resolution -ness perceptions.

Another exception would be fantasizing. Like imagining striking images in the present. Stupid shit like dancing cats, what that girl would look like if she was orgasming, or whatever. The source material doesn't need to be present of course. The main hang up monologue thinkers have and why they are freaking out in this thread is we don't do this the majority of our lives.

Monologue thinkers of the lit variety spend a bare minimum time thinking about superfluous bullshit. Our thoughts are directed away from the present to whatever ideas we are meditating on. We start a literal engagement with the idea. It's like nonstop philosophizing without giving a fuck about what is going on in the present except when we need to focus. Then back to philosophizing again. Nueroticism increases the time spent stressing over the present and decreases the time spent parsing reality and trying to make meaning out of the grand order of a lifetime.

>>14689509
In light of this the real question is: Do other people spend time dynamically engaging their thoughts in an attempt to increase their understanding of "causes"? Do they meditate upon cause and effect and synthesize self generated explanations? Or, do they accept an explanation as satisfactory and cease the industry of self examination? Are your values the product of memetic memorization that terminates future discourse or a synthesis of memes and internal dialogue challenging memes?

We're terrified that there are people who exist who accept the memes they encounter as sufficient and terminate all further thought generation on the matter. Our way of challenging memes is through discourse. Maybe nonverbals have a different method?

>>14689332
>maybe you’re just be a conceptual thinker who still has the ability and to carry on a monologue and does by default
What the fuck is the difference then.

I refuse to believe that ANYONE doesnt have an inner monologue. As in you never sub-vocalize words in your head. This retarded article just gave a bunch of people the opportunity to showcase how "quirky" they are, and that they have some special interesting way of thinking.

>>14687438
DO INCELS HAVE THEIR OWN BOARD? OH, THATS RIGHT THEY SURE DO. I WISH LITERATURE HAD ITS OWN BOARD. WEW. WOULDN'T THAT BE SOMETHING? A WHOLE BOARD FOR DISCUSSING LITERATURE AND NOT THE ANTICS OF SEXUALLY REPRESSED ROBOTS. WTF ASIAN-MOOT? WHERES MY BOARD.

>>14687587
IKR!?

>>14689571
We tried to drag the conversation away from incel dichotomy to nonverbal/verbal thinking differences.

>>14689595
This thread should have been deleted hours ago. Why are the mods such shit?

>>14689595
Well, you tried.

>>14689611
They came by to delete the penors, but skipped this thread like it belonged. Sad.

Book thread if anyone’s interested
>>14689483

Why have an internal dialogue when you can have a dialogue with your female friend instead?

>ACTUALLY PEOPLE WHO THINK ARE BAD!

>>14690181
Can I dialogue her internally? Where can I meet one?

>>14687466
So this is why women are bad at philosophy. I constantly have internal philosophical dialogues with myself.

>>14687465
Ejaculation impairs cognitive ability. The smartest men in all history have been celibate. Why would we want to get laid? To turn into a dumb dumb normie like you?