How does /lit/ think?

[Anonymous No.16003029]

I always thought everyone experienced a stream of consciousness. The latter kind seem like NPCs.

[Anonymous No.16003044]

imagine being so lonely you develop an internal narrative

[Anonymous No.16003045]

>>16003029
My internal dialogue is flashes of colour and light that I interpret the same as any spoken language. Do you seriously think in sentences? Like read out loud in your own voice? How the fuck does that work? That sounds like the NPC version of thinking

[Anonymous No.16003055]

>no internal monologue
>internal monologue
>mixed

[Anonymous No.16003057]

>>16003045
>anyone who isn't me is an NPC
nice solipsism bro. don't blame others for having more concrete thoughts. for what it's worth, I think in words as well as interacting shapes and forms

[Anonymous No.16003140]

>>16003029
Mostly words. I spend hours every day talking to imaginary characters. Although I started doing this to fight loneliness, it has over time become a useful tool of introspection and analysis.

[Anonymous No.16003148]

>>16003055
high iq. pneumatics are internal monologue + non-verbal intuition

[Anonymous No.16003155]

>>16003057
I bet you think in 4chan posts you brainlet

[Anonymous No.16003216]

What does that mean? Some people can't make sounds in their head? Some can't make images in their head? I don't get how someone couldn't do these things.

[Anonymous No.16003236]

>>16003029
I think in complete sentences

[Anonymous No.16003246]

I can do both lel get fucked

[Anonymous No.16003287]

>>16003029
I have both, some thoughts are subvocalised, sentences, words, others abstract non verbal, I also see images, and can imagine/feel in my mind touch. I can also imagine or feel smell and taste but it is ofcourse mostly based on past experiences.

What I don't have is understanding why this thread keeps constantly being posted on almost every board. For what reason? Why does op care so much about how other people think?

[Anonymous No.16003291]

>>16003236
yes.

[Anonymous No.16003301]

>>16003216
I'm pretty bad at making images. Very dim and gray scale usually. Probably why I'm not good at creating visual arts.

[Anonymous No.16003426]

>>16003301
How do you recall what the Mona Lisa looks like or what your mother's face or what red looks like? When I think of the Mona Lisa I see the painting with color and all its details.

[Anonymous No.16003431]

>>16003029
Haha, the joke's on you. I don't think at all!

[Anonymous No.16003500]

>>16003426
Not him but I really can't visualize the face of my mother in my head, but whenever I see a picture of her I instantly recognize her.

[Anonymous No.16003552]

I guess I have internal monologue/dialogue. Like right now planning this post I’m imagining myself conversing with someone and explaining my thoughts. Depending on the subject there might be back and forth and questions too

[Anonymous No.16003583]

I mostly talk to myself, usually in plural. Bad at visualisation

[Anonymous No.16003602]

>>16003029
>>16003155
>NOOOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO THINK LIKE ME IF YOU DON'T YOU ARE AN NPC

[Anonymous No.16003651]

>moment to moment thinking is abstract, thoughts arrive from subconscious ether
>pace around and talk out loud like 3 people having a conversation when I need to figure something complex out

[Anonymous No.16003715]

>>16003552
>imagining myself conversing with someone and explaining my thoughts. Depending on the subject there might be back and forth and questions too
This. I wouldn't say that I always think only in words or sentences, but I do always narrate my thoughts. I could have an idea or I could suddenly remember something I had to do. That flash isn't verbal, but then I will narrate my reaction to is in my head. "Oh shit right I almost forgot."

[Anonymous No.16004049]

I manifested a Tulpa that resembles my middle school English teacher that acts as a secretary to my subconscious thoughts. She can read back the minutes and make appointments/alarms for me without even having to be directly ordered. Also the sex is amazing

[Anonymous No.16004115]

>>16003552
congratulations you are human

[Anonymous No.16004207]

For the people who hear an internal dialogue: Does it not feel slow to you?

When I make myself "voice out" my thoughts I feel like I'm moving in tar. I know where the words are going, but it takes them longer to reach the point than otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16004219]

>>16003029
He's wrong, everybody thinks the same way, same as we hear/see the same, its biology. Some people are just stupid, the same way some are deaf/blind. Are we really just going to trust retards to report correctly how they 'think'?

[Anonymous No.16004223]

>fun fact: some people don't have an internal narrative
This is just baseless internet bro-science

[Anonymous No.16004226]

[Anonymous No.16004246]

>/lit/ tells me I'm a pleb if I subvocalize
>every other board calls me an NPC if i don't
which one is it?

[Anonymous No.16004247]

a basis for Jungian Cognitive Functions? In my /lit/?

[Anonymous No.16004265]

>>16003140
Yes me too. Although theyre not imaginary, i take people i actually know and create fake perfected versions of them that are often completely unlike the actual person. Theyre mostly women. And i mostly pretend theyre me gf :(

[Anonymous No.16004319]

>>16004246
ask /x/

[Anonymous No.16004321]

>>16004265
I created a version of you in my that doesn't sound completely retarded

[Anonymous No.16004335]

>>16004265
I created a version of you in my head that doesn't sound completely retarded

[Anonymous No.16004346]

Sometimes I talk to myself out loud

[Anonymous No.16004349]

>>16003029
Sometimes when I'm fixated on something I imagine that I've become a famous CEO or something and some loser has me go on their show and asks me questions about the thing I'm fixated on. Then I form an answer to the question and we back-and-forth on it. This can sometimes go on for about 10-15 minutes, until I become conscious that I've been sitting there thinking about this. I don't stop though, what actually happens is I go through a process of thinking about this thing -> thinking about the fact that I'm thinking about this, then imagine I'm explaining to someone the fact that I do this, then become conscious that I'm imagining explaining to someone that I imagine conversations, and it gradually accelerates in adding on layers of explanation to more and more people about the meta-thinking, in this kind of weird cognitive feedback loop, until I snap out of it and reset to just thinking about concepts instead of thinking about conversations about concepts.

[Anonymous No.16004375]

>>16003500
is normal

[Anonymous No.16004420]

>>16004349
I never did the meta thing but the thing you're doing is called autism

[Anonymous No.16004427]

>>16004207
I feel like most people’s internal monologues can be unlearned. I have an internal monologue, however, I feel as though when I think of something with the voice in my head I am merely restating something that I already knew. Something that I understood but needed to vocalize before I could completely make sense of it. I feel as though with practice and dedication I could cut the voice out entirely and think much more quickly. I feel like this is something most people with internal monologues could do, but are so intrenched in that way of thinking that nothing else seems conceivable.

[Anonymous No.16004428]

>>16003029
what are the breakdowns for this though? I've asked a few people I know (especially the ones I suspect to be to npcs) and they all say they have an inner monologue.

Is it just like 1% of the population that don't have an inner monologue or is it more because I find it hard to believe these 'people' exist

[Anonymous No.16004483]

>>16004428
look up "Introverted Intuition"

[Anonymous No.16004521]

>>16004349
>Sometimes when I'm fixated on something I imagine that I've become a famous CEO or something and some loser has me go on their show and asks me questions about the thing I'm fixated on. Then I form an answer to the question and we back-and-forth on it. This can sometimes go on for about 10-15 minutes, until I become conscious that I've been sitting there thinking about this.
I do this all the time, wtf.
Do you also find yourself making lots of lists?

[Anonymous No.16004535]

>>16003029
>not being able to do both

[Anonymous No.16004545]

>he can't think in emotion, abstract intuition ('aha' type of stuff), internal dialogue, and images

[Anonymous No.16004549]

>>16004428
I have one but I don't use it much. Thinking in actual sentences is way slower than how I normally think so I only ever use it if I need to reign in my emotions or something. I could easily imagine just never using it.

[Anonymous No.16004559]

>>16004223
all science is bro science desu

[Anonymous No.16004568]

>>16003055
I'm hylics I guess. I often think about Maslow's hierarchy of needs and how to better gain access to all the levels. I think its a side effect of growing up poor

[Anonymous No.16004578]

This is one of those extremely stupid things you hear thrown around by students in cognitive sciences and psychology. Thought and language cannot be disentangled. Language is not a way to communicate thoughts, it’s thought itself. When you’re speaking, you’re forced to think linearly, because of the physical realities of the mouth/throat, but you don’t think in a linear way. However, you do think in language, whether in a spoken language for hearing people, or in sign language for the deaf. Thoughts are symbolic and therefore rely on symbols.

[Anonymous No.16004583]

>>16003246
>both
This. People who can't think both ways are subhuman.

[Anonymous No.16004587]

>>16003155
not him but i actually sometimes do think in the greentext "style", or whatever you'd call it
i also have an internal dialogue but often i have thoughts i don't bother subvocalizing either
i think most people have a mix of internal narrative and abstract thoughts, and nobody really has just one or the other

[Anonymous No.16004606]

>>16004578
You have somehow not managed to grasp something very simple. There are people that literally have a monologue going on in their heads, like a stream of speech talking about things, and there are people who don't. Whether the thoughts of the second type are also structured by language is not the issue in question.

[Anonymous No.16004616]

>>16003029
>tfw have both types of consciousness
>tfw transcend the normal operations of the human brain
Make way, Übermensch stepping thru

[Anonymous No.16004637]

>>16003055
>ooga booga
>now give me some food and pussy
kek

[Anonymous No.16004651]

I have always "thought"(as in problem solving, for example - math/programming) via pure intuition and abstractions, and used internal monologue only for rudimentary tasks, such as basic operations. I am not very good at programming, and often I just wait until the solution hits me from the depths of my subconsciousness. Some problems are unsolvable for me, however hard I try to think or even internally vocalize them.
When reading or writing however, internal monologue never leaves and always vocalizes everything I consume/produce. But not so often when I have a thinking after reading a book, for example. It is often images or scenes, accompanied with feelings about them. And I often have a hard time conceptualizing in words exactly what I think or feel about the subject, for words are never as pure and extensive as they need to be to fully convey what I felt about, say, a piece of literature. And when I get to internally conceptualize them in the form of internal narrative, or writing them down - it often feels banal and redundant.

[Anonymous No.16004660]

>>16003140
It's gotten to be a problem though, as I've taken to accidentally blurting out sentences during an imaginary argument.

[Anonymous No.16004667]

>>16003426
You know there's a difference in recalling sights versus constructing a new image entirely in your mind, right?

[Anonymous No.16004681]

>>16004578
What if we get a newborn and lock him inside a white box, and never teach him any language whatsoever? How will he think?

[Anonymous No.16004687]

>>16004578
>Language is not a way to communicate thoughts, it’s thought itself.
that's wrong, it's second-order to thought because you can have thoughts are not communicable via language
that may or may not imply that language is merely "a way to communicate thoughts", but saying they're the same thing is incorrect

[Anonymous No.16004704]

>>16004521
No, that's definitely just you.

[Anonymous No.16004714]

>>16003029

I think in complete sentences and a strong visual library that leans in hard toward puns, my brain is like a weird al yankovic music video.

[Anonymous No.16004719]

>>16004681
Apocryphally, Helen Keller said she didn't think until someone taught her some kind of language.

[Anonymous No.16004740]

>>16004714
Sounds fun

[Anonymous No.16004745]

>>16004681
They wouldn’t think the way you and I do, because development of cognition is contingent on language on socialization. This is referred to as the forbidden experiment because it’s never been done. However there was an example of a girl in California who was strapped into a high chair and fed, but completely neglected until the age of 13 and she could never acquire language or think the way a normal child could even though she was born normal.

[Anonymous No.16004750]

>>16004740

Oh yeah sometimes, but serious contemplations are difficult for me without putting my nose to the grindstone and writing a thing down.

[Anonymous No.16004763]

>>16003045
It is literally the opposite.

[Anonymous No.16004764]

>>16004687
You can have an idea when painting. You may just paint and not describe what you’re doing, but what you’re doing can be described in language, and only language.

[Anonymous No.16004766]

>>16003029
When I'm on my own I have words in my head, but when I'm writing or speaking it just comes out and I realize what I'm thinking as it comes out of my hands or mouth.
How do you explain that?

[Anonymous No.16004768]

>>16004226
plato/socrates often asks people to imagine solids in rotation like his inner monologue is geometric like chads

[Anonymous No.16004827]

>>16004606
This assumption can not be assumed. People cannot properly describe their own thinking, that’s why introspective methods in psychology were abandoned after William James. It’s nonsense. People just want to be different or pretend to be. If you have no internal monologue ever, you have a poor/inappropriate stream of consciousness and are probably really stupid. You can’t think in images. You wouldn’t think in snippets of what you heard other say. If you don’t have an internal monologue you’re not thinking much at all.

[Anonymous No.16004828]

I hear my voice in my head but I also see images while i'm thinking, mostly when I'am picturing scenario in my head. everyone is like that though

[Anonymous No.16004842]

>>16004764

That's a pretty novel thing, sometimes I'll listen to Rick Berry and he dubs this concept as the "frontier" where the things communicated by the subconscious can manifest through a painting - and that sometimes something you didn't know consciously will make its way onto the canvas. The significance in this is as a mutually shared thing is pretty neat to consider, since the artist and the viewer share that realm of imagining.

Thinking on paper and maybe a bit of "automatic writing" seem to operate in a similar way.

[Anonymous No.16004864]

>>16004764
>what you’re doing can be described in language, and only language.
of course you can describe what happens in the objective world with language, my point was that there are things that are not a part of the objective world (in any meaningful sense, at least) that cannot really be described
the "idea" behind a painting is exactly this sort of thing, and the painting itself (or the construction of the painting) is not the idea - it is itself second-order to it

[Anonymous No.16004869]

>>16004842
People talk about the sublime artistic experience. About spontaneity. There Cannot be doing without thinking. Whether you’re conscious of the thoughts that led to your creative actions, or *claim to not be* is a different story.

[Anonymous No.16004875]

>>16004827
You're just evincing a failure of imagination here, an inability to understand those different than you. It is perfectly possible to think abstractly without using sentences, without even bothering with words. When you manipulate a 3d model of a polygon in your head and note various things about its structure, rotating it or performing operations on it, this is not linguistic. When you have vague categories in your head, to which you could assign words but don't bother, eg. some social dynamic you note in a group of people, and you imagine various things influencing this dynamic, also without assigning terms to them, you are not thinking linguistically. You could set about translating this thought into words, but it's not born of language, it's the conceptual associative background on which language draws and orders.

[Anonymous No.16004888]

>>16004827
>You can't think in images
Are you retarded? Mental spatial reasoning is such a significant skill in some fields that there are entire tests for it. You absolutely can think in images, it's just not some retarded shit like thinking through hieroglyphics.

[Anonymous No.16004893]

>>16004226
>Lightning-fast reading, understand sentences before you have finished them
*ftfy

[Anonymous No.16004900]

>>16004864
What is a good creative painting? A child cannot make good creative painting. To make a good creative painting you must understand what has been said, take a survey of what has been said, and see what has not been said, but is still true. A child can’t do this, because they haven’t learned what has been said. An adult artist can do this sometimes, because they know what has been said, and can say something new and true. There are no spontaneous ideas. There are only claims to spontaneity.

[Anonymous No.16004926]

>>16004875
You don’t think you assign words. But you do, because that’s the only way to keep track of relations. You don’t remember the distance between your couch and TV spatially, you remember it in terms of units described in symbols. It’s a matter of efficiency. You don’t have exclusively sensory memory of information long-term. It erodes quickly.

[Anonymous No.16004948]

>>16004869

I'll clarify that I am also an artist of modest accalim but long years of experience and some time to think on these things. I would never postulate that they come out of nowhere, but there is a different "kind" of thinking that doesn't manifest in word or immediate mental imagery - like a pareidolia sort of thing and it does generate some things that seemingly come from nowhere but I get you. I do think that the brain hides certain things, and has multi-faceted dimensions of thought that aren't readily apparent until the work is in word or in paint.

[Anonymous No.16004956]

>>16004948
Bingo. I love you.

[Anonymous No.16004992]

>>16004926
Why do you think this? How do animals remember distances since they don't have words?

[Anonymous No.16005003]

>>16004888
When thinking spatially, you’re applying rules that can, and are, described in symbols. When you're playing chess, you’re keeping track of conditions, which are represented symbolically in your mind.

[Anonymous No.16005019]

>>16004992
They don’t remember distances, they have Specialized sensory systems that allow them to navigate. This includes detection of magnetic fields, specialized olfaction...etc.

[Anonymous No.16005025]

>>16005003
I'm not entirely sure where you're getting this differentiation between images and symbols, could you specify?

[Anonymous No.16005045]

>>16005025
Symbols describe. Images are. Of course our memory of images is reconstructed, but that’s for efficiency’s sake.

[Anonymous No.16005052]

>>16005019

Explain athletes, fighters, and the like who ascertain and close distances instinctively. You can think in distances. Something like skateboarding would be impossible if you couldn't think in terms of spatial memory. Few of these people, save for handful of turbo autists, think of it in abstract symbols.

[Anonymous No.16005054]

>>16005019
>Specialized sensory systems that allow them to navigate
do you mean like our visual system?

[Anonymous No.16005075]

>>16005045
So, say for example I imagined a rotating sphere in my mind, you'd say that's a symbol, which is a reconstruction/composite of things I've seen before, as opposed to an image, which would imply that I was constructing the rotating sphere out of whole cloth in my mind?

[Anonymous No.16005099]

>>16005052
They aren’t thinking, they’re reacting. They want to initiate a motion, and they have movement schemas based on experience, but also the comparators that is the cerebellum, which compares expected requirements of speed, force, trajectory to sensory input about real speed, force and trajectory.

[Anonymous No.16005109]

>>16005099
You're just redefining thinking to be only thoughts that use language, which makes your argument circular.

[Anonymous No.16005123]

>>16003029
>there are people on this board right now who don't noetically tap into the eternal absolute in deafening silence and pure insight

[Anonymous No.16005135]

>>16003029
Do some people not hear anything when they think?

[Anonymous No.16005139]

>>16005054
No, not like our visual system. The visual system is a sensory system and is separate from cognitive maps. Some animals have cognitive maps too. What I was referring to was phenomenon like bird migration or bees returning the hive despite travelling miles away. These animals have evolved systems in place to return to the hive or fly across the pacific. An animal that can achieve these feats, while having difficult finding its way out of a lampshade or your garage, is not relying on memory to navigate.

[Anonymous No.16005146]

>>16003426
>>16003301
>>16003216
I get a "notion" of what that thing would be. I'm very much verbal in thought, but image-wise I construct images around words/descriptors with some limited images to accommodate these words.

[Anonymous No.16005161]

>>16004667
I don't think there is a difference. I can just as easily imagine the Mona Lisa wearing a brown cowboy hat even though I've never seen it. You have to know what things look like first, even when thinking of abstract blobs, to create them in your mind. A person who's blind at birth can't see images in their mind, right?

[Anonymous No.16005163]

>>16004349
I do the same
are we autistic?

[Anonymous No.16005176]

>>16005139
>Some animals have cognitive maps too.
But they don't have language, so again, why do you think our thoughts require language?

[Anonymous No.16005185]

>>16005109
I’m defining thinking as that which involves cortical areas. I’m talking about problem solving, describing, applying rules. I’m not talking kickflipping, I’m not talking about realizing pain when you burn your hand. These are thoughts that enter consciousness, but aren’t generative.

[Anonymous No.16005204]

>>16003029
I'm pretty sure everyone can make images and sounds in their head and thinks in those constantly. It's just morons who can't describe or interpret that they do this that this meme myth came about.

[Anonymous No.16005211]

>>16005176
Language isn’t always English. And cognitive maps are encoded and referred to. They aren’t manipulated in your mind. Thinking involves manipulating. I’m not saying you can’t store it. I’m saying that to manipulate it, you require symbols.

[Anonymous No.16005249]

>>16005161
Well you thought wrong you conceited fuckbag

[Anonymous No.16005262]

>>16005185
>>16005099

A phrase that comes to mind is "don't think, feel", all of the native senses unto themselves seem to be used in a way that simulates distance is the point that I might have missed. It's hard for me to not think in this dimension because I do intuit and feel it as I move around as IF it were that this was a part of my cognition.

[Anonymous No.16005287]

>>16005262
I know, it’s sort of out there. But about half the neurons in your brain are dedicated to regions that involve integrating sensory information to make experience.

[Anonymous No.16005290]

>>16003045
>My internal dialogue is flashes of colour and light
The absolute fucking state lmao

[Anonymous No.16005304]

>>16005211
>I’m saying that to manipulate it, you require symbols.
Why would that be? An animal like a crow can clearly manipulate their cognitive maps, they can alter their models of reality in ways to accomplish goals by imagining different paths. Are we to assume crows have language?

[Anonymous No.16005342]

>>16003029
Okay that sounds fake. I mainly think in words, sometimes images.

[Anonymous No.16005347]

>>16005304
Do animals not communicate with each other in some basic form? Like ooga booga? Come on now

[Anonymous No.16005348]

>>16004428
OP is bullshiting
Everybody does both, it's just that volume and tendency varies
Something that can be learned and unlearned

[Anonymous No.16005360]

>>16003029
Your internal narrative is just your programming running in your head, NPC scum
Attain consciousness and think at a depth and speed unfettered by primitive humanoid vocalization

[Anonymous No.16005363]

>>16005304
No they don’t manipulate it. There movement is either exploratory for the sake of food or to and from areas that they’ve cognitively mapped because of their importance, like their nest. Sometimes a bird will return to see the branch their nest was on in broken, and their nest is on the forest floor, and theyll fail to find it. Ravens, not crows, are some of the smartest birds, and can use tools, but only in ways they have been taught. They do not use the tools creatively, because they can’t manipulate. It’s just a schema. Their flying to their nest is just a schema. Their jumping off the road when you drive at them is just a reaction.

[Anonymous No.16005368]

>>16005347
>First set of assumptions get called out
>"SHIT, BETTER PULL SOME MORE ASSUMPTIONS OUTTA MY ASS"
What else you got?

[Anonymous No.16005370]

>>16005347
I think its argued that some animals, like crows have their own language or some form of it.

[Anonymous No.16005375]

>>16005347
Yeah they do but it's not typically considered the same thing as language. They don't have the symbolic quality of words supposedly.

What i'm taking issue with generally is the idea that language is the only way thought can happen, where thought is where you manipulate concepts based on relations. Like I don't think our concept of eg. causality is linguistic.

[Anonymous No.16005379]

>>16004745
Wait does this btfo Chomsky grammar or am I imagining things

[Anonymous No.16005388]

>>16005363
>Ravens, not crows, are some of the smartest birds, and can use tools, but only in ways they have been taught. They do not use the tools creatively, because they can’t manipulate.
This is simply not true, they can figure out ways to use tools on their own.

Also you can describe everything humans do as 'schemas' of higher complexity, it's a copout.

[Anonymous No.16005398]

>>16005379
Chomsky and other nativists posit that we have a specialized, domain specific ability to learn grammar and language. They don’t say that we’re born with language. They say we’re born with the *specialized* and *modular* ability to learn language.

[Anonymous No.16005410]

>>16005368
>>16005368
I am not that guy fren, you are the one making assumptions here c:

[Anonymous No.16005424]

>>16005398
Then shouldn't that poor girl have been able to learn language?

[Anonymous No.16005433]

>>16005363
What about dolphins, how does their communication system work in relation to this?

[Anonymous No.16005435]

>>16003029
Why would this be the case? It makes no real sense to me. We're all able to grasp the same languages, our senses don't dramatically vary from each other. Why would the way you think be different from the way someone else thinks, why would it be such a dramatic difference in form and still allow people to operate similarly? I mean obviously there are like downs syndrome people, but that's sort of equivalent to colorblindness, it's a malfunction, and the cost of it is obvious. But these supposed "image-only-thinkers" have no apparent issues talking to anyone or writing. So maybe they're just... self-reporting falsely? I think it's probably the same with so-called synesthesiacs, as well.

[Anonymous No.16005436]

>>16005388
Not true. Ravens are not creative and nor is any species but humans. The proof is that they cannot pass on knowledge Aka culture, as every raven learns what they are designed to learn and nothing more, regardless of environment. The exception is in some primates, where different groups of the same species have different “culture”/social preferences, but this is more so a result of speciation.

[Anonymous No.16005441]

>>16005436
>. The proof is that they cannot pass on knowledge Aka culture, as every raven learns what they are designed to learn and nothing more, regardless of environment.
Totally untrue, it's well known that various birds have cultures, as do orcas, and primates.

[Anonymous No.16005442]

>>16003426
Basically by memorizing their objective features. I know what that painting looks like and roughly the color gradient. It's pretty much just black when I close my eyes. If I tried to visualize a red apple I'd basically be describing it; there's a radius in the fruit where the stem seats into, various polygons of waxy flesh arranged into the stereotypical shape of an apple, can't "see" the color but "know" this part is red this part is "brown".
I asked my painter wife and she said when she closes her eyes she sees an apple in full color as though it was sitting in front of her but it's spinning.

I can dream normally and see things as if I were awake.

[Anonymous No.16005448]

>>16005375
>where thought is where you manipulate concepts based on relations
I absolutely do not think this.
But I do think that even the things we cannot process into words are pretty much language, just not decipherable.

Like when how you would lose an argument and run to your hugbox and rationalize your supbar understanding and the others are very bad bad people, like a solipsistic little shit.

[Anonymous No.16005452]

>>16005424
No, because there are critical periods of language acquisition. Language learning in adulthood is not the same, and the adults who do learn second languages in adulthood can only do so because they were socialized/learned a native language in a normative developmental setting.

[Anonymous No.16005460]

>>16005424
Look into child brain development and brain plasticity. If you are never introduced to language or other "normal" behaviors your brain will wire itself into whatever things you are experiencing and go from there.

[Anonymous No.16005471]

>>16005448
>I absolutely do not think this.
I said I think it, because it is the most reasonable way to define thought. You have no reason to think language defines every mental process we call thought, it is an added layer of interpretation and organization on various already existing cognitive systems. The rest of your post is incomprehensible.

[Anonymous No.16005479]

>>16005441
No, they don’t. It’s species specific. Orcas for examples, there are “type a”, “type b”...etc., but these orcas only have different social structures of speciation, and the evidence is that they been apart so long that they are morphologically different from one another.

[Anonymous No.16005487]

>>16005436
>speciation
That "speciation" being literal endless fucking echelons of mental growth. It is the same concept, which is ironically something you can't understand with your limited thinking, huh?

[Anonymous No.16005496]

>>16005479
Humans are also morphologically different from each other but can learn each others cultures. Birdsong evolves too quickly to be genetic.

[Anonymous No.16005498]

>>16003055
based gnostic

[Anonymous No.16005512]

>>16005487
There is no one group of orcas that is more obviously sophisticated, they’re just different. That’s the point. Maybe in 2000 years, the environment of one group of orcas will put them under selection pressures that will change cognition among them.

[Anonymous No.16005517]

>>16005471
>>16005471
>things
Like I don't think our concept of eg. causality is linguistic.

What do you mean by this then?

[Anonymous No.16005529]

>>16003055
Never stop calling out hylics, gnosticposter.

[Anonymous No.16005531]

>>16005471
>Like I don't think our concept of eg. causality is linguistic.

What do you mean by this then?

[Anonymous No.16005537]

>>16005496
We’re morphologically different because ambient conditions in terrestrial environments are far more diverse than those of marine environments, and so selection pressures were greater among humans who lived in different terrestrial environments. Besides, humans picked a place and lived near there. All Orcas migrate across vast stretches within their life.

[Anonymous No.16005552]

>>16005517
I think causality is a type of thought we have, the 'if-then' or whatever is how we'd translate it into language.

[Anonymous No.16005575]

>>16005496
Humans evolved different skin tones and limb lengths because of strong selection pressures. Orcas diverged Because they stopped fucked outside their pods. Otherwise all four types swim in arctic and tropical waters. Humans are morphologically different because equatorial climates are different than arctic climates, but Human social structures have been ubiquitous across all human groups no matter where they lived, so cognitively we’re all born the same on the basis of race, in terms of averages of course.

[Anonymous No.16005583]

>>16003029
Glad I'm not the only one. I like to imagine thinkers that I admire like Socrates or Epictetus arguing with me. I try to simulate them as best as I can based on what I've read of them. I find that imaginary interlocutors help me to see problems from other perspectives. I will never admit to this in person because people will (reasonably) suppose that I'm a nut case.

[Anonymous No.16005584]

>>16005575
>but Human social structures have been ubiquitous across all human groups no matter where they lived, so cognitively we’re all born the same on the basis of race, in terms of averages of course.
Do you have proof of this? it seems humans diverge quite a lot in terms of behavior on average between groups

[Anonymous No.16005594]

>>16005583
meant for
>>16003140

[Anonymous No.16005623]

>>16005512
the premise is that if you can do it, as animal, they are capable at a less prevalent level. I'm not saying a fungus can do this. But most animals have some sort of understanding. They can learn this watching each other. This could potentially be ubiquitous for the species. Would that unlikely occurrence be classified as culture? Absolutely not. But it is not the culture that makes the mind, that's where you are going off key.

We all have understanding that is beyond language. Have you never understood something that you were not able to put it into words? Have you at least not hear this being said? The mind is just not able to reach that level of communication, most likely because it didn't need to.

[Anonymous No.16005629]

>>16005552
Please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.16005717]

>>16005584
The accepted theory is that human cognition evolved due to our social organization. When you look at data across species, social group size is most strongly correlated with cognitive ability. Now people from equatorial climates are taller because longer limbs lead to a greater volume:SA ratio, and therefore allow for more efficient heat dissipation, the opposite is true of people who have long lived in cold climates (think inuits). Or the relationship between UV exposure skin colour. If you're too dark in northern climate, you have vitamin deficiencies. if you're too light in equatorial climate, you have folate breakdown and birth defects. Anyway, these are two of the many physical traits that have varied based on the enormous differences in ambient conditions across different populations in different places in the globe. however, the difference in social group size are more or less non-existent prior to industrialization or outside of empires that have risen in the past 5000 years. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of human evolutionary history. All races have the same cognitive capacity. People ask why in some places there are great civilization, while others are like papua new guinea, and the answer is geographic and historical. You can't grow in size without agriculture, you can't have agriculture if there are no nutrient-dense crops to grow or beasts of burden to domesticate. You can't urbanize without population. without population, there are no borders, without borders and population there is no conflict. Without conflict states don't organize, because you don't have to raise taxes to hire standing armies, without states, there is no state interest. Without state interest, there is accumulation capital. Without the accumulation of capital, you cannot fund innovation...etc.

[Anonymous No.16005727]

>>16005717
>All races have the same cognitive capacity.
Do you have any evidence of this? Eg. evidence that raising Bushmen in whatever conditions raises their average IQ to the 105 of Japanese?

[Anonymous No.16005773]

>he doesn't think in music

[Anonymous No.16005778]

>>16005623
the culture is proof of complexity. That's what makes humans unique. other primates can learn to use a tool for an end, but they cannot copy the way humans can. its high-fidelity copying that allows humans to pass things on. The primate understands the objective, but does not copy the model exactly. That's why they can't learn from each other. If you show a chimpanzee how to perform a task in an obviously inefficient way, then it will not copy you. A human child will copy you exactly. I forget the name of the study, but it involved a 2-year old human and a chimpanzee using a human adult model to move an object with stick from behind a grate.

[Anonymous No.16005789]

>>16005778
>they cannot copy the way humans can.
They literally can, they can even copy humans

[Anonymous No.16005804]

>>16004349
based autist. I do this all the time. is it worth getting diagnosed as an adult?

[Anonymous No.16005807]

>>16003055
>there are so many divine shit
It's a step up from shits

[Anonymous No.16005823]

>>16005778
>Language isn’t always English. And cognitive maps are encoded and referred to. They aren’t manipulated in your mind. Thinking involves manipulating. I’m not saying you can’t store it. I’m saying that to manipulate it, you require symbols.
This is the exact point you went full retard.
They do have understanding, it is indeed free from words, what you're saying is that it is a lesser understanding. But it still shows that one can operate their minds without a strict format.

Language does not make thinking.

[Anonymous No.16005828]

>>16005727
The problem is that you can't take a child from bushmen for the sake of experiment. But let me tell you, I am Iranian. I went to grade school in Iran and came to the USA around the age of 17. I grew up in Tehran, which is a large modern city, but I knew kids from places in Iran which look like rural Europe from the 18th century. Really sparsely populated places that only got electricity in the past 20 years. They were all fine mathematicians. One of them is now a professor at CalTech, and nearly won the Fields Medal.

[Anonymous No.16005831]

>>16005717
is this an intelligent post on /lit/

[Anonymous No.16005867]

>>16005773
>tfw that one song constantly plays in your head and you can't hear your inner voice because of it and can't focus on anything
LALALLALALALALLALALALALLALALA

[Anonymous No.16005876]

>>16005828
The point is the averages. Idk how anyone could possibly know that all humans have the same average cognitive ability. Tbqh I find it doubtful.

I don't know much about Iran but I am not surprised there are smart Iranians.

[Anonymous No.16005928]

>>16005828
also your little anecdote sort of reinforces my point, they grew up in absolute poverty but they're still smart

[Anonymous No.16005972]

>>16005773
Sometimes I get multiple songs stuck in my head at the same time. At least I can “work with them” like you could rotate a mental image, I can blend them in different ways. I also get sounds in my head when I’m very tired at night, a loud and constant barrage of mechanical sounds that I wouldn’t say are a hallucination, they don’t sound like the are outside of me, but I can’t help but hear them nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.16005979]

>>16005876
The problem here is this. You want to know the capacity of a dynamic organ, because you want to know the genetic basis of intelligence, as related to race. We can't even reliably measure this in an individual, let alone across large carefully matched samples. And even if there is a reason to believe it to be vastly difference across races, so vastly different that we would warrant this kind of money and attention, the findings would not be meaningful, because we must test adults, and if we test adults, we can't tease apart the effects of experience on cognition, because they've spent many years in different environments, exposed to different things. There is no methodologically sound way to do this, and no justifiable reason to believe there should be a significant difference between races. And therefore any research thus far on the genetic basis of intelligence across races is neither disinterested nor meaningful, just a way to stir shit.

[Anonymous No.16005987]

i experience this "internal narrative" but i'm still an npc

[Anonymous No.16005997]

>>16005831
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.16006001]

>>16005987
the idea is that if you are only capable of internal narrative then you are an npc, friend.

[Anonymous No.16006015]

>>16003301
These threads are retarded because all imaging and recollection is a skill. Sure, you have some level of baseline in both, but you can absolutely train yourself to develop the skills further. You are bad at making mental images because you don't make an effort to regularly. It's as simple as that. If you started working on visual art and spent 10 minutes a day focusing on just mental imaging you would see improvement.

[Old Man No.16006016]

>>16003029
How else do you think I masturbate when no one's created the content I want to jack off to?

[Anonymous No.16006022]

>>16005979
Just the way you stirred all of this shit into race, and did not even address the problem. The fact is language is separate from understanding. I pity you.

[Anonymous No.16006023]

>>16005928
My point is that they are not from a country that has not produced anything worthwhile in the past 50 years. They aren't great at math because they're iranian, they're great at math because math education is cheap. It requires a pen and a piece of paper, that's why many great mathematicians come from countries which are/were poor, because its the subject that's focused on when public education is underfunded. Same can be said for Hungarians.

[Anonymous No.16006027]

>>16006022
Look at the post i was replying to.

[Anonymous No.16006028]

>>16006001
That's what you got from the NPC meme? That's not it. That's not it at all.

[Anonymous No.16006049]

>>16003045
>I invented my own flashing color autism language to think in
weak larp

[Anonymous No.16006050]

>>16006022
Also, the genetic basis of cognition is extremely polygenic and there are many dimensions of cognition. It is definitely normally distributed. I'm not saying that all humans are the born with the same ability to think, I'm saying that there's no reason to believe that the mean level of intelligence is different across races.

[Anonymous No.16006066]

>>16006001
>if you are only capable of internal narrative
what else is there? creating imagery with your mouth? im confused

[Anonymous No.16006071]

>>16006028
>>16006028
The npc meme itself? Obviously not. Did you even read the thread? Again, the idea is that if you cannot go past language and free your thinking, you are an NPC.

Are you really serious new or retarded?

[Anonymous No.16006076]

>>16003029
>read without subvocalising
>can turn stream of conciousness on and off at will
>have both abstract and verbal thoughts
>simply live in the present and observe my surroundings when i'm done thinking

[Anonymous No.16006100]

>>16005979
Given the available evidence, that is not the conclusion any disinterested observer would make but whatever.

[Anonymous No.16006103]

>>16006027
Maybe you should look at this post first.
>>16005979

>>16006050
>it's too complex, we can't know
it is as clear day.
>there's no reason to believe that the mean level of intelligence is different across races
It would take you less than 10 seconds for you to look into this. An everpresent fact on this board that you cannot hope to get around, mind you.

[Anonymous No.16006110]

>>16006023
But there are pretty much no great mathematicians from certain ethnicities, even if they grow up in developed countries.

[Anonymous No.16006119]

>>16006001
Literally the opposite friend. Those incapable of internal narrative were dubbed the npc.
This recent evolution of
>I think in abstraction
Seems like a mix of copes and trolls.

[Anonymous No.16006124]

>>16006050
>there's no reason to believe that the mean level of intelligence is different across races.
There's no reason to believe it's the same either. On balance there is pretty obviously more evidence that they're not the same.

[Anonymous No.16006133]

i feel like lots of people ITT are just as confused as i am about all this shit

theres:
>internal monologue/subvocalising?
what else?

[Anonymous No.16006143]

>>16006100
What is that evidence? the fact that the poor black people you went to middle school with dropped out and became criminals? get serious. We're talking about science here. There was a study about education and IQ in rural bolivia, and the students who went to school for a year had 10 point increase in IQ compared to the neighboring village which didn't have schools. Education does massively improve performance on tests of IQ. There are some tests like the Stroop or Raven Matrices that are intended to be less reliant on learned information, but they're more so built to test mental speed and have more test-retest reliability.

[Anonymous No.16006152]

>>16006119
>The recent evolution
?????
>>16004226
Do you think this was made recently?

[Anonymous No.16006163]

>>16006143
I would look at this study if I were you
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
No matter what is controlled for they can't get rid of the gap. Even putting that aside, why would you assume from the outset the gap will close? You should just not make any assertion on whether all groups are the same or not

[Anonymous No.16006185]

>>16006050
>no reason to believe that the mean level of intelligence is different across races.
Are you trolling, or do we need to show you the mountain of evidence that supports this?

[Anonymous No.16006190]

>>16003055
i have mixed thinking modi, but i'm a hedonist struggling against the pull of my material form - constant imbalance, more often than not favouring the material

[Anonymous No.16006195]

>>16006124
you don't conduct research to proof a null-hypothesis, you conduct research to find an effect. Obviously you're not educated, so you have your own stupid logic, but I'll try to explain. When there is no evidence for an effect, and there is none here, you don't investigate. There's no reason to believe there is a difference in the genetic basis of intelligence across races. YOU don't believe this because you're comparing the average North American student who has spent a minimum of 12 years in a well-funded school during formative periods of development to African tribesman who have never learned to read or do anything other than hunting, telling stories and having sex.

[Anonymous No.16006197]

>>16005623
I operate under the conditions that If I can't put a realization into words then I didn't understand it at all. Patience and meditation on the anomaly can eventually elucidate a verbally descriptive thesis. I spent my adolescence as a schizo so I have plenty of material to draw from that seemed "beyond language". I'm no longer plagued by disordered thought patterns and somatic mania and I now possess the words to describe those "beyond language" moments or stretches. Nothing merely springs into being. It all filters into your awareness from elsewhere or from a different time. Any claim to genesis is ignorance. It's the time part that really messes with most people's cognition. Your day to day cognition is at odds with your total cognitive ability.

[Anonymous No.16006200]

>>16003055
you are definitely a pseudointellectual high on your own farts.

[Anonymous No.16006223]

>>16006195
When you look at different populations or measure them, they clearly differ. IQ is the most rigorous example of this.

You are saying this is due entirely to environmental factors, but you don't have any reason to think this. All the attempts to equalize the average IQ scores by controlling for environmental factors have failed.

[Anonymous No.16006226]

PURELY ECONOMICAL PURPOSES
MICRO-AGGRESSIONS
THEY ARE NEVER GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE

[Anonymous No.16006264]

>>16006223
That's issue, you can CLAIM to have controlled for them. But you have not controlled for them. You can control for income, but a plumber here in the USA makes more than engineer. You can claim to have controlled for educational quality, but unless you raise someone in a laboratory, you can't claim that. There is vast difference in the quality of education delivered by teachers within a school, and even greater differences within a district, county, state...etc. You cannot claim to control for these factors. of course you can say that these factors will be normalized on a population level, given your sample is large enough, but the sample is never large enough, because you must personally administer these tests if you want any kind of internal validity.

[Anonymous No.16006274]

>>16006264
This is still not evidence that the two groups are the same. All you have is the evidence showing that they aren't the same, and attempts to control for this that show they still aren't the same.

You have no evidence showing that they're the same so why do you assume it in the face of the contrary evidence that they are not?

it would only be a 'null hypothesis' if the two populations were on the face of it seemingly identical, but they are not.

[Anonymous No.16006318]

>>16006274
There is no evidence that they are different. There is no reason to believe that they are different, except they age old "he looks different, so he must be different on the inside". The differences between within a race far outweigh difference between races. If there is a difference, and we can reliably measure it, then the chances are that the effect size is too small to matter. And lets say we find all this out by the hand of god, how would this change anything? what kind of policies would we put in place? just because the average IQ is +/- 5 points, are we going to institutionally prohibit the advancement of an entire race of people living in our borders?

[Anonymous No.16006325]

>>16005717

>Now people from equatorial climates are taller because longer limbs lead to a greater volume:SA ratio, and therefore allow for more efficient heat dissipation, the opposite is true of people who have long lived in cold climates (think inuits).

Nordics are the tallest Europeans and Northern Chinese and Mongols are much taller than Southern Chinese and Koreans

>When you look at data across species, social group size is most strongly correlated with cognitive ability

Accurately measuring cognitive ability between species seems very dubious. I know that octopi are largely asocial, ravens also have small flock size. Granted these are anecdotes, but I'm not confident in the accuracy of your claim.

>All races have the same cognitive capacity.

Objectively untrue lol. People who argue that all ethnic groups are equal in average intelligence will eventually get btfo by cognitive genomics. As the science progresses, that god of the gap argument they love to use will become more and more tenuous. The rest of your post is irrelevant. Lay off the speed lmao

[Anonymous No.16006340]

>>16003029
The tweet says nothing about the absence of a "stream of consciousness", brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16006343]

>>16006197
What about something you would say to someone that you doing your best not to offend. Do you weight every word separately? Or do words form different meanings within contexts, in the order of which they are said, to whom they are being said, and every other little thing.
When you look at someone's face and talk to them, do you think it's possible to define every emotion to a single appellation? Words cannot reach what is simply too general to explain. I understand your situation as a schizo myself but you are forgetting the business you have been given. Psychiatry is a farce in this age.

[Anonymous No.16006348]

>>16006318
There is a lot of evidence that they are different, and the IQ gaps between eg Asheknazi Jews and Bushmen could possibly be like 40 points or something, it's very significant. It's smaller with other peoples but it still might matter that Japan is 105 and say idk Albania is 95, it might explain a lot of things about the average outcomes of these ethnicities in their own countries and abroad.

Idk why you are talking about policy, we are discussing whether all human groups are the same, not politics.

[Anonymous No.16006356]

>>16003055
I recognize the Demiurge and the illusionary nature of the world but this place is fun and I couldn't care less about your hippie Pleroma faggotry.
Imagine actually simping for Sophia lmao

[Anonymous No.16006408]

>>16006152
>>The recent evolution
>?????
The shitposting used to be about if you had or did not have an internal monologue. Now the shitposting is defining the internal monologue as the new pariah with "abstract thought".
Keep up.

[Anonymous No.16006427]

>>16003500
how strange. I can form picture perfect images of stuff but for some reason i have trouble maintaining it most the time. that being said there has been times, usually when im intoxicated, where i can maintain a scene and every single detail is perfect down to the more subtle aspect of sounds if that makes sense, all as if i was actually there

[Anonymous No.16006451]

>>16006356
Based af

[Anonymous No.16006459]

>and have to consciously verbalize them
Then they still have an inner monologue/dialogue/narrative whatever the fuck you wanna call it then.

[Anonymous No.16006465]

>>16006325
Nordics are not native to Scandinavia. Sami are.

[Anonymous No.16006483]

>>16006325
Octopi are outliers. You’re claiming to know something does not make it objective. It’s funny how most the people here are clueless about how science works. It’s a method, dummy. I don’t care either way, I’m just being true to method.

[Anonymous No.16006502]

>>16006465
there is no way the Sami were the first people in Scandinavia you retard

[Anonymous No.16006503]

>>16006325
Thai people are also very short. So are mexicans.

[Anonymous No.16006532]

>>16006318 1/2
people will deny that the IQ gap is genetic, but they never make the case for equality. You can see many mainstream cases of verbal jujitsu and using the lewontin's fallacy, or saying that there is not enough genetic variation for races to exist. But I will explain it quite simply, There many different places in the world with varying climates, some which are separated by mountains or ocean. thousands of years ago our ancestors evolved in these environments and such, there is a certain amount of divergent evolution; This is not subjective, the fixation index between sub saharan africans and europeans is 0.153, on par with the genetic gap between different subspecies in other animals.

Also the genetic diversity in humans is high enough for us to have subspecies, it is on par with other animals that have 5-10 subspecies usually, any form of standard that is applied the humans fictitiously to avoid admitting that humans could have subspecies would absolutely not work for all the other sub species in other animals we have a consensus on

Now here comes the modern day, everyone is up in arms about race, and of course everyone is socially categorized into their respected group. Then people falsely claim that the black population is failing in america because of oppression or whatever. Now to argue against this claim, the categorizations of race are already chosen for us, so I will not claim that these categorizations are the BEST and PERFECT subdivisions to group people into, but that doesn't even matter. Because they are very good at least, and that's good enough. isn't it amazing that having very dark skin is a proxy for having been evolved in Africa.

So we have the generally socially accepted subdivisions of race, then we also have very clear genetic clustering by what environment your ancestors evolved in. Now race happens to correlate heavily with where your ancestor are from, which means race is a provy for where your ancestors are from, and there is RACIAL genetic clustering because of that. Yes! we can even guess your race genetically and guess right 99.9% of the time. So now scientists test the IQ of different races and find out that whites score higher than blacks, then people claim it's due to environment. Well guess what you fucking absolute quasi-intellectual know at all, YOU CAN FUCKING ADJUST FOR ENVIRONMENT. YES YOU CAN OH WHAT IS THAT POOR WHITES ARE SMARTER THAN RICH BLACKS OH WHAT IS THAT BLACKS RAISED IN UPPER CLASS WHITE HOUSEHOLDS STILL SCORE 15 POINTS LOWER THAN THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS.

[Anonymous No.16006539]

>>16006318 2/2
And the claim of intellectual equality is even more ridiculous when you think about it. It's basically claiming that 10's of 1000's of loci have absolutely no effect on brain function. yes that's right basically every variable possible varys between races, but for some reason darwinian pressure decided to not target any gene at all that could change someone's brain to better suit the environment. Humans migrate to europe, and oh wow isn't that amazing somehow the evolutionary pressure of a completely different environment changes everything from skin tone to bone structure, changes the human genome so much that genetic variation between humans evolved in africa is on par with north american wolves and coyotes, and not a single loci changes anything to do with the brain. Oh wow and what a coincidence my entire ideology revolves around presumed equality, to the point I even claim men and women, with an entire chromosome different are the same.

And just to remind you, a single loci difference would be enough explain the racial achievement gap in North America. people may seem to tackle the race idea with saying that there isn't enough genetic variation, but that isn't even an argument, really all you need is the race construct to correlate with even a few genes that would have big effects, of course we have a little more than a few genes that correlate anyway.

But really the problem is that is not a quantitative thing, and people will use every tactic in the book to further their ideology. But even completely objective and quantitative things like brain size differ between races, that's right African brains are 5% smaller in the same environment, or perhaps the European oppressors are shooting shrink rays at our African kangs brains.

And it's also crazy that IQ predicts success accurately between races with the same model i.e a 90 IQ black man will have the same success on average than a 90 IQ white man. Which means the claims of oppression are even wilder than that. Not only are blacks oppressed but they are oppressed in a way that happens to suppress IQ in a way that perfectly matches the achievement gap, and make IQ still a just as good predictor of success by an act of god, of two things canceling out perfectly.

[Anonymous No.16006542]

>>16006348
Bushmen grew up in the bush. I don’t get this shit. Are all of you this stupid? Brains are not static. Comparing ashkenazi jews, who grew up in academic households in developed countries to people who spend most their day hacking at trees does not tell us that the ashkenazi is “naturally” smarter than the Bushman. Maybe he is, but we cannot know unless we ACTUALLY control for all other factors. If the bushman grew up in the same household as the ashkenazi Jew. And that household had 500 ashkenazi children and 500 bush children, and they all received adequate and equal nutrition, education, and socialization, then we could maybe find out. But such an arrangement does not exist. But then again, that would be assuming that IQ measures are really even good instruments. I took several courses on statistics i psychology, and I know for a fact that there is general dislike of these instruments among academics. They’re used because they’re the best we got, but they’re very problematic.

[Anonymous No.16006564]

>>16006532
Gibberish. Look idiot, living in a mountain does not pose different cognitive challenges as compared to living in a desert. You gotta eat, you gotta fuck. You gotta talk with friends. Separation alone does not cause selection, there must be pressures.

[Anonymous No.16006565]

>>16006542
>Maybe he is, but we cannot know unless we ACTUALLY control for all other factors.
Well you've stated that we can't do this. So here are your choices

1. Simply don't say anything about whether groups are on average the same or not.
2. Look at the evidence we do have and conclude they are probably not.

There is no reason at all to come out of this saying that the groups probably are the same.

[Anonymous No.16006576]

>>16004926
>he doesn’t remember the distance between his couch and TV spatially
NGMI

[Anonymous No.16006586]

>>16006564
If you have to store surplus food for the winter that could be a selection pressure

[Anonymous No.16006598]

>>16006565
You cannot conclude that they “probably” are not. You either have evidence for the effect, or you do not. We’re talking about scientific truths here. Whether you WANT to believe there are essential differences, is up to you. And I have reason to believe you do, because you’re probably average and you want to find a reason to think you’re naturally better than other people. I suggest you stop thinking in terms of groups. You’re an individual. That’s it. You are not part of extended family. You’re you. Be you. Try hard. You’ll do okay.

[Anonymous No.16006607]

>>16006598
The evidence is stuff like IQ, I showed you that study that shows that the IQ gap between whites and blacks in the US persists despite attempts to control for it. This is evidence, you are just saying it's not perfect enough evidence to know for sure. But you have no evidence on the other hand that suggests they are the same.

[Anonymous No.16006612]

>>16006586
There are growing and harvesting seasons in most places. The cradle of agriculture, the Fertile Crescent, is only sometimes fertile throughout the year. Besides, there are thousands of ancient grain silos anywhere there was agriculture. You don’t need to be cold to store food. In fact preserving food in warm climates is more difficult because of decomposition.

[Anonymous No.16006619]

>>16006612
>The cradle of agriculture, the Fertile Crescent, is only sometimes fertile throughout the year.
that would exert a similar pressure then, as opposed to tropical climates where you don't have that pattern of a bunch of months where food is scarce. I've never read much about this theory though, idk the specifics.

[Anonymous No.16006624]

>>16006607
The thing about statistics in psychology is that the norms for what’s considered an effect are much smaller than in natural sciences, because the system we work with is more complicated. Its not rejected because It isn’t perfect, it’s rejected because it’s very likely claiming an effect that does not exist. When the effect thresholds are so low, methodological errors are more grievous

[Anonymous No.16006640]

>>16006624
IQ does have consistent predictive abilities though, and it matches with the other patterns like educational achievement, crime, etc. showing a stronger genetic input than eg. poverty.

[Anonymous No.16006673]

>>16006640
No it does not. IQ has low test-retest reliability. Meaning that it changes significantly throughout life with respect to age cohort. It also has low inter test reliability, meaning that differences for an individual between different tests of IQ are quite sizeable.

[Anonymous No.16006685]

>>16006640
And IQ does predict academic achievement nearly as well as conscientiousness scores on big-five inventory tests

[Anonymous No.16006712]

>>16006673
>>16006685
IQ as an adult does not change much, and impacts average abilities in things considered to require intelligence.

Even without IQ we can see that various human populations have very different outcomes in things like educational achievement, income, crime, etc. and that race often predicts for this better than poverty or other factors.

Once again there is no reason to think that all human groups are the same, all evidence points towards the opposite conclusion.

[Anonymous No.16006714]

>>16006564
You know nothing, colder environments select for cognitive performance and foresight. any variable trait that already exists can be selected for in a single generation. simply African environment does not select for IQ. And I know i'm talking to a retard because you don't even understand how fixation indexes work. The fixation index between sub saharan africans and europeans is 0.153, by definition a large portion of our genome was selected for. And why is it exactly that even objective traits like brain size differ? why exactly is it that we can guess your race from a brain scan?

That's what the mainstream science deniers don't tell you. They like to work in the abstract because it allows them to obfuscate. It is an objective fact that there was selective pressure on brain function, for example, ashkenazi jews have an extremely high verbal IQ, like literally 4 standard deviations from African Pygmies, that is equivalent to the gap between the average person and Einstein, at a certain point it just becomes ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.16006743]

>>16006714
You’re retarded. I work with fMRI data daily. There’s no way to tell that a brain belongs to a certain race. Idk what your genetics background is, but this absolute bunk. Large percentage of our genome is selected for? All of our genome was selected for, and same for Africans. The problem with this logic is that you assume that everyone who stayed in Africa is a living fossil. It’s the same logic where some people think we evolved from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are modern species. Modern Africans have evolved the same way that Europeans have.

[Anonymous No.16006762]

>>16006743
You can tell races by skull shape, and the average brain size among different populations is different. Rather strikingly, East Asians, who have the highest average IQ, also have the largest brain sizes, despite being on average smaller. The populations with the lowest IQ have the smallest brain sizes.

This pattern repeats in other random things like twinning rates and gestation times.

[Anonymous No.16006798]

>>16006762
Brain size is not we’ll do related to cognition, even when scaled to body mass. It’s neocortex volume to body mass and the degree of convolution (ie. sulci) and this is on a species level, mind you. You’re right about skull shape, but those are exterior features, and even still, a lot of variation within race.

[Anonymous No.16006870]

>>16006762
about brain volumes...In fMRI research about structural abnormalities, we must understand what is normative in terms of volume. I won't get into tracts, because that's a little more complicated. But when we're considering volumes, we refer to norms. The way they come up with these norms is by collecting tons of data on human brain volumes (number of voxels in a region) and scale that with respective other brain volumes, controlling for body mass. The range in number of voxels per region in humans without neruodevelopmental disorders is very tight. So tight in fact, that we cannot really even distinguish a male brain from a female brain, if they're the same height, let alone two male brains of people from different races.

[Anonymous No.16007245]

>>16003029
When I think about something - I just conceptualize it.
I just have the concept in my head, as in a void and then I get a stream of ideas, realizations, I alter it as I will.
My best way to read a text is to translate phrases, clauses into meaning units, and think about its structure as a coherent whole - or follow the author's stream of thinking.
This does not involve imagery or anything like that, it just happens.

[Anonymous No.16007288]

>>16004427
The process of vocalizing reflects back into the pre-vocal thought and extends and crystallizes it.
Without saying the words the thought remains formless. We give birth to ideas by turning them into words "in the beginning was the word". To speak is an act of creation.

[Anonymous No.16007715]

>>16005828
>>16006743
I'm an Iranian too who got a BS degree in Neuroscience, but I am back for an engineering degree now. Race is real, and there are, indeed, most likely racial differences among groups.
What you are ignoring are the genes that increase experience-dependent neuroplasticity. Research in this regard is growing, but I have a hypothesis that such genes are more common among Europeans than other races. These genes allow for much heightened neuroplasticity, which can allow for faster learning rate. I think these genes can be selected for in a society that has good nutrition (e.g., fish rich in DHA), values education, and free-thinking more, and there may be epigenetic mechanisms at play too.
Granted, I do agree a lot of IQ tests done on countries could be improved. For example, I am not sure if any IQ test has been done in Tehran, but some poorly designed ones were done in rural areas of Iran, which led to a low score. One cannot trust the national IQ averages that Lynn/Vanhanen and Reich gave, since they pooled many preexisting studies which were poorly done. If I remember correctly, Lynn/Vanhanen did not even administer these tests and instead relied on inferences from GDP estimates and so forth, which is unreliable.
Anyways, racial difference most likely does exist on a genetic level, and you cannot ignore how it is correlated with learning (LTP and all other neurobiological mechanisms like homeostatic plasticity). You are correct that introduction to complex abstract topics at a young age, especially during critical periods, may increase one's intelligence though, but you cannot ignore how genes determine how plastic the brain remains or so.
I know an Iranian Jew, for example. He is a nice man with a good heart, but he is intellectually debilitated due to dyslexia. He cannot even learn how to use basic software due to his limitations in critical thinking. I suspect he may be inbred and with an IQ in the vicinity of 70. There are obviously genetic correlates to why he became like this, perhaps a brain that lacks the plasticity to learn new information at an adequate rate. The idea that many West Africans could have genes that lead to less intelligence, on average, is not far-fetched, but we need better studies.

[Anonymous No.16008318]

>>16004687
I’d disagree. Humans have “thought” and “instinct”, which is to say, the subvocalized musings which make up our linear self-logic, and the unspeakable, intrinsic concepts which our brain can still process; things like pain, sadness, lust, which our bodies subject us too without words. If you put your hand to a hot stove accidentally you will not think “This is hot and I must move my hand.” You will feel pain, and jolt away.
>>16004681
There would be no thought, only instinct. Language is sentience.

[Anonymous No.16008559]

>>16007715
Hey dadash. I want to address all your points, but I’m on my phone, so forgive the choppiness. The first thing is that, there are higher rates of brain pathology in some populations, but we’re talking about neurotypical people, and pathology like Dyslexia is common to all populations across the globe. The point I’m making is that IQ is not a measure of capacity, it’s performance on tasks that supposedly test fluid intelligence. If you look At studies done by the Soviet Luria decades ago on Uzbekistani peasants, you’ll realize that the analytical thinking that allows you to perform well on an IQ test is learned. There have been countless studies on the effects of education on IQ. I don’t think there’s reason to believe that any one group is particularly smarter because of the societies they live in or the number of academics in the population, because there’s usually more proximal causes. There’s no evolutionary reason to believe it either. There are theories about how those population that migrated further from Africa are more ambitious/have a version of the ddh4 gene that makes them more curious. There are theories about how cold climates require select for cognitive ability planning because they involve more planning to live in. But those are largely debunked. I just don’t think that cognition, for which more than half of our genes are involved in, is something that could have diverged so much in the past 50k years, especially in the absence of strong selection pressures. This is not a Mendelian trait like eye colour, nor is it a polygenic trait like height, for which there are strong selection pressures in extreme environments. This is a collection of polygenic traits for which there have been no reasonable selection pressures for. About LTP, this is something that I have a problem with. Because they have no idea what it is that makes one person smarter than another on cellular level. Aplysia slugs demonstrate ltp, finding the alleles on a gene involved with maximal neuronal sensitivity does Not mean that sensitivity is domain-general. Anyway, best of luck with that engineering degree, bro.

[Anonymous No.16008703]

>>16006200
t. hylic

[Anonymous No.16008712]

>>16003155
kek