OPPAI ORACLE

Amlux wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 4:07 pm

drummyfish wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 9:18 am

Do you guys have inner monologue? Also could the linguists around here perhaps say something about this "language and thinking" issue? Is there some sort of consensus answer about it?

I also have an inner monologue which is very strong and an ability to visualize things in my head, both of which apparently vary and sometimes go with each other. Though I never "sub-vocalize" while reading (i.e. have a voice in my head that "says" the words as I read them). Apparently this is necessary to overcome in order to read with any kind of efficiency, so maybe it explains while I've always been a quick reader. I do sub-vocalize when reading Japanese though, but maybe when it's not your first language it just can't be helped.

There's a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind which is a sort of classic out-there theory: It states that humans only had the ability to be "conscious" (self-aware of their own thinking and actions, i.e. having an internal monologue) sometime in the 2nd millennium BC, whereas before humans had a "bicameral" mind which experienced "commands" via auditory hallucinations and obeyed them without introspection. This system was anthropomorphized into the idea of "gods" commanding our actions (or providing us with spiritual insight, creative inspiration, etc.). Kind of a wild theory, but one of those which is interesting to think about. I haven't read the book yet but really should.

Thank you, I wonder if we can find someone without inner monologue, would be neat. Let me add that I do STRONGLY subvocalize (I sometimes even change voices or cast specific voice actors that often dub Czech movies LMAO) and I am an extremely slow reader, which absolutely confirms what you're saying. I know it's an "issue" but have been lazy to do anything about it

Bicameral Mind is an absolutely wild theory, I've already heard about it and frankly don't know whether to believe it or not or even how to understand it for that matter since "consciousness" and "self awareness" are extremely hard to define and grasp in any sort of "scientific" way -- I wouldn't say animals for example aren't conscious just because they lack language, but apart from this the Bicameral Mind is a pretty damn interesting idea. I've also heard that in some more "primitive" societies, allegedly, (like African tribes and such) there is a much different perception of schizophrenia. It's not seen as something bad, on the contrary people with it are often regarded as blessed, I assume because they can "hear the voices of the spirits/gods" or something. In any case this is a mindfuck.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Einstein often said he thought in "visual" ways and rarely with words. One of his quotes: "The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought." So it is probably not even that lack of inner monologue handicaps you, more like the other way around

Two langs I'd like to make friends in:

* Esperanto - https://esperanto12.net/en/

* Bahasa Indonesia - idk libgen it

Both are languages with great potential to unite people.

drummyfish wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 4:54 pm

Thank you, I wonder if we can find someone without inner monologue, would be neat.

I'm not exactly sure what counts as an "inner monologue" because I've heard it described very differently by different people. For some, they describe an inner monologue as an endless stream of words in the background that they don't control, for others, they seem to describe it more just like talking to yourself in your head. I definitely don't have the first one, and any voice inside my head is definitively my own. I do talk to myself in and out of my head, but not constantly. I tend to talk to myself more when I'm working through a complex problem.

A lot of the time, I would describe my thinking as intuitive. In the same way you might get a "gut feeling" about something that isn't necessarily vocalized in your head. Like when you just "know" when to turn while driving or, if you play an instrument, which note comes next in a piece you've been practicing. You don't need to vocalize the connection from one step to the next, and generally in my day to day I don't have any kind of inner vocalization of the things I'm doing or the things I'm thinking about, unless I'm thinking about something that is essentially steeped in language like a book. But even with a book, I might, for example, think about one scene in a book in the abstract, have it remind me of another book, and consider the connection between those two just as abstract "thought-objects" without hearing any words inside my head about it.

At times I've been frustrated by theories that say complex cognition *is* or necessarily entails language, because I'm fairly certain that I can consider fairly complex concepts and ideas without using any actual words, but the problem comes that when I try to communicate any of those concepts outward I have to find words for them. I think that language is a lot more essential for communication than cognition.

One habit I have that kind of contradicts what I've generally been saying is that, if I have an issue I've trying to think through and figure out my position on, like a philosophical or political one, I will often pretend that I'm being interviewed and asked my stance on the issue, and will, in my head or out loud, explain my position in detail to an imaginary audience. I guess this comes back to the whole "rubber duck" coding thing or the idea that you know you've learned something if you can explain it to someone else (I actually believe this should be implemented into education a lot more). I don't think this contradicts my thought about cognition though, because when I'm giving my imaginary diatribe, I'm not inventing the position from scratch. The use of language just forces me to make precise (by choosing one word or grammatical structure rather than another) concepts that already were being "thought" pre-linguistically, but were a bit fuzzy around the edges and not entirely clear or certain.

drummyfish wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 9:18 am

Do you guys have inner monologue? Also could the linguists around here perhaps say something about this "language and thinking" issue? Is there some sort of consensus answer about it?

I would say that I have quite a vivid inner monologue, to the point of me being extremely self-aware and wondering if im schizo* or not. I don't think my inner monologue or whatever the hell is going on in my head is normal, anyways I could go on but I'm not sure if it belongs in this thread.

satoridepon wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 9:04 pm

anyways I could go on but I'm not sure if it belongs in this thread.

Might be good to make an inner monologue thread?

Amlux wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 4:07 pm

I do sub-vocalize when reading Japanese though, but maybe when it's not your first language it just can't be helped.

Amlux do you think this is more because Japanese is not your native language or rather because Japanese has a very high "information density"? By information density I mean that one Japanese character carries a lot of information compared to for example one character in Spanish text. I read somewhere that for this reason Japanese people read many fewer characters per unit of time -- it seems there is a sort of limit on our information bandwidth determining how fast we can "absorb information" from text, and since Japanese already makes you read relatively slow, subvocalization then perhaps isn't such an issue?

Is there anyone here who doesn't normally subvocalize but starts to do so in a foreign language that is not Japanese?

drummyfish wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2026 10:01 am

Amlux wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 4:07 pm

I do sub-vocalize when reading Japanese though, but maybe when it's not your first language it just can't be helped.

Amlux do you think this is more because Japanese is not your native language or rather because Japanese has a very high "information density"? By information density I mean that one Japanese character carries a lot of information compared to for example one character in Spanish text. I read somewhere that for this reason Japanese people read many fewer characters per unit of time -- it seems there is a sort of limit on our information bandwidth determining how fast we can "absorb information" from text, and since Japanese already makes you read relatively slow, subvocalization then perhaps isn't such an issue?

Is there anyone here who doesn't normally subvocalize but starts to do so in a foreign language that is not Japanese?

I think Japanese is a language that is hard to subvocalise compared to others. Because how to read a kanji is not predetermined and it depends on the context.

For example, 常 is pronunciated as "jou", "tsune", "toko" in different contexts while meaning the same.

Also it is hard to read difficult kanjis. Being native does not mean that one can read kanjis well. In fact it is a certification.

Thricegreat wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2026 12:41 pm

I think Japanese is a language that is hard to subvocalise compared to others. Because how to read a kanji is not predetermined and it depends on the context.

As I always say: The real difficulty lies in the sheer number of possible combinations.

drummyfish wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2026 10:01 am

Amlux do you think this is more because Japanese is not your native language or rather because Japanese has a very high "information density"? By information density I mean that one Japanese character carries a lot of information compared to for example one character in Spanish text. I read somewhere that for this reason Japanese people read many fewer characters per unit of time -- it seems there is a sort of limit on our information bandwidth determining how fast we can "absorb information" from text, and since Japanese already makes you read relatively slow, subvocalization then perhaps isn't such an issue?

Is there anyone here who doesn't normally subvocalize but starts to do so in a foreign language that is not Japanese?

As others said, I would not be surprised if this was a component of it. It's why translated Japanese NES games always have text that moves super slow when translated into English, haha. (Well, I guess these ARE games for children a lot of the time.)

Thricegreat wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2026 12:41 pm

I think Japanese is a language that is hard to subvocalise compared to others. Because how to read a kanji is not predetermined and it depends on the context.

For example, 常 is pronunciated as "jou", "tsune", "toko" in different contexts while meaning the same.

Also it is hard to read difficult kanjis. Being native does not mean that one can read kanjis well. In fact it is a certification.

I have realised that this is also related to my personal technique to read fast.

When I read fast, I look at kanjis first and make images of them in my mind instead of pronouncing them. For example, when I see

夏は夜。
月の頃はさらなり、闇もなほ、蛍のおほく飛びちがひたる。
また、ただ一つ二つなど、ほのかにうち光りて行くも、をかし。
雨など降るも、をかし。

- 清少納言, 『枕草子』

I look at "夏", "夜", "月", &c. first and make images of summer, night, moon, &c. in my mind. Then I look at kana words next and adjust the illustrations in my mind.