TheFiend
Elite
Just been lookin' into that. (*the internal dialogue/monologue)
Must've gone through at least 10 pages of search results and they mostly seem to be maybe 5-6 slightly different versions of the same secondhand articles repeating. Kinda odd.
From what I can gather based off of them, the average speculated rates of having/& not having internal dia/monologue might be something like this:
Have internal dia/monologue;
•1/4 people - near continuously
•2/4 people - occasionally
•1/4 people - never
Of the 'near continuously' & 'occasionally', some may in addition also be using visual, tactile, emotive, audio & other forms of internalized processes too.
While some of 'nevers' may also use a visual, tactile, emotive, audio or other forms of internalization continuously or occasionally instead of an internal dia/monologue.
But, ah mean, that's just going off the articles, which generally seem to reference either of only two minor precursory scientific studies, that aren't all that comprehensive really. More like professional guesswork and tbh, the speculative conclusions (imo) draw on a lot of unreasonable presumptuous hypotheticals.Like, for whatever reason, basically there's an assumption that those with no internal dia/monologue nor any other form of internalized processes, are more developed, supposedly being able to interact & function externally without needing to internally process anything.
Which, to me, seems an absurdly backward assumption, although I could simply be unknowingly biased about this.
Just don't math right, imo.
I'm pretty sure I near continuously engage one or multiple of all the defined forms of internalized processes, dia/monologue, visual, tactile, emotive, audio & possibly another 2-3 more abstract forms, perhaps described as olfactory, intuitive and maybe non-dualistic or something. Yet I'm also able to willingly just cease all of these internalized processes whenever I want as well, so there's basically nothingness.
When I cease all internalized processes, it's sorta like functioning in a semi-autopilotmode, though it can vary over a spectrum between acute awareness and near no awareness at all. An example of the former, with more acute awareness, being while driving or doing other shit I've done so many times they're basically preprogrammed and I don't need to think to do them, although optionally can if I want, either way I'm still acutely aware of internal & external stimuli & experiences.
Whereas an example of the latter, near no awareness, would be while jamming a decent immersive video game, at least once mastering the control inputs to the point of essentially being able to run on near total autopilot.
The issue I see with the conclusions drawn from the two scientific studies assuming no internalized processes equals greater development, is that the assumption disregards considering whether these persons ever actually developed anything. For some reason the assumption is a lack of internalized processes therefore can only mean greater development. This completely ignores questioning how the supposed development even occured.
That is to say, if one never actually developed a skill, then how would the skill develop at all.
So basically, as far as I can currently tell, when functioning on autopilot mode and with limited awareness, it's practically impossible to engage with anything requiring more demanding complex abstractions. Like, running on full autopilot essentially means inhibited engagement capacities predominantly reliant upon preprogrammed automated functionalities. For example, if I'm jamming a decent video game and fully immersed, if you asked me something complicated that I don't already have an established knowledge base thereof, I, in full auto mode, would definitely not be able to effectively respond without disengaging autopilot and engaging internalized processing to begin addressing the unfamiliar abstraction.
Prolly not explaining this shit all that well here. Point being, the whole having or not having internalized forms of processing, is barely even begun to be explored yet. And frankly it's fuckin' fascinating aye.
)
