Conservatives explained.
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
118 points (100.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
35688 readers
962 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Lack of inner monologue doesn’t mean lack of thoughts. People without an inner monologue just don’t think in words. They can still think up concepts and ideas like everyone else.
Tangentially related, but the fox game show “1% club” is, perhaps unintentionally, a fascinating demonstration of how vastly different people think through logic problems.
The premise is the contestants go through a series of questions already asked to a sample of Americans and progress in order of how “difficult” they are based on how many got them wrong.
The interesting part comes when there can be a significant gap in what I perceive the difficulty to be between questions. Sometimes I may have trouble with an “easy” one but get a significantly “tougher” one no problem.
It seems like lunacy to me, but all it really means most times is the format or mechanics of the logic needed for the answer is just more natural to me than the majority of the sample.
Google gave me mostly AI slop and pop psychology, but this article is an in-depth summary of the literature on the topic of inner speech, for anyone interested (and dedicated - it’s long and very technical).
It doesn’t seem to justify dichotomizing people into those who “have it” and those who don’t. Research looks mostly focused on what cognitive or developmental purpose it serves.
Inner speech can be defined as the subjective experience of language in the absence of overt and audible articulation. This definition is necessarily simplistic: as the following will demonstrate, experiences of this kind vary widely in their phenomenology, their addressivity to others, their relation to the self, and their similarity to external speech.
So, it’s on a spectrum, highly subjective, and difficult to talk about with precision.
I personally do not normally think in words, but I certainly rehearse/relive conversations. I also complain to myself with words when I am really miserable, I think it’s comforting to “say it out loud” (inside). Do I have an inner monologue?
You just described how you monologue like a villian in your head, so yeah you're monologueing xD
I process thoughts visually, as typed text. It’s like a fucking ticker tape when I get going having random thoughts and I definitely experience shower thoughts.
I refuse to believe this statistic. The only way to study this is by asking people and I bet most simply aren't aware that they do have it. I didn't pay much attention to it either untill I started meditating and now I'm painfully aware of it.
In addition to in-depth interviews, one of the primary methods used in the study was for volunteers to carry a timer that would go off randomly and they were to journal what they were thinking at the time
The thoughts of someone without an inner monologue are not the same as someone with an inner monologue
That’s still just asking people, which isn’t exactly the most scientific method. If you were to stop me and ask what I was thinking, a lot of the time I wouldn’t be able to tell you - but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t thinking. Thinking without being consciously aware of it is basically what I’m doing all day, every day. It's mostly when I try to just be and let the world come to me that I become aware of how quickly I get lost in thought.
Probably a good thing they asked volunteers interested in the study to do it instead of someone such as yourself, who isn't.
I remember the researcher saying that it took some time for the participants to get used to the routine of being mindful of their thoughts and journaling at the drop of a hat
I know I wouldn't want to do that either
Probably a good thing they asked volunteers interested in the study to do it instead of someone such as yourself, who isn’t.
Ignoring the ad hominem, I don’t see how that’s supposed to be an argument against what I said - it only highlights that the participants weren’t even randomly selected. If you're cherry-picking participants, there’s even less reason to generalize the findings to the entire population.
As I mentioned in my other comment: you could just as easily run a study asking people to self-report whether they have a blind spot in their visual field, and everyone would say no - and everyone would be wrong.
Just because someone isn’t aware of something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I’m not asking you to change your opinion - I’m simply saying I’m highly skeptical of it.
Just because you don't have an inner monologue doesn't mean you are incapable of thought, or showerthoughts if we're getting specific
Correct, a lack of inner speech isn't the same as an absence of thought
It just seems like a true shower thought requires a narration to get so incredibly off tangent that it amounts to more than a simple epiphany
Like Mitch Hedberg, he is a great example of someone who let their inner speech run free
https://mander.xyz/post/20289088
I'd still argue against that. I've had one true showerthought and it didn't manifest as monologue, even though I do have an internal monologue. I had a concept and images for it. I spent some time trying to put it into words.
I still don't see how a showerthought (or any thought) has to have a verbal origin in the thinker's mind; I would argue any internal monologue is but a secondary step after a thought has occurred. I've never heard of anyone being unable to predict what their own internal monologue is saying, and I've never heard of anyone being unable to make quick decisions because they had to first hear a command in their minds.
Do people without an inner monologue "hear" the words they read as they read them?
Many people do not hear as they read. In fact the skill of speed-reading depends on turning the auditory experience off:
There are three types of reading:
- Subvocalization: sounding out each word internally, as reading to oneself. This is the slowest form of reading.
- Auditory reading: hearing out the read words. This is a faster process.
- Visual reading: understanding the meaning of the word, rather than sounding or hearing. This is the fastest process.
Subvocalization readers (Mental readers) generally read at approximately 250 words per minute, auditory readers at approximately 450 words per minute and visual readers at approximately 700 words per minute. Proficient readers are able to read 280–350 wpm without compromising comprehension.
I distinctly recall thinking inner monologues were a "neat idea" after seeing them on TV as a child and thinking it would be a useful skill to learn. I never did though
I don't believe it
You don't have to. It's a thoroughly researched study, your belief in its existence is irrelevant.
I think you are completely misrepresenting the literature in the field. There has been decades of research on inner monologues, but whether anyone truly has no inner monologue is still a matter of debate, and suggesting that it could be as much as 50% is absolutely wild.
One recent example is Nedergaard and Lupyan (2024), who used questionnaires on 1,037 participants and found no one who reported a complete lack of inner speech. They did show a link between lower frequency of internal speech and lower performance on sole verbal cognitive tasks.
But this was frequently misreported in popular science news, which may be where you got the idea. For example, Science Daily's headline "People without an inner voice have poorer verbal memory" and subheading "Between 5-10 per cent of the population do not experience an inner voice" certainly make some bold claims (although still well below your "up to 50%" statistic). But just a few lines into the article it's been rephrase as "between 5-10 per cent of the population do not have the same experience of an inner voice". This is more accurate, as all studies agree that there is a variety of experiences of inner voices / monologues, but a different experience is not the same as an absence.
In another comment you make reference to the experience sampling study (where a buzzer would sound and participants would record whether they were experiencing an inner monologue) which I assume is the work of Heavey and Hurlburt. It's true that they claim that 5 of their 30 participants recorded no instances of inner voice, but let's be clear about what the experimental procedure was: the participant would turn on the buzzer, which would buzz at a random time (an average of every 30 minutes) and the study was based on two periods of five samples. So, ten data points collected over approx five hours.
Even people with strong inner monologues report different frequencies of inner speech depending on their activities. Many people do not experience inner speech when actively engaging in other verbal activity - talking with friends, watching a video; while quiet focused activities such as golf show much higher reporting of inner speech. So the absence for five individuals of any inner speech during those ten particular samples is in no sense equievlant to "16% of peole have no inner monologue". Indeed even the study's authors acknowledge "it is possible that these participants may all have actually had quite similar inner experiences; it is merely the reports of those experiences that differed."
Tldr: I think you're making some very wild claims about this subject, without posting sources. No significant study I know of claims that any sizable percentage of the population have no inner voice, (although there certainly is an interesting variety in how frequent and clearly it is experienced.)
Internal monologue is entirely a subjective experience, and I don’t think there’s any other way to study it than by asking people. Just because someone isn’t consciously aware of it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Just like if we asked people whether they have a blind spot in their visual field, everyone would say no - and everyone would be wrong.
... Are you suggesting we are incapable of thought? My mind wanders just like anyone else's.
Wait am I confused on what an inner monologue is? Is it different from a train of thought? Do I just think I have one? Do people have a non metaphorical inner monologue where they physically hear thoughts? What percent are they in control of the thoughts?
If your mind wanders, isn't that the inner monologue?
I was today years old when I learned that many people don't have an inner monologue. The human body is so fascinating.
Oddly enough, if I don't take my ADHD meds, I tend to talk to myself out loud a lot because my inner monologue gets kind of "muffled" in the "noise" and I rely on it very heavily to think through.
when I learned
You didn't learn anything...
You saw a random social media post and instantly believed what it said
What the fuck is wrong with people?
Maybe other people have read this research before as I have
Maybe that's what's wrong with them
Feel free to post that research at some point.
All 50+ years of it?
Google is also an option
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. That's how this works.
You can't say there's science to back up your claims, then not use science (burden of proof) to back up your claims.
If I claimed there was a pink polka dot elephant in the trunk of my car, that can teleport to other dimensions with its trunk; I would be required to post proof of that. If I told people to Google it, because there's science out there that backs up my assertion, they'd tell me to get bent.
Don't be lazy and fall into that pit trap. Post a proof, any proof, to back up your assertions, or every single person in this thread is free to ignore you and assume you're making this up.
Edit: Looks like someone did your job for you, and is suggesting that your claims are incorrect and takes the wrong conclusions from the study.
This is why it's important for you to cite your sources when you make a claim. Typically people refusing to cite their sources or saying "just google it" are often wrong about the conclusions they draw from whatever research was done. This is why peer review is important, even though none of us are in that field, it's important to be able to have your claims withstand peers criticizing it. If it can't stand up to that, then it's likely incorrect and we can put that in the "failed hypothesis" bin.
Which is where your hypothesis would go.
And that's science. Kinda.
Just, like, one of it. The issue isn't that its been studied, as you seem to think. The issue is that you made a claim and are now vaguely gesturing at literature to back it up :)
Is it just quiet all the time?
Nah, I get background music because I don’t need “sound” for my thoughts. Generally it’s nice, sometimes it’s baby shark
In my case, in the sense of "hearing" then yes. I still have thoughts and my mind wanders and whatnot; it just doesn't need something else overtop of that
That's what's confusing me, unless I'm specifically trying to create an image, hearing me talk to myself is all I got going on in there. What am I missing out on?
I don't have a monologue. For me, it's images, concepts, ideas, and feelings all combined to make realistic depictions of the world and my ideas in my head. I don't actually know how fast inner monologues go, if they're as fast as normal talking or what, but my thoughts happen in an instant. I can picture myself going to the grocery store, what I need, where I park, where to walk, all in like a millisecond. It's more like one single thought than several individual thoughts. And I can see and feel it and sometimes even "do" it in my head. Nothing is described with words.
I remember as a kid, hearing the phrase "Don't think about elephants" and elephants being the only thing I could possibly think of.
I don't know when exactly, but by 40, I had learned to shut off my inner monologue. I realized it when I came across that phrase again, and realized that I could, indeed, consciously stop thinking about elephants.
I can't tell whether I'm envious or scared
I think it's more than half, and I think the other half just touches themselves in private areas too taboo to mention on a Christian oriented site like Lemmy. Let's just say, stay away from the devil' jewels kiddos.
You're in the right lemmy instance I see