zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. vivekd+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-10-19 18:36:08
I think in words. For me during thought there is a literal voice in my putting my thoughts into words.
replies(5): >>BarryM+S1 >>jerf+U1 >>binary+46 >>neom+yv >>perryi+bH
2. BarryM+S1[view] [source] 2024-10-19 18:52:47
>>vivekd+(OP)
Are there really people who don't know about inner monologues?
replies(1): >>IAmGra+Cz1
3. jerf+U1[view] [source] 2024-10-19 18:52:56
>>vivekd+(OP)
I have the standard internal monologue many people report, but I've never put much stock in the "words are necessary for thought" because while I think a lot in words, I also do a lot of thinking in not-words.

We recently put the project I've been working on for the last year out into the field for the first time. As was fully expected, some bugs emerged. I needed to solve one of them. I designed a system in my head for spawning off child processes based on the parent process to do certain distinct types of work in a way that gives us access to OS process-level controls over the work, and then got about halfway through implementing it. Little to none of this design involved "words". I can't even say it involved much "visualization" either, except maybe in a very loose sense. It's hard to describe in words how I didn't use words but I've been programming for long enough that I pretty much just directly work in system-architecture space for such designs, especially relatively small ones like that that are just a couple day's work.

Things like pattern language advocates aren't wrong that it can still be useful to put such things into words, especially for communication purposes, but I know through direct personal experience that words are not a necessary component of even quite complicated thought.

"Subjective experience reports are always tricky, jerf. How do you know that you aren't fooling yourself about not using words?" A good and reasonable question, to which my answer is, I don't even have words for the sort of design I was doing. Some, from the aforementioned pattern languages, yes, but not in general. So I don't think I was just fooling myself on the grounds that even if I tried to serialize what I did directly into English, a transliteration rather than a translation, I don't think I could. I don't have one.

I'm also not claiming to be special. I don't know the percentages but I'm sure many people do this too.

4. binary+46[view] [source] 2024-10-19 19:25:14
>>vivekd+(OP)
Like, at the speed of speech?
5. neom+yv[view] [source] 2024-10-19 23:25:44
>>vivekd+(OP)
I'm an idiot. I thought this meant, for some reason unknown to me... written words, something I couldn't imagine being able to think in. Spoken words, sure.
6. perryi+bH[view] [source] 2024-10-20 02:02:57
>>vivekd+(OP)
So if you want to look at your phone there's a voice going "I shall pick up my phone and swipe the lock away now."? Trying to understand if ALL thinking is in words or some subset.
◧◩
7. IAmGra+Cz1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-10-20 14:50:11
>>BarryM+S1
I think it's more likely that they lack the awareness to recognize it.
[go to top]