Thinking purely in words, how this works

In summary, the conversation discusses the topic of how people think in words alone and the curiosity of the speaker to learn more about it. They share a personal experience of meeting someone who claimed to think purely through words, which sparked their interest. The conversation delves into questions about how this process works and how it affects emotional, cognitive, and memory functions. The conversation also mentions a retired psychology professor who claims to have no mental imagery at all and discusses the theory that imagination is really just sensory anticipation. The speaker also shares a short column they wrote on the subject.
  • #1
Intotouch
2
0
I am very curious about how people think in words alone for a long time and am hoping that some of you here can enlighten me on this topic. When i try to investigate the subject almost all that i come across are articles on how people think visually which for me is normal and therefore of little interest.

About eight years ago i knew a man who said that he thought purely through words, that as he thought script would appear in his mind's eye and that images never appeared for him. This dumbfounded me. I had no idea before then that another human could have such fundamental differences in thought processes, and the difference, from my perspective, is so huge as to appear alien. Since then I've been very curious as to how people think through words alone, how common this is and how this effects emotional/cognitive/memory function. Although i have often asked people since how they think i have only ever met one person who described thinking in the same way as Simon and he was immediately defensive about the subject. (Probably because i was looking at him like he was a prize specimen!) It probably doesn't help that i work in an art college and that all of my friends are creative types, although i am also wondering whether Irish people think more visually than other nationalities as this is where i live and the "word thinkers" are (i think) so rare here.

So can anyone help me out? How does this work? Does your inner monologue appear as text? How do you imagine mathematics? Is it by seeing the symbols themselves? Do words appear closer or far away according to emotional impact? Do the words have a colour? How many words appear at once and does the field behind have any quality? Do emotional words appear different to each other?EG Is anger bigger or closer? Are memories also in words or do they have images? Can you remember sound/voices? Can you also remember/imagine music? If you do is it holistic sound or just the voice? When daydreaming do you ever lose awareness of your surroundings?

If there are other questions that I've left out dive in and ask.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Intotouch said:
I am very curious about how people think in words alone for a long time and am hoping that some of you here can enlighten me on this topic.

There is certainly variation in the vividness of people's mental imagery - a bell curve probably. But it would be safe to say that all humans think using the interplay of words and imagery. Here is a short column I wrote a few years back which touches directly on your query.

The other day, a retired psychology professor told me something startling about himself. He had no mental imagery. Nothing at all. No pictures in the head. No memory for tunes. No ability to imagine bodily actions. Certainly no ability to conjure up a smell or taste.

Once or twice in his life he had experienced the brief flash of a mental image (which is how he came to realize what he was missing). But generally nothing. He couldn't even recall scenes from his childhood or the faces of his family. When I probed him with questions about what he had for breakfast and the colour of his front door, he gave confident answers, but said he still had no pictures in his head. Verbal replies that "seemed right" simply popped into his thoughts.

Of course, he said, no one believes him when he tells them about this lack of imagery. And he was right. I didn't either.

Mental imagery is a tantalising subject; so central to our thought processes and yet so elusive to describe or research. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject. But the explanation that makes the most sense to me was put forward in the 1970s by the Cornell University psychologist, Ulric Neisser. He said imagination was really just sensory anticipation by another name. A mental image is the result of preparing to see or hear or feel something - and then not having the actual thing present to the senses. Memories are used to drive the brain's perceptual apparatus into a state of high expectation, an expectation so vivid that it becomes a surrogate experience.

The brilliance of this explanation is that not only does it tie imagination to something with a clear evolutionary purpose - the general need for brains to predict events in the world - but it also shows why the images themselves might grade from faint inklings and vague premonitions to full-strength, explicit, pictures in the head.

The cortex, with its hierarchical organisation and heavy back-projections between each "rung" of processing, can be driven both ways. The same neural machinery can be driven bottom-up by sensations, or top-down by ideas. As neuroimaging has revealed, picturing a letter or some other target shape can cause a projection of neural activity all the way back down to the primary visual cortex. So the theory goes that the strength of our images depends upon how far back across the sensory hierarchy we manage to push a particular wave of anticipation.

For example, imagine a rhinoceros. That is, ask yourself what it would be like to be just about to see a rhinoceros. You will probably start with a vague feeling of being ready for a rhinoceros type experience - a vigilant, but also oriented, state. Next a concrete image should swim into view. Perhaps a mental snapshot of a dusty-backed rhino standing in the African scrub. You would begin by rousing areas of the temporal lobe with general knowledge about rhinos. Then this would tug on neurons back across the visual pathways until a full-blown image was created.

There is plenty of research to suggest that there is great individual variation in the vividness and stability of such anticipatory images. Some people - like my professor friend - can't seem to get past the initial vague inkling stage. They can't push an expectation to the point where it grows rich in sensory detail. At the other end of the scale, there are those who claim hallucinogenic-strength mental images. These people often have "photographic" memories and are highly hypnotisable. Most of us lie somewhere between these two extremes. Perhaps this natural variation has something to do with the density of a person's cortical back-projections or some other such neurological mechanism.

But regardless, if mental imagery is really anticipation, a basic brain function, then everybody should have imagery of at least the inklings and stirrings kind, even if they might not enjoy full-blown pictures in the head or music in their ears.

My psychology professor admitted this was probably true. When he was answering questions about front doors or breakfasts, he was aware of a background sense of orientation - what he called a state of conceptual-emotive preparation - from out of which the answers sprang. But still, wasn't it surprising that such preparation didn't bear any perceptual fruit at all?

Changing subject, he then told me of a friend who had "kinda fried his brains" on drugs and now claims to see a hundred internal imagery screens at once, all with a different subject and in full colour animation. Well now neither of us knew what to make of the truth of that one.
 
  • #3
Here is an interesting question for someone who 'only thinks in words'

You have lost some very familiar object, such as your wallet or purse. Perhaps it is brightly coloured, but it certainly has a distinctive image.
Describe your thoughts as you search for this object, lifting cushions, opening drawers etc.

Edit

I freely admit to carrying a mental picture when doing this. It certainly helps to know I am looking for, say, a black rectangular box so that I can reject all white rounds etc. However this technique has played false on occasion when my memory of the lost object has let me down.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I notice that when I'm tired, lying in bed and listening to music, I find that my thoughts become more visual and less linguistic. As I fade into sleep, I sometimes find myself thinking very clear thoughts without words, although most of the things I think throughout the day is with words. If I have a problem I need to work out, I use words. Only as I fall asleep to I think of solutions in terms of images.
 
  • #5
Personally, I find I become more talkative in my brain at night. For most of the day, I think in moving pictures+words. I don't know if that's normal for other people, but it's conditioned for me. Sometimes classes are so boring I start to watch movies in my head I've seen a billion times. My brain's got surround sound, awesome stuff. And an instant replay button. ;] I find though, solving physic's is a lot easier with this motion picture way of thinking. But logic puzzles, like the Monty Python make more sense with motion picture + words + a lot of instant replay + cross examination.

I think though, thinking in words is a lot logic based, x makes sense, therefore y makes sense. A lot more linear. Which makes me think people who think in words could be more organized. Maybe math makes more sense to them to, because it's quite logical.
 
  • #6
Thank you for the responses. It's great to get some feedback on this subject!

I find myself that mathematics stops making sense when i can't see in my mind what I'm solving, similarly for physics, so I'm not sure if logical thinking necessarily goes with thinking purely through words. One advantage that i could see would be not being distracted by day dreaming/too many ideas spontaneously arising. But then again maybe not. Maybe wordier people day dream in wordy ways.

Does anyone dream without images? The example of the psychology professor is a fascinating one given the importance placed on dream imagery in psychology. Did this man also dream in words? Do words carry far more emotional weight and flavour or emotional import for this man than for the rest of us?

When attending classes in Buddhism i came across a meditations that relied heavily on visual imagination. One is linked to the increase of compassion. The first step is you imagine people that you love surrounding you and thus feel compassion and love naturally arise within you, so is there a link between compassion and visual imagination? A basic quality of empathy is to imagine yourself in the other persons position. How is this possible when one cannot imagine visually? I wonder the same about cruelty. If someones visual memory is poor does this mean that they would be less troubled by guilt? This comes to mind as well because the first man that i met like this was trying to increase his own compassion. It seemed though that he was kind and patient so maybe there is no connection.

Does having a poor visual recall enable people to overcome trauma more quickly than those who may be tormented by vivid visual details? One hypnotist i remember reading treats patients who have suffered trauma by asking them to remember the event but imagine it first from outside as though they are observing themselves. Next he asks them to imagine it but as if it were in black and white, then seen from a distance. Each time the patient does the emotional impact of the memory is lessened until it no longer creates a traumatic response.

The bell curve idea makes sense, but still i wonder how many individuals make up the "word only" end of the curve.
 
  • #7
Consider that all of your previous conscious thoughts including images and word thoughts are stored in readiness for a comparison with the external world as it is imbibed through the present moment. Indeed you have the entire universe as you have so far experienced it, stored in your unconscious, this includes all words for things. The experiences that were stored with a high impact or via great repetition are the most significant or distinct part of this unconscious universe. Your personality traits being the most distinct memory set. Upon interfacing with the external world your unconscious makes an instantaneous database comparison and presents to you images and words that most closely match the data that is arriving. So the words and thoughts you have about this external moment are never actually made by the external world. They are always your view, or creation of the external world the instant after your unconscious mind has processed it. Your thoughts are a solution made following an increasingly accurate algorithmic process. The more closely timed this solution is to the arriving data, the more certain we are of what we're seeing or thinking. Though the fundamental truth is, we are never in the 'present' moment at the conscious level. We are always one step behind the processing machine that is our unconscious. So your word thoughts are only the product of a subliminal algorithmic process that is so quick that we falsely experience our word thoughts as being accurate and in the current moment. So word thoughts are a finite solution that are created as 'current' reality is compared to the astronomical database held unseen to each of us. This 'solution' is the last part of the sequence but it is important that word thoughts 'sees itself' as 'in the present' or the game is up. So word thoughts (or any conscious thoughts) are a reaction and can never be the truth, merely a representation of it, an image. It is the same for everybody. No one can be absolutely right about anything at the conscious level. Conscious thought is just our personal truth, that is all. The thing that stops us seeing back into this mechanism is emotion. That is, if I were to relinquish my reliance on my word thoughts as being an accurate portrayal of reality, I would face the fearful realm of irrationality, or madness. We fear this, but why? We were each highly irrational in the early stages of life. Most of us were happy then. Though for 'adults', we fear affect and emotions. Yet they are simply more deeply held algorithms that exist to inhibit regress each time the fundamental irrational basis of our word thoughts is nears the surface. Among other things, we commonly experience this rejection of regression as a fear of 'being wrong'.
 
  • #8
No one that I've asked has admitted to thinking only in words (i.e. in complete sentences of a natural language), but here is a thesis by someone who claims to.

SILBY, BRENT (2000). Revealing the Langauge of Thought.

Silby characterises his thought as internal speech rather than internal reading. Just as we might find it hard to believe that anyone's thoughts could consist entirely of subvocalisation, he dismisses the claims of "normal people" to be able to think nonverbally. For example, he attempts to explain away Einstein's explicit statement that his creative thought was primarily nonverbal, and bases his theoretical argument on the assumption that, in spite of our claims to the contrary, we really do all think in words.

After all, it certainly seems as if our thinking consists largely in sentences of natural language. Whether we are thinking aloud or internally, the process almost always seems to involve a voice -- and this voice always talks in a natural language. (1)

We are not forming thoughts and then translating those thoughts into natural language to be spoken or written -- rather, the actual thoughts are being spoken or written. When we are engaged in a stream of thought, we can quite easily switch between an external and internal mode of operation. The reason this is important is because it shows that there is not much difference between entertaining a thought in inner speech or external speech -- it is always done in natural language. As Wittgenstein (1958: pg 43) put it, "the experience of thinking may be just the experience of saying". So, human thinking and reasoning consists in sequences of natural language sentences that are spoken internally or externally. (3.2)

If someone asks us what we are thinking, our expression of the thought is the same as our inner experience of that thought. (4.3.4)

He gives an example of how his thoughts might run if he arrived at work having forgotten to bring coffee:

...oh no, there's no coffee. What will I do? Where will I get some? Damn! What a hassle, I'll have to get some. But I put some in my bag last night... (3.3.1)

Again, referring to Wittgenstein:

He asked us to think a thought such as `it might rain tomorrow', and then think the same thought again without any words, while leaving the meaning intact. It can't be done. If we try to do so with visual imagery, all we end up with is an image of rain. (4.3.3)

Reasons for caution. As a philosopher, and someone who has studied and thought hard about the issue, he isn't a naive witness to his own experience, and may have an emotional stake in this particular view, a view incompatible with the possibility of nonverbal thought. The fact that he dismisses or tries to theoretically explain away reports of nonverbal thought makes me wonder whether he might also be downplaying aspects of his own experience which conflict with his theory.

Whether this is the case, though, I just don't know. If he really did think as he describes, that could motivate his belief that other people are deluding themselves when they say they're different.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Finally a place where this is discussed! And I see that the conversation was started by a person with a more neurotypical brain. Otherwise the people that have this problem use put more weight on finding a solution/reason or other people that have the same problem.

I've had my inner dialogue for as long as I can remember. I guess tediousness was the reason I started talking to myself as though there were several little me inside my brain.
I have little or no ability to create or represent images in my mind. If you ask me to imagine a red ball I will not be able to see a red ball, I will only imagine the properties of this said red ball and then focus my eyes on perhaps the floor and stating to myself: "There Is a red ball there". Either that or I will become frustrated that I cannot visualize the colour "red" (or any other than black).
I can however navigate streets in my mind. Although I cannot see the street, I can somehow 'feel' myself moving along the street.
Hm. It's like I'm drawing the image of the memory, line by line, behind a thick black curtain. Hard to explain. And hard to understand for most people that can visualize.
However I've recently been investigating the properties of this disability and I can't refute the possibility that it has something to do with Alexithymia. I fit into Alexithymia like a glove. Because those that have it have an impairment to imagination. I also cannot remember emotions, but if you tell me to show an emotion I will be quick to respond. I cannot remember voices either, just pale imitations. If I listen to a song in my head I can only focus on one instrument at a time which usually results in mixing all the instruments together and then alternate between lyrics and instruments, not both.

You asked how I calculate maths? Well.. I don't see any numbers. I just tell myself: "two plus two equals four", that's it. But this also means I can't calculate something big because I have a short short-term verbal memory. So, for example, I can calculate one thing and then store the answer, move on, calculate another answer, and then add both answers. That is if both calculations are Very simple. Otherwise the answer for the first calculation gets mixed up in the constant verbal flow. A strategy I have for that is that I repeat the answer every 2 seconds or so.

So I do pretty much everything with the voice inside my head, and that's the voice that's imitating singers when I remember the songs I listen to. I have a hard time keeping songs in my head though, they fade quite fast.

Also. I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but when I watch a movie I often mix up actors. Similar actors look the same to me if they aren't in the same frame together. And when I ask the ones I watch the movie with, if they think they look alike, they can say things like "well they do have the same hair style" or "they've both got beards in the same colour".

When I daydream I use to lose awareness of my surroundings yes. But I usually stare into the ground or into a table when I do. And the daydreams consists of me verbally imitating several people, perhaps a scene from a movie. So the thing I lose most awareness of is sounds. I stare into the ground or a table because I have to concentrate quite a bit to daydream and I'm easily interrupted by visual stimuli. When I sit on a bus, I rather watch the forests flying by the window than trying to daydream, even if the ride is for hours.
Well that is when I'm trying to immerse myself more into the daydreams. What I do most of the time though is philosophising which doesn't demand as much concentration, it's just talking.. with my other 'persons'.

These were just my thoughts at the moment. Not a comprehensive story of how I have it, there is surely more to it. I hope it's of interest to someone.
 
  • #10
I know this is an old thread, and this is only a tangential topic, but it's been something I've always wondered about:

For those of us who think mostly in words, and have conversations with ourselves, do you refer to yourself as "you" in your thoughts? When I am thinking through an issue, trying to clarify something to make a decision, or just planning my day, I talk to myself (in my head) as if I'm outside myself. The voice inside my head has a conversation with my "self" and talks to the "self" in the second person.

A while ago, I decided that this is strange, so I tried to stop, with minimal success. I tried to think thoughts like,
"I need to remember the milk." instead of "You need to remember the milk."

Anyone else do this? Thanks.
 
  • #11
I "think" (heh heh) that there's a fundamental problem with the word 'think'. One thing we don't 'think' about very often but that dominates a lot of our 'thinking' is how we perceive space.

Space is not just visual. Space is very somatic sensory, too. There are neurons that can detect the velocity and position of your muscles and skin receptors that can map the direction of sensory stimuli (a brush with a leaf gives you a sense of direction of motion, you can tell that wind has direction without seeing it). The ears act as direction and distance detectors (each ear's response eventually meets at the superior olivary nucleus for coincidence detection, iirc) give you the azimuth and the amplitude (and anecdotally the frequency spectrum) of a sound gives you the distance.

Your friend probably refers to 'thinking' as the language stream of consciousness. I think most people experience that, but surely, most people thinks in other ways too, probably in different ratios as different parts of the brain compete in different ways in different people.

But even much of our language is dominated by spatial metaphors. We describe emotions as up and down (and their corresponding effectors: uppers and downers). We think of time spatially, we plot variables spatially to understand functions and numbers and physical relationships. We are on the inside, the environment is on the outside. We're all shook up, beating around the bush, and http://knowgramming.com/examples.htm" [Broken]. We also think of music spatially (higher notes, lower notes).

the semantic part of the brain and spatial part of the brain (temporal and parietal lobes) are fused at the temporoparietal junction, crucial to our differentiating the "inside" (self) from the "outside" (environment).

This is not to say that space is the difference, the fundamental, the panacea to consiousness, etc, etc. Just that our sensory memory of space (and time) play an important role in how we think about things we can't directly sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
mathematicsma said:
I know this is an old thread, and this is only a tangential topic, but it's been something I've always wondered about:

For those of us who think mostly in words, and have conversations with ourselves, do you refer to yourself as "you" in your thoughts? When I am thinking through an issue, trying to clarify something to make a decision, or just planning my day, I talk to myself (in my head) as if I'm outside myself. The voice inside my head has a conversation with my "self" and talks to the "self" in the second person.

A while ago, I decided that this is strange, so I tried to stop, with minimal success. I tried to think thoughts like,
"I need to remember the milk." instead of "You need to remember the milk."

Anyone else do this? Thanks.

yes. internal dialogue is normal, to me. I don't consider the voice that says "you" to be me though, it's usually criticism or praise. Of course, I know it's my brain making these criticisms/praises, but my brain does a lot of things without my permission, like breathing, managing my heart and digestive system, and other chemosensory calculations. I don't even have to think "noun-verb- uh... adjective..." when I talk anymore, my brain does it all for me, I just have to have a general idea of what I'm going to say (to paraphrase Christoph Koch).

But of course I'm my brain, too, I don't really understand exactly where my limitations are though. Which parts of my brain are me at what time? Or are particular spatiotemporal structures of my brain more likely to house my consciousness? Information theory?

not sure what the neural correlation is for inner dialogue. I've heard about something between wernicke's and broca's areas ('the speaker and the listener') which tend to be abnormal in schizophrenic patients.
 
  • #13
yes. internal dialogue is normal, to me. I don't consider the voice that says "you" to be me though, it's usually criticism or praise. Of course, I know it's my brain making these criticisms/praises, but my brain does a lot of things without my permission, like breathing, managing my heart and digestive system, and other chemosensory calculations. I don't even have to think "noun-verb- uh... adjective..." when I talk anymore, my brain does it all for me, I just have to have a general idea of what I'm going to say (to paraphrase Christoph Koch).

But of course I'm my brain, too, I don't really understand exactly where my limitations are though. Which parts of my brain are me at what time? Or are particular spatiotemporal structures of my brain more likely to house my consciousness? Information theory?

Very interesting points. I sometimes wonder about that, too. Who am I? In other words, which part of me is the self and which part is external? Obviously, everything going on inside my brain comes from me, but it often seems that there is some part of the brain that is more central to my identity than others. The voices in my head come with varying degrees of "me-ness."

In a sense, the part of my brain that operates subconsciously and tells me to breath, pump my heart, etc., is not really the me that I identify with. It's not unique, and is not part of my thought patterns. But the part that criticizes/praises the things I do is somewhat controlled.

In short, it's an interesting question, but I really don't know what I'm talking about and have no idea what the answer is.
 
  • #14
mathematicsma said:
A while ago, I decided that this is strange, so I tried to stop, with minimal success. I tried to think thoughts like,
"I need to remember the milk." instead of "You need to remember the milk."

Anyone else do this? Thanks.

All humans have to internalise an inner voice as part of the socialisation that makes them human. So it is normal.

Speech structures all our thoughts, but mostly it happens at a habitual, skeletal, barely obvious level. However, if we want to clarify, then we must make it more overt again - addressing ourselves more distinctly, sometimes even talking aloud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky
 
  • #15
I wonder how people who claim to think only in words would think about (elementary Euclidean) geometry. Or if they could do so at all.

For example if I think about of remember Euclid's proof of Pythagoras' theorem (Elements I:47) I "see" the diagram (without the letters naming the points) and "see" the sequence of congruent triangles that forms the logic of the argument, without explicitly naming anything. As a (not very exact) analogy, what I "see" is like silent movie explaiing the proof.

On the other hand, for me the written words of the proof in the "£lements" are meaninless without a diagram, even though they are (or at least, are intended to be) a complete description of how to draw the diagram and reason about it.

The idea of being able to solve a geometrical problem of this type without visualising a diagram seems highly improbable. I wonder if anybody thought to do this type of test on the psychology prof.
 
  • #16
AlephZero said:
I wonder how people who claim to think only in words would think about (elementary Euclidean) geometry. Or if they could do so at all.

For example if I think about of remember Euclid's proof of Pythagoras' theorem (Elements I:47) I "see" the diagram (without the letters naming the points) and "see" the sequence of congruent triangles that forms the logic of the argument, without explicitly naming anything. As a (not very exact) analogy, what I "see" is like silent movie explaiing the proof.

On the other hand, for me the written words of the proof in the "£lements" are meaninless without a diagram, even though they are (or at least, are intended to be) a complete description of how to draw the diagram and reason about it.

The idea of being able to solve a geometrical problem of this type without visualising a diagram seems highly improbable. I wonder if anybody thought to do this type of test on the psychology prof.

For me it's quite simple. To solve the problem I start to sketch on a sheet of paper and write down things beside the sketches, things that I need to remember or use while I solve the problem.
So, I'm sort of doing it like you, only I'm putting the visualizing part on a sheet of paper instead of in my mind. It's slower, but it works.

mathematicsma said:
Very interesting points. I sometimes wonder about that, too. Who am I? In other words, which part of me is the self and which part is external? Obviously, everything going on inside my brain comes from me, but it often seems that there is some part of the brain that is more central to my identity than others. The voices in my head come with varying degrees of "me-ness."

In a sense, the part of my brain that operates subconsciously and tells me to breath, pump my heart, etc., is not really the me that I identify with. It's not unique, and is not part of my thought patterns. But the part that criticizes/praises the things I do is somewhat controlled.

In short, it's an interesting question, but I really don't know what I'm talking about and have no idea what the answer is.

I think the left part of our brain is the one that involves most of the things we consider our identity. I often use to think that there are two persons inside my head, one belonging to the left hemisphere (which I consider is me, which is doing most of the talking, or all) and one belonging to the right hemisphere. The reason I tend to think like this is because I often feel like there are two forces inside me battling for the control of the body we are sharing.
Funny thing is. Some patients, where the bond between the two halves has been severed, may experience the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome" [Broken]. This feels strongly related to the idea that there are actually two 'wills' inside us. One that is verbal and logical, and one that is more primal, emotional and instinctive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
I would imagine that it's all based on how associations were made for the person. Different experiences have different associations. The sense that you use to think in is the one with the strongest association with the particular experience. Think about an essay you wrote, you probably "hear" the words in your "mind." Then think about riding a bicycle or driving a car, you probably don't "hear" any words and instead "see" or even "feel" the actions you perform while riding or driving. Now think about a first person shooter or an action oriented video game, you probably "see" and "hear" the game as if it's right in front of you, almost like you're in the game, but you probably don't "see" yourself moving the mouse or controller around.
 
  • Like
Likes Xandercage
  • #18
Giantevilhead said:
I would imagine that it's all based on how associations were made for the person. Different experiences have different associations. The sense that you use to think in is the one with the strongest association with the particular experience. Think about an essay you wrote, you probably "hear" the words in your "mind." Then think about riding a bicycle or driving a car, you probably don't "hear" any words and instead "see" or even "feel" the actions you perform while riding or driving. Now think about a first person shooter or an action oriented video game, you probably "see" and "hear" the game as if it's right in front of you, almost like you're in the game, but you probably don't "see" yourself moving the mouse or controller around.

Are you suggesting that thinking in 'audio' is just circumstantial and that all people are able to think in images?
 
  • #19
DukeTwicep said:
Are you suggesting that thinking in 'audio' is just circumstantial and that all people are able to think in images?

Yes. It's all a matter of how we were raised. We're already able to think both in audio and in images depending on what we think about. We can think in smells, tastes, and tactile sensation too but in a much more limited fashion. It's the most salient sensation in an experience that determines how we think about that experience. However, the sense that is most salient in a given experience differs from person to person based on biology and previous learning. The most salient sensation in language, for most people, happens to be sound. If you were born deaf or with autism, things would likely be different.
 
  • #20
Giantevilhead said:
Yes. It's all a matter of how we were raised. We're already able to think both in audio and in images depending on what we think about. We can think in smells, tastes, and tactile sensation too but in a much more limited fashion. It's the most salient sensation in an experience that determines how we think about that experience. However, the sense that is most salient in a given experience differs from person to person based on biology and previous learning. The most salient sensation in language, for most people, happens to be sound. If you were born deaf or with autism, things would likely be different.

I was writing a lot of stuff in a response to you, and it suddenly hit me that you're just kidding. Because you are right? I mean, no one can be that ignorant and dismissive. :D That's just crazy. But good joke though.
So, on to more serious discussions, what were we discussing?
 
  • #21
DukeTwicep said:
I was writing a lot of stuff in a response to you, and it suddenly hit me that you're just kidding. Because you are right? I mean, no one can be that ignorant and dismissive. :D That's just crazy. But good joke though.
So, on to more serious discussions, what were we discussing?

Well, how do you think people learn to think? For example, how do you think someone learns that the word "cat," either in its written or spoken form, represents a specific species of animals? When a deaf person learns the word "cat" either in its written form or in sign language, do you think they "hear" that word in their "mind?" What about a blind person learning braille?
 
  • #22
Giantevilhead said:
Well, how do you think people learn to think? For example, how do you think someone learns that the word "cat," either in its written or spoken form, represents a specific species of animals? When a deaf person learns the word "cat" either in its written form or in sign language, do you think they "hear" that word in their "mind?" What about a blind person learning braille?

I have never stated that everyone thinks without images. But you seem to think that the mind has to work the same for everyone although there is evidence that supports the opposite. We aren't speaking about the general public that Can think with images in this thread. However you are opposing the idea and seem to think that it's impossible to think without visualizing.
 
  • #23
DukeTwicep said:
I have never stated that everyone thinks without images. But you seem to think that the mind has to work the same for everyone although there is evidence that supports the opposite. We aren't speaking about the general public that Can think with images in this thread. However you are opposing the idea and seem to think that it's impossible to think without visualizing.

Except I never said that the "mind" works the same for everyone. I said that the way people think depends on their biology and their learning history. If someone never learned or is incapable of learning to think visually then they won't think that way.
 
  • #24
Giantevilhead said:
Except I never said that the "mind" works the same for everyone. I said that the way people think depends on their biology and their learning history. If someone never learned or is incapable of learning to think visually then they won't think that way.

It's weird that you say that because earlier I asked you this:
"Are you suggesting that thinking in 'audio' is just circumstantial and that all people are able to think in images?"
And to that you answered "yes" (and so on).

So how can everyone be able to think in images and at the same time there are some people that are "incapable of learning to think visually"?

Or perhaps we are Able to do it, we just can't Learn to do it. But I'm glad I'm able to.

Anyway, so, are you saying that there are some people that aren't thinking visually because they never learned to? I could buy into that. But I doubt that since I had virtually the same upbringing as my siblings, and they have an entirely different way of thinking (which involves visualization).

Giantevilhead said:
Well, how do you think people learn to think? For example, how do you think someone learns that the word "cat," either in its written or spoken form, represents a specific species of animals? ...

I think that the person creates a relation between the word cat and animal (if there is no image accompanying).
If there is an image accompanying I think that the person also relates the image with the two words: animal and cat. If there is sufficient neurological capability I think that a large portion of the image is stored inside the brain of the person for future reference.
If there is little or no capability of storing images I think that the brain handles that differently.
For example. If a man turns deaf, his brain gradually takes the unused neurons and re-specializes them. The man then develops ways to cope with this new disability.
I think that the same thing happens to people who don't have the ability to store or create images in their minds. The brain finds a way to cope and deal with the problem.

I think that for me, the way my mind coped was to create... negatives. When I 'visualize' something I have the general idea of the image in my head, not the image itself, but everything else. It's not tangible. It's like trying to imagine a black hole, in space that is already black (if you remove all the stars that is :p). You know it is there because you've told yourself that you are now imagining a black hole there. You can't see it, but everything related to it is there. Perhaps the name "Einstein" pops out of your mouth, or "Stephen Hawking", or "absence".

If you played the game Alan Wake to the end you may know what I'm talking about. It's like the words floating in the air at the end, representing the images that later appear (when you shine your light). It's not precisely like that, as that would mean I could visualize letters or words, or even surfaces.
 
  • #25
DukeTwicep said:
It's weird that you say that because earlier I asked you this:
"Are you suggesting that thinking in 'audio' is just circumstantial and that all people are able to think in images?"
And to that you answered "yes" (and so on).

So how can everyone be able to think in images and at the same time there are some people that are "incapable of learning to think visually"?

Or perhaps we are Able to do it, we just can't Learn to do it. But I'm glad I'm able to.

That was a misunderstanding. Thinking in images is circumstantial for people with the biology and learning history that allows them to do it.

As for people who are incapable of learning to think visually, but still able to think visually, I'm talking about people with synesthesia. A blind person can actually have auditory-visual synesthesia. Basically, when they hear a certain sound, the visual cortex also gets activated so they "see" something along with the sound. Similarly, a color blind person can have number-color synesthesia. So when they see a number, the number is in color, and it could be a color that they are not physically capable of seeing.

Anyway, so, are you saying that there are some people that aren't thinking visually because they never learned to? I could buy into that. But I doubt that since I had virtually the same upbringing as my siblings, and they have an entirely different way of thinking (which involves visualization).

But you can visualize, you're just not very adept at it. However, there has to be certain things that are easier for you to visualize than others.

I think that the person creates a relation between the word cat and animal (if there is no image accompanying).
If there is an image accompanying I think that the person also relates the image with the two words: animal and cat. If there is sufficient neurological capability I think that a large portion of the image is stored inside the brain of the person for future reference.
If there is little or no capability of storing images I think that the brain handles that differently.
For example. If a man turns deaf, his brain gradually takes the unused neurons and re-specializes them. The man then develops ways to cope with this new disability.
I think that the same thing happens to people who don't have the ability to store or create images in their minds. The brain finds a way to cope and deal with the problem.

I think that for me, the way my mind coped was to create... negatives. When I 'visualize' something I have the general idea of the image in my head, not the image itself, but everything else. It's not tangible. It's like trying to imagine a black hole, in space that is already black (if you remove all the stars that is :p). You know it is there because you've told yourself that you are now imagining a black hole there. You can't see it, but everything related to it is there. Perhaps the name "Einstein" pops out of your mouth, or "Stephen Hawking", or "absence".

If you played the game Alan Wake to the end you may know what I'm talking about. It's like the words floating in the air at the end, representing the images that later appear (when you shine your light). It's not precisely like that, as that would mean I could visualize letters or words, or even surfaces.

But you're not the one who makes the association. The environment makes that association for you. For example, when you teach a baby the concept of cat, you show the baby a picture of the cat and then the word. You make that association for the baby. If instead you showed a the word dog with the picture of a cat, then you would associate the word dog with the image of a cat.
 
  • #26
Giantevilhead said:
That was a misunderstanding. Thinking in images is circumstantial for people with the biology and learning history that allows them to do it.
What was a misunderstanding?

Giantevilhead said:
As for people who are incapable of learning to think visually, but still able to think visually, I'm talking about people with synesthesia. A blind person can actually have auditory-visual synesthesia. Basically, when they hear a certain sound, the visual cortex also gets activated so they "see" something along with the sound. Similarly, a color blind person can have number-color synesthesia. So when they see a number, the number is in color, and it could be a color that they are not physically capable of seeing.
Well either you have the ability from the beginning (or gain it over time) or you learn it. But you can't learn something if you don't have the neurological capacity for it or the brain is damaged in some way.

Off topic, in what way are synesthetes unable to Learn to think visually?


Giantevilhead said:
But you can visualize, you're just not very adept at it. However, there has to be certain things that are easier for you to visualize than others.
Is this because I have learned, and to you learning is based on the ability to visualize?
Because I can tell you, I do not visualize. And I'm not saying that because I want to sound like I'm different. I've heard too many say what you are telling me already, and I tell you, it's not convincing or helping in any way. I won't learn to visualize simply by telling myself I can visualize.


Giantevilhead said:
But you're not the one who makes the association. The environment makes that association for you. For example, when you teach a baby the concept of cat, you show the baby a picture of the cat and then the word. You make that association for the baby. If instead you showed a the word dog with the picture of a cat, then you would associate the word dog with the image of a cat.
Of course, it's the brain interacting with stimuli from the environment via the senses, quite evident. But the brain automatically makes the 'decision' to associate the two things, it doesn't matter what the environment is like. But we didn't discuss things that are given, we were discussing whether visualization is that important to learning. I was stating that it is not, if there is no visualization then there are other ways to learn in my opinion.


But really, I don't understand your fascination with the concept of visualization, why is it so important for you that we all can visualize? Do you have any evidence that supports the notion that it's impossible to learn without visualization (I take it that is what you are aiming for)?
 
  • #27
DukeTwicep said:
What was a misunderstanding?

I thought you were using the word "circumstantial" in a different way.

Well either you have the ability from the beginning (or gain it over time) or you learn it. But you can't learn something if you don't have the neurological capacity for it or the brain is damaged in some way.

Off topic, in what way are synesthetes unable to Learn to think visually?

If someone's color blind then they can't think in a certain color. However, people with number-color synesthesia can learn to make the association between a number and a color their eyes can't see after they learn numbers so it's more of an indirect associations.

Is this because I have learned, and to you learning is based on the ability to visualize?
Because I can tell you, I do not visualize. And I'm not saying that because I want to sound like I'm different. I've heard too many say what you are telling me already, and I tell you, it's not convincing or helping in any way. I won't learn to visualize simply by telling myself I can visualize.

I never said that learning is based on the ability to visualize. Learning is simply a relatively permanent change in behavior due to certain types of experiences and how those experiences affect behavior is modified by the person's biology.

It's not a matter of you being able to visualize when people tell you to visualize, it's a matter of visualizing producing some kind of positive consequence.

Of course, it's the brain interacting with stimuli from the environment via the senses, quite evident. But the brain automatically makes the 'decision' to associate the two things, it doesn't matter what the environment is like. But we didn't discuss things that are given, we were discussing whether visualization is that important to learning. I was stating that it is not, if there is no visualization then there are other ways to learn in my opinion.

The environment matters a lot since it's the environment that provides the stimuli for the brain to associate. In fact, you can change how the brain associates things by altering the environment. For example, people with autism spectrum disorders associates really weird stimuli but with rigorous therapy, a significant percentage can associate "normal" stimuli. For example, when you try to associate pictures of cats with the word "cat" to someone with autism, they might instead associate a very specific aspect of the picture, like the color of the fur or something in the background, with the word. However, by providing the person with a lot of examples and constantly rewarding him or her for making the correct association, the way they make those associations can be changed.

But really, I don't understand your fascination with the concept of visualization, why is it so important for you that we all can visualize? Do you have any evidence that supports the notion that it's impossible to learn without visualization (I take it that is what you are aiming for)?

I never said that it was impossible to learn without visualizing, otherwise blind people would never be able to learn.
 

1. How does thinking purely in words work?

Thinking purely in words refers to the ability to think and process information solely through language. This means that rather than relying on visual or other sensory cues, one is able to think and communicate simply through words and language. This type of thinking is often associated with verbal intelligence and can be strengthened through practice and exposure to language.

2. Is thinking purely in words a learned skill or is it innate?

While some individuals may have a natural inclination towards thinking purely in words, it is primarily a learned skill. Children begin to develop this type of thinking as they learn language and communication from their parents and caregivers. However, it can also be honed and improved through education, practice, and exposure to diverse language and communication styles.

3. How does thinking purely in words differ from other forms of thinking?

Thinking purely in words differs from other forms of thinking, such as visual thinking or abstract thinking, in that it relies solely on language and words to process information and make sense of the world. It also differs from other forms of thinking in that it is highly dependent on one's level of language proficiency and can vary greatly between individuals.

4. Can thinking purely in words be beneficial in problem-solving and decision-making?

Yes, thinking purely in words can be beneficial in problem-solving and decision-making as it allows for clear and logical reasoning. When one is able to think and communicate in a precise and concise manner, it can help in identifying and evaluating various solutions to a problem or making a well-informed decision.

5. Are there any drawbacks to thinking purely in words?

While thinking purely in words can be a useful skill, it may have some drawbacks. For example, individuals who solely rely on words to process information may struggle with tasks that require visual or spatial thinking. Additionally, thinking purely in words may limit one's creativity and ability to think outside the box. It is important to have a balance of different thinking styles in order to fully utilize one's cognitive abilities.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
793
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
645
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
847
Back
Top