I for once have an outer monologue. Makes for awkward moments whenever my SO hears me...
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
172 points (85.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
35881 readers
1879 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
Up to as much as more than half of all people.
Yeah, my bottom half also doesn't have an inner monologue.
I have an inner monologue but it's on like a half-second delay behind the actual thought. Like, I can picture a pineapple without thinking of the word pineapple first. Sometimes an entire sentence worth of meaning will form in an instant but the words don't come until I'm trying to speak or type the thought out. Sometimes I can't access a word at all, even though the concept is clear in my head and I know there is a specific word for this specific flavor of the concept.
Also, I can't rotate a cube in my mind's eye, but I can rotate a chicken.
Brains are weird.
Buddy you can just think out loud in the shower, nobody will stop you. For that matter you can think I got a lot pretty much anywhere, though you do get looks in the grocery store I find.
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.
As someone with an inner monologue, how do they think?
I don't really have an inner monologue unless I very intentionally think in words. Otherwise I just think in thoughts. 🤷♀️
What everyone else here said but also keep in mind it's not binary.
If you ask me to picture an Apple on a windowsill I can kind of do that. And then if you ask me to make it polka dot, I could kind of do that. In my mind's eye though it's like it's severely myopic. It's not fuzzy but the details are not there.
When I'm drawing things, the act of me putting the marks on the paper is where the object is formed. I generally don't have a solid concept in my head that's coming out on paper. I could definitely do the 2D outline of an apple, But if you want me to perspective skew it there's no way. I might be able to draw the 2D outline and then slowly modify that to make it look more 3D, But I've got to be making changes to something already on paper rather than having something come out that's just kind of the right direction.
I just think in concepts/abstractions, I don't know how to explain it, lol.
I definitely don't think in pictures, like other person said. My mind can't create pictures out of thin air. That might be more like artists think I guess.
Having a minds eye or not is a different thing from having a inner monologue or not. People can have both, one of it or none.
Lack of an inner eye is called Aphantasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
I have a inner monologue but not a glimpse of an inner eye.
I am very very much not an artist, and yet also cannot imagine not being able to conjure up images of whatever.
It is fascinating how the brain works! Even if we barely understand it!
With imagery, or in abstracts. I have an internal monologue but not everything is a monologue. If I'm working on a project of some kind I'll usually keep a mental model of the current piece I'm working on in my head. There's no monologue attached, it's just a "working copy" of my current task.
Or for example if I'm reaching somewhere I can't see to plug in a usb port or something I'm visualizing in my head what my hand is doing, but I'm not talking myself through it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
Conservatives explained.
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
... 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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Is it just quiet all the time?
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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
view more: next ›