In contrast, I can imagine music very vividly, with different instruments and their timbres fully defined. It's very close to the sensation of hearing music, to the point where I sometimes have to stop myself from dancing to music that only I can hear, definitely not something to do in public! (The music never has lyrics btw. Even if I'm imagining a real song that has words, they just end up as wordless vocalizations.)
The closer to being in the "flow" state I am, the less of an experience of inner speech I have. When I've been programming or doing music for an hour, I don't really think in words at all, the concepts just seem to flash past, going almost directly from the unconscious to motor actions. With art especially you don't have words for most of the things you're doing anyway, so how could you possibly think in a monologue?
However when I need to think carefully about what I'm doing, when I need to use deductive logic or it's very important that I make absolutely no mistakes, I do veer more towards inner speech. The other major one is rehearsing possible social interactions, or having hypothetical conversations, which is something I actually do quite a lot of (I think it's quite common) and obviously that involves speech.
Finally, at times of emotional stress or fear (but not panic), I'm forced into a consistent inner monologue. It's very similar to the way you can't deliberately give up conscious control of your breathing once you take hold of it, and I can easily see how it could be scary for some people. Sometimes it does feel like a step down the road towards madness, in comparison to my normal state. If I woke up one morning and was stuck like that, I would 100% be going to a psychiatrist.
Don't get any of that stuff about being able to see numbers unfortunately. I have very poor imaging ability. I can't really see pictures in my head at all.
Whenever the book turns into a movie, my friends all say, "Yeah, that casting is exactly who I imagined." That just never happens to me. I don't have preconceived notions of what characters look like, even if I read their descriptions. But I'm very spatial and good with layouts and furniture. I keep thinking that because I'm spatial I should be visual but... not so much.
EDIT: Oh, almost forgot! Despite all that, I'm great with faces. If we've met before I'm going to recognize you. But I'm embarrassingly bad at names, forgetting them almost instantly if I don't concentrate for a long time.
On the other side of things I've got great relative pitch. If I can get the first note on the piano I can pretty much just play the rest of the melody. And, same thing, music is pretty finely textured for me when I concentrate.
This is something that has always concerned me in general. I was worried for the first year I dated my now-wife that I would not be able to recognize her when meeting her at a crowded place. I wouldn't go so far as to say she would turn around and I couldn't recognize her, but the permanence just wasn't there.
With re: music, I find I can go to full blown auditory hallucinations with a quiet room and relaxation - one moment you're imagining the orchestra, the next you're hearing it - and when I say hearing I mean it - indistinguishable from being in the pit. The moment you pay too much attention it slips away, like trying to look at a floater in your eye. I have absolute pitch, if it's on any way relevant.
For more reading on this topic I throughly recommend Musicophilia by Oliver Sacks.
This week I started to experiment writing dialogs to untangle complicated situations where I don't know where to start from. It helps me to overcome mental blocks, when the situation becomes overwhelming.
One character is more logical, the other one is the one performing the actions. It's like a coach talking to a player. After a while coming back and forth fro the dialog and the code editor, I find myself in a deep flow, and then I don't need to write but I can "imagine" the conversation.
I was wondering if dialogues have a special properties for driving thinking, then I remembered Plato the philosopher, he use to write his "Plato dialogues" although I never read them.
With dialog, or a narrator's voice, I often imagine them speaking it or provide a voice for them in my own head. With action scenes, especially engrossing ones, I sort of just spend the extra mental energy trying to picture the scene rather than "hearing" the words. I have a very hard time paying attention to what the characters look like or are wearing. Usually imagine it briefly as it is being described and move on.
Oddly enough, when I'm reading aloud, sometimes I sort of stop imagining what is going on as I'm too busy trying to sort out how to speak the dialog (especially in some different voices) that I no longer pay complete attention to the scene.
For non-fiction, I generally spend more mental energy trying to visualize the concepts being described and stop "hearing" the words. Or if I'm merely skimming and want to get a sense of what is being said without the details.
So I think a "voice" is something I can and do switch on and off depending on whether my brain thinks it is important and probably on the difficulty of the text itself.
In narrative fiction, I often hear the words spoken by distinct voices, though this too wanes as I focus on reading quickly or become tired.
When reading, I have an internal monologue. I find it hard to hold a definite train of though when walking, though, because there's too much too see.
So, I'll go for a walk to think about some algorithm, or whatnot, but can't really consciously thing through the algo because of all the visual input. The visual input does tend to drive visual or tactile thinking, but there are no words for this.
In the past, I've resorted to speaking out loud to think through concepts, carefully. Somehow spoken (not subvocalized) words are more concrete (and limiting) they don't flap and fray in the wind of my mental music video.
Why not?
I think the way it happened was that as I read lots of books, I realized I need to stop processing consciously every word if I want to read faster. Additionally, I started to spend lots of time interacting with English language (which is not my native), and I was sometimes thinking in English before I stopped thinking in words altogether.
I developed a speech impediment because of that: whenever I need to speak, I need to synchronize my mental state with the words coming from my mouth, which requires a little effort.
But I don't actually hear a voice when reading and hence no detectable accents or tone. However, if I try to remember a line from a movie or a visual, like a scene, I can actually hear and see it, as if temporarily my brain routes my memories through my visual and auditory path, and sometimes it's unsettling even though I'm expecting it. As for the visual, I seem to have two distinct sense of vision, one from my eyes, and the other one that is so called the "mind's eye". For me, it lacks color and even shades.
As for remembering things, I can instantly tell a movie by a single frame of it even if I've watched it once and I'm yet to come across someone who can do that.
My internal thoughts also seem to be expressed this way, though not necessarily all the time. Doubts or alternate viewpoints are often alternate voices and I can "hear" the arguments.
I can glance over text quite quickly to understand what it's saying, but can only "read" it is as fast as the voice can talk.
Typing prose is the same, even if I type text without looking at the screen the voice still speaks to me and I can only type as fast as it speaks.
I've typed full emails while talking to others, I can't imagine doing that while sub-vocalizing what I'm writing.
hello friend, I can do that too. 1 frame will tell me if I've seen something before, though it sometimes takes several more to get a title. I like to call it cinematic memory, it's like photographic memory but shittier because if I try to reconstruct a photographic memory it comes out blurry :v)
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/17/what-universal-human-ex...
Update: apologies if this came off as rude. One theory of humour is that comes about from a benign violation of expectations, known as the "benign violation theory"[1]. Using this model one can see the title as humourous.
If I try to mentally visualize something I'm not looking at, even if I'm very familiar with it, it's usually impressionistic at best - rough outlines and swaths of color.
Don't know if it's related but in one of my first classes as a kid (where we learned to count), we had some sort of banner on the wall that listed the number from 0 to 100. Maybe picked it up there.. Sometimes I also think this makes the more abstract math concepts harder for me to understand. If I can't visualize it, it won't stick (easily).
Asked some friends how they saw numbers, and they don't have anything like that. Wondering how this is for other people.
If only that extended to the size estimation part of my brain. I've gotten pretty okay at eyeballing kitchen measurements, but I'm completely useless at determining what will fit in the back of my car when shopping at Home Depot without a tape measure.
I've got a cursor in my head that I mentally move around and click and select things with. When I go insane, I'll probably experience somebody else moving my cursor around, instead of voices in my head.
I wonder if people used to think like typewriters, and heard a right margin bell as they thought, and then had to mentally hit carriage return every 87 characters before they could think any more...
Aaaaand having to actually explain it seems to have completely messed the whole visual up. At this point I feel like I'm inventing a system based on childhood memories...
It does stretch back to my childhood though. I have strong memories of visualizing numbers in class, even specific problems like when we were asked to add all the numbers from 1 to 100. A problem in which I mentally drew half circles from 99 to 1, 98 to 2 and so on. I solved it almost instantly and thinking back I'm a little disappointed my teacher didn't investigate this more and help me explore this skill.
Monday is red, Tuesday and Thursday are green. Wednesday is a light blue, Friday is red (feels a bit warmer, maybe slightly orange than Monday). Saturday is yellow, Sunday is black (I always associated Sunday with church, and either dread of going or formal wear).
I do this with other things too but days of the week are the most obvious and have been with me my whole life (I'm 30 now).
Oh, I guess I do the inner monologue when estimating time. Something like "Lets see... is it 8 minutes? No that's too fast. 12 minutes? Maybe. Let's go with 11". Didn't even consider it as part of the process until your comment.
Associating colors with days of the week is another well known example, described in the book "Wednesday is Indigo Blue" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesday_Is_Indigo_Blue ). You might find it interesting.
I only know about this because I had a friend in middle school who was a synesthete. We thought he was making it up until we gave him a list of (long) random numbers to describe the colors of. We then mixed up the order and gave them to him a week later and he provided consistent descriptions. It was pretty cool actually, I've always been a bit envious.
Thanks for sharing, I've got some reading to do.
I love to read, actually. As far as I know I haven't noticed any difficulty in colors. I can definitely see a word "red" that may have been written in blue color really screwing with me, but maybe not more than it would screw with any other person.
However, I found Feynman's example very compelling, where the self-report (visual vs. auditory counting) matched up with how visual or auditory side tasks interfered with time keeping.
Turns out that people have varying degrees of ability to mentally imagine things, where the range seems to be from "purely abstract" to "number of stripes on a tiger".
Also; Feynman noted that people keep track of time in very different ways[2], either visual (imagining a clock) or symbolic (counting by talking to yourself inside your head).
And that whole internal monologue thing? Turns out that some people report not having that...
If anyone has more examples, please add them. This stuff is endlessly fascinating :)
[1]http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
[2]http://generallythinking.com/richard-feynman-on-thinking-pro...