I've never understood ____

[alondouek]

I have never actually clearly understood how we can 'talk in our head' (I don't know how else to put it)?

Do I have an article for you (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21498087). I'll draw your attention to the last line of the abstract:

Subjective event times should therefore be interpreted as the result of complex interactions between introspection and experience networks, rather than as direct reproduction of the individual's conscious state or as a mere post hoc interpretation.

Essentially, 'talking in our own head' is just regular thought patterns, but introspective ones rather than outwards-looking thought. I'll try to give a bit of an example:

Think about what your mind is doing when you are solving a maths problem: You have a problem (let's say that this maths problem is on the 'outside', i.e. it is not in our head, or of our own creation and therefore we do not have the predetermined answer) and you use conscious thought - albeit varying levels of conscious thought, because some of the thought processes are rote if you're proficient at the task at hand - to attack, quantify/qualify and resolve this problem.

Now take this same pattern of thoughts, and think about what happens when we turn them inwards and use these critical procedures to evaluate both our own experiences and our projections for coming events. This results in a form of critical analysis of these past, present and future events, manifesting itself as a form of internal mono/dialogue.

Hope this kinda makes sense lol

[MagicGecko]

Do I have an article for you (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21498087). I'll draw your attention to the last line of the abstract:

Essentially, 'talking in our own head' is just regular thought patterns, but introspective ones rather than outwards-looking thought. I'll try to give a bit of an example:

Think about what your mind is doing when you are solving a maths problem: You have a problem (let's say that this maths problem is on the 'outside', i.e. it is not in our head, or of our own creation and therefore we do not have the predetermined answer) and you use conscious thought - albeit varying levels of conscious thought, because some of the thought processes are rote if you're proficient at the task at hand - to attack, quantify/qualify and resolve this problem.

Now take this same pattern of thoughts, and think about what happens when we turn them inwards and use these critical procedures to evaluate both our own experiences and our projections for coming events. This results in a form of critical analysis of these past, present and future events, manifesting itself as a form of internal mono/dialogue.

Hope this kinda makes sense lol

Why thank you kind sir for that article.
Hahaha I had to read it twice, my head exploded the first time I read it but it actually does make sense now. Thanks!

[vox nihili]

Do I have an article for you (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21498087). I'll draw your attention to the last line of the abstract:

Essentially, 'talking in our own head' is just regular thought patterns, but introspective ones rather than outwards-looking thought. I'll try to give a bit of an example:

Think about what your mind is doing when you are solving a maths problem: You have a problem (let's say that this maths problem is on the 'outside', i.e. it is not in our head, or of our own creation and therefore we do not have the predetermined answer) and you use conscious thought - albeit varying levels of conscious thought, because some of the thought processes are rote if you're proficient at the task at hand - to attack, quantify/qualify and resolve this problem.

Now take this same pattern of thoughts, and think about what happens when we turn them inwards and use these critical procedures to evaluate both our own experiences and our projections for coming events. This results in a form of critical analysis of these past, present and future events, manifesting itself as a form of internal mono/dialogue.

Hope this kinda makes sense lol

Another way to look at it is that it just misses the final step of speech. That's if we be a little more specific and look at talking in our heads. The thoughts bounce around and get made into words, just never said. Your brain does the prep work but never comes out with it. Kind of like what I'm doing now with the typing. I can hear everything I'm typing now....which has now become really bloody annoying. MAKE IT STOP. hahah.

Even if you're not speaking in your head, it's reasonable to suggest that you have to have something to say before you go on to say it. So you cut out those preparation steps and you still have the thought.

It's a weird area! ANd props to MagicGecko for asking that question! (I just replied to Alon's post to avoid that extra click...)