Do you think in words or pictures?

[Grayman]

For the record, when you (or maybe just Jung) say 'visually', I I take it that that term refers to ideas, or, as Jung states, archetypes. It is most definitely not referring to literal pictures, just as 'objects' is not referring to words. Such an interpretation is far too rudimentary, and I suspect the reason none of the people you have talked to stated that they think in words is because visual stimuli is so important to our perception of the world that of course would people would identify more with pictures rather than words. Maybe there was a disconnect between your own understanding of the question and how others looked at it?

I believe a few have made claim that they think in words. I have considered that it may have to do with conscious dominance of the language/spatial parts of the brain.

 

[nexion]

I believe a few have made claim that they think in words. I think it has more to do with conscious dominance of the language/spatial parts of the brain.

I was referring specifically to this paragraph in the OP:

I have yet to meet another person irl that also thinks in words(objects/non-visual) like I do, even two auxiliary Ne users(INTPs) which is probably why that was a generality(they claimed visual). I've asked 10+ people, and they all think visually >_<

 

[nexion]

My point is that I believe Jung wasn't exactly referring to literal images and words in his descriptions of the intuiting functions, which would make most of the contents in this thread irrelevant insomuch as this distinction relates to Ni vs Ne.

 

[Grayman]

Update -

I paid a little more attention to my thinking and noticed something

Asking when if I wanted some specific ice cream....
I imagined eating the ice cream but it was not really like viewing a movie. Most of the focus was not visual but sensual. I started in the current and then I moved forward in time like I could feel me moving and eating the ice cream feeling the taste, the cold, the texture etc... It was like literally doing it but kind of distant like. My answer is then simply based on that imaginary experience.

Simple questions seem to answered in this way as opposed to a whole world creation.

 

[Minuend]

It depends what I'm thinking about.

Understanding new concepts I seem to have an intuitive understanding of consequences without getting a sense that I'm actually thinking them through. I will just "know" what possible consequences and impacts certain actions, events, mechanisms will have. This is by far the most effective thinking process.

But with unfamiliar concepts or mechanisms that can't immediately be mapped out by intuition, I'm dependent on visualization. I'm uncertain to what degree this comes normally for me. Sometimes it seems I have to consciously summon the images. It can be a clumsy and slow process. But the moment I have enough information to put the pieces together, it will rush to the ending and I will "know" what is meant. It could be that this clumsy tactic is due to a cognitive defect that interferes with the processing of the external world.

For expressing and analyzing in detail, I use an inner dialog. It seems to slow down my thoughts and enables me to study the details more carefully. Analyzing internally is a very stimulating process for me, so slowing it down makes it possible to savor it.

Interacting with the physical world, going places, doing things- visual images are more automatic, but there can be elements of the "knowing" sensation.
It's draining to have to explain to someone how to do things where there are certain conditions that have to be met and requires several steps back and forth. It can be mildly annoying that I just can't transfer a mental image of what needs to be done in what order, that I have to explain things that I either see very clearly with images or just "know".

 

[Grayman]

For expressing and analyzing in detail, I use an inner dialog. It seems to slow down my thoughts and enables me to study the details more carefully. Analyzing internally is a very stimulating process for me, so slowing it down makes it possible to savor it.

You seem to indicate that the dialog is not you real thinking but plays a supplementary role in helping you think, therefore never used alone.

For me this is the case. If dialog is going on it is never without objects, even just the feeling of objects, to manipulate. It is natural to go from text to imagery and feeling, but from the other direction it is difficult.

I am curious if that is what it is like to think in pure words. The "feeling" of objects + sensory can be feelings like when you know someone is looking at you and you can feel their eyes on you even though you don't see them looking at you. When these feelings occur it is not readily apparent. Since it is not always easy to identify, is it possible that people who say the think in words are more aware of the words and simply don't notice the objects, sensories and images.

 

[Variform]

Words.

Though I started trying to also make pictures in my head, based on the assumption that the more neural connections are involved, the better the retainment of the ideas. Also, may add perspective to some of them.

But how do you know this. How do you compare? How can you possibly know your own thought shape.

 

[peoplesuck]

I think in words but when im recalling something its in pictures or reliving the memory .

 

[Aerl]

I believe my thining to be a mess. It can be words, numbers, symbols,
concepts, images, experiences, feelings... when I'm asked what I'm thinking
about I respond: It's not important. The correct answer would be: I have no
damn clue.

 

[Variform]

I am still struggling with how I think. It is evading me.

I have complete conversations in my head. But is it the inner dialogue mentioned e.g. in Castaneda?
I have these conversations to straighten out my thought son a topic. E.g. my unified theory or TOE I repeat to myself so find the right wording and make it clear to myself.

That is thinking, but it is purposeful. Does that count? Because as I type this I phrase my words as well, I don't see a picture. I don't understand how I could type words from a mental image of what I want to say.

So that is not what thinking in words means?

So if I deliberately phrase words with a goal to clarify things to myself, it is not thinking in words, is it? It is just talking internally.

I also fantasize endlessly, obsessively about being in court. When I do repetitive task, I become aggressive and play out scenario's. I become violent. I defend myself from anyone that harms me in any way. And when cops come and challenge me, I resist. Often I kill them. And then I am in court and then I phrase too. I phrase my defense. I repeat over and over trying to find the perfect wording.

But that is not thinking either is it? That is just talking internally.

Thinking to me means that what you 'do' when it is not deliberate. But when I phrase my defense or phrase my argument or TOE or whatever topic I am considering, I do have pictures associated with it. So when I am in court, I will picture a court room situation. The picture comes out of memory, I been in a court room once.

When I word my TOE, it is all very abstract, but I create imagery with it.

SO am I now thinking in words or pictures? Because the piuctures are the imagery-equivalent of phrasing. That isn't thinking, is it?

That is just hwta you 'do' to formulate and organize thought. Thought itself is different? That is what you do when you aren't watching, right?

So when you watch tv and get distracted and not really paying attention, THAT is what thinking is because it flows naturally, and THAT is what we talk about here right?

But how can you know how you think, as soon as you become aware of it, it will not be thinking again.

Or am I using the wrong definition of thought here?

Thinking purely in images, I can't imagine. Aren't you in a mental hospital then? A constant stream of imagery in the mind, it must make one crazy.

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

We think in symbols/patterns. (I prefer the word symbols now)

Both words and images can be symbols.

But there's much more to it than that.

 

[ENTP lurker]

Patterns in different forms (but absolutely no sound or kinestetic) if visual then only in abstracted visual patterns absolutely no photorealism.

Sensors are propably great painters. I can not describe anything visual in detail.

 

[Variform]

So, are inner conversations thinking?

 

[Minuend]

You seem to indicate that the dialog is not you real thinking but plays a supplementary role in helping you think, therefore never used alone.

For me this is the case. If dialog is going on it is never without objects, even just the feeling of objects, to manipulate. It is natural to go from text to imagery and feeling, but from the other direction it is difficult.

Indeed, the dialouge do have a background picture for context. The picture doesn't change often and it remains less prominent than the dialouge, but it is there and can somewhat shape the form of the dialouge.

 

[TheManBeyond]

and how i'm suppose to know that?

 

[TheManBeyond]

I'll try to elaborate.
When i'm thinking how i see things in my mind what I'm doing is combining words with pictures from real world and mixing them with what i thought was possible and turning them into my own logic to make some sense. My conclusion: it's blurry and a dangerous place to be, any further advance in my inner search would lead me to self-destruction.

 

[Variform]

I guess no one knows the answer to my question. I'll do a search online.

 

[Grayman]

So, are inner conversations thinking?

Mine are.

For me it is a conversation between two people as if they are debating a topic to come to an answer. It includes exchanges of emotions and the whole bit. It is more of a method that automatically occurs when figuring out how to socialize or solve an issue with someone.

 

[Variform]

Mine are.

For me it is a conversation between two people as if they are debating a topic to come to an answer. It includes exchanges of emotions and the whole bit. It is more of a method that automatically occurs when figuring out how to socialize or solve an issue with someone.

I don't understand why I would have an issue with this. What thinking is. Why is it not automatically the same for me as it is for you? Maybe I should just accept what you said.

Right before this reply I was rehearsing my conversation I will have with the people at the hospital where I soon hope to get my ADD diagnosis. So that is me talking to them and what I would say. So that is thinking.

It is word for word. So I think in words. I also picture myself sitting in a chair, the doc behind a table and recollect images from when I did a similar procedure back in 2001. So that is thinking too I guess.

So I think in pictures and words?

I always thought that deliberate practicing of situations, conversations is rehearsing of practicing or is part of the inner dialogue, the one that Castaneda mentions in his books. This constant narrative that creates the world. Most of it subconscious.

Why is all this not obvious to me. Are we talking about a method of thought? Or the process?

The method is picture, words or combinations. And the process is the flow of consciousness that chooses a method. If thinking is words, than why is that not language? I am not thinking, I am 'languaging'.

I am not thinking, I am 'painting' mental pictures. I always thought that thinking was almost undetectable abstraction and the method was an anomalous inner dialogue or narrative either with or without mental imagery.

But now people seem to say that this imagery and the words are thoughts. Then what is it I mean with undetectable abstraction?

Or is there nothing there where I suspect a process is, so the tap is open or closed, when tis closed, there is nothing and when open, there are words and pictures.

All very difficult.