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.
Just, like, one of it. The issue isn’t that its been studied, as you seem to think. The issue is that you made a claim and are now vaguely gesturing at literature to back it up :)
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. That’s how this works.
You can’t say there’s science to back up your claims, then not use science (burden of proof) to back up your claims.
If I claimed there was a pink polka dot elephant in the trunk of my car, that can teleport to other dimensions with its trunk; I would be required to post proof of that. If I told people to Google it, because there’s science out there that backs up my assertion, they’d tell me to get bent.
Don’t be lazy and fall into that pit trap. Post a proof, any proof, to back up your assertions, or every single person in this thread is free to ignore you and assume you’re making this up.
Edit: Looks like someone did your job for you, and is suggesting that your claims are incorrect and takes the wrong conclusions from the study.
This is why it’s important for you to cite your sources when you make a claim. Typically people refusing to cite their sources or saying “just google it” are often wrong about the conclusions they draw from whatever research was done. This is why peer review is important, even though none of us are in that field, it’s important to be able to have your claims withstand peers criticizing it. If it can’t stand up to that, then it’s likely incorrect and we can put that in the “failed hypothesis” bin.
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.
You didn’t learn anything…
You saw a random social media post and instantly believed what it said
What the fuck is wrong with people?
Maybe other people have read this research before as I have
Maybe that’s what’s wrong with them
Feel free to post that research at some point.
All 50+ years of it?
Google is also an option
Just, like, one of it. The issue isn’t that its been studied, as you seem to think. The issue is that you made a claim and are now vaguely gesturing at literature to back it up :)
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. That’s how this works.
You can’t say there’s science to back up your claims, then not use science (burden of proof) to back up your claims.
If I claimed there was a pink polka dot elephant in the trunk of my car, that can teleport to other dimensions with its trunk; I would be required to post proof of that. If I told people to Google it, because there’s science out there that backs up my assertion, they’d tell me to get bent.
Don’t be lazy and fall into that pit trap. Post a proof, any proof, to back up your assertions, or every single person in this thread is free to ignore you and assume you’re making this up.
Edit: Looks like someone did your job for you, and is suggesting that your claims are incorrect and takes the wrong conclusions from the study.
This is why it’s important for you to cite your sources when you make a claim. Typically people refusing to cite their sources or saying “just google it” are often wrong about the conclusions they draw from whatever research was done. This is why peer review is important, even though none of us are in that field, it’s important to be able to have your claims withstand peers criticizing it. If it can’t stand up to that, then it’s likely incorrect and we can put that in the “failed hypothesis” bin.
Which is where your hypothesis would go.
And that’s science. Kinda.