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
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 day ago
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.
HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 22 hours ago
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.