Talking to yourself.: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Talking to yourself. » Talking to yourself.

Talking to yourself.
Why is it looked down upon?

Page: 1 2 3

Talking to yourself.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 01/14/07 - 05:19 AM:	#26
I always tell myself that I need to have a good conversation every now-and-then.
_____________________ For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 01/14/07 - 11:21 AM:	#27
Yes. The nice thing about talking to yourself is the quality of the participants in the conversation is about equal.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 01/24/07 - 07:10 PM:	#28
To put simply, majority rules. One voice, one God, one society. Anything outside is not normal. Therefore people consider it 'insane'. Insanity is viewed as a form of lesser superiority. The idea being, that all the thoughts, in conjunction together results in one strong, superior aspect. Now, recently the key of multi-tasking has come into affect. Notably, which nobody actually makes note of, is the aspect, that due to the aspect of multi-tasking, what you are inherently doing is seperating thought patterns such that you are more or less doing seperate things(entities) at the same time. In the past when this happened this was possibly viewed as the multiple personality syndrome. Currently (the last few years) people start to admit they talk to themselves, and due to societys functional dependance on increased multi-tasking, people admit to doing more then one thing at one time. The key to sanity, is that the talking must still be a one voice, one dominant thought, that is being vocalized. Since people currently admit this, and accept it, the old train of thought that 'talking to yourself' is equivilant to insanity now needs to be redefined, since we are loathe to admit that society itself is an insanity. The threads, posts, from various sites i've looked at, all tend towards the same conclusion... its all right to talk to yourself, but if you argue with yourself, you are not following the 'one voice', the single train of thought, and therefore are less superior. This assumption seems to suggest people are insane. The ideas of genius I leave up for grabs. I add the point that if people are capable of multi-tasking in part on the lines of purely physical aspects, and then society starts heading towards multi-tasking in a relationship of both physical and mental, then the next step would be to multitask on purely the mental state. This last jump, is still probabably considered either insanity or genius, depending on if someone else can come to the same 'leaps' of conclusion. When you end up in the aspect of multitasking on the purely mental state, you need consider how the language relationship between the actual vocalization of words, and which words are taking dominance in an argument that you are having in your mental mind. (ie. thinking two trains of thoughts, sometimes 7). If the physical aspect of multi-tasking is on the background, on occassion one train of thought will take dominance over the other, and you 'look' like you are in conflict within your mental abilities because the dominant thought now 'takes control' of the vocalizations. Due to this actual physical observance of this conflict, others view this individual as not having 'one voice' and is therefore inferior.. aka insane. I think the claim that people who are considered geniuses derives from the aspect that afterwards, the person who talks to themself can explain everything of their train of thoughts in conjunction with the observer(the person not talking to themself) being able to follow to the same conclusion.

expansionist
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2007
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 44

Posted 01/24/07 - 08:10 PM:	#29
an odd little habit of mine: Having social anxiety with new people (i.e. most people), I often find less stressful and daunting to talk to people through talking to myself. I sort of throw comments or quips or what have you into the air (in a way that i would do so with myself) and see if anyone picks them up i rarely talk to myself to map my thoughts - i couldn't possibly keep up a.d.d you know
_____________________ everything you do is a balloon.

beomouth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 01/31/07 - 06:35 AM:	#30
Maybe talking to yourself is simply an externalized monologue of your own thoughts in order to help with your self-appreciation of them - so long as you know it's 'you' who is talking back then there's not a problem. The concern is always that a person can't distinguish between himself and the voice in his head i.e. it becomes problematic both for the observer and the person talking to 'themselves'. In social situation I think that 'talking through yourself' may be useful as a means of externalizing your action and symbolically retaining the control that you have - being a factor of action but not the actual action itself... at a safe distance from the events that are happening; though detachment could get dangerous lol shrugs Maybe it's the potential that someone who your looking at could be unable to distinguish between reality (knowing that they are talking to themselves) and their own reality (that they're voice is someone else) which causes people to look down on it - the person could be a threat.... how would you know? So protective paranoia rules the day and becomes the norm, hence people look down on other who could be a potential incalculable threat. -Beomouth Edited by beomouth on 01/31/07 - 06:59 AM

zOOmz
ultraviolet

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Location: SoCal
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3965

Posted 02/01/07 - 07:50 PM:	#31
pumkin wrote: Touche zOOmz! Self esteem is necessary for psychological survival. To avoid judgment s and self-rejection people erect barriers of defense. Typically, they may blame or project, intellectualize, and rationalize. Much of this behavior is conducted first as self talk. Since we cannot always change the circumstances we tend to change how we interpret the circumstances. Some people create critical voices and others create health supportive voices. Then again some create vicarious voices who speak for the creator like actors in a play. This allows the creator to hide identity. Others such as schizophrenics create voices that they think emanate from outside of themselves. I maintain a funny dialogue with myself. I crack myself up. So I guess I am the actor/play voice type, only mine is a comedian. Edited by zOOmz on 02/01/07 - 07:57 PM
_____________________ got Zen? "Reality is that which doesn't disappear when you stop believing in it." Phillip K. Dick (thanks dimka)

senbdib
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 02/02/07 - 04:45 PM:	#32
zOOmz wrote: I maintain a funny dialogue with myself. I crack myself up. So I guess I am the actor/play voice type, only mine is a comedian. If I'm watching TV or reading something on the computer, and I am alone, I often say something that I think is funny as if there's a person sitting next to me. Of course, I know that there isn't someone sitting next to me. It just happens automatically, I think ever since I was younger. I wasn't a particularly lonely child, in fact I probably had more friends than I do now, but I distinctly remember one time, during recess in elementary school, I was sitting in the tree house by myself. A girl came up into it and looked at me scrutinizingly, and asked, "Were you just talking to yourself?" I answered no, and I honestly have no recollection of talking to myself, but the more that I think about it the more I can imagine it to be possible that I was doing the same thing that I do now. I also do a similar thing if I am just taking a walk by myself where I know no one can see me. I think the most accurate way to describe it would be "practicing conversation," and I know other people do this occasionally, but honestly I am starting to freak myself out and have cut down on it drastically recently. Maybe I've gone completely insane.

crystal_raye
Wandering Child

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 02/04/07 - 06:42 PM:	#33
Talking to yourself is a sign of intelligence as long as you know you're talking to yourself. Talking to yourself gives you a chance to verbally focus on your thoughts and ideas instead of having them all jumble around in your brain. Also, an intelligent being needs stimulation to prevent boredom and stagnation. When there is a lack of external stimulation for the brain to focus on it sometimes seeks to create it's own internal stimuli which can induce talking to yourself.
_____________________ Shine bright morning light, Now in the air the spring is coming. Sweet blowing wind, Singing down the hills and valleys.

nash8
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 22, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 36

Posted 02/23/07 - 09:51 PM:	#34
crystal_raye wrote: Talking to yourself is a sign of intelligence as long as you know you're talking to yourself. Talking to yourself gives you a chance to verbally focus on your thoughts and ideas instead of having them all jumble around in your brain. Also, an intelligent being needs stimulation to prevent boredom and stagnation. When there is a lack of external stimulation for the brain to focus on it sometimes seeks to create it's own internal stimuli which can induce talking to yourself. This is very true. Talking to yourself is very good, as long as you are talking to yourself and not another personality created by yourself. I also disagree that arguing with yourself is a bad thing, as long as you realize you are arguing with myself. I can't not talk to myself without arguing because I'm always right lol. I think talking with yourself is a healthy excersize, especially for intelligent people. Like someone said earlier, when you talk to yourself the level of intelligence is always the same.
_____________________ Oh, one last thing, when you are speaking in english you say that men wear underpants, briefs, or boxers but not panties, they are only for females. Talk to your teacher about that, maybe he doesn't know english as well as he thinks.

Petrochik
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 24, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 31

Posted 03/08/07 - 07:53 PM: Subject: ..	#35
I do not see anything wrong with talking to yourself but you do not want to ask yourself a question since you know the same amount and same information you know and have same experiences you had. There is nothing new tot tell yourself he knows everything, he lives it.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 03/09/07 - 11:17 PM:	#36
I think i'd disagree a little bit Petrochik. Dependant on the divisions of what each 'persona' or circuit the brain focuses about -- like primal or rationality-- then this portion of the brain will focus on aspect pertaining to its own relationship to the body. Some circuits will take more control at other times, but at the same time, all circuits would still be functioning. In other words, each persons' generalized tunnel-vision could be further subdivided into further subdivisions. while you have the same location which initially recieves the information, each circuit may, and probably do interpret the stimulus seperately from each other. Each circuit would also store different relevant data in their own little repetoire of temporary, or long term memory because some data, like having 7 stray hairs does not make any relevance to what another circuit looks at. The rationality circuit may not know where the stored information is that the primal flee/run circuit observed. Now, I think however, that there is probably something akin to a librarian that takes stock of all the information stored, and it could possibly retrieve all the data at once. It is possible that most peoples' decision is based from the entire load of information acquired from this, though the possiblity remains that all data may not be accessed this way.

Petrochik
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 24, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 31

Posted 03/10/07 - 12:20 AM:	#37
Cadrache wrote: I think i'd disagree a little bit Petrochik. Dependant on the divisions of what each 'persona' or circuit the brain focuses about -- like primal or rationality-- then this portion of the brain will focus on aspect pertaining to its own relationship to the body. Some circuits will take more control at other times, but at the same time, all circuits would still be functioning. In other words, each persons' generalized tunnel-vision could be further subdivided into further subdivisions. while you have the same location which initially recieves the information, each circuit may, and probably do interpret the stimulus seperately from each other. Each circuit would also store different relevant data in their own little repetoire of temporary, or long term memory because some data, like having 7 stray hairs does not make any relevance to what another circuit looks at. The rationality circuit may not know where the stored information is that the primal flee/run circuit observed. If you mean that you may be asking yourself an information that you do not know you already have; I agree with you. Now, I think however, that there is probably something akin to a librarian that takes stock of all the information stored, and it could possibly retrieve all the data at once. It is possible that most peoples' decision is based from the entire load of information acquired from this, though the possiblity remains that all data may not be accessed this way. Edited by ying on 03/21/07 - 04:22 PM. Reason: Cosmetic change

slyder2412
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2006
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/13/07 - 09:40 AM:	#38
I personally find that talking to myself allows me to lay my thoughts out in a coherent idea. Say i read something that i don't understand completely off the bat. That's usually because my thoughts are all over the place so after i look away from the reading, i explain to myself in terms/sequences that "I" understand and that makes sense to me, just as the author wrote it as it makes sense to himself. Another way i talk to myself i guess i can describe as verbal meditation? I simply find it easier to comprehend the way i'm feeling when i say it out loud, THEN store it non-verbally. I think this allows me to define my thoughts with more direct meanings/definitions to "feeling words"(sad,happy,love,hate,etc). I mean, You can only physically speak so fast, opposed to a racing mind, and with that, you can dwell on specific things more in depth and with a more direct pace. I hope i made some sense, and i am also curious if anyone also follows this "procedure"? Thanks.

eski
<default rank title>

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2007
Location: Under the Sea
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 114

Posted 03/15/07 - 06:58 PM:	#39
Am I the only one who rarely talks to them self when in thought? Guess I just don't think that way being dyslexic assuming that test I took wasn't total crap
_____________________ gnostiagnostiagnostic- I know that I don't know but I don't know that.

Gabrielle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 13

Posted 03/16/07 - 11:25 AM:	#40
I just look at it as thinking out loud. People of faith often pray out loud to themselves but they're not really talking to themselves but a higher being. I'll talk to myself occasionally when I'm trying to sort out my thoughts (especially when I'm out walking). I'll talk to myself when I'm trying to remember things that I intend to do that day.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 03/16/07 - 01:11 PM:	#41
I randomly go and start humming to myself. Sad isn't it? Even I don't enjoy my singing lol. Truth to tell, I quite often hold two seperate trains of thought at the same time, sometimes counter to one another. Usually it is just to point out a slightly different viewpoint. (oh! look what happens when you turn it to the right! type thing. Um.. your right or mine?) Not always, but sometimes. They aren't technically seperated as seperate individuals. I'm curious what type of test did you take concerning dyslexia Eski?

pumkin
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2003
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 319

Posted 03/26/08 - 11:38 PM:	#42
I know this lady who writes thousand of pages to herself. I believe that it is part of her personal justification for the feelings she has for herself. I was wondering what abnormal psychology is associated with writing thousands of pages to yourself? Hummmm.....

pretty & pink
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/11/08 - 09:01 PM:	#43
zOOmz wrote: There is a difference between voicing thoughts out loud and actually speaking as though you are talking to your invisible friend. There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself. You do it in your head all the time. And in the age of cellular phones, everyone appears to be talking to themselves everywhere anyway. So in the end, hearing someone apparently speaking to an invisible person is becoming the norm. Perhaps we talk to ourselves to give our self assurance, an affirmation that our thoughts are important, if only to ourselves. Hi Wuli!! Still running around in them happy circles? z True. I talk to myself all the time. I even answer myself. Still, I know there's no one really there. The people who I pretend I'm talking to are real people. I pretend that I'm talking to them when: they did something to piss me of and the thought won't leave my head, when I like that person and want be friends with them, or when I want to be prettier than what I am. Sometimes, if I'm afraid to approach a boy, I pretend like I'm a having a real conversation with him, when I'm in my room. I don't have split personality disorder. I know there's no one else in the room with me. I even act like I'm in sexual relationships. Can some one please tell me if that sounds mentally ill? Help! Edited by Landlady on 04/11/08 - 11:35 PM. Reason: grammar

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 695

Posted 04/12/08 - 05:12 PM:	#44
I always thought the stigma of talking to ones self came from the fear that people were possessed by evil spirits or conversing with them. I guess this is what we now call insanity. I have been known to have rather long talk it out sessions before giving import talks or when the problems seem to have become unsolvable. I find it stimulates the thinking process more than ordinary thinking. Memories are saved in various forms, mostly audio or sight, so it is alot easier sometimes to remember them is the same way that they are stored. So talking out load can reactivate audio memories that simple thinking would not. If people look at me wierd, I just tell them that talking to myself is the only way I can find to have a really inteligent conversation. They usually piss off then. Edited by SIR2U on 04/13/08 - 01:10 PM
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 04/12/08 - 05:26 PM:	#45
Pretty and pink, errr... YES! No I'm joking, a bit much maybe but hey its your time, do what you like with it I'd say it's okay to talk to yourself as long as you are not doing it infront of other people, or those people can imagine why you are doing it. If they don't understand and you don't explain or acknowledge them it gives the impression you don't know they can hear you or you think you are talking to someone other than yourself. There is also a difference between thinking out loud and just talking to yourself. If a guy in a cáfe just starts a conversation about the history of art with himself that's crazy in my book unless done for effect. Thinking out loud is usefull for calculating and organising thoughts and memories. Thinking about memories I think we sometimes act like we're talking to ourselves when really were trying to communicate what were doing when we disappear into our minds, lol it seems wise to say "let me think" or "when did I?" before we get a blank look on our faces. I think thinking out loud is something we are trained to do in a way. If I need to work out a maths equation I use a pen and paper if it's tuff. Thinking out loud is similar I only seem to do it if I think it neccessary to lay it out and not just hold it within my mind. I imagine if through school we were encouraged more to work things out in our head people would think out loud a little less. "Show all working out" I hated that! Edited by Techeth on 04/12/08 - 05:32 PM
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Landlady
curious skeptic

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Location: USA
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 468

Posted 04/13/08 - 08:51 AM:	#46
Pretty & Pink, Just a possible suggestion: if you want to have the freedom of talking to yourself in public without feeling self-conscious, you can wear a handless phone device, so it looks like you're talking to someone else. Once people see the device, they will just ignore you and go back to minding their own business.
_____________________ There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. But whether or not one can live with one's passions, whether or not one can accept their law, which is to burn the heart they simultaneously exalt--that is the whole question. � Camus.

talkingin1stperson
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/21/08 - 04:24 PM:	#47
I just watched a documentary about a young doctor hearing voices and it got me questioning myself. So, because I talk to myself in the first person (lots) in my head - is that somehow considered more normal than projecting a mental third person in my head to hold the other half of the conversation. Given most "discussions" would relate to the mental exploration of an idea / thought / reasoning a piece of logic to try and work to a conclusion. Isn't that just normal thinking? In someways - thinking about it - talking to your own psyche internally in the first person, when it is the same person - if anything seems more peculiar / less rational than projecting half the debate into the third person - especially when delineating the counter points of the debate. See what I mean the identity is arguably more confused in the first person. Is this form of voices "madness" simply being generalized into the use of the third person rather than first in other wise similar mental fencing. All people have doubts, fears, neuroses, etc., etc., and I know I talk about them with myself (presumably this is also healthy / pressure relief valve???) - and we don't all go around harming ourselves or others - but does of itself mean the use of the third or first person inside ones physic is symptomatic or foundational in some way to more or less stable or simply characterization of potentially differing forms of criminal behavior when right / wrong action or consequence get muddled in someway that people commit public order offense. As the use of the third person causes a loss of orientation of point of origin / grounding of core values? So does the third person thinker commit semi-dissociated crimes consciously - where as the first person commits fully connected and calculated crimes consciously - choosing with both halves of the first person - like a fail safe - so the "first person thinking" individual has to make the value/judgment/consequence decisions twice but in the "third person thinker" one half can vote "yes" and the other "no" - confusing the process allowing people to do stuff they know is wrong because the identity to core values has drifted and you cant associate the yes/no with the correct set of internal morals / behavior governors / inhibitors. Following this sort of reasoning, someone like Hannibal Lecter, would be characterized by thinking in the first person because he reveled in his actions - i.e., he consciously voted twice in his first person head to do something rather than the a third person split vote yes/no confusion. But our Hannibal Lecter person still does it because his moral / inhibitor doesn't block the action. Don't most people have first conversations with themselves in their heads every second of the day, or do I now fall under a classification of insanity. Bizzarely, I would sometimes refer to myself in the third person in conversation out loud with someone else. The person I am talking to about the third person I am talking about (me). Makes perfect sense to me. Thoughts???? Edited by Landlady on 04/26/08 - 10:08 AM. Reason: spelling

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 04/22/08 - 05:42 AM:	#48
I think the last sentence is the key. As long as you know what you are doing can rationalise and explain, you are not "really" crazy. Whether in the third or first person, the anwsers are coming from the same place, I imagine it depends on how dettached you wish to be from that which you are considering i.e if you wish to look from the outside in. As long as you are aware the answers are still coming from you, you are okay. The problem lies with when the voices are seen as a seperate entity because even a broken clock is right at least two times a day. So convincing yourself to convince yourself becomes easy especially when confronted with absolutes to the contrary i.e it's not real, it's not true, it's impossible, it's crazy.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

talkingin1stperson
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/22/08 - 09:21 AM:	#49
I do a lot of acting. One of my teachers warned me about the dificulty in acting characters that were "crazy" because they tend to genuinly beleive they are competly sane and that empathy was the wrong approach but to "simply be the role" rather than to "act the character". Although maybe pretty much everyone that does anything is convinced they are normal / correct - a steryotype of instantiy often being protrayed in the media as uncertinty / internal debate / angst. Where as the actions of Hanibal / master mind criminal types are adorned with fancy clinical definitions that are dervied from latin and taught in medical schools and somehow protatryed as being at a higher level / interlect than your run of the mill comon variety of insanity. Part of acting a character conviningly - as oposed to empathising with someone - posses some interesting challenges so as to not need therapy ones self and yet be able to deliver a convincing performance on the screen. The young doctor on the previously posted documentry delivered a performance of her "reality" that an actor would be justifliably very proud strong performance if protraying a character. I guess the challenge for me as an actor is to try to gain an insight into the minds of others so I can "become them" as opposed to "interpret them" while still making sure my mental lightning rod is firmly bolted to the floor. While it is certinaly true the method acting from DeNiro and Hoffman has delviered some very powerful performances other more bi-polar approaches of sliping the characters physchy on and off also yeild good results and are probably far less stressfull on the actors id. The challenge of being able to explore the ocean in a pea green boat without loosing sight of the land and sinking is a curious one. If you play it too safe the aduience dont beleive your even at sea let alone a talking owl with a pussy cat.

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 808

Posted 04/22/08 - 12:00 PM:	#50
A lot of people seem to talk to themselves, but I get the feeling that not all of us actually listen to what we are saying - but that's just unenlightened going on as usual, take no notice, he always has an opinion about everything...
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.