You realize the premise of the article is there are different modes of thinking and that inner monologue or internal dialogue is just 1 of them. That is the point of the article. This is not new either. It is basic psychology.
The key part is that a stream of thought that is similar to reading or hearing a sentence is not the only method.
I would argue the bigger problem is the pushing that feelings/emotions is a method of thinking and it is not. It is a method of Sensory or maybe perception. The real problem of this is that we must temper our feelings and can use them to understand experiences but should not use them to make decisions.
Someone lacking an inner dialogue questioning all stimuli are more prone to acting upon emotions, peer pressure, and instinct.
If CNN scares you about the virus, and you don't have an internal skeptical voice in your head questioning what you are being told and trying to corroborate facts and data, then you are going to act upon the emotional fear perpetrated by CNN jew news propaganda.
If a black criminal attacks police and gets shot, and you are a dumb instinctive negro who will riot and loot because you cannot mentally have a dialogue and consider all facts and that the negro had just sexually assaulted a woman in front of children (Jacob Blake), then you are going to respond and act like an ape.
The internal monologue is important. It's a reasoning mechanism. A check and balance against being a mindless NPC.
SO the article is not suggesting that internal questioning is not happening. It is suggesting the questioning is not always in the form of a narrative such as a string of words. Some times it is in the form of pictures/images, conceptual understandings or (IMHO wrongly) emotions.
The article is not suggesting some people are "mindless".
For what it is worth I think some people have turned over critical thought to out side agencies for ________. "Fill in the blank reasons."
I do not believe anyone is born without the ability to have internal conscious thought and analysis short of some form of disability. I do entertain the possibility that the processes that in place now are designed to cause people to give up or distrust their own internal analytical processes. I also admit and think it is probable that the PTB are trying to create/breed/change people to have little to no internal analytical processes. In other words the effort of the PTB is to turn people in to barely thinking Animals.
The author mentioned in the article, Russell Hurlburt, seems to suggest that no one has an internal dialogue going on 100% of their time. They reference the mindlessness of pouring ourselves a cup of coffee. Maybe we aren't thinking while we are doing it.
He seems to suggest that no one is 100% mindless or mindful all the time. Only to degrees. Also, some people are more mindful than others.
The masking and fake vaccine compliance proved to me that most people are as mindful as a cow moo'ing while it chews on grass.
a) sameness represents the impressing origin of what can one think about, while all those with the ability to think represent the differences within.
b) different minds are being subjected by the same input (perceivable inspiration), yet tempted to ignore this for subjecting themselves to other differences (suggested information).
To make this worse...others suggest differences under the brand of "sameness". The many "want" to come together, while ignoring the "need" to sustain apartheid (living) within sameness (process of dying). This mass ignorance allows the few to stay apart within the many who pretend to be the same, when coming together.
You realize the premise of the article is there are different modes of thinking and that inner monologue or internal dialogue is just 1 of them. That is the point of the article. This is not new either. It is basic psychology.
The key part is that a stream of thought that is similar to reading or hearing a sentence is not the only method.
I would argue the bigger problem is the pushing that feelings/emotions is a method of thinking and it is not. It is a method of Sensory or maybe perception. The real problem of this is that we must temper our feelings and can use them to understand experiences but should not use them to make decisions.
Someone lacking an inner dialogue questioning all stimuli are more prone to acting upon emotions, peer pressure, and instinct.
If CNN scares you about the virus, and you don't have an internal skeptical voice in your head questioning what you are being told and trying to corroborate facts and data, then you are going to act upon the emotional fear perpetrated by CNN jew news propaganda.
If a black criminal attacks police and gets shot, and you are a dumb instinctive negro who will riot and loot because you cannot mentally have a dialogue and consider all facts and that the negro had just sexually assaulted a woman in front of children (Jacob Blake), then you are going to respond and act like an ape.
The internal monologue is important. It's a reasoning mechanism. A check and balance against being a mindless NPC.
SO the article is not suggesting that internal questioning is not happening. It is suggesting the questioning is not always in the form of a narrative such as a string of words. Some times it is in the form of pictures/images, conceptual understandings or (IMHO wrongly) emotions.
The article is not suggesting some people are "mindless".
For what it is worth I think some people have turned over critical thought to out side agencies for ________. "Fill in the blank reasons."
I do not believe anyone is born without the ability to have internal conscious thought and analysis short of some form of disability. I do entertain the possibility that the processes that in place now are designed to cause people to give up or distrust their own internal analytical processes. I also admit and think it is probable that the PTB are trying to create/breed/change people to have little to no internal analytical processes. In other words the effort of the PTB is to turn people in to barely thinking Animals.
Fair take.
The author mentioned in the article, Russell Hurlburt, seems to suggest that no one has an internal dialogue going on 100% of their time. They reference the mindlessness of pouring ourselves a cup of coffee. Maybe we aren't thinking while we are doing it.
He seems to suggest that no one is 100% mindless or mindful all the time. Only to degrees. Also, some people are more mindful than others.
The masking and fake vaccine compliance proved to me that most people are as mindful as a cow moo'ing while it chews on grass.
a) sameness represents the impressing origin of what can one think about, while all those with the ability to think represent the differences within.
b) different minds are being subjected by the same input (perceivable inspiration), yet tempted to ignore this for subjecting themselves to other differences (suggested information).
To make this worse...others suggest differences under the brand of "sameness". The many "want" to come together, while ignoring the "need" to sustain apartheid (living) within sameness (process of dying). This mass ignorance allows the few to stay apart within the many who pretend to be the same, when coming together.