And it shows.
I was told “still waters run deep” but sometimes still waters are just… still.
First Thoughts are the everyday thoughts. Everyone has those.
Second Thoughts are the thoughts you think about the way you think. People who enjoy thinking have those.
Third Thoughts are thoughts that watch the world and think all by themselves. They’re rare, and often troublesome. Listening to them is part of witchcraft.
Even without attribution or ever reading this quote before, I just knew it had to be Sir Terry Pratchett and I was right.
That man was unmatchable in his wit and wisdom and how he packaged life lessons on simply being good people into entertaining stories. The world is lesser without him.
GNU Terry Pratchett
RIP Terry Pratchett ❤️
I’m NT, and “thinking about thinking” is how my brain works. A lot of “normal” brains do, but there’s a HUGE spectrum of how introspective people are.
Then what do they do?
Life must be so boring to them.
On the contrary, I imagine them being constantly slightly surprised by things, like they're along for the ride. Sounds relaxing.
Just that first part ... most people don't think
Bees don't die when they sting. They have a barbed stinger, human skin is elastic and that's why they get stuck. Our first reaction is to swat or swipe on the site of stinging which rips their stinger off by force. If you leave the bee alone, it will wiggle and twirl around, trying to get itself unstuck and sometimes that is successful, sometimes they're fucked. The bee didn't really commit suicide when stinging, you killed it.
Also, did you know that the queen bee has almost full control over their offspring? It works like this: The queen bee only mates once in her life during the nuptial flight and stores the sperm in her spermatheca (like a sperm sac), the drone usually dies in the process because mating tears their endophallus off and the trauma kills him. After founding a colony the queen can now choose whether to fertilize her eggs or not and if she does, a female larva will hatch from the fertilized egg, else a drone larva will hatch through a process called haploid parthenogenesis.
The destiny of becoming a queen or a worker depends entirely on the diet the female larva is fed: all larvae are fed royal jelly (a special secretion from worker bees) for a few days and then worker bees are switched to what is called bee bread which is a mix of pollen and nectar while future queens stay on the royal jelly diet. The royal jelly lets the bees develop their ovaries, making them capable of laying eggs. Technically, all worker bees can lay eggs (which could only produce drones), but in a healthy colony, they will be switched off the royal jelly soon enough so that this rarely occurs.
So, in a way, worker bees can stage a mutiny if they are unhappy with their current queen by feeding a larva royal jelly, rearing a new queen.
Bees are awesome.
The barb is mostly meant to aid in staying attached while injecting venom and is meant to still be able to release by twisting
Human skin is more elastic than bee's typical adversaries and the singer becomes stuck when they try to release. It you wait a while and let them try to pull it out carefully without hurting themselves, they might end up going in circles until it works its way free
Other insects mostly. Technically also birds, but birds are too quick and too strong so the fight is usually over before the bee can sting.
Royal jelly for queens is stored in special compartments that are constructed specifically to rear a new queen and they drop the larvae in there. Wikipedia has a pic.
My understanding is that while they can make a new queen under the radar, hypothetically, the slightly different scent of her eggs/haploid larva is seen as a hostile invasion and it’s quickly dispatched by loyalists, which is why non-main-queen offspring rarely happens.
Something like because they are all essentially genetically identical, they all have the same pheromones, but the next generation won’t.
Damn right I killed it, that sting still lives rent free in my brain 25 years later!
Thanks! That was an awesome little read!
Neurotypical here and yeah my brain often works this way and I believe it does for many others. What’s missing in this vignette are social skills from both parties.
Abruptly shifting topics like that often works better in a conversation with some sort of segue or acknowledgment of the shift: “This is off of that topic but I have a random question.”
The second party could reasonably be confused but when the thought process was explained to them they could have just accepted it and moved on without being denigrating.
So they both just need better social skills is all that I see.
I have a friend who's the same age as me and we are both ADHD. He pointed out to me once that we were having three different conversations at the same time. I guess that's a little strange for neurotypical people.
This seems right. Their mind wanders, too, but they don't mention the tangents that come up, or if they do, they specifically state why they're now thinking about the new topic.
I think it's also the speed and number of connections leading to the topic change. I think many neurotypicals would jump from the carnival to the rodeo, or to the bee story, but they wouldn't jump all the way to wondering about wasps from talking about the carnival in one go.
From the outside, the topic change is so different that neurotypicals can't follow the connections.
David Hume wrote about this exact thing in (I think) an enquiry concerning human understanding.
Essentially he said all thoughts come from 3 processes:
Cause and effect - think of smoke so think of fire etc.
Continuity in time and/or place - think of kettle so think of toaster etc.
Resemblance - think of a photo so think of the person etc.
The above example would be continuity in place, the carnival lead to thoughts in the same place.
Also cause and effect...why do bees die but wasps not?
Actually possibly resemblance too, as bees and wasps look similar.
My instinct would be to think that they do that too, but at a much slower speed, and are less aware of how they got there. So when you explain a train of thought clearly the speed which u topic switched and the number of times it happened feels overwhelming to them. We also tend to intellectualize a lot of stuff and others do not, so they have probably never internally studied how their own thoughts connect before, so it would seem forieng when explained.
But I'm speaking from instinct here, no evidence.
AFAIK I'm neurotypical... No, trains of thought like these are common (see also other respondents on here), and they can also happen in the blink of an eye. It's just that when the question or comment has formed, I'll make a mental note to either ask/mention it later after the current topic has concluded, if I think the other person also has interest in hearing it, or to google it later if not. Or to just drop the thought if I come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter all that much to myself either.
Pretty sure everyone does, but they will take you through it first, not drop the topic change without context.
Also it's considered weird and off topic, so even if they think it they don't bring it up
I think something like 40% of people don't have an internal monologue at all, so...
Metacognition and usage of an inner monologue have nothing to do with each other. I don't need to talk myself through things to conceptualise.
I think I'm just hung up on semantics of it.
I can certainly conjure visuals from data in memory, I can play music back like you said and even change the notes and sounds like a MIDI file being played with a soundfont, but it's not like a movie where there's a slightly reverb'd version of my voice in my head dictating out thoughts involuntarily as a voice. Thoughts are thoughts, they're a separate data type to me than audio or visuals.
A line of thought to me is a sequence of concepts represented by some unknown malleable fuzzy data structure in my brain, not an .MP3 file playing like what "internal narrative" seems to indicate.
At any moment a thought can be cast to another data structure like an image or video or audio, but it's not anything but a thought until I make the choice, likewise this isn't limited to just memories but imagination in equal amounts. I can just as well conjure visuals that aren't real and/or events that didn't happen and experience them in equal amounts and clarity. This is what I understand as daydreaming. But it's not exactly like watching a film, or even to the level of vividness of an actual sleepy-time dream.
I'm very much known by my peers IRL from interactions there and my comments on the interwebz for philsophizing and intellectualising as well and often been told by people as a kid and young adult that I have a very vivid imagination if I share some idea in my head, and it wasn't even an insult I'm pretty sure haha!
Sounds like you may be part of that 40%. The majority of people seem to have an inner voice and can create visuals and imagine sounds. Even auditory hallucinations are quite common.
One should never assume everyone's inner reality is the same as their own.
I appreciate the input. I responded to another comment here in this same thread and I'd like to hear your thoughts as well: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/18751476
They still might get a mental concept of a cup pop up though, just not a mental image if that makes sense.
I probably have aphantasia, or at least very close to having it. If someone mentions a cup I can still think about a cup, I just don't "see" it
I think it's kind of hard to describe if you can't do it. I don't literally see the cup; I'm imagining that I can see the cup. Can you imagine other senses? For example, can you imagine how chocolate tastes, or what it sounds like when somebody's knocking on a door?
Thank you. I was freaking out. Isn't this what they call a stream of consciousness?
The real skill is to go back and add new branches to those thoughts. That takes effort.
I think if this experience is related to having ADHD, the part that is relevant is the lack of ability to acknowledge that you've made a jump at all. In the example it's a perfectly valid train of thought, but I'd expect an average person to make an effort to bring the other up to speed. Because most people generally expect to continue conversation in the same topic, you spend mental effort trying to keep tethered to that topic and have to share that rope with the other person.
this has nothing to do with neurodivergence. it's just how brains work. necessarily, in fact. your dad's just an idiot.
by the way it's not the same thing but one thing I enjoyed doing when i was younger and talked with my dad for long enough, we would stop at a point and think "wait how did we even get here?" and trace back the conversation to several topics ago.
we both have diverse interests, maybe that's why things we talked about would keep chaining to random other things. now that i think of it, my dad used to buy lots of encyclopedias before the internet, and we'd just randomly browse them. even on our computer we had multiple versions of Encarta. and now we use wikipedia and it's so easy to jump from one article to another.
so i guess what we did all those years ago wasn't far off from wiki surfing verbally.
I didn't realize this wasn't normal... I always considered it "thinking a few steps ahead." As explained it is connected, it's just a few steps away.
I've done this many times, but I reflect on what I'm going to say first so I pretty much always recognize that just coming out with the final thought is strange so I explain how I got to where I want to be first and then I ask the question or say the thing lol
It feels like describing 7 degrees of Kevin bacon but for your train of thought. "Then I clicked on this link which took me to the page on been stings, then I clicked on the link for insects with stingers"...etc
My wife regularly has rogue "brain trains" like this. Keeps things fun :)
My GF sometimes has to ask me what I'm talking about because I ask her a question with no context, but most of the time now she knows, not sure if she just knows me well enough or if she has found a way to join me on my "brain train".
My wife likes including me in the middle of conversations that she started in her head.
I have to occasionally remind her that I need a little context.
Like, people will call this neurodivergent but this is literally how all brains work.
The neurodivergence is in failing to read the social queues of your dad, who was clearly very invested in talking to you about the carnival.
I have written several proposals for my employer based on this kind of thinking. We have some kind of issue, I push it to the back of my mind, weeks later the issue still exists and I'm listening to a totally unrelated podcast and something the host or guest says triggers a series of seemingly unrelated thoughts and suddenly I have a solution to the issue.
My department head once asked me how I come up with these solutions, I smiled and said I have ADHD and listen to podcasts. He just looked at me with a blank stare then said that doesn't make sense. I just laughed a little and said, I know but it's hard to explain how things connect in my mind, the podcasts just help me brainstorm. He just smiled, shook his head, and said well what ever works I guess.
I'd recommend reading Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. I'm not sure that all the claims hold up to scrutiny, but it's nice to see a book that notes the way I like to think has real world application.
Somethings I suspect you're doing are:
Oddly enough, if your boss wants to foster creative problem solving for novel problems, this book might convince him to give you more latitude and resources to do your thing.
So I just got done reading up on this book and ordered a copy. Thanks, I might also grab the audiobook since I sometimes have problems focusing on reading, and listening to a book is the only way I can finish it.
Funnily enough the boss is extremely open to new ideas and recognizes that I'm ready to move on. He's already told me that he's petitioning for extra budget now that we have surplus money company wide so that he can move me and two others up into low level management in project management roles. As he said the project management title will be fluid since each of you will be doing wildly different things based on your strengths.
I'm down for it since the majority of the things he says he wants to assign me are things I want to do. Sure there's a few things I'm not crazy about, but they aren't anywhere near deal breakers.
Awesome. I've been feeding the ebook into a text to speech reader. It's been working for me.
I'm glad to hear you have a boss that's open to your mode of thinking. Good luck and I wish you well!
Text to speech is a good idea but it would have to be natural sounding, I find the typical ones are robotic sounding and distracting, for me at least.
Yeah he's a good guy, we actually graduated together but were just casual acquaintances at that time. A few years back I was covering a holiday and it was just the two of us, nothing going on so we sat at my desk and started talking about highschool, after a while we got to talking about what we saw as the future of the department (he had just been promoted to head the department) and we found out we shared a bunch of ideas. He's never said anything but I wouldn't be surprised if he's had to slow roll my promotion because of the highschool ties.
Yeah it's weird, you would think it would distract you but it doesn't. On the music thing, I've found that classical music helps me focus but other types don't. To be specific piano and violin music seems to work best for me. But that's really only when I'm writing, when I'm working on a problem podcasts, audiobooks, and music I've heard a million times already work just fine, new music will distract me though, it has to be stuff I already know.
As soon as I saw "carnival" and "wasps," I understood the connection immediately.
We call them "fair bees"; they are drunk and aggressively non-violent about drinking your daiquiri, as well as rummaging through every trash can. Never been stung by one, but they can be aggravating sometimes cause they won't leave me or my drink alone... like any obnoxious drunk, really
So I can see how you can get to thinking about wasps from "carnival". The "fair bees" definitely remind me of wasps being assholes
Yeah, any outdoor environment with food involved immediately brings to mind yellowjacket/bee/wasp type insects not leaving sugary drinks alone.
Let me tell you how my mum's brain works:
Me: "So how was your day?"
Mum: "We had a session with Sasha and the report she mentioned to Jenny my boss, cos the whole department was axed, as you remember the last election, and maybe you should start looking for a job around there, and so the report came back empty and...."
Me (used to her tangents), a report was made between her and Sasha, given to Jenny the boss, but the report was ignored and sent back, most likely due to lack of personell because the department was axed by the Tories in the last election, and she fears it might happen to me too and that I should look for a job in that potential vacuum.
I need you to interpret my thoughts too
To be honest, I talk like this too when I'm under duress or havent quite processed something - jumping from fragment to fragment to try and keep the whole in mind.
As my understanding of my day-to-day has increased and my work and life have somewhat settled, I'm able to better predict and summarize things that happen to me using my day-to-day as a stable baseline to reference from:
I can tell you the important bits because I'm aware of what the humdrum bits are.
I think my mum's world is way more stressful and uncertain than mine is, so her mind tries to capture everything because it has no stable reference to build from
I always assumed that most people do this just much slower. Hence why they would switch fewer topics.
I think the "why can you concentrate on video games?" thing is really missing the whole point of TV as a medium. The sight/sound combo, particularly with bright colors and crisp volume and lots of rapid movements (graphics, camera work, etc) is explicitly designed to grab and hold your attention.
Asking why a TV/game can hold your attention but casual conversation / dry educational instruction cannot is like asking why you got here faster on a car than by hiking with a broken leg. Or asking why you can eat a gallon of ice cream or a bucket of fried chicken, but shy away from canned spinach. Like, ffs, that's the whole reason the thing exists.
I often find myself in restaurants or bars, forcing myself back to focus on the people I'm there with even when the TV playing in the background is showing something I viscerally do not want to watch. It can be total slop, but I'm still drawn to it, because it is bright and loud and attention-demanding.
Video games adding a kinetic aspect only amplify the problem. Now you're "juggling" an extra thing (manual control inputs). And the fun is that the sights/sounds/engagement all point you in the same direction - often with a gameplay loop that provides stimulus reward on continuous interaction. Normal life doesn't provide that. Perhaps it shouldn't, because the sensation overload can (and often does, via F2P games) be so easily exploited.
I've been wondering a lot recently if neurotypical people can literally just control their own thoughts in ways I can't even conceive of. Like can they actually choose what they like instead of just liking or not liking things? Can they choose what to think about without struggling to grab the thing you're trying to think about out of the sea of interconnected thoughts flowing into one another all the time? Are their minds just totally blank until tasked with thinking?
Yes, as a NT personally, both options are available depending on what I need to accomplish. For my brain to have no thoughts I have to actively meditate, and that’s really hard and has taken a lot of training and practice.
As for what I like or not, there’s some degree of control over it, but what’s key for me is an awareness of why I have likes / dislikes and the level of tolerance for them along a spectrum.
From what I can gather, it seems that NT people are more interested in finding similarities they have with others in their in-group, than with finding the differences that set them apart from their group.
If they have a personal disagreement from the dominant opinion, they’re more likely to either suppress it or reconsider it - like thinking a fashion is tacky when it’s brand new, but joining in on it later once it becomes popular. Individual opinions aren’t held firmly, but are swayed to fit whatever others agree with.
It’s all about that social cohesion, that drive to be part of the protected herd. Many neurotypicals will promptly shed their individualities if it means attaining higher social standing. They don’t want to “stick out,” as that threatens their personal connection with the group identity.
My wife and I call this "Goldbluming", after Jeff Goldblum in the "Canceled" South Park episode.
Wait a minute: chaos theory! Chaos theory, it was first thought of in the '60s. Sixty. That's the number of episodes they made of Punky Brewster before it was cancelled. Cancelled... Don't you see? The show is over! The aliens are cancelling Earth!
This extends to being an expert in your field as well. We've done an experiment and the result is both incredible and obvious. To me.
The struggle is then to connect and explain these things I am seeing to other people who are themselves also extremely intelligent but don't have the same exact brand of autism.
same exact brand of autism.
information set. You are describing knowledge, not process.
Funny thing is, sometimes I'll do this out of the blue days later and my wife picks up on it immediately.
If the other person can't follow your train of thought, it can feel as though the emotional and cognitive connection/trust that was built in the conversation was abandoned along with the previous context. This can happen when there is a non-trivial jump in context between ideas.
Steering the conversation can be done by introducing intermediary steps that are connected to the previous topic in a self-evident way. This maintains that cognitive and emotional connection/trust because you are showing that you value the other person's understanding and participation.
Figuring out what "non-trivial" or "self-evident" means is probably the hard part but you'd probably want to consider each step in, for example:
Grass, meadow, forest, tree, timber, log truck, mill, paper, exports, shipping dock, ocean, ice caps, ice bergs, titantic, James Cameron, Michael bay, transformers.
You could probably go from each one to the next trivially, steering the conversation from grass to meadow and so on through the list. But to go from grass to transformers without intermediate ideas truly makes absolutely no sense.
Building off this, im fully capable of having 2 entirely different conversations at once.
Ive been talking to one person at work, stop mid sentence to correct the other crew, and go back to what I was saying with a small reminder.
I've had two conversations with the same person at the same time.
Really common with text chatting, since they reply to conversation 1 while I'm replying to conversation 2, then we switch.
Everything is fine until you say the wrong strawberry?
Yeah my gf sometimes does this but uses one app for one conversation and another for a different one.
ime they simply don’t think
I've always found calling people NPCs pretty degrading, but what do you call someone who has no internal dialogue? They're just... husks?
Well yeah. Most ND stuff is just normal stuff but turned up to 11.
"Normal" people worry about having locked their door, but OCD will make you go back three times and double-check, even if you're late somewhere.
"Normal" people get thoughts by association, but ADHD will make you throw the original thought over your shoulder while you're still having a conversation about it.
"Normal" people may have issues interpreting unfamiliar social cues, but autism is socialguessr on hard mode.
etc.
They do, but not all the time. Most people can stay on one subject. With some ND individuals, particularly those with ADHD, one subject is every subject depending on what you are thinking at the time.
Carnivals could have easily become candy making videos, because spinning cotton candy is like the process of candy making on a tiny level, but hey, have you seen them break a candy bubble in this vid?
Candy like that is actually really hot and I bet those burns suck if you get one. I grabbed a stick in the fire once and didn't see the hot coal on the end, so I could only imagine what molten candy would do to you.
Its basically molding edible magma. Speaking of magma, did you know that Old Faithful is an underground volcano and if it erupted it would probably destroy half of North America? At least, that's what I heard.
From here we could go onto apocalypse talk, National Parks, or even the Yellowstone TV series. The world is your oyster and your brain will not stop.
Everyone pees, but if you pee 50 times a day see a doctor.
It may be more extreme, but fairly often with conversations with my wife, after a while we’re like: “How did we end up at this topic” and then we can backtrack it a number of steps to see how we got at a completely different topic.
It’s kind of like clicking through Wikipedia, you open a page and a few subpages, some of those have different interesting subjects and somehow you went from pollination to ancient Mesopotamian mythology.
I think we’re both fairly “NT” but just curious.
It wasn't a carnival, it was a candy themed amusement park, and one of the stands was "make your own lolipop", and I wasn't looking, and fuck - I got stung on my tongue by a wasp.
That's probably the easiest connection for me to make if I had been part of that conversation.
It's not a "hack" per se, but at least I got lots of free icecream following. Until my parents got to thinking that ice cubes are free..
seemingly random arbitrary endpoints**
Its also different from person to person, let alone any notion of what's typical
fixed it for you.
You'll find an average, median, or "common range", and good luck hammering out your criteria. Even self-reporting would likely get you varying results from the same person by their categories of interest.
as i child i used to play a mind game with myself when i was bored. i'd think of two random things and try to find a string of associations that connect the two. i was born being a nerd, playing the wikipedia game before i knew how to read
my thoughts simply do not stop
My game was sorta the opposite. After letting my mind wander for an undetermined amount of time, I would try and backtrack as far back as I could. I didn't usually make it back more than a few steps, but finding that "first" thought was always satisfying.
I have this wonderful habit of coming to a satisfactory conclusion, only to find I've forgotten what the topic I was contemplating was. 10/10, awesome way to live life.
You'd probably love psilocybin.
I see it more about the level of curiosity one has, rather than a typical / atypical division.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
I think most people don't think about what they think about.
save