NationStates Jolt Archive

I've thought about this a lot. Do people think in their language? Or is there a universal language of thought? And if it is the former, do mind-readers here their own language or the language of the mind-read when they mind read?

The human mind thinks in pictures, not words, so yes, its the universal language of pictures.

I've thought about this a lot. Do people think in their language? Or is there a universal language of thought? And if it is the former, do mind-readers here their own language or the language of the mind-read when they mind read?
Speaking as an accomplished mind-reader, it's safe to say that there is no language barrier for thoughts. However, I am also multilingual and know every language in existence, so if that were not the case, I could still understand anyone's thoughts.

No. I am a translator, how would this be possible if thought was in a language?

Well, I know that when I think of something I think of it in English. I assume the same goes for a French person thinking in French, or a Spaniard thinking in Spanish.

What I've always wondered is what do you 'think in' if you're deaf and mute?

What I've always wondered is what do you 'think in' if you're deaf and mute?

Sign language.

Well, I know that when I think of something I think of it in English. I assume the same goes for a French person thinking in French, or a Spaniard thinking in Spanish.

What I've always wondered is what do you 'think in' if you're deaf and mute?
No, while you believe that you think in English, you are actually attempting to communicate your thoughts to your conscious mind.

Sign language.

Add blind to my list instead of mute...

What if you're blind and deaf?

What way do you think?

It couldn't be in images, it couldn't be in words...how?

Well, I know that when I think of something I think of it in English. I assume the same goes for a French person thinking in French, or a Spaniard thinking in Spanish.

What I've always wondered is what do you 'think in' if you're deaf and mute?

Your mind interprets your thoughts in English. Language is a way of communicating ideas; the different languages are different ways of communicating ideas. The ideas themselves aren't in our languages, other wise you'd be born knowing it. The language, that is.

The human mind thinks in pictures, not words, so yes, its the universal language of pictures.
Is this your personal opinion, or do you have some other source of info on this?

Naliitr, I'm glad I'm not the only one who spends their time ruminating on such things.

I personally feel that I think predominately in concepts that I convert into words....which is why I'm inclined to ask Adollias if he/she states that the human mind thinks in pictures due to personal knowledge, or due to some 'body of knowledge' (for instance research/studies or some such)...

No, while you believe that you think in English, you are actually attempting to communicate your thoughts to your conscious mind.

Well, unless you have something authoratitive on this, I'm not entirely sure I believe you. Personally, and without any science behind it, I believe thought comes automatically through the primary language. But that's just what I think.

Well, unless you have something authoratitive on this, I'm not entirely sure I believe you. Personally, and without any science behind it, I believe thought comes automatically through the primary language. But that's just what I think.

So...ummm...How do babies think? Or maybe I misunderstood...

Your mind interprets your thoughts in English. Language is a way of communicating ideas; the different languages are different ways of communicating ideas. The ideas themselves aren't in our languages, other wise you'd be born knowing it. The language, that is.

Well, I kind of think that ideas automatically are brought up in your primary language...

So...ummm...How do babies think? Or maybe I misunderstood...
That's what I'm asking...I believe ideas come up (not even "are just expressed") in your primary language, if you have a language that is, and if you don't then...well, that's what I'd like to know?

You're all really missing the point of my post, language itself is somewhat of an aside,; how do people without any language think? How do they string together thoughts?

That's what I'm asking...I believe ideas come up (not even "are just expressed") in your primary language, if you have a language that is, and if you don't then...well, that's what I'd like to know?

How do people without language think?

Same as anyone else, they're just incapable of communicating their thoughts. You think something, I'd imagine subconciously, and that thought, or feeling maybe, becomes a statment in the language your concious mind would best understand. It's the statment that you use to communicate the thought it represents. If the language was the acutal idea, you couldn't really have misunderstandings could you? It's just a representation...

Disclaimer: I may or may not have BS'd the previous paragraph

I've thought about this a lot. Do people think in their language? Or is there a universal language of thought? And if it is the former, do mind-readers here their own language or the language of the mind-read when they mind read?
Most people think in words and images. Words are in their own language, and pictures are more universal. If you've ever been immersed in a foreign language, you find this out. After a few weeks I stopped thinking in English and started thinking in French.

I think in leetspeak, sometimes binary. Is that a universal enough language? :)

Well, unless you have something authoratitive on this, I'm not entirely sure I believe you. Personally, and without any science behind it, I believe thought comes automatically through the primary language. But that's just what I think.
Where do thoughts come from? What if, somehow, you never had the opportunity to learn a language? Would you just not think at all?

Add blind to my list instead of mute...

What if you're blind and deaf?

What way do you think?

It couldn't be in images, it couldn't be in words...how?
You would think entirely in terms of touch.

Where do thoughts come from? What if, somehow, you never had the opportunity to learn a language? Would you just not think at all?

See, that's exactly what I want to know. Not if you express your thoughts in a language, but how your most basic thoughts are constructed if you don't know any language. That fascinates me. And that's my main query in this thread.

Where do thoughts come from? What if, somehow, you never had the opportunity to learn a language? Would you just not think at all?
By no means. As my experience proved, we will always think. Our minds just find an incidentally convenient way of managing thoughts.

You would think entirely in terms of touch.

True, that seems likely. You think in the way things feel. Or taste, or smell, maybe...and of course emotions.

Yus! Everyone is as clueless as me!:)

Does anyone actually know anything about this formally (ie are aware of studies/research)?

I've actually thought about this quite a bit and although I initially thought I thought in language it seems to me that even though I often use language (or imaging) to examine my thoughts, that the thoughts themselves are not necessarily linguistic or pictorial, but rather conceptual.

I think that my thoughts are not in words until I try to express or organize them. So mostly pictures, textures, sounds etc. but then they get translated into language before I can use them.

I agree with the person who talked about language immersion. I found while learning Spanish that I was thinking in Spanish.

Most people think in words and images. Words are in their own language, and pictures are more universal. If you've ever been immersed in a foreign language, you find this out. After a few weeks I stopped thinking in English and started thinking in French.

I've had exactly the same sort of thing. What is funny is that sometimes the French words or phrases (and assorted German ones) come more quickly than the English ones do. If I've been speaking much French that day I'm quite prone to answering simple (in English) questions in French.

The human mind thinks in pictures, not words, so yes, its the universal language of pictures.

im pretty sure the voice in my head is broadcasting words and not pictures

he describes the pictures to me, then she gives me a review of what the symbolic representation of the picture. then the other guy gives me another opinion of the picture. then theres that one guy/girl that no one is really sure if its a guy or girl and can never really seem to find out.

im pretty sure the voice in my head is broadcasting words and not pictures

he describes the pictures to me, then she gives me a review of what the symbolic representation of the picture. then the other guy gives me another opinion of the picture. then theres that one guy/girl that no one is really sure if its a guy or girl and can never really seem to find out.
I have many voices in my head. However, they all speak sanskrit, so it's easy to tune them out.

What I've always wondered is what do you 'think in' if you're deaf and mute?
You might find this (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html) enlightening...

I'm also familiar with thinking in a foreign language.
Sometimes it is just plain faster to think in english than in german (which is my mother tongue)

I'm also familiar with thinking in a foreign language.
Sometimes it is just plain faster to think in english than in german (which is my mother tongue)

So I'm not insane when I think that thinking in German is slower than in English! I thought I might be, since I'm doing the English to German direction of foreign language.

I study French, Spanish and German. Normally, when I'm thinking about normal stuff, I'm just thinking in English, and up until the start of this academic, year whenever I spoke French or Spanish (I only started German at the beginning of the year) I would think in English. Nowadays, whenever I'm doing a task involving French of Spanish, I think in that language. Of course with German it's slightly different! I reckon that when you reach a certain level of proficiency in a language,you begin to think in that language when the situation is appropriate. Just my thoughts :D

NB: I love Mr. Green

What many seem to be confusing here is the internal verbalisation of thoughts to the conscious mind with the actual process of thinking itself.

We may see the cat sitting on the mat a thousand times and think about it, but only sometimes will we internally verbalise 'the cat is sitting on the mat' or 'le chat est dans la tapis' to ourselves.

With regard to whether we think in pictures or not...

Is this your personal opinion, or do you have some other source of info on this?


IIRC there was some research carried out that showed that the human brain was able to provide answers faster when initially provided with visual stimuli rather than descriptive verbal ones, and so it has been assumed that memory functions more effectively with regard to pictorial rather than propositional contents.

With regard to whether we think in pictures or not...
IIRC there was some research carried out that showed that the human brain was able to provide answers faster when initially provided with visual stimuli rather than descriptive verbal ones, and so it has been assumed that memory functions more effectively with regard to pictorial rather than propositional contents.
Thanks for that info Bodies Without Organs.

What many seem to be confusing here is the internal verbalisation of thoughts to the conscious mind with the actual process of thinking itself.

We may see the cat sitting on the mat a thousand times and think about it, but only sometimes will we internally verbalise 'the cat is sitting on the mat'

This fits with my perception of thinking. To me I translate my thought into language for certain purposes, but I think predominately in concepts...

im pretty sure the voice in my head is broadcasting words and not pictures

he describes the pictures to me, then she gives me a review of what the symbolic representation of the picture. then the other guy gives me another opinion of the picture. then theres that one guy/girl that no one is really sure if its a guy or girl and can never really seem to find out.
What's actually happening is somone is broadcasting reruns of Herman's Head into your brain...

Apart from thinking in images (or even more abstractly), I think in both Swedish and English. Mostly Swedish when I'm around people and dealing with them, and more English when I'm for myself, even more so when in front of my computer. (the language often shifts from thought to thought, or sometimes even in the middle of a sentence I'm thinking)

You might find this (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html) enlightening...
That was genuinely interesting.


I have a friend that asserts that he does not think in images at all. If he thinks of a tree, he thinks only of the description of the tree. He'll describe the trunk, the branches, the leaves, but not actually picture the tree. I tend to think more visually with narration. It makes us pretty good collaborators. Plus he does all the proof reading, so it works great for me.

I've thought about this a lot. Do people think in their language? Or is there a universal language of thought?
It depends. People tend to think in words, but not always; ask a mathematician how they think about mathematical problems, and they'll say how the visualise what they're doing, with the only 'words' in their mind being something like 'and that goes with that and cancels with that and gives that' - in other words, the language centre keeps constructing words for what they're thinking even when they're not using the words.

I've thought about this a lot. Do people think in their language? Or is there a universal language of thought? And if it is the former, do mind-readers here their own language or the language of the mind-read when they mind read?


Some observations ...

I am a native English speaker and lived in Sweden for a while. Bizarrely, at least to me, I found that I started very occasionally to think in Swedish without conciously meaning to do so.

One of my flatmates at the time was Swedish, but had lived in Germany, yet went to an American school. He spoke three languages fluently. I asked him what language he thought in and, after pondering if for a while, he answered: in the language that I last used. So, if he spoke to me, for the next coupla hours he'd think in English until, say, he turned on the TV and watched programmes in Swedish.

Another observation: linguist Noam Chomsky reckons we're all born with an innate capacity to learn language because we are born with a universal language template in our brain. Seems to make sense. After all, we all learn our native language relatively easily compared to learning something like - advanced calculus. And how do children learn the correct way to speak anyhow? I don't know about you, but my speech is full of accent, dialect, solecisms, slang shorthand and half-given meanings. How is a kid able to learn given that adult speech is so inchoerent? It's a bit like trying to learn to play poker when you don't have the full set of rules. Chomsky reckons that fact that we do learn language is evidence for his language learning template. So make of that what you will.

Third observation, people who practise NLP (a form of applied behavioural pyschology (note: it's a bit controversial, some people don't think NLP is real - I express no opinon on it)) claim that the mind has 'representational systems' corresponding to the senses - visual, auditory, kinesthetic (emotional kino and physical touch kino) gustatory (lovely word! means 'taste') and olfactory (smell). So someone, the theory goes, who is primarily visual will tend to think in terms of pictures and will use phrases like 'I see what you're getting at' or 'I get the big picture now'. Someone who is kinesthetic, in contrast, will 'think' in terms of their physical and emotional feelings and will use phrase like 'I don't know why, but it just feels right' or 'I have a gut feeling about that' and so on.

Representational system theory gets a bit complicated. The NLP inventors (Bandler and Grinder) originally thought that people had one primary rep system. It's now generally believed that people have all the representational systems on the go at the same time all interacting and working with each other. So you could be say 50% visual, 10% kino etc. And all this will affect how you think, what you think and how you perceive the world. It gets more complicated again because different activities appear to trigger different rep systems in different people. So a graphic designer, you may think, would be a 'visual' person - but he might not be. he might be using his Kino system to get a feel for how the picture looks. A writer may auditorily represent his writing but activate a visual representation system when, say, studying for an exam.

But critics often claim that this is all complete bollocks :p

I'll leave it you to make up your mind.

I'd say there are different levels of thought which are handled differently in our heads.

Most of our complex thought, like political discussion, philosophy and scientific concepts are expressed in language - I don't see how it can really be any other way - but there are primal thoughts and feelings which are not worded. For example, if I'm hungry, I don't often conciously think "I'm hungry so I'm going to go and grab a bite to eat", I usually just compulsively drift towards whatever there is to eat.

Conversely there are also extremely complex ideas, usually induced by religion or drugs, which are TOO complicated to be adequately expressed in language.

Someone without language would struggle to comprehend philosophy, science and mathematical concepts but could still think about needing food, drink and sex, and would still be capable of experiencing religious and substance-induced insight.

Obviously hardly any people have lived their lives without language because the ability to communicate complex ideas has been a hallmark of humanity since its inception.

Add blind to my list instead of mute...

What if you're blind and deaf?

What way do you think?

It couldn't be in images, it couldn't be in words...how?
I guess much the same way as when they dream. It'd be in terms of sensations.

Add blind to my list instead of mute...

What if you're blind and deaf?

What way do you think?

It couldn't be in images, it couldn't be in words...how?

Smells? (Try not to think of trash. Or poop. Trash poop.)

snip...
The stuff about Chomsky reminds me about feral children - children who are raised by animals. Still happens very occassionally.
Interesting thing about these children is that if they have no human contact in early childhood ( to age 3), they are unable to develop much, if any, language ability. The part of the brain that processes language needs language to switch itself on and if there is none, it'll never do so. Just lies dormant, or dies.
They also don't display any empathy.


In a recent New Scientist, there's an article about a project to film a baby practically 24/7 for the first 3 years of his life to see when and how he develops speech. As CDA mentions, the sheer variety of language makes it pretty mind-boogling the fact we seem to develop it so easily.

Baby Truman Show (http://www.physorg.com/news67095070.html)

I've thought about this a lot. Do people think in their language? Or is there a universal language of thought? And if it is the former, do mind-readers here their own language or the language of the mind-read when they mind read?
Ever since my English got good enough to communicate almost every occurence of life in that foreign language I started to think that your brain simply deals in information and you can choose which channel to use to put it out.

When I'm on NS, I usually switch into "English-mode" - but during an average conversation, I can switch from German to English pretty easily without the information being changed.

Mind readers usually read body language - and that's another field entirely.

Surely people will think in the language they grew up with. In my case, since I grew up in Canada, all my thoughts are in English, however with my mom she thinks in Mandarin, and my dad in Cantonese.

However, mind-readers will probably just read the concept of what the person is thinking but not the language they're thinking it in. Seems to make sense to me.

What many seem to be confusing here is the internal verbalisation of thoughts to the conscious mind with the actual process of thinking itself.

We may see the cat sitting on the mat a thousand times and think about it, but only sometimes will we internally verbalise 'the cat is sitting on the mat' or 'le chat est dans la tapis' to ourselves.

Surely this is visual "thinking", so no language is involved at all.... unless you're visualsing a cat wearing a beret.

Surely this is visual "thinking", so no language is involved at all.... unless you're visualsing a cat wearing a beret.
When applied to concrete examples, such as the cat sitting on the mat, then yes you can ascribe it to visual thinking. But how do you handle other types of thought, such as "I hope my team wins today" in a pre verbal phase.
Is the verbalisation just an expression of a desire state, and is the desire state, if this is the case, so tightly defined, or is it more just "I want to be happy"?

When applied to concrete examples, such as the cat sitting on the mat, then yes you can ascribe it to visual thinking. But how do you handle other types of thought, such as "I hope my team wins today" in a pre verbal phase.
Is the verbalisation just an expression of a desire state, and is the desire state, if this is the case, so tightly defined, or is it more just "I want to be happy"?
Well for me the cat is vaguely visualistic. Less concrete stuff I believe I deal with conceptually rather than linguistically.

I translate into linguistic thought/internal voice for some aspects of thinking but it is a translation.

Well for me the cat is vaguely visualistic. Less concrete stuff I believe I deal with conceptually rather than linguistically.

I translate into linguistic thought/internal voice for some aspects of thinking but it is a translation.

Which implies that concepts exist independently to any language. I happen to agree with this, as I spend a lot of time translating from one language to another which requires that I extract the concept from one linguistic expression and re compose it in another language.
What I do question though is whether this conceptual level stuff is what the majority of people call thinking, it appears to me that it mught be better labelled as understanding. Thinking seems to be a more deliberate and structured activity, one in which we argue internally, and this apears to be done in a language.

Which implies that concepts exist independently to any language.
I wouldnt go so far, rather it suggests the possibility of concepts existing independently to any language. I rather expect that the relationship between concepts and language is varied. Some concepts for instance existed for me (in thought) prior to my becoming aware of the words that conventionally act as signs for them in English language, and in other cases introduction to a concept has occured only when I was introduced to the word. I suspect that language and concept are mutually causitive and influencing of each other rather than either being entirely dependent (on the other) or either being independent of the other.

I happen to agree with this, as I spend a lot of time translating from one language to another which requires that I extract the concept from one linguistic expression and re compose it in another language.
Aha, sounds like fun or tedium, probably 'either-or' depending on the material being translated and your particular inclination at the time of the task....so er (as a matter of curiousity), how is the translating stuff process, predominatly tedious or predominately absorbing?

What I do question though is whether this conceptual level stuff is what the majority of people call thinking,
Aha, and I certainly 'get' what you are driving at with this. Honestly for other people, hard to say, for me though I'm quite confident that I do think in concepts.
it appears to me that it mught be better labelled as understanding. Thinking seems to be a more deliberate and structured activity, one in which we argue internally, and this apears to be done in a language.
Well I make no claims for universality or even commonness, but to me I percieve the translation of my reasoning into linguistics very often. It's not simply understanding but reasoning that I do conceptually.

For instance in order to consider whether I think linguistically or not I switched back and forth between my predominate reasoning/thinking mode and linguistic reasoning/thinking. The earlier is the one I am most familiar with and for most thinking tasks most adept.

It was (when I initially realised) a bit of a surprise to me that I think less in linguistics than I think in concepts, but it certainly does seem to be the case. It's often much easier for me to reason and comprehend without language and to apply the language after the reasoning has taken place. Equally once I started to dwell on the matter (it's been one that I've been working on for a while - thanks to Naliitr for the thread start...!) I began to percieve the translation working the other way, converting from linguistic into conceptual.

Anyway I get what you mean about unstructured, comprehension/understanding/percepting/etc, but when I say that I think in concepts that isnt what I mean. I actually mean that my thinking process is predominately conceptual in form.

Language is just a group of symbols, really a code. Just like any code it has limitations. If the code doesn't have a symbol for sn object or situation it is hard for the mind to concieve of the object or situation. This is why people of different cultures think through problems in different ways.

Having said that, I think humans think in pictures. But those pictures can only contain combinations of the persons experience. And generally, the culture has given those common experiences a code in order to express those pictures. But, all of the codes (languages) are flawed in that they don't contain the correct words for exact expression of the mental images. Also, with the codes being limited, a single code word can mean different things. So the mind of the receiver has to decide what the sender meant and reconstruct the picture based on the receiver's supply of saved images. Of course the receiver has totally different images to draw on than the sender had when the code was formed and sent.

It's a wonder we can communicate at all.

The human mind thinks in pictures, not words, so yes, its the universal language of pictures.
I don't think in images. I hear myself in my head as if I'm listening to the radio.

I've thought about this a lot. Do people think in their language? Or is there a universal language of thought? And if it is the former, do mind-readers here their own language or the language of the mind-read when they mind read?
Words tend to structure thought and people generally conceptualize in their own language. Even scientists are sometimes limited by the constructs of their own culture. Einstein, for example, once said "God doesn't play dice with the universe" when replying to quantum uncertainty.

Wow, this is the most intellectual conversation I have ever witnessed on a dialog forum.

For what it's worth, I'm going to throw out some anectdotal exerience and you can apply it to the topic as you will.

I must be "hard wired" for visuals. Whenever I have to memorize a bit of information I am more readily able to do it if I create a "picture" rather than a "word". For example, a number, I can easily remember a number if I create an image of it, a picture of the numbers. And, if I can attach a "feeling" to it all the better. For example, I remember my phone number because it has both inner numbers sequential and both outer numbers are the same. So I make a memory "package" of my phone number by packaging two sequential numbers between (copies) of one number. Is this making any sense?

I also found out that I was better able to grasp visual subjects in college easier than more abstract. For example, astronomy and organic chemistry. I still have not grasped punctuation. I can't attach the rules to anything "relevant".

Additionally, I found that I was able to discover (create?) and utilyze many different thinking pathways for solving math (algebra) AFTER having a semester of a foreign language (German) under my belt.

When I think, like problem solving, it is dominated by language and internal dialog. But, if soemone says the word "tree" I see an image of a tree. And, I see the "same" tree every time. I don't see different kinds of trees unless the spoken word is "Christmas tree" or "aspen". If the spoken word is "dog" I picture MY dog and dogs I have had.