Talk:Internal monologue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Internal monologue in popular culture[edit]

Yes, I'm the guy who added this section. Yes, I hate these sections, too. But when I came across this page it had {{context}} on it, for some rather obvious reasons. I added the section so that non-technical people could have some examples which might help them understand what the article is talking about.

When this thing gets cleaned up, you might want to get rid of the popular culture section. You would have my blessing. --Superluser 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Soliloquy Like in a play, when the characters think/talk to themselves which others can't hear. I think in English.

Sole consumer[edit]

"The person creating the inner speech is also the sole consumer of the monologue". This sounds obvious to me. Is there something to it that I'm not getting? A.Z. 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that internal monologue is what it's called that children develop as they learn the ability to think without verbalizing their thoughts. This line led me to think that this is not the case. However, if what I believed was true, then that line needs to be expanded - that the person creating the speech is the sole consumer once this develops, but that it takes a while in very small children to develop.4.68.248.130 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Large biblical quote[edit]

The large Luke 13:22-34 quote seems to have nothing to do with internal monologue. I propose that it be removed on grounds of irrelevancy. Bobber0001 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed. 24.113.85.162 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) ī== Buddhist perspective ==

Why is it on the article? A buddhist perspective appears to be irrelevant, or should appear on an article about buddhism. I propose that it be removed on grounds of irrelevancy, much like the biblical perspective. Could the "buddhist perspective" then be a heading on every page on wikipedia? What is the buddhist's perspective on raising bioengineered corn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.143.3 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I think a Zen Buddhist perspective on thought is relevant, as Buddhist meditation has been dealing with the "problem of thought" for over 2500 years. So it could be in a "History section," except it is still being practiced by millions of people. One point the article makes is proven by the person asking why it's here. One thought follows another. 96.25.31.89 (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the quote labelled Mark 13:11 got whacked inadvertently with the Luke quote, will return it. I think there is minor mixing here though by including 'inner voice' (a.k.a. conscience, holy spirit) of that which is speaking with the inner monologue or that which is said. And maybe the whole 'inner dialogue' mechanism should be merged into Consiousness ? Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, have returned the Mark quote, which doesn't do much for the bigger content but hope the little bit helps Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)