[126 / 30 / ?]
Quoted By: >>6405067 >>6405068 >>6405072 >>6405081 >>6405086 >>6405092 >>6405095 >>6405097 >>6405106 >>6405113 >>6405130 >>6405131 >>6405134 >>6405141 >>6405142 >>6405145 >>6405161
Here is the study that /pol/ is suddenly obsessed about.
The study had 30 college students write down their experiences at random moments in the day. They found that about 26% of the time, at that random moment, someone was conducting inner speech.
This does not mean that only 26% of people are capable of inner speech. This means that, even if this is taken as fact, there is only a 26% chance that at any given moment someone is currently engaging in inner speech.
It gets even worse if you actually read the text of an "interview" they conducted with their participants. It's full of leading questions. It's literal garbage.
The actual study: http://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/heavey-hurlburt-2008.pdf
The interview text:http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/hurlburt-schwitzgebel_part2.pdf
This thread is reserved for the discussing the methodology and conclusions of the research itself.
The study had 30 college students write down their experiences at random moments in the day. They found that about 26% of the time, at that random moment, someone was conducting inner speech.
This does not mean that only 26% of people are capable of inner speech. This means that, even if this is taken as fact, there is only a 26% chance that at any given moment someone is currently engaging in inner speech.
It gets even worse if you actually read the text of an "interview" they conducted with their participants. It's full of leading questions. It's literal garbage.
The actual study: http://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/heavey-hurlburt-2008.pdf
The interview text:http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/hurlburt-schwitzgebel_part2.pdf
This thread is reserved for the discussing the methodology and conclusions of the research itself.
