>>6679842Let me start with autism, and I'll get back to point 4....
I did not say there was a link between autism and a lack of an inner voice, only that I believe the percentages of people lacking an inner voice would be HIGHER than the percentage on the autism scale.
I say this because the generally accepted definition of autism (at least according to google) is...
"...a mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts.."
Since this is in the same ballpark of what we're talking about, I would suspect (with no evidence since I don't think there has been a study) that a larger percentage of autistic (compared with non autistic) would be lacking an inner voice. And since there are people functioning in the world who are non-autistic and report having no inner voice), mathematically there's a good chance that the percentage of people without an inner voice would be equal to or greater than the percentage of those with autism.
Now, back to point 4...
Your position (at least in an earlier comment) is that the study was flawed because what people were ACTUALLY reporting is that they were not using their inner voice while the question was being asked.
This is absolutely legitimate, and if the only thing we had to work with was this study, I would agree that there is nothing to this theory or question.
But that's not all we have. Once this study came out, it created a larger conversation on the subject, and we had a lot of people not in the study reporting that they too have no inner voice, and some claiming they never have.
The example that comes to mind is (see image). Now it is entirely possible that this person is simply lying; he/she wouldn't be the first to lie on the internet.
But we also have statements from other people, who take the time to discuss how they "think" without an inner voice etc. For example...
