Why and how people hear their inner voice

(Reading time for the answer is about 5 minutes)

Typically, this question is answered with Vygotsky's and Watson's ideas about micro-movements of the vocal cords accompanied by an inner voice, but I believe that these explanations start from the assumption that people who say they hear an inner voice are actually hearing something. But what behavior is meant by “hearing” and how does “hearing the inner voice” differ from simply “hearing the voice”? I believe that we talk about the inner voice not because there is an immaterial voice or because of the micro movements of the vocal cords, but because it is easier to talk about events that have already happened or have not yet happened, as if they were happening right now, but " in my head." We hear the inner voice, because if we do not hear it, it will be very problematic to explain behavior controlled by distant events in the past or events in the future. I'll explain now.

I believe that "hearing" is "acting as if there is a sound source", i.e. I say “I hear” when I can in response to the question “Where does the sound come from?” indicate the source in space. The phrase “He hears a sound” appears when behavior changes in the presence of a sound source that can be removed and the behavior returned. For example, I say “He is listening to music” (meaning that the location of “saying that he is listening to music” coincides with the location of my body in space and time) when someone sticks to the window or does not respond to my cues with headphones plugged in , which look like they are working (connected to the phone, and the phone looks like it is working). I don't say "He's listening to music" when I have headphones disconnected from the phone, or when a person with headphones is talking to me (obviously, the use of the phrase "He's listening to music" is not limited to these situations, but let's take them as an example). To hear a sound is to behave as if there is a sound in the presence of a sound source.

Accordingly, “hearing a voice” can be understood as a special case of “hearing sound” (just as a special case is “listening to music”), i.e. act as if there is a voice in the presence of the source of the voice. I say “John heard Jane's voice” when John, after hearing a sound, behaves as if the sound was associated with Jane (e.g., calling her; saying it was Jane). I say “I heard Jane's voice” when “hearing Jane's voice” (acting as if the sound was associated with Jane (looking for her, calling her, saying it was her)) coincides in time and space with my body.

I believe that "hearing the inner voice" means "behaving as if there is a voice when the source of the voice is separated from the behavior not in space, but in time." "Hearing the inner voice" from "hearing the voice" can only be distinguished by details of the context - I say "John heard Jane's voice" when there is Jane whom I can ask to shut up and John's behavior will change. In the case of “John thought he heard Jane,” John acts as if he hears Jane's voice, but there is no Jane whom I can ask to shut up in order for the behavior to change. At the same time, such a situation does not require reference to an unobservable voice in John's head for explanation.

Why does John act as if he can hear Jane's voice when Jane is not present? Let's look at the behavior that is meant by "hearing Jane's voice." For example, I'm walking next to John and suddenly he says that Jane's voice makes him come home. To explain this behavior, do I need to say that there really was some unobservable voice (Jane at the time on the other side of town) that provoked John to tell me that Jane was forcing him to come home and go home? Not necessarily, this behavior can be understood by looking at the broader context, not spatially (as in the case when the sound source is far from the behavior), but temporally.

For example, when John quarrels with Jane and goes outside - upon his return, Jane scolds him for running away from the conversation, respectively, when I call John outside - he goes out, because I respond to attempts to refuse with persuasion, but he tells me that Jane when he returns will nag him so that I still let him go home and acts as if Jane is already nag him when I try to argue with the fact that Jane will nag him, because 1) it helps convince me, 2 ) talking about Jane provokes behavior as if Jane is there, because the word "Jane" and events associated with Jane are connected. Accordingly, the phrase “Vanya, I’m sorry, I’m going home, I can just hear how she’ll nag me if I take another walk” can be understood as “Vanya, I’m now acting as if Jane is already here and nagging me, so I’ll go home to reduce sawing frequency." The reference to the inner voice can be analyzed without reference to the immaterial inner voice, it can be understood as a reference to the material voice that sounded once upon a time or will sound in the future.

The picture below shows the difference in context that provokes conversation about the “real” and “imaginary” voice. I talk about a real voice when I see the voice controlling the current behavior next to the current behavior (for example, they say “Go home” and I go home - the behavior and voice are almost at the same time, but at different points in space). I talk about an imaginary voice when I see the current behavior, and the voice that controls it either has not yet been heard, or has been heard a long time ago (see picture).

Another example. The sound from the speaker is “real”, because if you turn off the speaker (“remove the sound”), the behavior will immediately change (if a person dances when the speaker is on, and stops dancing when the speaker is off, we say that the sound is real). The sound of thoughts is “imaginary” because it is not clear what to do to “turn it on” or “turn it off”, i.e. make behavior consistent with other thoughts or lack of thoughts appear. For example, if a person is dancing and I don’t see a speaker around that can be turned off so that he stops dancing, I say that imaginary music is playing in his head. But does it make sense to say that there is some kind of music playing in his head if all I see is that the person behaves as if there is music playing somewhere? I don’t see any music and cannot distinguish between “dancing to imaginary music” and “dancing to real music.” Having looked at the behavior itself, I come to this conclusion due to the absence of an external factor that can be influenced to change the behavior. This is a dubious criterion, because just as “dancing to real music” can be explained by the work of the speaker (an external factor), so “dancing to imaginary music” can be explained by an external factor (for example, in advertising on the street in a group of people, dancing was followed by smiles and laughter , so in the company of friends I start dancing, they smile and laugh). No "imaginary music" is needed to explain this behavior. Dance in the absence of sound can be understood in terms of events that have happened before or will happen later.

Similar logic applies to cases that seem extremely difficult to explain without “imaginary” sound—for example, cases where a person sits and “listens to thoughts.” It seems that this behavior cannot be explained without recognizing that the sound of thoughts is immaterial or trying to pretend that it is material, we simply do not have the equipment to record it (Vygotsky tried to resort to such tactics), but such meditative behavior can be explained by external material events - for example, that “listening to thoughts” is simply sitting motionless with your eyes closed, which is denoted by the word “listening to thoughts”, because if you say “I am sitting motionless with my eyes closed,” this raises questions (“haha why are you sitting like that?” ), and self-report of thoughts that are “heard” is controlled by the questions asked and the situation (for example, “What are you thinking about now?” provokes “About what I’m thinking about now” or “Nothing” or “What to eat for evening" or a bunch of other options that are controlled by the history of interaction between verbal behavior and the environment, and not by "unobservable" thoughts located inside the head).

To summarize, I am talking about a "real" voice when current behavior can be explained by current events. I talk about the inner voice when current behavior cannot be explained by current events; to explain it, one must refer to events remote in time, and not just in space. The practice of everyday communication encourages us to talk about the real voice, which has already sounded or has not yet sounded, as if it were in our head, because if we explain our behavior through such complex spatio-temporal connections, our speech will become terribly overloaded. We hear the inner voice, because if we do not hear it, it will be very problematic to explain behavior controlled by distant events in the past or events in the future.

Level of development of modern Russian psychiatry: naphthyzine for sinusitis. It’s good that lobotomy and electroshock therapy are not used.
The fact is that each specific case is purely individual, and the approach is unified.
The approach should be comprehensive and person-oriented, including the work of not only the pharmaceutical department, but also psychotherapy, genetics, etc.
Treating exclusively with sleeping pills and antipsychotics is, in my opinion, barbaric.
What about the maintenance of those undergoing treatment? In a hospital (clinic) it is worse than in prison. And now I Not on compulsory treatment by court decision.
Do you know what happens to those who refuse to sign consent for treatment? They are still being treated. They are treated forcibly until the poor fellows sign the Agreement.
And it’s good if there are concerned relatives.
Let's return to the conditions of detention. Of course, the more the clinic is funded, the fresher the paint on the walls and the better the food, but tell me, have you heard anything about isolation wards? Patients spend long weeks, months, and some even years in them, looking at the ceiling in the company of the same unfortunate people. The lack of ventilation and the need to relieve oneself in a bucket leave their mark not only on the physical, but also on the psycho-emotional state. Bright lighting around the clock promotes the activation of cancer cells. And a rarely opened door and tightly closed barred windows take away not only the already limited freedom, but also the chance to escape in the event of a fire or other incident.
And in the general wards it’s not much better.
Let us now turn to the consequences of personnel performance.
Medical visits are carried out once a week. Most patients begin to experience side effects when taking antipsychotics (especially long-term). To remove them, the doctor, after a round, prescribes some kind of anticholinergic drug, which relieves only part of the side effects. And the side effects are very diverse: from banal tremor to incontinence. The period of adaptation to the “pill after pill” is relatively short. The patient continues to suffer until the next doctor comes, calling the orderly, the nurse, and begging for a miracle pill. But he will never receive any pills, except perhaps an injection of a strong sleeping pill, after which the sufferer will be tied to the bed for several days.
By the way, I was very surprised when I found out that straitjackets are not in use.
The human body is imperfect and can remind itself at the most inopportune moment, for example, with toothache or neuralgia when a person is in a psychiatric hospital. And he will be very lucky if help is provided the next day after applying. Don't forget about weekends, public holidays and vacations.
I would like to mention the strict dosage of communication with the outside world. Telephone, computer - prohibited, TV (if any) - in a strictly allotted narrow period of time.
In conclusion, I’ll mention a few nice little things:
if you refuse to take medications orally, forcibly intramuscularly;
jewelry is not allowed, with the exception of a cross on a thin thread;
sexual activity is not encouraged;
experimental use of drugs can be carried out “at random”.
It is wrong to force innocent patients, citizens, and people to suffer undeservedly, but it is right to demand complete healing, recovery and a decent, full life.
Health and prosperity to you, thoughtful reader!

We have two voices: with one we talk to people, and this is our external voice, the other voice that sounds inside us and this is our internal voice is doing its job - it ceases to belong to you, you even speak within yourself in cliches, in the voices of other people, sometimes these are not even familiar characters, people from films or television.

Answer the following questions:

1. What is the tone of your inner voice? If you analyze what you hear over time, then what percentage of time do you hear a critical, disapproving, harsh voice? What percentage of the time do you hear an approving, supportive voice that helps you get things done?

2. Compare the result. See what you hear in your head most of the time? Love and support or denial and ridicule? Translating it into numbers and measuring it as a percentage will help you quickly determine which voice within you you are dealing with.

3. Listen to the sayings within you. Is this voice yours or does it sound like the voice of someone important to you? Listen to the tone and manner of speaking. Who, if not you, could this voice belong to?

4. What do you really want to hear inside yourself? What tone of voice and what content would you like to listen to? Imagine being the inner “voice” of your children – what would you like them to hear from your inner voice?

5. You have already completed an exercise to determine your deepest value. Think about how your inner voice matches your core value? Measure the percentage coincidence of your value with your inner voice? Do you think your inner voice guides you through life in accordance with your deepest value or, on the contrary, leads you away from the things that matter to you? Where is your inner voice leading you? Do you like the route in life you are moving?

After doing this homework, look at the answers you received. Summarize the analysis - to what extent your inner voice still belongs to you. This is very important, since each of us has both internal and external voices with which we tell ourselves stories about who we are. The more often we hear a voice inside ourselves that tells us, for example, that you are not a very good wife or mother, the deeper these stories penetrate into your subconscious. By paying attention to the never-ending internal conversation, you begin to determine for yourself what you want to listen to and what kind of person you will be. Suggestions from constantly repeated dialogue can either be destructive to you or lead you to your goals and to the life you want to live.

But few women pay attention to the quality of the thoughts running through their heads. Since your inner voice tells you your story all the time, you are rarely even aware that you are being “told” something that then has a huge impact on your entire life. All these stories give you an image of who you are. Simply put, we regularly, day after day, practice self-hypnosis.

Almost every person is familiar with their inner voice, but not everyone knows what it really is. inner voice(intuition?), and when you can listen to it and when not.

Everyone can easily realize, and after some training (observing themselves and others), and identify their inner voices in almost any life situation, including fictitious, unreal ones.

For example, you wake up in the morning to an alarm clock for work, school, university, but you don’t want to get up, and you seem to hear the inner voice of the “Child” - maybe you can’t walk, you can take a walk, you’re tired of everything... if only you could sleep some more... But then the inner voice appears “ Parent” - I’ll give you a walk, so quickly get out of bed and go to work... Then the Adult “I” joins in the “internal conversation”... assesses the situation here and now, tests reality, makes forecasts for the near future, and makes the final decision - “I get up and I go to work”...

All this happens quickly, and in reality, literally, you may not hear these inner voices (dialogue) - unless, of course, you have schizophrenia and have not taken psychotropic drugs, psychedelics - rather, you can feel them, notice them in your own way behavior and some thoughts.

In the same way, in any life situation, including a stressful one, a person has an inner voice of one of the RVD ego states (Parent, Adult, Child). It all depends on which self is more developed (endowed with psychic energy, strength and power) (RVD test).

Is it worth listening to your inner voice, and which one if there are three of them?
Of course, listening to your inner voice is useful, but you must first learn to distinguish subpersonalities within yourself—I-states (I-states). It's quite simple, just watch yourself: your thoughts, feelings and behavior in various life situations.

Yes, sometimes it is quite difficult to determine what ego state you are in at a particular moment in time, especially in a critical, stressful situation. But it doesn’t matter, you can always work through this situation later, in your imagination, vividly and colorfully remembering the past situation, and watching it in your head like a video - at this moment you can analyze which inner voice (IVR) told you something and What I-state did you follow?

And since your reactions in similar situations are almost the same (this is due to the script, the life program recorded in childhood), you can easily listen to the necessary and useful inner voice, adviser and often protector and assistant.

As you already understood (see above), that the inner voice emanating from the Parental “I” criticizes, condemns, scolds, orders, prohibits, prejudges... His “favorite” words: must, must, cannot, must, do - don’t do , required, whether or not, etc. Sometimes the inner Parent both allows and protects, you can use words...and be careful, etc.

The favorite feelings and emotions of the inner Parent are anger, anger, irritation... sometimes, tenderness and joy... but rarely...

His posture and gestures, along with his facial expressions, are threatening, arrogant, arrogant, dominant, etc.

The Inner Child lives according to the “I WANT” principle, therefore the Parental I-state and the Childish I-state are essentially antagonists - they often oppose each other, which can lead to conflict within the individual, and therefore to personal and psychological disorders of a person, up to neuroses and psychoses .

Favorite words of the child's I-state - I want, I don’t want, I will, I won’t... speech is usually shortened, short phrases and interjections are often used, such as Wow!, Cool!, Cool! “Great!...Oh, Ah, etc.

What remains is the Adult, realistic and rational ego-state, with its own inner voice; by the way, this “I” in a harmonious personality should have the right to the last vote, i.e. making a decision in a given situation.

The adult self is unemotional and emotionless—like a robot. Only dry logic, intelligence and reason are like a living computer. Even gestures and postures, “stony” facial expressions, a calm and even voice... Verified, precise words and phrases without “water”... For example - “what time is it” - “five o’clock”...

This rational “I” literally perceives reality, without childish inventions and parental stereotypes, without ignoring the situation “here and now.” It is the voice of the inner Adult “I” that should give you the last, decisive information; it is in the inner Adult that you need to process the voices of the Parent and the Child, including demands and intuition, and make a decision.

However, a common problem is that for many people the Adult Ego state, which, in fact, is the arbiter between the contradictions of the Parent and the Child, does not have the necessary strength and power (energy), so people often find themselves in a psychological impasse and stuck in psychological games, not knowing which inner voice to listen to. Emotional, psychological, mental suffering, withdrawal, apathy, passivity and depression begin...in other cases,

It's no secret that intuition or inner voice is an internal premonition of certain events. Various spiritual heritages interpret the connection of intuition directly with the Soul, Higher Plans, Guardian Angels and God.

To believe or not to believe, to listen or not, a person decides this question for himself in his own way. Everyone in their life has had at least one case in their life when a person received an answer to their question in the form of internal impulses or a direct indication of not doing something or, on the contrary, an active action in relation to something.

This precisely explains the moments of inexplicable anxiety that come to many passengers who have avoided accidents, crashes of various vehicles and other tragic events. Subsequently, the people who survived say that they received a clear message that they should not make this or that trip, voyage, or journey.

One can, of course, be very skeptical about such manifestations of intuition, however, there is one very good test for the true attitude towards the appeals of the so-called inner voice. In critical situations, in moments of danger, all people without exception, such as believers and non-believers, turned to God and called on the forces of the Lord to help them and save their lives.
How necessary is intuition?
There is a skeptic opinion that claims that logic and consciousness play a leading role in human life. However, a complete denial of the manifestation of intuition in our lives may indicate that a person has not learned to “hear” the voice of his subconscious, namely, to recognize the signs given by it. Because intuitive insights are present in the life of every person. Someone just learned to “read” and understand the signals they transmit inner voice , such as traffic lights: red, yellow, green, and understand what each of them means. And others, not realizing the warning messages being sent, completely deny such manifestations.
However, denial in no way can change the model of world perceptions that are inherent in the human body and Soul. Over the past three or four decades, intuition has moved from the category of something unusual to the category of properties of the Soul and body that are considered practically. There is enormous potential for developing such a skill as recognizing intuition signals. A large number of books have been written, a countless number of trainings and educational seminars have been created. All these practical developments allow you to develop this skill quite seriously and achieve practical results. Even a special device has been developed by one famous specialist in the field of psychology. This invention is of particular educational interest because it creates pain impulses. Thus, a person learns to very quickly recognize at the level of pain which decision options are correct for him and which are wrong. Outwardly, it seems to be somewhat reminiscent of animal training. However, many see specific “tangible” results and are quite satisfied that they know in advance the solution to business issues, receive answers on the topic: “Family and relationships” and many others. In general, the device immediately demonstrates the practical “teaching” of a person to listen to his intuition.

It is difficult to say how ideal this approach is. However, if we consider intuitive forecasts for future events, then, as a rule, an answer based on the “Yes/No” principle is unlikely to satisfy. In this case, you will still have to go through training seminars that teach you to listen to your voice from simple to complex. inner voice , turn off consciousness and, stopping the swarm of thoughts, receive information flow from the subconscious part of the human essence. Surely, everyone knows about the rule of first impression, when when we meet a new person, we clearly immediately receive an answer within us: whether we like this person or not. At this moment, when the primary perception of a new person or object takes place, an assessment-answer is formed at one moment: is it good or bad. Perhaps there is not a single person on Earth who would reject the rule of first impression by saying it doesn't work. Because it is precisely the first perception, based on intuitive vision, without possessing any information about a person or object, that provides a complete information palette. Those who deny this argument may remember that this is why many people prefer to dress well and even elegantly, remembering the rule of first impression. Often just one glance at a person can give a complete description of a person. That's why some even say that there won't be a second chance or a chance to make a first impression.

Great businessmen of all times and peoples, emperors and courtiers, often, in spite of everything, took steps and actions that were illogical from the point of view of the current moment. They did not rely only on the factual side of the matter, and did not listen to their consciousness. Such people became great due to the fact that they received information about the right decision or movement from their own inner voice. Because they knew that turning to the voice of the subconscious or to the Guardian Angel given to us to preserve the Soul and body is the true and sure means that gives the correct answer to the question asked.