Talking to yourself in third-person means having switched into thinking of yourself as some third party which can itself affect subsequent thoughts/talking, so this doesn't contradict what the parent says.
I am talking about the usual thoughts you have that are unprompted.
I feel like the article is not disagreeing with me on that necessarily.
There are also experiments that support that idea:
Besides, try doing math or debugging some code without any conscious thoughts.
I agree most of the time it may be a broken record and useless, especially if you repeat the same patterns over and over again, but I'm quite certain you don't know what you are going to say until you've said it (out loud or not).
There is probably some miscommunication happening here. Do people regularly turn every intended action into a sentence in their mind? Like some kind of play-by-play sports commentary about their full life? I certainly do not do this, and I would expect most people do not.
I haven't introspected enough to know where I fall on that scale, but your example doesn't sound weird to me. If I'm home alone I'd probably say it out loud.
Putting your thoughts into words so that they can be understood by someone other than yourself or working through a problem are both deliberate ways of thinking that have clear benefits.
I do disagree with your last part. It's quite hard to test though. But let's say I'd ask you to just talk about any topic you want without preparing what you are going to say and right when you start a sentence I will randomly create some signal/noise which you should understand as the signal to stop talking immediately. I'd say you will know exactly what you were about to say.
Now if you wanted to describe the the color and species of said fish, it's easier when you're holding it rather than attempting to do so while it's swimming around with every other fish.
You can of course reiterate and sort your knowledge by thinking about it if there is a reason.
If you just think around when you are not trying to solve a problem you are just playing with your mind without any or much of a result.
Notice young children talking to themselves in their own little world as they start to grasp and build their ego.
Psychologist also encourage mindfulness/meditation to calm your mind, which is more what I'm trying to get at.
Interestingly, some people do not have an inner voice...
Since then I've managed to not see my my thoughts as beeing all I am, losing most of my anxiety (which was on a normal level) and generally being more happy and motivated to work on myself.
It's like there is a big mess of interconnected thoughts, intuitions, sensations clustering into a thought, fumbling along nicely on it's own... and then the apparatus in my mind responsible for flattening it all into words jumps in, totally unrequested
Why? I'm good company.
I don't believe my mind will benefit from being passed through a buggy optimizing compiler.
"a broadcast for radio or television in which people going past in a public place are asked their opinion on a particular subject"
I've always been good at producing mental white noise (or TV static), for lack of a better term. I wonder if it's actually unsymbolised thinking. When I'm not actively thinking, there's just a massive wall of static. In these moments, I'm not thinking of nothing but I'm also not thinking of something.
It also seems to happen more with foreign films, perhaps as they require an extra layer of subconscious analysis to parse the message by separating it from its cultural shell.
We all assume that our inner lifes are similiar and it's always interesting to me to discover new facets of personal differences.
Is this where the "millennial snowflake" idea comes in?
If it's the first, yeah, that's a pretty entitled snowflake perception of yourself.
passive thought probably makes up 80% of our day