Like, people will call this neurodivergent but this is literally how all brains work.
The neurodivergence is in failing to read the social queues of your dad, who was clearly very invested in talking to you about the carnival.
I followed that like a train tracks.
https://imgur.com/a/brain-is-annoying-alHOPXC
Thread that explains it pretty well.
I think the “why can you concentrate on video games?” thing is really missing the whole point of TV as a medium. The sight/sound combo, particularly with bright colors and crisp volume and lots of rapid movements (graphics, camera work, etc) is explicitly designed to grab and hold your attention.
Asking why a TV/game can hold your attention but casual conversation / dry educational instruction cannot is like asking why you got here faster on a car than by hiking with a broken leg. Or asking why you can eat a gallon of ice cream or a bucket of fried chicken, but shy away from canned spinach. Like, ffs, that’s the whole reason the thing exists.
I often find myself in restaurants or bars, forcing myself back to focus on the people I’m there with even when the TV playing in the background is showing something I viscerally do not want to watch. It can be total slop, but I’m still drawn to it, because it is bright and loud and attention-demanding.
Video games adding a kinetic aspect only amplify the problem. Now you’re “juggling” an extra thing (manual control inputs). And the fun is that the sights/sounds/engagement all point you in the same direction - often with a gameplay loop that provides stimulus reward on continuous interaction. Normal life doesn’t provide that. Perhaps it shouldn’t, because the sensation overload can (and often does, via F2P games) be so easily exploited.
That’s just how brains work, nothing to do with neurodivergent.
Funny thing is, sometimes I’ll do this out of the blue days later and my wife picks up on it immediately.
Let me tell you how my mum’s brain works:
-
Me: “So how was your day?”
-
Mum: “We had a session with Sasha and the report she mentioned to Jenny my boss, cos the whole department was axed, as you remember the last election, and maybe you should start looking for a job around there, and so the report came back empty and…”
-
Me (used to her tangents), a report was made between her and Sasha, given to Jenny the boss, but the report was ignored and sent back, most likely due to lack of personell because the department was axed by the Tories in the last election, and she fears it might happen to me too and that I should look for a job in that potential vacuum.
I need you to interpret my thoughts too
To be honest, I talk like this too when I’m under duress or havent quite processed something - jumping from fragment to fragment to try and keep the whole in mind.
As my understanding of my day-to-day has increased and my work and life have somewhat settled, I’m able to better predict and summarize things that happen to me using my day-to-day as a stable baseline to reference from:
I can tell you the important bits because I’m aware of what the humdrum bits are.
I think my mum’s world is way more stressful and uncertain than mine is, so her mind tries to capture everything because it has no stable reference to build from
-
this has nothing to do with neurodivergence. it’s just how brains work. necessarily, in fact. your dad’s just an idiot.
by the way it’s not the same thing but one thing I enjoyed doing when i was younger and talked with my dad for long enough, we would stop at a point and think “wait how did we even get here?” and trace back the conversation to several topics ago.
we both have diverse interests, maybe that’s why things we talked about would keep chaining to random other things. now that i think of it, my dad used to buy lots of encyclopedias before the internet, and we’d just randomly browse them. even on our computer we had multiple versions of Encarta. and now we use wikipedia and it’s so easy to jump from one article to another.
so i guess what we did all those years ago wasn’t far off from wiki surfing verbally.
Not everyone’s brain works like that. My girlfriend, for one. She struggles to make those
arbitraryabstract jumpsArbitrary or abstract?
I think most people don’t think about what they think about.
And it shows.
I was told “still waters run deep” but sometimes still waters are just… still.
First Thoughts are the everyday thoughts. Everyone has those.
Second Thoughts are the thoughts you think about the way you think. People who enjoy thinking have those.
Third Thoughts are thoughts that watch the world and think all by themselves. They’re rare, and often troublesome. Listening to them is part of witchcraft.
Even without attribution or ever reading this quote before, I just knew it had to be Sir Terry Pratchett and I was right.
That man was unmatchable in his wit and wisdom and how he packaged life lessons on simply being good people into entertaining stories. The world is lesser without him.
i think the world is brighter for having had him. i don’t want to mourn him, i want to celebrate what he’s given us
GNU Terry Pratchett
Never knew what this meant, just looked it up. I should read Going Postal.
You absolutely should, assuming that you are a nerd it’s IMO his best book. I have a lovely hard cover edition.
I’ve heard good things about the whole industrialization arc. I’ll binge it eventually like I did with the city watch, Rincewind, Death, and witches arcs.
RIP Terry Pratchett ❤️
TIL that I am a witch.
J/k… I’ve known that for a long time. 😹
Therefore they aren’t.
Imagine being an NT person and just bumping into one topic after another like a moth, I’d much rather know how I got to wherever I ended up. 😅
I’m NT, and “thinking about thinking” is how my brain works. A lot of “normal” brains do, but there’s a HUGE spectrum of how introspective people are.
Then what do they do?
Life must be so boring to them.
On the contrary, I imagine them being constantly slightly surprised by things, like they’re along for the ride. Sounds relaxing.
explains a lot
Just that first part … most people don’t think
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure this is how all humans think…things relate to one another.
I think if this experience is related to having ADHD, the part that is relevant is the lack of ability to acknowledge that you’ve made a jump at all. In the example it’s a perfectly valid train of thought, but I’d expect an average person to make an effort to bring the other up to speed. Because most people generally expect to continue conversation in the same topic, you spend mental effort trying to keep tethered to that topic and have to share that rope with the other person.
Thank you. I was freaking out. Isn’t this what they call a stream of consciousness?
The real skill is to go back and add new branches to those thoughts. That takes effort.
This extends to being an expert in your field as well. We’ve done an experiment and the result is both incredible and obvious. To me.
The struggle is then to connect and explain these things I am seeing to other people who are themselves also extremely intelligent but don’t have the same exact brand of autism.
same exact
brand of autism.information set. You are describing knowledge, not process.
Could somebody please explain to me how somebody can not think like this? I always thought this is the normal way to think. There are people who don’t think like this?
I think people generally think in paths like this. The difference is the impulsive conversation topic change, not the train of thought. Some neruotypicals (like my wife) can find it jarring.
I think it’s also the speed and number of connections leading to the topic change. I think many neurotypicals would jump from the carnival to the rodeo, or to the bee story, but they wouldn’t jump all the way to wondering about wasps from talking about the carnival in one go.
From the outside, the topic change is so different that neurotypicals can’t follow the connections.
Neurotypical here and yeah my brain often works this way and I believe it does for many others. What’s missing in this vignette are social skills from both parties.
Abruptly shifting topics like that often works better in a conversation with some sort of segue or acknowledgment of the shift: “This is off of that topic but I have a random question.”
The second party could reasonably be confused but when the thought process was explained to them they could have just accepted it and moved on without being denigrating.
So they both just need better social skills is all that I see.
I have a friend who’s the same age as me and we are both ADHD. He pointed out to me once that we were having three different conversations at the same time. I guess that’s a little strange for neurotypical people.
This seems right. Their mind wanders, too, but they don’t mention the tangents that come up, or if they do, they specifically state why they’re now thinking about the new topic.
I never would have thought that a random post would chance my world view. I am genuinely stumped.
David Hume wrote about this exact thing in (I think) an enquiry concerning human understanding.
Essentially he said all thoughts come from 3 processes:
Cause and effect - think of smoke so think of fire etc.
Continuity in time and/or place - think of kettle so think of toaster etc.
Resemblance - think of a photo so think of the person etc.
The above example would be continuity in place, the carnival lead to thoughts in the same place.
Also cause and effect…why do bees die but wasps not?
Actually possibly resemblance too, as bees and wasps look similar.
I wish I could remember more, it’s been about 20 years since I last read it though.
I’m going to look into it. Thank you.
My instinct would be to think that they do that too, but at a much slower speed, and are less aware of how they got there. So when you explain a train of thought clearly the speed which u topic switched and the number of times it happened feels overwhelming to them. We also tend to intellectualize a lot of stuff and others do not, so they have probably never internally studied how their own thoughts connect before, so it would seem forieng when explained.
But I’m speaking from instinct here, no evidence.
AFAIK I’m neurotypical… No, trains of thought like these are common (see also other respondents on here), and they can also happen in the blink of an eye. It’s just that when the question or comment has formed, I’ll make a mental note to either ask/mention it later after the current topic has concluded, if I think the other person also has interest in hearing it, or to google it later if not. Or to just drop the thought if I come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter all that much to myself either.
You mean you’re able to, gasp, use filters on your thought and exert self-control? What is this dark magic, get outta here
Pretty sure everyone does, but they will take you through it first, not drop the topic change without context.
Also it’s considered weird and off topic, so even if they think it they don’t bring it up
I think something like 40% of people don’t have an internal monologue at all, so…
Metacognition and usage of an inner monologue have nothing to do with each other. I don’t need to talk myself through things to conceptualise.
That whole thing sounds made up. No one hears voices in their head unless they are schizo or under the influence
I can play back music in my head when I’m bored or watch an entire movie. Sometimes even just with my eyes open. And I don’t think I have those disorders but who knows
I think I’m just hung up on semantics of it.
I can certainly conjure visuals from data in memory, I can play music back like you said and even change the notes and sounds like a MIDI file being played with a soundfont, but it’s not like a movie where there’s a slightly reverb’d version of my voice in my head dictating out thoughts involuntarily as a voice. Thoughts are thoughts, they’re a separate data type to me than audio or visuals.
A line of thought to me is a sequence of concepts represented by some unknown malleable fuzzy data structure in my brain, not an .MP3 file playing like what “internal narrative” seems to indicate.
At any moment a thought can be cast to another data structure like an image or video or audio, but it’s not anything but a thought until I make the choice, likewise this isn’t limited to just memories but imagination in equal amounts. I can just as well conjure visuals that aren’t real and/or events that didn’t happen and experience them in equal amounts and clarity. This is what I understand as daydreaming. But it’s not exactly like watching a film, or even to the level of vividness of an actual sleepy-time dream.
I’m very much known by my peers IRL from interactions there and my comments on the interwebz for philsophizing and intellectualising as well and often been told by people as a kid and young adult that I have a very vivid imagination if I share some idea in my head, and it wasn’t even an insult I’m pretty sure haha!
Thoughts as its own data structure, not associated with a language or words, sounds so interesting and yet so foreign to me
Tbh that sounds much, much cooler than anything I have experienced in my own head.
I find the breadth of difference in how consciousness displays from person to person endlessly fascinating. For me, my head is full of constant chatter and background music. I have often described it as many interconnected trains of thought, and the best real example I can give is this portion of a Tame Impala song. I can hone in on any one thought or hop aboard that train but it is easy to get disracted and find myself on a different track. I’ve been told this is ADHD actually lol. Most of my deliberate thinking to myself is just a line of words, sometimes repeated compulsively. I am not a visual thinker at all, but I can visualize if I choose to do so deliberately. Again, it’s way too easy to get sidetracked and the visualizations are fuzzy unless I’m meditating or half asleep. It is interesting to note though that in a half asleep state I can achieve something closer to a sequence of semi-related fuzzy conceptualizations, as you describe.
I love to philosophize too, mostly because it’s basically my default mode, something I can literally never turn off, only choose to ignore, like a constant dripping tap. I would have majored in philosophy in college if there was any money in it. But I have never been told I have an active imagination lol I would love to be able to trade perceptions with people momentarily. What an eye opening experience that would be. What a difference it would make in the world.
Sounds like you may be part of that 40%. The majority of people seem to have an inner voice and can create visuals and imagine sounds. Even auditory hallucinations are quite common.
One should never assume everyone’s inner reality is the same as their own.
I appreciate the input. I responded to another comment here in this same thread and I’d like to hear your thoughts as well: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/18751476
I guess some people also can’t imagine things which seems so odd to me.
This is actually the case. It’s called aphantasia. Most people can think of a cup and an image of a cup will appear in their mind. People with aphantasia can’t do that.
They still might get a mental concept of a cup pop up though, just not a mental image if that makes sense.
I probably have aphantasia, or at least very close to having it. If someone mentions a cup I can still think about a cup, I just don’t “see” it
I think it’s kind of hard to describe if you can’t do it. I don’t literally see the cup; I’m imagining that I can see the cup. Can you imagine other senses? For example, can you imagine how chocolate tastes, or what it sounds like when somebody’s knocking on a door?
Some people can get very vivid mental images though, with lots of details. If you think it’s hard to describe if you can’t do it, then maybe you’re actually in the same or similar boat as me. I never realised I can’t actually get “mental images” because I assumed whatever pops up in my head is what people were talking about. Just thought it was what people ended up calling the mental concepts, didn’t consider that most people can probably actually “see” mental images to some degree.
And no, I wouldn’t say I can imagine tastes or smells but I can imagine sounds somewhat.
Edit: when I say “see” I mean having an image pop up in your head, like you mentioned in an earlier comment. I don’t get images popping up. I get concepts of something, with kinda attribute labels attached to it. I know a rainbow is a curved shape with the spectrum of visual colours and so on but I don’t get an image of one in my head. I just remember stuff about it.
I’m in the same boat as the other commenter. I can imagine smells just fine, sounds alright. But images I stick to a general concept of a thing.
It kinda goes with an aphotographic memory as well. I can’t describe what people look like for example and if I try I get it wrong.
I can’t imagine smells much, but sounds I can imagine somewhat.
Oh yes I’m also terrible at describing what people look like. Unless I happened to notice very specific things about them so my mind “took notes” of attributes. But even then I can get it wrong.
Bees don’t die when they sting. They have a barbed stinger, human skin is elastic and that’s why they get stuck. Our first reaction is to swat or swipe on the site of stinging which rips their stinger off by force. If you leave the bee alone, it will wiggle and twirl around, trying to get itself unstuck and sometimes that is successful, sometimes they’re fucked. The bee didn’t really commit suicide when stinging, you killed it.
Also, did you know that the queen bee has almost full control over their offspring? It works like this: The queen bee only mates once in her life during the nuptial flight and stores the sperm in her spermatheca (like a sperm sac), the drone usually dies in the process because mating tears their endophallus off and the trauma kills him. After founding a colony the queen can now choose whether to fertilize her eggs or not and if she does, a female larva will hatch from the fertilized egg, else a drone larva will hatch through a process called haploid parthenogenesis.
The destiny of becoming a queen or a worker depends entirely on the diet the female larva is fed: all larvae are fed royal jelly (a special secretion from worker bees) for a few days and then worker bees are switched to what is called bee bread which is a mix of pollen and nectar while future queens stay on the royal jelly diet. The royal jelly lets the bees develop their ovaries, making them capable of laying eggs. Technically, all worker bees can lay eggs (which could only produce drones), but in a healthy colony, they will be switched off the royal jelly soon enough so that this rarely occurs.
So, in a way, worker bees can stage a mutiny if they are unhappy with their current queen by feeding a larva royal jelly, rearing a new queen.
Bees are awesome.
Damn right I liked it, that sting still lives rent free in my brain 25 years later!
Is there anything that a bee would sting that it’s barbed stinger wouldn’t get stuck in? It seems like most anything would result in stinger detachment
Other insects mostly. Technically also birds, but birds are too quick and too strong so the fight is usually over before the bee can sting.
The barb is mostly meant to aid in staying attached while injecting venom and is meant to still be able to release by twisting
Human skin is more elastic than bee’s typical adversaries and the singer becomes stuck when they try to release. It you wait a while and let them try to pull it out carefully without hurting themselves, they might end up going in circles until it works its way free
Other insects, thats the primary use of their stinger
woah, bee society is more interesting than i thought. thank you for sharing!
!subscribe
Thanks! That was an awesome little read!
Love it, thank you for this.
Do they isolate the queen larva to prevent other larva from eating its food? Or is it like a baby bird scenario where they’re just fed directly from bee to bee? Are mistakes sometimes made, and if so do they “correct” the mistake?
Royal jelly for queens is stored in special compartments that are constructed specifically to rear a new queen and they drop the larvae in there. Wikipedia has a pic.
My understanding is that while they can make a new queen under the radar, hypothetically, the slightly different scent of her eggs/haploid larva is seen as a hostile invasion and it’s quickly dispatched by loyalists, which is why non-main-queen offspring rarely happens.
Something like because they are all essentially genetically identical, they all have the same pheromones, but the next generation won’t.
I always assumed that most people do this just much slower. Hence why they would switch fewer topics.
As soon as I saw “carnival” and “wasps,” I understood the connection immediately.
We call them “fair bees”; they are drunk and aggressively non-violent about drinking your daiquiri, as well as rummaging through every trash can. Never been stung by one, but they can be aggravating sometimes cause they won’t leave me or my drink alone… like any obnoxious drunk, really
So I can see how you can get to thinking about wasps from “carnival”. The “fair bees” definitely remind me of wasps being assholes
Yeah, any outdoor environment with food involved immediately brings to mind yellowjacket/bee/wasp type insects not leaving sugary drinks alone.
I didn’t realize this wasn’t normal… I always considered it “thinking a few steps ahead.” As explained it is connected, it’s just a few steps away.
I’ve done this many times, but I reflect on what I’m going to say first so I pretty much always recognize that just coming out with the final thought is strange so I explain how I got to where I want to be first and then I ask the question or say the thing lol
Associative thinking is very normal. This is just another post in the ongoing trend of common things being called out as divergent.
It feels like describing 7 degrees of Kevin bacon but for your train of thought. “Then I clicked on this link which took me to the page on been stings, then I clicked on the link for insects with stingers”…etc
