"I just assumed everyone had it, you know that little narrator in your head who talks you through your decisions, who questions your actions, who reflects on your failures and asks, “Why did I do that?” But here’s the data: over 75% of people report little to no inner dialogue at all. Nothing. No voice. No back-and-forth. No internal monologue steering the ship. Like wtf...
They think in pictures, emotions, or gut instincts. They "just know" things without verbalizing them internally. That sounds harmless per se, until you realize what’s missing. Self-awareness. Moral calibration. Inner correction. Long-term introspection. All of it hinges on the ability to hold a conversation with yourself...you know...to weigh options, rehearse scenarios, argue with your own thoughts. Take that away, and what’s left is not a philosopher… it’s a refined animal in a human body. Sorry 75%.
I honestly don't think we're studying this seriously enough. Psychologists dismiss it as “neurodiversity,” as if it’s just a quirk. But what if it’s more than that? What if we’re looking at a fundamental divide in human consciousness... almost like a split between narrative beings and reactive shells? Sorry again.
Between those who live with an inner world… and those who just follow the script handed to them by instinct and media?... Sound familiar?
Think about what this explains. Why people are so easy to manipulate. Why mass movements work. Why so few stop to question anything. Because if there’s no voice inside, there’s nothing to say “Hold on. Is this right?” There’s no inner witness. No friction. Just impressions, feelings, and the next dopamine hit. I know this will be controversial...but these are the studies conclusions.
I'm assuming the silence in others is just quiet, not absence. But what if most of the world is sleepwalking, not because they’re unwilling… but because they’re literally unequipped to narrate their own story? If that's true, everything we know about agency, ethics, and consciousness needs to be rewritten."
https://x.com/JasonWilde108/status/1939466323479634036
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810008000342?via%3Dihub
Don’t get too caught up in men’s institutional credentials. In light of what we’ve discovered in the last few years about our institutions being corrupt and nepotistic, discriminating against conservatives, Christians, whites, and males, and acting against the interests of the founders of the institutions, you should have consideration for young men who did their duty by at least somewhat going on strike against the system. There are plenty of quality men who regret going to college or grad school or joining the military. There are young men of high character and aptitude who have been carving out their own paths without official recognition. Don’t overlook them or your daughter’s options will be foolishly limited to those men who made large compromises with the dirty system. It’s not that all compromises have been unjustified. It’s just that the men who have been less willing to compromise should be given more respect than clown world would want. Fortunately, thanks to the new Trump era, some of the good but undervalued men can now come out of the woodwork and make themselves felt in the mainstream, but that might still not mean signing up for student loan debt or military obligations.
The key phrase in your daughter’s statement is “simply because”, and she’s right. It’s also important that she is valued for integrity, kindness, sympathy, pleasantness, and faith if that’s her thing. Many of these virtues take longer to observe than does “being a young, healthy and smart pure blood”, but those are a pretty good start! I noticed we haven’t even directly referred to looks yet and just referred to youth and healthiness, and in the post-vaxx era it makes sense. Being clean-blooded is more attractive than being good looking. I agree with the practical reasons that you gave her about why it’s so valuable.