I wonder if those people without an inner voice still read as if they were speaking the words? Or how do they read or listen?

There is a clinical name for people without an inner voice, but I forget what it’s called. Im reminded of Alexithymia and Aphantasia, if only because those are other phenomena where something is lacking in what is usually common.

Did Derrida see the cognitive forming of a communicable signifier to be the same as the signifier expressed?

Physiologically an inner voice has similar brain activity as speech.

Thanks for the response. I have some dabbling to do!

I’m interested in phenomena surrounding ways we can make false assumptions of the information that we take in. This information could be visual, auditory words, or text.

Off the top of my head examples of where false assumptions could be are in person to person communication, or in marketing where the science is savvy enough that a type of misdirection could be intentional. Or in movies, when the direction is intentionally vague and you have to put pieces together later on. Or in movies again, when you simply don’t catch everything, but the theme allows you to follow and still be thrilled or inspired, while all along believing that you understood everything. Even if upon further review most of what you thought your witnessed was false.

I think on a popular culture level a lot of this falls in to being an active listener. And while trying to be an active listener, being able to reserve judgement, catalogue, or reserving space for further questioning.

I’m just constantly amazed at the various forms of communication. And how communicating information can be both simple and highly complex, and often very flawed.

Point me to some reads or subreddits, please?

What am I missing if I state that philosophy is the politics of semantics?