>>722903942
Thoughts are first and foremost non-vocal. If you decide whether you wanna eat italian or chinese, you don't make a pros and cons list in your head that you read to yourself, you think about which one you're in the mood for.
If you wanna take a swig of water, you don't consciously think the words "I am thirsty, I will unscrew the bottletop and then pour water into my mouth"
If you look outside and notice that leaves are turning brown, you can simply internalize that fact without thinking "the leaves turning brown means it is now becoming autumn"
Anons are pretending that to write down the sentence "you're an NPC" those exact words appear fully formed in their minds, without them having considered the concept of calling someone an NPC first
>>722904091
It is in fact faster to read without voicing the words, and you do that too. You have two modes of silent reading
Answer this question: If you have a word at the tip of your tongue but can't quite think of which word to use, what is happening in your thoughts? Since the only possible way for you to think is supposedly by using fully formed and voiced words.
>>722904220
>If i try to add different reading voice than default one or add inflections to it then ofc it's slower
Why? The argument they're making is that voicing your thoughts is the only way to think, why would voicing them in a different voice take longer?
The solution is that you're NOT voicing your thoughts when reading silently to yourself, it's just retards misnaming what's happening
