IN OT Meta-blog 7th day [sunday] wtf

Maybe this is a painfully banal and obvious post topic, but I've been thinking about how the process and value of thinking something is a lot different than saying it out loud. How you can imagine 'conversations' in your head that couldn't possibly pan out in real life, which points to not just a 'disconnect' but more precisely the existence of two distinct separate entities of personality. And if they are maybe 2 separate and distinct entities than maybe its also best for us to name them as such.

labels:
Internal Narrator (IN) and Outgoing Talker (OT).

examples:
1a. The way when you're at home later and replaying a conversation in your head it sometimes sounds horribly stupid.
(IN has different values/ideas from OT)

1b. The way 'conversations in your head' can never be replicated in real life and always sound trite/grandiose/staged when attempted.
(conflict of IN attempting to 'put words into the mouth' of OT.)

2a. The way most communication is focused around one Personality Half sharing the experiences of itself i.e. we talk about conversations we had/things we did (OT on OT) and write about our ideas^[*] (IN on IN) and when we do try to have some sort of cross over and say 'talk about our feelings' (OT on IN) it 'comes out all wrong' or scares someone away or is 'a downer' or 'cliché' or see 1b. (likewise when we try and imagine dialog or write fiction (IN on OT) it similarly sounds trite or contrived because what the hell does the IN know about what the OT would say anyway. see 1b.

3a. The way when you are alone extendedly and interacting rather exclusively with one sided stimuli (like movies/books/music/old diary entries) the character of that stimuli and its effect becomes noticeable to the point where reading can be seen as a dialog-al opportunity for the IN and 'watching' the corresponding opportunity for the OT. So that sometimes when you're alone, reading is counterproductive because it grows the IN making it harder for the OT to function properly if/when it is [will be] used again. So that sometimes watching TV is healthy not because 'it makes you feel less alone' but because it nurtures the OT/shuts up the IN.

3b. The way when you read something profound but also maybe painfully sad/nostalgic it is effecting because the 'reading' has handed it directly to the IN, but if you were actually taking part in same said situation you might write it off as phony or whatever. [This thought experiment might suggest a descriptive labeling of the IN as sappy/emotional with the OT being sociopathic/unreasoned. I dunno.]

4. The way using someone as a 'sounding board' to 'bounce ideas off of' is just a safe way for the IN to communicate or share with the OT.

5. The way you can catch mistakes in writing by reading out loud.
(OT can sometimes serve as copy editor for IN.)

other thoughts:
There has to be communication and balance.
If the IN is given autonomy (either due to circumstance (like living in a country where you can't communicate with almost anyone/ where all background chatter is white noise and therefore completely undistracting) or due to choice (person is a recluse anti-social) ) then the situation snowballs and you can get 'trapped in your head' and then when you do finally get to talk to someone the OT is so starved and pent up that he just spews his [your] fucking guts and won't shut up and talks about himself forever until its boring and you^[†][‡] wish you could stop but really have no say anyway.
Or maybe the dominant IN causes the opposite to happen and you start to live in the IN and see the OT as epiphenominal and become so detached from your experiences that you don't even notice that you're distant or needy or anything, in which case the effect becomes indistinguishable from the reverse situation of dominant OT dormant IN,
which is when if for whatever reason the OT is so strong as to eclipse the IN then you become unhinged and unable(unwilling) to moderate yourself as projected through interactions to the point where you are repetitive and shallow stagnant boring but also possibly more entertaining in small doses.

Thats all for today

^[*]Of course some people use their journals only to record conversations/experiences and not to offer commentary in which case the diary is just a police blotter or archive and no real interaction between OT and IN takes place anyway. And does this mean that people who keep these sorts of journals have dominant OT's since even writing which should be the domain of the IN is instead used as an extension of the OT?

^[†]I (as a Person with an imbalanced heightened IN who can't help but think of Myself as The IN, with the OT being a possibly External Interloper/foreign agent/savior) wonder if someone with a reverse imbalanced heightened OT when they do think worries that it is the 'thinking' that is off kilter and feels more comfortable/'Himself' only when talking.

^[‡]Of course this suggests that there is actually a Third Person hiding out back who chooses to dwell in/watch from the vantage point of one particular location/mode of interacting [these being either the OT or IN] at any given time, or that OT and IN are more like tools that this Third Person uses to communicate with either the Self^[§] or the Outside World, in which case it is not so much a conscious 'choice' but rather a natural unconscious usage of the most apt tool, like how you hear with your ears and see with your eyes, in which case this entire entry is pointless and stupid.

^[§]which means the Self itself has to be split off again to become a 4th part that the Third Person is communicating with vis a vis the process/instrument of the IN.