I was on a course at work. As part of an ice-breaker, the trainer read out a story, then asked 10 or so questions about it, which we had to write the answers to, like a test. For most of the questions, my answers were 'don't know', whereas everyone else had written either 'yes' or 'no'. I got them all correct. The trainer said it was because I must be a very verbal thinker, but I totally disagree with her assessment. The reason I said 'don't know' to everything was because there were too many blanks in my visual image of the story. For example, the story went a bit like 'the ground was wet', so I visualised a wet ground. Then the question was 'had it been raining?' In my mind, I only knew the ground was wet, I had no knowledge and no visual image of any rain, so I had to say 'don't know' - I think everyone else said 'yes' to that one. Maybe it was also because I had a more literal interpretation of the story than the others and I could also think of many reasons why the ground could be wet. But my visualisation of it was behind my correct answers, I'm sure.
But, I also have an internal dialogue going on all the time. That's more to do with interpreting my thoughts into words, for the sake of externalising them, or going over conversations that didn't go well and restructuring them, so that I come out on top. This is a hindrance to me and does not help with my anxiety. If I'm free of the internal dialogue, I'm much more relaxed and back in my real mind. Or as Marcotulio said, when I'm thinking very deeply about something philosophical or profound, it's like how I would present a speech or lecture. But, it's not really part of my thinking process, it's more about how I get my thoughts from my head to my mouth to someone else's ears (not that I regularly vocalise this internal dialogue).
_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley