[saltcured]

As someone with no inner monologue, I think I could just as easily "flow" about a non-verbal task like spatial reasoning or a verbal task like reading, writing, or even engaging in a particularly technical or abstract conversation. Unlike you, my resting state is non-verbal and I would not be able to correlate verbal content with flow like that.

To me, flow is a mental analogue to the physical experience of peak athletic output. E.g. when you are are at or near your maximum cardiovascular throughput and everything is going to training and plan. It's not a perfect dichotomy. After all, athletics also involve a lot of mental effort, and they have more metabolic side-effects. I've never heard of anybody hitting their lactate threshold from intense thinking...

My point is that the peak mental output could be applied to many different modes of thought, just as your cardiovascular capacity can be applied to many different sports activities. A lot of analogies I hear seem too narrow, like they only accept one thinking task as flow state.

I also don't think it is easy to describe flow in terms of attention or focus. I think one can be in a flow state with a task that involves breadth or depth of attention. But, I do suspect there is some kind of fixed sum aspect to it. Being at peak flow is a kind of prioritization and tradeoff, where irrelevant cognitive tasks get excluded to devote more resources to the main task.

A person flowing on a deep task may seem to have a blindness to things outside their narrow focus. But I think others can flow in a way that lets them juggle many things, but instead having a blindness to the depth of some issues. Sometimes, I think many contemporary tech debates, including experience of AI tech, are due to different dispositions on this spectrum...