Another post-FB truth is emerging, which I had always suspected. Language and rational thought are so closely related that they are pretty much the same thing-- logos means ratio/reason as well as word/speech/account. (QED. philology = philosophy.) For me, the modes of speech available to me shape my thought. When I was a kid, I thought in imaginary conversations, and I've never stopped. At St. John's, I reflected on worthy things in the shape of essays, which may or may not have ever been written, and on less worthy things in the shape of jokes and skits, which were often never told or produced. Now I develop my thoughts by composing blog posts and emails that will never see the light of day, although next week I have a speech to prospective parents coming up, and even my non-pertinent thoughts are coagulating in the style in which I'll give my talk.
When FB was available to me, I sculpted bon-mots. There's nothing wrong with bon-mots, per se, and pithless thinking is so dull. But there's a reason that no one can talk about a really zingy one-liner without an implied "just" hovering in front of the words. They're just bon-mots. If they are true, then that is good, but they are a poor substitute for sustained reflection. My thoughts became little diamonds, which I subsequently flung into the air, to much applause. I watched them glitter as they rose and fell, but rarely picked them up for examination later. I should be more jealous. Poetry would be a better way.
Running MB commentary: In this respect I am deeply, essentially extroverted: I think as though I am going to present my thoughts to someone else. In that I am striving to be prudent, I am cultivating habits that look introverted, but I struggle against a natural tendency to share everything.