use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
Is it possible to think without knowing a language? (self.cogsci)
submitted 2 years ago by iownapony
I don't know about everyone else, but whenever I think, I only "hear" myself speaking. This post was kind of inspired by this one.
[–]mxyzptlk 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago
I used to have seizures. The ones that didn't knock me out completely, made me forget how to speak. There were quite a few times that I tried to talk to someone when it was happening, but I could not remember any words or even how to form sentences. I also tried to write notes to myself when it was happening, but it always seemed to turn out to be gibberish.
Even though I couldn't speak, I still tried to, and I remember the episodes, so I believe you can think without words.
[–]hackenberry 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Did you ever get any scans? Where were the siezures located?
[–]mxyzptlk 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Yes, EEG, CAT, and MRI. They never found anything.
[–]wdonnell 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
that would be reasonably upsetting. any synesthesia?
[–]mxyzptlk 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
On the days I had seizures I would get a weird headache. There was an odor associated with the headache, but it wasn't anything I remember actually smelling.
[–]sakabako 27 points28 points29 points 2 years ago
When you throw or catch a ball you think without using language.
[–]gnolnalla 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Or get a song stuck in your head.
[–]jambonilton 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
a melody stuck in your head.
FTFY
[–]mccoyn 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
You are saying sequences of notes of different length in various patterns isn't a language? That different cultures don't develop radically different variations on the rules for combining these sounds? That they lack meaning and can not be used to communicate from one person to another?
[–]jambonilton 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Obviously melodies can be used to express meaning, but they don't necessarily have to. I'm just correcting gnolnalla on the fact that songs always contain language, cause they involve singing. Unless if it's gibberish... like certain muppets songs.
[–]pikob 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
There is a lot of thought going on subconsciously. I often got ideas about how to solve problems from exams few days after exam was over, usually in the morning, while brushing teeth (yeah, they never got to know how good I actually was at math...)
So you don't actually need words to think, it's just brains making connections on their own and then flashing stuff into your consciousness. I'd say this is how thinking is actually done.
[–]yacob_uk 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Define 'think' first. Catching has more to do with reflex actions and muscle memory than a description of 'thinking'.
[–]rspeer 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
If you couldn't, how would you learn your first language?
[–]pikob 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Thinking and learning are separate concepts, so I think this is not a valid argument.
[–]PublicStranger 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Conscious learning is still a type of thinking, though, isn't it? Children learning language—struggling to remember the name for a certain color, for example—do appear to be consciously thinking. When I've studied foreign languages, I've certainly had to think very hard about complex grammar rules and so on.
[–]rspeer 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
You have a strange definition of "thinking" if it doesn't include learning.
[–]formermormon 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
Consider feral children, who grow up without language (usually raised by animals) -- they can think, to a certain extent, but they won't think in the same terms as you or I do. They think about the things they need to survive.
Then compare that with the notion that language exists to facilitate communication of shared concepts in a social environment. We don't need language to frame ideas in our own heads, necessarily, but more to communicate those ideas with others. Language is all about making our understanding of things common to another, where our shared conceptual background is the set of sounds we make and the shared understanding of those sounds.
Anyway, I suck at explaining this, but long explanation short, words and language are for communicating ideas, and we are just so overly accustomed to conceptualizing things in order to share them with others that we use language to "think" about things. It's not needed... it just comes as a result of being social, communicative creatures.
[–]carlEdwards[] 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago
Read "Languages of the Mind" by Ray Jackendoff. He postulates, I believe 5 internal languages only one of which is speech. Internal languages are systems the brain can think (write) in and translate between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Jackendoff
[–]24601G 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Also, check out Vygotsky's classic "Thought and Language"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky#Thought_and_Language
A short and (IMHO) very enjoyable book. Not exactly cutting edge any more, but well worth the read.
[–]carlEdwards[] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Wow, excellent-- I am excited to learn about his Zone of Proximal Development concept, too. Very useful concept!
[–]glitch83 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago
Yes definitely - there are a few examples of humans growing up with animals in the wild and being more intelligent than the animals that it grew up with. Though the way you used "thinking" makes me believe that you are talking about consciousness which is in itself controversial. I personally don't believe in free will in the context of consciousness but many do.
[–]brmj 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I personally don't believe in free will in the context of consciousness but many do.
My personal take on it is that free will is a useful approximation of the behavior of certain complex, emergent systems, but breaks down into fundamentally predicable or probabilistic elements if looked at too closely. Thoughts?
[–]Shaper_pmp 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
I tend to think of free will as a quale - like "redness" is the subjective experience of seeing something emitting a certain range of wavelengths of light, and "loudness" is the subjective experience of hearing a sound above certain decibel level, "free will" is the subjective experience of your brain's deterministic or quantum behaviour.
[–]behanger 17 points18 points19 points 2 years ago*
Yes it is possible, I do it all the time. Thinking is more like 3D movies, which I then can describe in words, a bit. It works for sound techniques, programming, drawing, figuring out how I feel about a situation, deciding on which couch to buy, and wether I want to spend money on a faster engine for my boat. All this I do thinking in images, it's only when I think of how to get these across that I start using words.
[–]filterspam 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
Interesting I can't see a damn thing in my head it's all words.
[–]ALICILA 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
I'm the same way. I have a really hard time visualizing objects.
[–]NeededANewName 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago
Masturbating without porn must suck for you guys.
[–]DMeter 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Ya I lie awake at night worrying what I'll do if the internet runs out of porn. Porn without sound is pretty much useless to me. I'm a non-visual person, I'm tactile so I replay sensations in my head not images so I don't need porn. When I'm watching porn I'm imagining the sensations. I'm not turned on by looking at the images. Sensations are far more sexual than images. I've done a fair bit of meditation where you silence the internal dialogue. By practice and force of will you can teach yourself to think non verbally.
Huh, that's interesting. Do you think in a tactile way under other (non-sexual) circumstances?
I find that certain temperatures can release a lot of emotions and thoughts in my mind, but I don't really think in terms of temperature. I'm still more visual-spatial.
When I masturbate, the spatial component is the most important to me. I think about my own placement and the placement of anyone/anything else in the fantasy; I dwell very little on what anyone/anything looks like, sounds like, or feels like. Since I usually masturbate lying down (I'm female, so it's easier to do it this way), my fantasies generally involve me lying down, too, because it's hard to imagine myself into a position I'm not actually in—even when I'm imagining the situation from a third-person point of view. It's better than porn, because porn is 2-dimensional rather than 3-dimensional, and porn tends to place too much emphasis on appearance (I'm not interested in seeing faces for example, because I don't want to personalize it—I'm not attracted to the actors, only to the sex act).
[–]DMeter 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Yes everyone is a combination of all three modes visual, audile, and tactile. It's not very intuitive which mode is which. I'm weak visually, a bit stronger in the audile mode and very strong in the tactile mode. This is exactly opposite to the norm. I'm not particularly driven by looks in any aspect of my life women, cars etc. The way I think out technical problems tends to be more in intuitive leaps than logical progression. This makes me faster at trouble shooting and much better at working under conditions where information is limited. It drives people nuts who are linear thinkers who work with me because they can't understand how I got from A to B or how I did it so fast. On the topic of porn I'll watch it to add scenes or actors to my fantasy but I usually like to have my eyes closed anyway as visual data only detracts from the sensuality. I also prefer lying down to beat my meat and hate the shower etc. I can get equally aroused with written stories as with video. I've also got a stronger than average link between smell and arousal.
[–]lennyquites 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
YES IT DOES
It's not words for me, but abstract concepts, like how you're abstractly aware of the position of your desk relative to your hands, or the way you know where your hands are even when your eyes are closed (kinesthesia?).
My visual imagination sucks balls too, incidentally.
[–]PublicStranger 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
I'm the same way! My thinking is primarily spatial and visual. I did very well in organic chemistry, I'm excellent at navigating a map, I'm a skilled artist—especially at capturing 3-dimensional shapes on 2-dimensional paper—and so on.
I'm not sure if the style of thinking contributes to my visual-spatial skills, or if refining those skills has changed the way I think.
[–]mozzyb 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I'm chiming in on this. And I will also have a storm of images every time I see a word trying to find the correct one for the situation. I sometimes also have a problem with finding the correct word. I won't be able to remember the word, but I have a clear image of the concept in my head. It can be very frustrating some times, especially when people don't understand me the first time I explain something as it has already cost me so much to explain it. I do believe I think faster because of it, though.
[–]timothj 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
It is possible for people without language to exist in modern society-- catching subways, working, etc-- according to Pinker's book "The Language Instinct." Also, I can see my dog thinking, sometimes. She has a few words, but no language to speak of.
[–]sakabako 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
How would living without language compare to being somewhere that speaks a language you don't understand?
[–]Shaper_pmp 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
You can still think (internally) in your native language, even if everyone else (externally) speaks a different one. This discussion is about whether it's possible to think at all without an internal native language to do it in.
[–]kabads 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago
Depends how you define thought. If thoughts can be reactions in the brain to stimulus, then no language is required.
[–]MekkaLekkaHigh 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
Dogs and other animals think without language.
[–]gukeums1 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
You might think you hear yourself speaking, but really, you're experiencing thought clusters. You can think much faster than you can speak! The idea that you "speakthink" is probably a bit of an illusion; really, you're probably just fitting words to your concepts more than using words to form concepts.
Note: this post heavily relies on personal experience and is likely inaccurate.
[–]prioryofsion 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Yes.
Looking outside of humans into animals (which seem to have nothing as complex and generative as human language) you can find cognition in the absence of language all over the place. Non-human primates have an intricate understanding of their social standing and use it to navigate their social environment, crows and other birds demonstrate complex problem solving behaviors, and even human infants, prior to learning a language, are thinking about their world and learning all sorts of things.
But as undeniable proof of thought in the absence of language? I'd probably point to Helen Keller and call it a night.
[–]seraph582 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Some folks are visual. I use my visual thinking to imagine systems and how subsets of systems work together on an individual basis when I design and work on software.
I then translate what I see mentally into whatever objects or syntax is necessary to recreate it or fix whatever's already there.
[–]PublicStranger 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Most of my thinking is without words. I think more in concepts. Have you ever had a word on the tip of your tongue, but the concept you have in mind is very clear and palpable? That's how I think most of the time. I really only switch to words when I am considering something to say or write to someone.
I also have a couple memories as a child that pre-date my ability to speak English, and I certainly was thinking in those memories.
In one memory, I was taking a bath in a sink (it was in an apartment my family moved out of right around my first birthday) and my dad repeatedly jumped up from behind the counter to surprise me. I distinctly remember trying to anticipate when he would pop up next.
In another memory, I was riding in the backseat of the car while it was raining, and my parents were talking in the front seat. I had no idea what they were saying; it didn't even occur to me that they were trying to communicate anything at all. They were just making pleasant sounds, and I remember thinking how warm and safe I felt hearing them speak.
[–]shachaf 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Have you ever had a clear concept that you want to communicate, that there should be a word for, but there isn't? That is significantly rarer for me, which leads me to believe that the concepts that we think in are influenced by our language more than I would normally think.
You're probably right; language has a way of making connections between concepts that we might not otherwise make.
That being said, in my case, many of the concepts floating around in my head don't seem to have a lingual analog, and I must struggle to describe them. Oddly enough, people often think I am being poetical when I do this (perhaps this says something about art?).
I want to learn sign language because I think it might be more natural for me to communicate that way; my thinking is very visual and spatial, not so linear as speech and writing tend to be.
[–]lutusp 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Have you ever had a clear concept that you want to communicate, that there should be a word for, but there isn't?
I have an example that has bugged me for years -- in sailing, there is a risky combination of conditions that can be expressed as "opposing wind and current," but for which there is no single word. It's sometimes really hazardous, and I just don't understand how there can be so much conversation about it among sailors, but no word.
Off the coast of South Africa, opposing wind and current gives rise to rogue waves that regularly destroys large vessels. But ... no word.
In a language that has over 20 suitable words for "drunk", it's amazing that there isn't even one word for opposing wind and current.
[–]digitizemd 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
"Have you ever had a word on the tip of your tongue, but the concept you have in mind is very clear and palpable?"
Yes, but surely that concept is made up language. I mean seriously. Only something as fundamental/basic as say... jumping doesn't require much language. I'd like to hear of this "thinking in concepts".
As far as the older memories go: you may not have had language, but physical objects had meaning. Like your parents. You clearly didn't know what a parent was. You didn't know your relation to these people. What people were. You didn't have language. But you knew these people. They took care of you. You instinctively felt safe around them. So the thinking was very limited in this aspect.
Add to that that those may not be memories at all. Maybe you recalled fragments and added in details later. It happens a lot.
[–]PublicStranger 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago*
Yes, but surely that concept is made up language.
What do you mean by made-up language? If there is no verbal component, it's not language.
Only something as fundamental/basic as say... jumping doesn't require much language.
I do complex mathematics (especially geometry) without language. I can design contraptions in my mind without language; I simply create and rotate 3-dimensional images in my head and piece them together, then imagine how the pieces will interact to (hopefully) produce the desired effect; words have nothing to do with it until it comes time to describe it to someone else (and even then, I'll usually just draw a diagram—and the fact that people can interpret these diagrams implies that they, too, are doing some language-less thinking).
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course I didn't have a concept of what a parent was (how could I have known how babies were made? I'd never witnessed reproduction), but knowing is separate from thinking. Language is a thoroughly useful tool, and some people may use it while they're thinking, but that doesn't mean that thought doesn't exist independent of language.
To address your first point (thinking about shapes): you may not explicitly think of the words. You're right, of course you have to use words when describing a concept to other people (or, like you said, you can draw the shape). But a very simple example: you start out with a triangle in your head. You might not think of the word triangle, but the word itself gives a triangle meaning.
It's hard to explain this, so let me use another example. When you approach a traffic light (at least in the U.S.) you'll see one of three colors: green, yellow, red. You cannot possibly know what to do if, for example, you had been raised by wolves up until this point. There is nothing inherent in the color green to make you think 'go'. Green only derives its meaning based on its relationship with the other two colors.
So, again with that triangle. You think triangle b/c it's a basic shape whose definition is clearly defined (by language, it's relationship to every other shape that exists. You may rotate the figure, but how if you have no idea what rotate means; the meaning which is derived from its relationship with other actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism
You said knowing is separate from thinking. How? Can you define knowing? I don't think thinking is impossible without language. Thinking is just very limited.
I'd like to continue the discussion, though, to clarify my point further.
I'm still not quite following. If I know no language, I can still figure out that green means go (though, of course, I wouldn't use those terms; I would just have the concept of greenness and the concept of going linked inside my head) if I watch traffic patterns. That's not language, though. It's association.
Language is more than just vocabulary. It involves grammatical structure—which is why we don't consider dogs to have language, even though they clearly communicate with "words" (e.g., a wagging tail is the "word" for happiness).
Knowing implies having come to some kind of conclusion. Thinking implies the process to that conclusion. For example, when I work on a long division problem, I go through a process of thinking. Once I find the result, though, I stop solving the problem; now I know the answer without having to think through the question. Or someone else could simply tell me the answer, and I wouldn't have to do any problem-solving at all; I would still know the same information, but I wouldn't have had to think as hard to get it.
Another example would be the difference between a test that measures your knowledge versus a test that measures your ability to think. The first might have questions like, "What is the capital of Myanmar?" (things that you'd hopefully know walking into the test, because you're likely not going to be able think through it and figure it out during) while the latter might have logic problems (things you don't know the answer to before seeing the test).
Or consider people from 200 years ago. They knew less than we know today, but that doesn't mean that they didn't think as well. They were still as intelligent as anyone else, and they still spent as much time thinking (even if they were perhaps more likely to come to faulty conclusions out of ignorance).
I agree that language can help with certain kinds of thinking, just as mathematics can help with certain kinds of thinking (especially logic). But you can learn to do these things quite efficiently without language (people solve logic problems without math all the time). And other kinds of thinking—like thinking about three-dimensional shapes—do not have much to do with language at all.
Many people have an ongoing internal monologue in their heads, but that's not necessarily their thinking; I hypothesize that a lot of this is simply a verbal description of their thinking, borne of our innate human instinct to communicate.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I rarely think in words when interacting with the world. I only really think in words when I close my eyes or am cut off from visual input.
[–]Mr_Zero 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Probably more so than not.
[–]gliscameria 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Depends.
Can you 'think' without having ways of labeling things? I would say no. I'll use the 1984 argument that your vocabulary limits the ideas you are capable of having. As in, if you can't make a distinction between a bicycle and cold, then you aren't going be able to think, but if you have a means of holding those two things separately, you can. For this argument I will argue that instincts are not 'thinking'.
Can you think without using words? Absolutely. Reading vocally slows our thinking down tremendously, and it's a terrible shame we are taught to read that way.
[–]merdiff 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Of course you can. You can think in images, emotions, sounds, smells and imagining physical movement (thanks to your motor neurons). How do you think intelligent mammals manage to do anything?
[–]PsychRabbit 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Is it possible to be warm without fire? What exactly do you mean by thinking?
"Would read again" "Great post, couldn't upvote hard enough"
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Yes one can, but i have doubts as to the level of abstraction or depth one can achieve without using a language or without having learned a language.
You can definitely form thoughts and chain them together using mental images alone.
If you only speak a single language the translation from mental images to words happens so quickly that you can't notice the delay between the two. However, when you are learning a second language and try to form sentences in it you will often find that mental images come to your mind --not only referring to nouns, but whole ideas as well-- and yet since your ability to speak that second language is limited you may simply not know how to translate those mental images into words, or if it happens there will be a noticeable delay (up to seconds).
To those who argue that this doesn't happen I can only advice them to learn a second language and see for themselves.
[–]dearsomething 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Answer this: do you believe animals think? Do they know languages?
[–]elsquire77 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I used to teach English to Spanish speaking people, and I only spoke English to them. I would tell them the meaning of the words through drawings and acting, but the thing I asked them the most was to think in English... some of them would say it was impossible because they didn't speak it. The point of it all was to "forget" Spanish and not to think in Spanish... I know I think in both English and Spanish, but to say that I could think without language is kind of hard...
[–]shaggorama 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
see: feral children
also: theory-theory of mind vs. simulation-theory of mind
[–]cvrc 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Yes, but you still need symbols to represent the objects and relations in your mind. The language is a ready library with predefined symbols.
[–]majidrazvi 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Dr Jill Bolte Taylor claims she did just that.
[–]webnrrd2k 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Yes. Well, sort-of if you count a visual language as being a "language. Check out Temple Grandin's The Way I See It: A Personal Look at Autism and Asperger's.
In a nutshell, Temple was born without the ability to use verbal language due to Autism and developed a visual language on her own. She's very smart, she even has a Ph.D. but just doesn't use language like most other people.
In order to deal with the sensory overload from her Autism, she'd build "confinement boxes" for herself. It turns out that this gives her a lot of insight into how animals, like cattle, deal with confinement. I believe that she's a consultant for designing animal handling systems.
(I haven't read any of her books, but just heard about her a few different times).
Animals who have higher functioning cognitive ability (problem solving) have language to some extent. And recently a group found a species of monkeys who had developed syntax. As someone else said, define 'to think'. To some extent, I'm sure a lot of living things 'think'. Perhaps not in terms of strategy, but if they were to see a predator, for instance, a trigger would go off in their head. But is that thinking?
You could probably substitute observation for thinking. And as Skiphead, said, the answer to your question is no. How do you have an intentionality without a name for an object?
[–]MyssX -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
No, a child does not know the existence of it's mother until it can say the word mum. Of course you can think if you don't have language, it's just in pictures, colours, feelings, and sounds.
[–]SkipHead -10 points-9 points-8 points 2 years ago
The correct answer is: No.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]mxyzptlk 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]hackenberry 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]mxyzptlk 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]wdonnell 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mxyzptlk 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]sakabako 27 points28 points29 points ago
[–]gnolnalla 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]jambonilton 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]mccoyn 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jambonilton 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]pikob 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]yacob_uk 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rspeer 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]pikob 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]PublicStranger 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rspeer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]formermormon 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]carlEdwards[
] 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]24601G 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]carlEdwards[
] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]glitch83 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]brmj 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Shaper_pmp 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]behanger 17 points18 points19 points ago*
[–]filterspam 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]ALICILA 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]NeededANewName 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]DMeter 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]PublicStranger 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DMeter 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lennyquites 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Shaper_pmp 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]PublicStranger 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]mozzyb 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]timothj 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]sakabako 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Shaper_pmp 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]kabads 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]MekkaLekkaHigh 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]gukeums1 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]prioryofsion 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]seraph582 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]PublicStranger 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]shachaf 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]PublicStranger 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lutusp 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]digitizemd 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]PublicStranger 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]digitizemd 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]PublicStranger 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Mr_Zero 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]gliscameria 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]merdiff 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]PsychRabbit 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]yacob_uk 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dearsomething 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]elsquire77 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]shaggorama 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]cvrc 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]majidrazvi 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]webnrrd2k 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]digitizemd 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MyssX -1 points0 points1 point ago