Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a FYI-Harrier is a illeist that posts on the politics area here on CD a lot. I've argued with him a lot
And...I even repped him once.....I was in complete shock...but...well...he earned it. But mostly I argue with him, its taken a while to get used to.....and...im still not used to it.
Harrier must spread some reputation around before giving it to greywar again.
Sorry. Back in high school, many years ago, my girlfriend and I used to not only use the third person but also to refer to ourselves by our surnames when discussing a contentious issue about which we disagreed. I'm not sure which of us started this, and maybe it was a sign of so-called immaturity, but I found it quite helpful. By removing yourself directly from the argument, you seem to be able to reason more objectively and with less of a personal threat. We communicated well that way, I think.
Fast forward to the present, when I speak a lot of lousy Spanish, and I note that Spanish often uses an indirect communication style much like third person. If someone calls you and you don't answer the phone, you don't say "I missed your call" but rather that "the call got lost." The responsibility is placed on the call, not you. There are also a lot of constructions that essentially use "one" as in "one would not do X," when in English we would usually use "I" or "you." Although I frankly wonder about this linguistic dispersal of responsibility, I find Spanish-speakers on the whole happier and more sociable than English-speakers. Indirect may be a good thing.
Not least, I am old enough to remember when "one" was never supposed to use "I" in formal writing, a well as when that changed and everyone started using "I." My guess is that this reflects the increasing value that US culture places on authenticity nowadays, as well as a corresponding emotional individualism. My opinion is that this change is for the worse. I think people got along better when they were forced by custom to be less egocentric and more social.
So I'd say that recourse to the third person is usually some deflection of responsibility, but that it probably enhances social harmony. You would have to assume some ethic of individual authenticity to find it troubling, at least as a rule.
Well, I regret names were mentioned here...and to them I am sorry.
I wish mods would delete the names. If they wanted to come forward they have that choice...I don't know that the actual person,whomever talks this way, knows themselves why they do it.
Can you give me an example? I am quirky and there was a time where I often spoke saying "one" a lot when answering questions. So someone would ask me a question and I would answer "Well if one thinks about it one could say..."
I did this for over a decade maybe two. I think it had to do with me living in my own head a lot. I did have somewhat an inferiority complex and lacked assertiveness. Maybe when I got assertive it went away?
This is a true mystery to me...I understand many pathologies...and
have much compassion...but this one truly stumps me.
Am I wrong to think childhood trauma? Some sort of disassociation?
Any insights?
And why does it give me the heebee jeebeeis!!!!?
I want to get over that and view it clinically.
Thank you.
While I haven't heard anyone speak that way (other than in the
rare, joking manner), I've seen a similar phenomenon online
lately where inspirational quotes, such as those posted over on
Facebook, are in the 3rd person.
For example (and this is a paraphrase), "She woke up one day
and decided to spread her wings and fly away. She was free."
I don't know why, but after seeing a number of those, they
now get on my nerves for some reason. It's like, who the
heck is this "she" they keep talking about?
Harrier is bothered by the use of "they" to refer to what should be specific persons.
Example: "There is a lot of identity theft taking place - they should do something about it."
Harrier's response to this would be to identify "they" as the speaker, and suggest that they do something to protect their identity from being stolen.
The use of "they" seems to be a transfer of responsibility to people who can never defend why they should not be accountable for solving a particular individual's perceived problems.
My mother-in-law would frustrate you to no end. From the time I met her, she would justify her odd behavior like unplugging every single electrical appliance in the kitchen when she leaves the house by responding "they say an appliance can just turn on and catch fire". Everything was justified by "they".
A few years into this I asked who "they" were? She responded with "the experts". I asked "what makes them experts"? She responded "they work for the government". Hence the Department of They was born. This bureaucracy provides useful information ranging from don't get in the water after eating lunch to don't run with scissors.
I think you are either not very smart and or just like to pi ss everybody off. Probably the second guess.
Can't it be both?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
