Beware of those who speak in the second-person narrative.

Beware of those who speak in the second-person narrative.

Have you ever argued with someone and within a few moments they begin to narrate your life?

Instead of discussing topics in the first-person narrative, using such pronouns as “I”, “me” and “myself”—the only perspective one can truly narrate through—they employ the second-person narrative, or making their points from the perspective of “you”, as if they were omniscient enough to know what "you" do and how "you" think. This approach, found mostly within self-help books and guides to spirituality, is borderline fallacious and instantly puts the narrator of “your” life in the light of absurdity.

I went through this specific forum, as it is rife with spiritual masters wanting to speak for me and others, and chose some examples. Names have been withheld.

u think ur so knowledgeable, but u are totally ignorant of the place in which u exist. there are more things in this world than meet the eye of materialistic buffoons proporting themselves to be wise.

And if he doesn't think he's so knowledgable?

But you have no sovereignty over any other members at ATS. Though you think it you are better than other people its just a belief .

Does she think she is better than other people? Where is this truth coming from?

If you see yourself as a object living among other objects walking around on a object then you have not yet realized the true nature of things.

How can you be so sure of what he has and has not yet realized?

You know, therefore you are. Knowing comes before thinking. In the gap between two thoughts you are aware of something. And you know that you are aware.

Oh, does she? How can you be so sure of what she does and does not know?

I'll argue that while your post was really good, you are indeed trapped within your own false beliefs, lack of knowledge and perception about certain things...

Am I?

Thou shalt

Shall I? All I need do is the opposite to prove you wrong.

These aren't simple observations; these are wild guesses and stabs in the dark. How reckless with the truth can we be?

Notice how instead of speaking about their own insights, what has happened to them in their own case and how they deal with it, they speak from an angle of authority, attempting to bully one’s thoughts by looking down at a condescending height and telling it like it is—or at the very most, how they think it is.

But as soon as they open their mouths and attempt to speak for me, they utter nothing but lies, for it is only themselves they can speak for, and it is only themselves they can live through.

The second-person narrative is a very useful literary tool, but as a method of teaching it is entirely cringe-worthy. There is only one person who could possibly narrate my life. Why does another so often try?

Thank you!!

This is exactly what I am trying to describe in another thread. My personal pet peeve.

For years, I have interrupted discussions with the suggestion-
How about I tell you about me, and you tell me about you???

reply to post by Aphorism

I avoid second person narratives in a forum of debate as much as possible.

It is sometimes effective in composition, but has negative ramifications in discussion, particularly in argumentative discussion.

It comes across as either putting words in others' mouths in order to put a perceived opponent in a "box" that the narrator is comfortable with, or telling others what to do (or how to think).

Great reminder. I am sure that most people do not realize they are doing this.

ETA: There are times when discussion has deteriorated to the point of unproductivity where a brief second person narrative may be appropriate as a conclusion. Here is an example, guilty as charged.

Whenever a spiritual leader tries to put themselves above the other person, I know that they are not a spiritual leader.

They are a self-serving person that wants to put themselves above another person by being in their driver's seat, instead of the person's own conscious thoughts.

The ones I tend to pay attention to the most and think they might have something worthy of listening to are the ones that speak from the term "we" and "us".

Because, no matter how "advanced" one is, there's always room to grow.


Not to say this was the case with you (dealing with spirituality, etc), but the thought applies across the board to anyone that considers themselves an expert.

Sometimes people mean "you" when they say it, and it is often as described above.

Frequently people misuse the word "you" when they should use "one" or "a person". These may come across as more aggravating than they should.

This is an ATS thread from just last month.


How to tell if a person has a huge ego (is extremely self-centered)

Person 1 = less self-centered
Person 2 = extremely self-centered

[NOTE: I am not talking about doing these things sometimes, but only if they do this constantly.]

[Second NOTE: Again, most people aren't getting it. These things are CLUES, if it constantly happens that is a sign]

1) They continuously bring up their own experiences to relate to the topic.

Example:

Person 1: "It is better to forgive then to hold on to hatred."

Person 2: "It's better to just forgive because when I had that fight with James it just made things worse."




2) They give their opinion when it isn't need.

Example:

Person 1: "Religion allows us to see into the mind of ancient society."

Person 2: "Religion allows us to see into the mind of ancient society, but eww I hate that word."



3) They use the words "my" a lot instead of "the".

Example:

Person 1: "I want to use the computer."

Person 2: "I want to use my computer."

Person 1: "I want to get those new Jorden sneakers"

Person 2: "I want to get me my pair of Jorden's sneakers."


2) They only care about their point of view.

Example:

Person 1: "Your anger winded up embarrassing everyone we was with."

Person 2: "You made a scene and was embarrassing me (not considering others)."



3) They are very controlling [ 3 main forms mentioned]

Example:

(Trying to force others to be like them)

Person 1: "It's not healthy to think so negatively, but of course we all have a choice."

Person 2: "You need to stop that and think more positive, you are always being so negative!"


(Threatening violence)

Person 1: "I don't like the way you speak to people so rudely, so if you don't stop I won't be around you."

Person 2: "You need to stop talking so rudely, if you don't stop - I'll make you stop."


(Calling people names)

Person 1: "It's ok if you don't want to do what I say, I understand."

Person 2: " You are so selfish and lazy for not doing whatever I ask you to do."




4) They think that they are better than everyone else, but give false humility.

Example:

Person 1: "If you continue to do this, eventually you will bring yourself into a world of drama."

Person 2: "I'm not perfect, but my way is better than your way - you need to stop that and be like me."

Another Example:

Person 1: "We obviously disagree, but if you want to debate it, that is fine."

Person 2: "Your point of you is irrelevant you are just a sheep, brain-washed, or deceived by the devil."


EDIT: Two more clues that hints at extreme self-centeredness

4) Making assumptions (especially if that assumption is just to get attention or argument)

Example:

Extermely self-centered person:

"There is nothing wrong with having ego and knowing the difference and boundaries between "me" and "you", we need it to survive"

The actual theme of the thread:

"How to know if someone is EXTREMELY self-centered"

Nothing to do with Ego being "good" or "Evil". Nothing to do with getting rid of the Ego completely. All of this is an assumption to argue - to argue against something that wasn't even said.



5) Conformity - Doing what everyone else does out of fear of being "criticized"

Example:

moderate person:

"It really doesn't matter what they think, everyone has their own opinions."

extremely self-centered person:

"I need to do this and that, I don't want people talking about ME."

First person is bad in September,
now in October second person is bad.
Will third person get trounced in November?

I think you guys should really make up our minds.

Mike

reply to post by Aphorism


You have a point there.

Uh oh!

Sorry couldn't resist.

The usage of you, I believe, is okay when it's a statement of fact. You wrote your above post. There's nothing wrong with that. It's the assumptions that often get loaded in with those "you's" that make using "you" incredibly fallacious.

"You should know better than to"
"You obviously don't know what you're talking about."
"You seem to think..."
"You're an idiot if you think"

In my opinion, those are the bad kind of "you's" as they could easily fall under ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, and hasty generalization. Personally, I prefer the Principle of Charity though, when encountering a fallacy, I'll point it out if it's glaringly obvious.

reply to post by Aphorism


It's a useful NLP tactic if used properly. or not....



notnlp.com...

Did someone read a post of yours, note your opinion, gather their own opinion of how they think you view the world through the actions of your written words, and then express their own opinion of you and your possible world view from those written words? I believe it could be called criticism.

That's what I have gathered about "You" from "your" post.

People observe things. Take the world for example. Everyone observes the world and their surrounding environment, and creates their own world view.

If you were to ask a person what their point of view on what the world is like from all their observations, they could say things like "the world is a mess and here is a list of things wrong with the Earth and here is how we could change the Earth for the better."..

People do the same things to other people. "You are a mess and here is a list of things wrong with you and here is how I can change you and what I perceive to be your viewpoint." It's called someone's opinion which can also be known as criticism (whether good or bad).

mikegrouchy
This is an ATS thread from just last month.


How to tell if a person has a huge ego (is extremely self-centered)



First person is bad in September,
now in October second person is bad.
Will third person get trounced in November?

I think you guys should really make up our minds.

Mike

I did not agree with that old thread and it's assertions. It is probably expected that with all the members there are here, we will not all have the same opinion.

-An observation I made in connection to this is that, though I do not like it when people attempt to dictate my inner workings (especially strangers over the net) there seems to be others that like that.

I am not in an effective place to describe how or why, only they can.... but that simply shows that it is all a case of personal preference- not any absolutes.

**SNIP**

Jomina
Whenever a spiritual leader tries to put themselves above the other person, I know that they are not a spiritual leader.

They are a self-serving person that wants to put themselves above another person by being in their driver's seat, instead of the person's own conscious thoughts.

The ones I tend to pay attention to the most and think they might have something worthy of listening to are the ones that speak from the term "we" and "us".

Because, no matter how "advanced" one is, there's always room to grow.


Not to say this was the case with you (dealing with spirituality, etc), but the thought applies across the board to anyone that considers themselves an expert.

edit on 7-10-2013 by Jomina because: (no reason given)

Some people are experienced than others and unfortunately we are not all humans on the same level of experience. I wish all where more advanced then me since I would then have easily gotten help to advance more.

Is not the purpose to learn to fish. But there is a lot of people who overestimate their own thoughts as truth without any experience of the spiritual or even the understanding what truth really is. Truth is an all compassing knowledge of "what is" that includes all views of "what is". Everything else is idols of the truth that are not specific enough to be truth.

So what those who have been thru an upgrade/change can say is if you do this and was this specific soul in this specific body this happened. But there is a lot of people here who counter claim things that their mind thinks without having experienced anything. To those who have experienced something those people are so annoying, since they think they know what swimming in the ocean is like when they are in fact a land living lizard who never even seen the ocean.

I had myself preconceived notions before I had spiritual experience and to say it clearly. I was an idiot who had no clue at all.

reply to post by DaRAGE


Those examples aren't directed to me personally, but they may have well been. One sticks out like a sore thumb in my eyes when he chooses not to speak for himself. It's quite suspect really.

For instance if I was to say "you don't know what you're talking about", as soon as I utter those words I am lying, because I have no way to know whether you do know or not. Conceptually, yes, I can speak about the idea of you I have in my mind, but in reality I am still not touching on any facts or truth.

It's definitely tricky.

reply to post by Aphorism


I hear ya! My favorite pet peeve on the subject is: "You know very well that I"m right" .........or, or "You know darn well you're wrong!"

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I didn't say first person wad "bad". I said Heavy usage MAY be an indicator of self centeredness.

And fron what I see, this person ia saying to be careful of those who use 2nd person WHEN they are assuming things about "you".

You're talking to stupid human beings - what do you expect?

Nothing new here. Succinct and accurate post nonetheless.

arpgme
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

I didn't say first person wad "bad". I said Heavy usage MAY be an indicator of self centeredness.

And fron what I see, this person ia saying to be careful of those who use 2nd person WHEN they are assuming things about "you".

We thank you for the clarification.

Mike

DaRAGE
Did someone read a post of yours, note your opinion, gather their own opinion of how they think you view the world through the actions of your written words, and then express their own opinion of you and your possible world view from those written words? I believe it could be called criticism.

That's what I have gathered about "You" from "your" post.

People observe things. Take the world for example. Everyone observes the world and their surrounding environment, and creates their own world view.

If you were to ask a person what their point of view on what the world is like from all their observations, they could say things like "the world is a mess and here is a list of things wrong with the Earth and here is how we could change the Earth for the better."..

People do the same things to other people. "You are a mess and here is a list of things wrong with you and here is how I can change you and what I perceive to be your viewpoint." It's called someone's opinion which can also be known as criticism (whether good or bad).

You are just taking out your anger at others because your dog died when you were five and nobody helped you deal with the grief! Besides, it is evident that you see little flying monkeys with green jackets on all around you.... so all your complaining about people criticizing you is just a refusal to admit your psychotic mental state. You should just get down to earth and accept criticism and take some medication for those flying monkeys!

See, (that was just to make a point, obviously) criticism from strangers over the internet is rather silly and useless. No "actions "can be observed from our "written words".

So tone of voice, body movement, and interpretation of meaning are all stuck in by the reader. Just like Freudian style psychotherapy, where the patient does not see the therapist, that blank space of input causes transference.

Criticism is really only of much use with people that actually know you, or at least can observe and hear you in person. Otherwise it is just people trying to yell at, indoctrinate, or insult the reflection of their less desireable aspects in the mirror!

Narcissus stuck looking in the pond again.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I've never read that thread and I don't understand your point. Care to explain the relevancy?

Ugghh...I, me, you, we may,may not think that this, these, them statements, opinions, facts are, aren't , can't be, must be, true, false, unspecified.

vague.

Seems impossible for any person to be perfectly perfect to everyone at any time.

It's a good thing that humans are human.