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

reply to post by hellnotes

Yeah, right.

I don’t need your fake apology. Save it for the next member you insult.

I am applying an equal amount of force back from whence it came. No taking high-roads here.

reply to post by Klassified

That anyone would read, observe, and formulate an opinion about you from your posts, seems offensive to you. Almost as though you're looking to be offended. Rather than take those observations and opinions as a personal affront, and a license to be offended. Why not use your understanding of the English language, and be an example to others, in your own communication?

I'm seeing a growing trend. Maybe I bit off more than I can chew. Fair enough. A large amount of people here like to employ the second person narrative and will defend it.

I explained why it matters in the OP. If you don't agree, then feel free to say you don't agree, and let me know why so I can see my errors.

Personal insults are easy. Step up, not down.

Then why personally insult me?

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

If someone is speaking and you're not listening, the speaker might as well be mute... for comprehension of what is said will be about the same.

Exactly. And why should they expect the same in return?

reply to post by Orion75

I've found a lot of people who speak in second person to be very objective on topics. The further they remove themselves from the topic and their feelings about it, the less they will use I, me and my. Then it becomes us, them, they, our, etc.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with the blanket statement that second person is inferior to first person or that it means the person has alterior motives. Many of the most subjective, self centered and egotistical posters I've encountered online over the years are strictly first person speakers.

I think that's a fair point. And yes, perhaps I'm somewhat egotistical and self-centered. (These are the kind of insults I can handle. A little dig in the ribs, with a smile, I enjoy.)

I think there is a fine-line between second-person and third person narrative. Third-person, I would argue, is the most objective.

Aphorism
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.

Then let me share with you my opinion that you don't know what you are talking about, and stick out like a sore thumb in your eyes.



Some of what you say is true. It is a bullying tactic. Some of what you say is untrue, insomuch that one can express an opinion on your viewpoint.

Let me give you an example: a guy I know is among the top in his field in the nation. He was talking to someone who had some idea that he thought was insane. His assertion of "You don't know what you are talking about" once the conversation turned into a high pressure sales pitch, was fully appropriate, and was an opinion rendered from his experience. There is nothing invalid about that.

Now...someone who tells you all about yourself to prop up their argument....that is something different entirely. "Yea, well you probably like to touch....." is entirely different from, "You must be insane if you think..."

reply to post by Aphorism

Perhaps if you re-read my post, you will see that I did disagree, and told you why I disagreed. I also did it respectfully. No where in my post, did I insult your intelligence, or person. I spoke to your OP, and subsequent posts. However...

The examples you gave in your OP are not an uncommon form of expression to use in written or spoken communication, to articulate an observance or perception of someone you are engaging in discussion with. Whether or not it is linguistic etiquette to do so is irrelevant. It just is. I don't see the subtle hint of subterfuge in the examples you gave. I can say...

I suspect you don't become offended by this tense of speech when the observation made is complimentary. In fact, I would venture to say, you don't notice it at all.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Some of what you say is true. It is a bullying tactic. Some of what you say is untrue, insomuch that one can express an opinion on your viewpoint.

I feel you are correct here. It would be more convenient to say "You..." rather than "In my opinion, you...". These are two different narratives, but one is simply easier to spit out. As far as convenience goes—and since we are a convenient seeking species—this seems to work in that regard. If everyone realized that all manner of narrative is opinion anyways, this would suffice, but I'm not sure that is the case.

reply to post by Klassified

Perhaps if you re-read my post, you will see that I did disagree, and told you why I disagreed. I also did it respectfully. No where in my post, did I insult your intelligence, or person. I spoke to your OP, and subsequent posts. However...

The examples you gave in your OP are not an uncommon form of expression to use in written or spoken communication, to articulate an observance or perception of someone you are engaging in discussion with. Whether or not it is linguistic etiquette to do so is irrelevant. It just is. I don't see the subtle hint of subterfuge in the examples you gave. I can say...

It was implied in your post that I am petty and insulting. Is that not the case? If not, I apologize.

I would agree that this form of speech is common, but maybe that's why it needs the most work. i find it an attempt to hijack another's thought process. It puzzles me, and that's all I can really say.

I suspect you don't become offended by this tense of speech when the observation made is complimentary. In fact, I would venture to say, you don't notice it at all.

This is first person narrative. This type of speech, in my opinion, is entirely sincere and truthful. By saying "I suspect", I understand that you are speaking through your suspicions and not mine. By saying "I would venture to say", I understand that you are speaking about your ventures and not mine. This levels the playing field in my eyes and allows for healthy, even discussions.

Although I don't think I need to apologize for the pettiness of this observation, I apologize if this sort of thinking offends.

However, if I didn't notice the abuse of the second form, I probably wouldn't have spent the time thinking about it and writing a thread.

Edit to add:

I tried to find an interview as an example and found this one with Noam Chomsky. It is interesting how keeps so composed. Chomsky uses the first person, the interviewer the second.

.....

Just watch out for the ones that think they can complain about every little aspect of life, and how will try to use every little thing against, as they will try to speak in a spiritual tone like the force is stronger in me. They won't stay on topic, and the more idiotic ones will result to insult much quicker then one who won't. They pretty much act like missionaries from a religion, and will nag about every little thing and prove how their view is the superior one.

They are pretty much B**che's, if one wise word would explain it all.

While perusing youtube on the second-person narrative. I found a lecture on the philosophical and psychological aspect of this form of narrative. I hope this dispels the myth that thinking and talking about such narratives isn't a philosophical or psychological endeavour.

It's quite odd (to myself, that is)...that the OP has taken the time to respond to EVERY other poster on this subject...

Just saying...

There are a lot of clues in op's demeanor that would suggest a heightened sense of insecurity.

reply to post by AFewGoodWomen

There are a lot of clues in op's demeanor that would suggest a heightened sense of insecurity.

I'm curious to know how you are able to discern my demeanor from some words on a screen? What exactly are you cross-referencing these words with to come to this realization?

I'm not saying you are wrong. Apparently I am petty, insecure, and just a fellow who rants. I am fine with those opinions. I am just wondering how someone can arrive at these conclusions without having any inclination who I am?

Aphorism
While perusing youtube on the second-person narrative. I found a lecture on the philosophical and psychological aspect of this form of narrative. I hope this dispels the myth that thinking and talking about such narratives isn't a philosophical or psychological endeavour.

There are others that percieve this issue to be pertinant-

2013 IRC Conference: The Second-Person Perspective in Science and the Humanities, 17-20 July 2013

There has been an explosion of research recently on the second-person perspective, closely linked to new approaches to the philosophy of persons in which ‘I’ and ‘you’ are understood as inherently and mutually relational. The pioneering work of Martin Buber, Emmanuel Levinas and others in the twentieth century has been augmented by new data from the empirical sciences, especially the study of joint attention and conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder, Williams Syndrome and prosopagnosia, characterised by atypical second-person responsiveness as well as research stimulated by the controversy as to whether certain non-human primates have a “theory of mind” and can entertain another’s point of view.

The implications of such developments can scarcely be exaggerated, shaping the foundations of ethics and personal identity, but touching also on other areas of philosophy, social cognition, neuroscience, developmental psychology, ethology, theology and many aspects of the humanities generally. Such research is also seen as having implications for society in a broader sense, especially at a time of rising concern about narcissism and apparent deficits of empathy and social cohesion.

www.ianramseycentre.info...

reply to post by Aphorism


In the same way that you, yourself have done in most of the previous posts I've read. I, as a fellow human being, too can divine inferences and inflection as well as context from one's words typed on a screen.

Doesn't hurt that I'm a psychology major either, I suppose.

Aphorism
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

 

If someone is speaking and you're not listening, the speaker might as well be mute... for comprehension of what is said will be about the same.

Exactly. And why should they expect the same in return?

Assumptions of what someone expects can be just as bad as expectation. Some people talk just to talk, idle chatter to escape the idle chatter inside and an awkward silence outside.

A second person narrative speaks from assumptions of someones experience, instead of ones own.

reply to post by Aphorism

I suspect you don't become offended by this tense of speech when the observation made is complimentary. In fact, I would venture to say, you don't notice it at all.

In the above comment, what is bolded was referring to the topic of second person speech. No matter though. I understand your point. Good video example, btw.

Bluesma

BDBinc



Read your quote don’t bother trying to change it now so that your belief in your superiority sounds more" socially acceptable" .

As you pointed out, taking things out their context is very good for misrepresenting meaning, so even if you do it, you may give others a mistaken impression of what we were talking about.
But YOU know- you know that I spent pages repeatedly asking politely that you stop dictating to me what my feelings, thoughts, beliefs and views are. Explaining that we each and all have the right to speak for ourselves.

And you are incorrect as it doesn’t take a certain amount of superiority over others to assume knowledge of what is going on in the depths of others... nor a belief of ones superiority!!
To understand/know oneself completely provides all the needed insight into "others".

I disagree, as you know. I think that people are different, and have different thoughts, values, ideas, emotions and intents. Especially strangers on the other side of the world that grew up in different environments, and cultures, and have vastly different life experiences. It is illogical to assume that they are eaxctly like you inside- especially if they claim otherwise. To insist they are WRONG about their feelings and thoughts, and YOU know them better than they do, seems rather ignorant to me. Or dishonest and manipulative, perhaps. I don't know the motive. You know your motive. I can only say what I feel about your choice of behavior.

Belief in superiority is ignorance.

Something we agree upon.

The thought/belief of superiority cannot provide any knowledge of what is going on in the depth of "others".
Heaps of people believe they are superior and they are totally clueless to what is happening within themselves.

The belief in ones superiority CAN give rise to the belief that one knows more about others inner worlds than they themself do.

I will also acknowledge that often, people are not aware of what is going on inside themselves.
But the way we become aware is by looking within, observing what is there, and expressing it .

edit on 13-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Beliefs give rise to beliefs.
Not respecting posters because of a belief of superiority is wrong thinking.

I am not dicating your life when I quote your post :
"Some people (I am one) do not respect individuals who have repeatedly shown they do not acknowledge my sovereignty as an individual. We are many. You will often find, in public gatherings, people who will not continue to respect you if you repeatedly fail to."

I feel no need to seek your respect by entertaining the notion of acknowledging your sovereignty .

BDBinc

Bluesma

BDBinc



Read your quote don’t bother trying to change it now so that your belief in your superiority sounds more" socially acceptable" .

As you pointed out, taking things out their context is very good for misrepresenting meaning, so even if you do it, you may give others a mistaken impression of what we were talking about.
But YOU know- you know that I spent pages repeatedly asking politely that you stop dictating to me what my feelings, thoughts, beliefs and views are. Explaining that we each and all have the right to speak for ourselves.

And you are incorrect as it doesn’t take a certain amount of superiority over others to assume knowledge of what is going on in the depths of others... nor a belief of ones superiority!!
To understand/know oneself completely provides all the needed insight into "others".

I disagree, as you know. I think that people are different, and have different thoughts, values, ideas, emotions and intents. Especially strangers on the other side of the world that grew up in different environments, and cultures, and have vastly different life experiences. It is illogical to assume that they are eaxctly like you inside- especially if they claim otherwise. To insist they are WRONG about their feelings and thoughts, and YOU know them better than they do, seems rather ignorant to me. Or dishonest and manipulative, perhaps. I don't know the motive. You know your motive. I can only say what I feel about your choice of behavior.

Belief in superiority is ignorance.

Something we agree upon.

The thought/belief of superiority cannot provide any knowledge of what is going on in the depth of "others".
Heaps of people believe they are superior and they are totally clueless to what is happening within themselves.

The belief in ones superiority CAN give rise to the belief that one knows more about others inner worlds than they themself do.

I will also acknowledge that often, people are not aware of what is going on inside themselves.
But the way we become aware is by looking within, observing what is there, and expressing it .

edit on 13-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Beliefs give rise to beliefs.
Not respecting posters because of a belief of superiority is wrong thinking.

I am not dicating your life when I quote your post :
"Some people (I am one) do not respect individuals who have repeatedly shown they do not acknowledge my sovereignty as an individual. We are many. You will often find, in public gatherings, people who will not continue to respect you if you repeatedly fail to."

I feel no need to seek your respect by entertaining the notion of acknowledging your sovereignty .

Interesting, so basically you are happy to keep communication open unless that communication is one sided or self based? Then if it is determined as being such, you shut communication down on purpose in protest, that what you have to add is not even part of the conversation, because it isn't even being considered in the persons words? or basically, you're happy to have a give and take, until it is determined that the other is only giving and not taking. So why bother to continue the conversation if one really isn't taking place?... except to show them that they are not taking anyone else's opinion in consideration when they talk only spouting their own point of view... an intolerance of poor communication skills of sorts because if they are not showing tolerance and understanding of your point of view... why should you have tolerance and understanding of theirs? so change the conversation to show, that all they are doing is being intolerant and misunderstanding... by being intolerant and not understanding on purpose yourself?

So in short if someone is clearly proselytising instead of actually communicating... why even bother with that person by continuing to listen, when it is aptly clear they they are not interested in listening to anyone else.

If I am off base or made too many logical assumptions from poor comprehension, please clarify?

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

You failed to give any examples of any ats member posting the narration of your life ( as the second person narrative is used by you and is allowed on ATS thread its just a RANT ).
You want us to think second-person narrative is OK but only when you use it.

Here's a good example. I hope this clarifies.

You failed to give any examples of any ats member posting the narration of your life ( as the second person narrative is used by you and is allowed on ATS thread its just a RANT ).
You want us to think second-person narrative is OK but only when you use it.

And yes, you are correct, the quote was taken out of context. To tell you the truth I was scanning threads for instances of this and some stuck out like a sore thumb. I find this sort of nonsense quite offensive. I wasn't too concerned with the context. However, by dictating what I think and what I do—although there is no way that anyone from behind a screen somewhere can come to this conclusion—I am taken out of context as soon as the offending words are uttered. I find this sort of discourse and rhetoric particularly ugly, demeaning and condescending, and I'm sorry, I had to point and laugh at it.

But don't worry—we're all hypocrites. You're in good company.

edit on 13-10-2013 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)

"Beware of yourself "would have been a catchy title too.
Still no example of the narration of your life.The content of this post is not philosophy, you said you use a second-person narrative and its a tool, you picked the title for attention, used out of context quotes from other members who have also used it as a tool.
What has this content to do with philosophy? That you use it, some use it ,but others ought not use it? That when others use it it offend you?


If you find other peoples posts in the second-person offensive maybe you shouldn't read them...
Or maybe you can respond on the thread in context to the member that offends you instead of writing a whole thread in an out of Rant segment on how other peoples posts offend you so you can point and laugh at them ( and put it in philosophy and metaphysics).
And don't you find this thread in philosophy of you pointing and laughing ugly, demeaning and condescending ?

BigBrotherDarkness

BDBinc

Bluesma

BDBinc



Read your quote don’t bother trying to change it now so that your belief in your superiority sounds more" socially acceptable" .

As you pointed out, taking things out their context is very good for misrepresenting meaning, so even if you do it, you may give others a mistaken impression of what we were talking about.
But YOU know- you know that I spent pages repeatedly asking politely that you stop dictating to me what my feelings, thoughts, beliefs and views are. Explaining that we each and all have the right to speak for ourselves.

And you are incorrect as it doesn’t take a certain amount of superiority over others to assume knowledge of what is going on in the depths of others... nor a belief of ones superiority!!
To understand/know oneself completely provides all the needed insight into "others".

I disagree, as you know. I think that people are different, and have different thoughts, values, ideas, emotions and intents. Especially strangers on the other side of the world that grew up in different environments, and cultures, and have vastly different life experiences. It is illogical to assume that they are eaxctly like you inside- especially if they claim otherwise. To insist they are WRONG about their feelings and thoughts, and YOU know them better than they do, seems rather ignorant to me. Or dishonest and manipulative, perhaps. I don't know the motive. You know your motive. I can only say what I feel about your choice of behavior.

Belief in superiority is ignorance.

Something we agree upon.

The thought/belief of superiority cannot provide any knowledge of what is going on in the depth of "others".
Heaps of people believe they are superior and they are totally clueless to what is happening within themselves.

The belief in ones superiority CAN give rise to the belief that one knows more about others inner worlds than they themself do.

I will also acknowledge that often, people are not aware of what is going on inside themselves.
But the way we become aware is by looking within, observing what is there, and expressing it .

edit on 13-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Beliefs give rise to beliefs.
Not respecting posters because of a belief of superiority is wrong thinking.

I am not dicating your life when I quote your post :
"Some people (I am one) do not respect individuals who have repeatedly shown they do not acknowledge my sovereignty as an individual. We are many. You will often find, in public gatherings, people who will not continue to respect you if you repeatedly fail to."

I feel no need to seek your respect by entertaining the notion of acknowledging your sovereignty .

Interesting, so basically you are happy to keep communication open unless that communication is one sided or self based? Then if it is determined as being such, you shut communication down on purpose in protest, that what you have to add is not even part of the conversation, because it isn't even being considered in the persons words? or basically, you're happy to have a give and take, until it is determined that the other is only giving and not taking. So why bother to continue the conversation if one really isn't taking place?... except to show them that they are not taking anyone else's opinion in consideration when they talk only spouting their own point of view... an intolerance of poor communication skills of sorts because if they are not showing tolerance and understanding of your point of view... why should you have tolerance and understanding of theirs? so change the conversation to show, that all they are doing is being intolerant and misunderstanding... by being intolerant and not understanding on purpose yourself?

So in short if someone is clearly proselytising instead of actually communicating... why even bother with that person by continuing to listen, when it is aptly clear they they are not interested in listening to anyone else.

If I am off base or made too many logical assumptions from poor comprehension, please clarify?

The other members conditional respect quote" Some people (I am one) do not respect individuals who have repeatedly shown they do not acknowledge my sovereignty as an individual. We are many. You will often find, in public gatherings, people who will not continue to respect you if you repeatedly fail to."

I disagreed with it and do not acknowledge her sovereignty but I did not stop communicating.
I am communicating and I did not shut down communication .

The other members quote (not mine)has placed their conditions for their respect (that I acknowledge their sovereignty) I do not observe that condition and do not seek or need their respect.
I think big brother darkness that you have placed these conditions on my communications.
If In the event I stop communicating then we can talk about this "conditional communication".