Referring to oneself as "I" or "You"

[BaylorPRSer]

I was in my gym's sauna and introspecting last week and I had a thought that went like this "so you're in this situation with your mother".  For some reason it really jumped out at me that I used the words "you are" instead of "I am".  "I" is the correct word as it refers to the speaker, but "you" is also correct because it refers to the person being addressed.  Am I over thinking this?  It really took me away from what I was thinking about.  All I could think about was, "am I introspecting correctly?  Does this matter at all?  Why is it that "I" seems slightly more logical, but "you" feels more natural?"  

[shirgall]

One wonders.

 

The point of using "point of view" pronouns is to emphasize abstraction. If it feels natural to use second person pronouns because you want to feel like you are addressing someone else, even if that someone lives inside your head, so be it. Just recognize it for what it is, a way of insulating or distancing yourself from what is being said.

 

I have, in the past, pointed out the use of passive voice to avoid the appearance of direct action (and, therefore, culpability). It has similar utility.

[Pepin]

In introspection, its use can get a little confusing as you are often trying to look at yourself from an outside point of view. The process detaches you from yourself to allow for more rigorous scrutiny, so in such a state it makes sense to use "you".

 

There is also the grammatical point of the term "you" actually being a "one", like "you ought to speak up if you want to be heard" actually meaning a more general "one ought to speak up if they want to be heard".

 

It also makes sense in regard to IFS, aka the mecosystem. We are a combination of many parts, and these parts tend to communicate. We, the self, have little direct control over most of our thoughts and behaviors, which means we have a somewhat segmented interaction with other parts of ourselves.

 

For instance, most of the thinking I do has nothing to do with me. Most of the ideas and thoughts I have just come spontaneously from different parts of my brain. I didn't have any control of the process, it just kind of happened. When interacting with others I will act as though I am completely responsible for everything I say and do, mostly because I have can reject bad impulses, but I realize that the me I actually am in my head is not. Instead I am like the CEO of a huge company who mostly makes big decisions and reject bad ideas. I am also quite good at deep and complex thought.

 

Even without that context, talking to yourself in a third person sense is very common.

 

Negative self talk tends to be phrased with "you" instead of "I". "You're a failure, give up", "if you approach that girl, you are just going to make yourself look dumb", "if you would have spent more time studying you wouldn't be in this situation".

 

I tend to find myself talking to my body when it doesn't want to cooperate. Like, "come on legs, do that thing you usually do", or "why is my hand shaking?". This is because I don't associate myself with being the cause of the behavior.

[ParaSait]

One wonders.

 

The point of using "point of view" pronouns is to emphasize abstraction. If it feels natural to use second person pronouns because you want to feel like you are addressing someone else, even if that someone lives inside your head, so be it. Just recognize it for what it is, a way of insulating or distancing yourself from what is being said.

 

I have, in the past, pointed out the use of passive voice to avoid the appearance of direct action (and, therefore, culpability). It has similar utility.

Nail on the head. This is exactly why I sometimes speak from the "you" or "we" person as well.

[J. D. Stembal]

We are swimming in our mecosystems at all times, so it's sometimes difficult to sense the emotional difference between I and you. We often treat other people as extensions of ourselves. This is a pillar of statism. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander.

 

How do you feel when your neighbor is playing his stereo loudly at 2:30 in the morning? You are likely seeing his behavior as blatantly disrespectful because he is an extension of you within your own mind. How could he possibly decide to act in contradiction to your wishes?

 

The self doesn't automatically make the connection that your neighbor isn't a part of you and has his own identity. He exists in his own mecosystem and likely sees you as an extension of his own consciousness.

[BaylorPRSer]

"one ought to speak up if they want to be heard" that should actually say if "he or she wants to be heard" instead of they, correct? Just a grammar sanity check for myself, not super important haha.  

 

Good stuff guys.  So I guess 'I' is in a sense, the self.  However, your hands are separate from the self.  The self can interface with different organs via the nervous system, but they are not the same thing.  In the IFS sense, your parts are separate from the self and the self can interact with these parts.  Because they are separate, then we can say it's likely that when one thinks "you are/were" that it is the self communicating with one or more parts (you can also be plural).  A part(s) separate from the self ("I") is being addressed, so you makes sense.  Could "you" also be a part doing the talking and the self would be an addressee.  "You" would also make sense in that context as well.  Also, "we" would make sense in that context if multiple parts are addressing the "self".  I'm worried I'm going to tangle myself up if I think about this too much haha.

[ribuck]

"one ought to speak up if they want to be heard" that should actually say if "he or she wants to be heard" instead of they, correct?

 

You are technically correct according to traditional grammar, but "they" is now accepted just about everywhere as an alternative to "he or she".

[BaylorPRSer]

We are swimming in our mecosystems at all times, so it's sometimes difficult to sense the emotional difference between I and you. We often treat other people as extensions of ourselves. This is a pillar of statism. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander.

 

How do you feel when your neighbor is playing his stereo loudly at 2:30 in the morning? You are likely seeing his behavior as blatantly disrespectful because he is an extension of you within your own mind. How could he possibly decide to act in contradiction to your wishes?

 

The self doesn't automatically make the connection that your neighbor isn't a part of you and has his own identity. He exists in his own mecosystem and likely sees you as an extension of his own consciousness.

Would you say that although we don't automatically differentiate between our self and our parts it can be learned through self knowledge?  Once you've developed this could you then get better at accepting the reality of others acting in ways that you don't like?