
Speaking to yourself in the third person makes you wiser - prostoalex
https://aeon.co/ideas/why-speaking-to-yourself-in-the-third-person-makes-you-wiser
======
oneepic
Related anecdote: I've always found that I'm able to make clearer judgments
about situations, when _someone else_ is going through them. It's much harder
when I'm the subject of the story.

I guess the difference is that your mental context is so much more developed
when you're thinking about yourself (not in the 3rd person). You have skin in
the game, maybe it's that you're worried about the outcome of the situation,
or it's just stressing you out, or you're thinking about how it will affect
your friends/family/the rest of your life. So when you view it from an
outsider's perspective, and throw away all that mental "noise", you have a
clearer head and can make better decisions with the long-term in mind.

Alternatively, if you're going through something, you could try imagining
someone else in the same situation (make up someone if you have to) -- What
advice would you give to them? Then use that advice for yourself.

~~~
will_pseudonym
Definitely agree. A couple of mental models I sometimes adopt to look at my
situation more objectively:

* Thinking about what I would do as a parent if my child was in the same situation as I am

* View myself as a video game character (in the 3rd person, looking from above), and thinking about what I would do if I was controlling this character in a game with the same rules as life

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Those are fantastic little self-hacks - thank you for sharing.

Currently looking down on myself and my advice to my games avatar is stop
using HN and go to bed.

------
iandanforth
An important caveat for Psychology studies is to ask, "If the participants are
told exactly what is being measured, do the results stay the same?" If the
answer is "No" you should question the validity of the study.

Here for example, if you tell people that "intellectual humility; taking the
perspective of others; recognising uncertainty; and having the capacity to
search for a compromise." all lead to "emotional wellbeing, and relationship
satisfaction" just prior to taking the test, would that effect size be similar
to intentionally omitting that information and having people journal for four
weeks?

As far as I can tell there was no informed control cohort in this study.

~~~
nine_k
A lot of psychological studies measure effects invisible to the participants,
often masking the real experiment as a technicality of a fake experiment that
the participants know about.

It is well-known that "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good
measure."

~~~
dgellow
> often masking the real experiment as a technicality of a fake experiment
> that the participants know about

That’s a common trope, but as far as I understand, based on discussions with
friends who are in the domain, studies based on deception will in general be
blocked by ethic committees (at least in Germany).

Don’t quote me though, I’m not in psychology myself, and may not know what I’m
talking about here :)

~~~
Shoop
Based on what my friend (who is running a small psychology study) told me, non
harmful deception is allowed so long as you explain the deception in the
debriefing of your experiment. This is in the US.

~~~
acjohnson55
Can confirm, as someone who has been a voluntary subject a couple times. But
it's kind of weird, because deceptive design is so typical that I find myself
speculating what the real study is while being studied.

~~~
dgellow
> I find myself speculating what the real study is while being studied.

Faire point. I’m wondering how much studies are impacted by that in reality.
Is there a known way to kind of estimate/mesure?

------
reggieband
The results from this study are interesting but I am even more interested in
the definitions of wisdom. I've been ruminating lately on the difference
between knowledge (narrowly defined as a set of facts) vs experience. The most
tortured analogy would be someone who has spent a lifetime reading books about
swimming vs. a person who has spent all of their life swimming in
pools/rivers/lakes. I realize this a non-standard and narrow definition of
knowledge but I hope it is possible to bear with me since I can't think of a
suitable synonym to separate phenomenological experience from book learning.

It does seem that our conceptions of intelligence are related to
facts/knowledge more so than experiences. Intelligence appears to be a
facility to collect, organize, analyze and draw conclusions from a set of
facts. In that purely analytic view of intelligence, knowledge is highly
prized. However it seems to me wisdom is more closely associated with lived
experience. For certain, there does seem to be a rough distinction between
someone we consider "knowledgeable", someone we consider "intelligent", and
someone we consider "wise".

This supposes there is some aspect of phenomenological experience that is
inherently different than the collection of facts and further some aspect of
cognition separate from the organization and analyzation of facts. I am very
interested in the sorts of things that separate my previous distinctions:
knowledgeable, intelligent, wise. Could we realize a Turing-like test for
wisdom?

~~~
galaxyLogic
Knowledge is a set of facts.

Wisdom is knowledge about which facts are useful in which circumstances for
deriving new facts which are useful in said circumstance.

In other words wisdom is the ability to use facts to a good purpose.

~~~
yesenadam
>Knowledge is a set of facts.

This view, very common in the 20th C and beyond, is exposed and (I think)
demolished in Oakeshott's essay _Rationalism in Politics_ [0]. The
_rationalism_ he's talking about (which he says almost all political parties
in the West nowadays espouse) is precisely believing that _knowledge is a set
of facts_. That all knowledge can be written down in bullet points, and
taught.

Yet most knowledge cannot be. If I know how to ride a bike, to play a musical
instrument, to do any complex activity well, most of what I know cannot be put
and wasn't learned in such a form. It's "know-how", practical knowledge,
distinct from the kind that can be put into words, "know-that".

Let Oakeshott speak for himself a little:

"The second sort of knowledge I will call practical, because it exists only in
use, is not reflective and (unlike technique) cannot be formulated in rules.
This does not mean, however, that it is an esoteric sort of knowledge. It
means only that the method by which it may be shared and becomes common
knowledge is not the method of formulated doctrine. And if we consider it from
this point of view, it would not, I think, be misleading to speak of it as
traditional knowledge. In every activity this sort of knowledge is also
involved; the mastery of any skill, the pursuit of any concrete activity is
impossible without it. These two sorts of knowledge, then, distinguishable but
insep­arable, are the twin components of the knowledge involved in every
concrete human activity. In a practical art, such as cookery, nobody supposes
that the knowledge that belongs to the good cook is con­fined to what is or
may be written down in the cookery book; tech­nique and what I have called
practical knowledge combine to make skill in cookery wherever it exists. And
the same is true of the fine arts, of painting, of music, of poetry; a high
degree of technical knowledge, even where it is both subtle and ready, is one
thing; the ability to create a work of art, the ability to compose something
with real musical qualities, the ability to write a great sonnet, is another,
and requires, in addition to technique, this other sort of knowledge.

Again, these two sorts of knowledge are involved in any genuinely scientific
activity. The natural scientist will certainly make use of the rules of
observation and verification that belong to his tech­nique, but these rules
remain only one of the components of his knowledge; advance in scientific
discovery was never achieved merely by following the rules..."

[0] 1962. It's very readable, everyone should read it. It was embarrassing how
much I learned from it. I even learned a lot about teaching music from it.

~~~
chousuke
I wouldn't call the skill to ride a bike "knowledge" even though English does
conflate that which you know with that which you can do.

The reason I want to make the distinction explicit is that the conflation
makes it easier for people to be confused about what they know; after all,
they would "know" how to ride a bike, right? Yet, most people would probably
be stumped (at least for a while) if you asked them what it actually takes to
ride a bike.

You can be very skilled at something without having all that much knowledge
about what you're doing.

~~~
galaxyLogic
Correct, I think. We don't really "know" much about how to ride a bike because
we can't really explain it or teach to others by explaining it. It is a skill,
not knowledge.

Of course, words only mean what we intend them to mean. But we are striving to
arrive at definitions of concepts which most people can readily agree on.

~~~
yesenadam
Well, you and the GP might find it interesting to read _Rationalism in
Politics_ , where what you see as just correct and reality, he describes as a
recent error/insanity that's infected the world. (I really can't do his
argument justice here.)

------
hirundo
D.A. Freccia: You're a pretty smart fella.

Joe Moore: Ah, not that smart.

D.A. Freccia: You're not that smart, how'd you figure it out?

Joe Moore: I tried to imagine a fella smarter than myself. Then I tried to
think, "what would he do?"

\-- Jim Frangione, Gene Hackman, Heist (2001 film)

~~~
dhbradshaw
This can be a real thing.

Sometimes our performance is less about our actual ability than it is about
the role we're currently playing. Taking a different role can lead to stronger
outcomes.

As a basketball and soccer coach, I've noticed the way that team mates will
improve their game when the dominant player is missing for a game. After
consideration, I've decided that there's a bit of a social component to how
well they choose to play -- perhaps they hold back a bit to avoid messing with
the pecking order.

Recently I've been experimenting with imagining myself stepping into the role
of heroes of mine (my father and my step father, actually) while I lift heavy
weights. It seems to help me let go of some of my restraints and lift harder.

~~~
tareqak
I wonder if major league sports are aware about this effect? Is that why some
of their star players have injuries so often? I don’t follow sports at all,
but star players becoming injured is a news item that sort leaks into more
general news to the point of being cliché.

~~~
dredmorbius
Perceived frequency = incident frequency * report frequency

What's the random vs. nonrandom variable?

~~~
tareqak
Thanks to you 'dredmorbius and 'brokenmachine for reminding me about perceived
frequency. I was trying to get at whether or not the rest of the team starts
playing harder when the players higher in the pecking order are way.

------
arnioxux
The most damaging advice I ever got in my life was to talk to myself.

I have always thought in mostly visual/symbolic terms. This made me really
good with math early in my life, but it started failing when I began proof
writing. Then I got the advice to "explain the problem to yourself and the
solution will come naturally" from a friend who is really gifted at
mathematical proofs. (And also later received similar advice in programming in
the form of "rubber duck debugging").

Surprisingly, it works remarkably well and probably increased my problem
solving skills tenfolds, or at least my ability to communicate the answer. I
started using it for everything.

But it comes with the side effect of gaining a voice in your head. And that
voice is a fucking vicious asshole to me. In the recent years the thoughts
even started subvocalizing and I have to forcefully remember to make it stop.
It's super embarrassing when there are other people around you.

I am sure this problem is unique to me because I have never heard someone
describe it (other than partially matching symptoms of schizophrenia or
tourette). But I am certain in my case when the voices started and I am not
sure the superpower problem solving skills are worth the trade.

~~~
lone_haxx0r
The only issue I have with the voice in my head is that it makes me read
slowly, because I have to imagine the sound of the word instead of its meaning
only.

~~~
dylan604
This was the actual advice I was given when proof-reading text I had written.
Reading it in your head allows your brain to auto-correct issues in the text.
Reading it out loud is supposed to slow you down to "disable" the auto-
correct. It's not perfect, but I definitely found and could correct more of my
mistakes before submitting the text.

------
_Microft
This example came to my mind:

"I can't get involved in it, you know. One thing I didn't want to do was make
an emotional decision and I wanted to do what was best for LeBron James",
LeBron James talking about himself in third person,
[https://youtu.be/yrd9T-hny84?t=14](https://youtu.be/yrd9T-hny84?t=14)

~~~
saghm
What's weird about that is that it mixes first and third person; it sounds
like "I" is supposed to be someone different from LeBron James", which makes
it sound really strange to me.

~~~
taneq
I think it actually perfectly describes what he was trying to communicate, and
I've seen this construction a few times before. He's saying that he had to
think of himself as a third party and consider the wellbeing of 'that person'
in order to make a rational decision... sort of a corollary to the article's
point.

~~~
buu700
I would say that in practice LeBron James (celebrity) is effectively a
separate entity from LeBron James (human), with overlapping but distinct goals
and interests. LeBron may be the "CEO" of and largest stakeholder in the
celebrity entity, but the final product presented to the world (basketball
games, interviews, social media, movies, video games, trading cards, etc.) is
going to be an amalgamation of numerous people's contributions.

In this sense, it's worthwhile for him to make a distinction between the
celebrity entity's image/profitablity and his own personal happiness, as well
as a distinction between his own personal thoughts/actions and those of the
collective "LeBron James" celebrity.

This idea isn't specific to celebrities (except insofar as most people would
be smaller operations or "sole proprietorships"); one's mind and the legal
entity of one's self are clearly different things — the latter of which may
incorporate contributions by accountants, lawyers, relatives with power of
attorney, etc. At a more basic level, anyone can at least make a distinction
between itself and its body's interactions with the rest of the world.

~~~
nefitty
Thanks for this description. It made the mental shift easier to empathize
with. Individuals do constitute so many external and internal influences. It
seems it could be helpful to think of each expression of our selves as a
product, or a plant, that we have the power to consciously cultivate.

------
mirekrusin
Really? Feels too close to cultivating schizophrenia. Why not keeping youself
as "I" in inner dialogue, add "what the fuck did I just do?" or "what would
somebody else think in their head?" questions more often if you think you're
not objective. If you really want to put yourself in somebody's shoes, why not
do it temporarily and run the dialogue as I=them? I think changing your inner
dialogue to 3rd person can have further reaching negaitve consequences. I
haven't run any study to confirm it, it's just a feeling, but arguably they
haven't as well because 4 week test with single culmination test won't find
any issues after a year or two, what if it increases negative schisophrenic-
like behaviour tenfold?

~~~
godDLL
> "what the fuck did I just do?"

Made me think of the perceived difference between an I, a You and a We in this
context. Try it.

If someone asks you what your stance or beliefs are on a subject, doesn't
explaining "I think..." or "It seems to me..." put you through something
emotionally? Now try third-person, isn't "Joe doesn't like that kind of thing"
actually feel different to say? Isn't it less emotionally taxing, easier to
get through?

How about "what's next for us, Self?", better/easier than "how do I feel? What
am I up to?". I think so.

Or, better yet, "/me agrees".

------
buboard
It also makes you sound important

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tPGc9lYFyZ0](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tPGc9lYFyZ0)

~~~
godDLL
I R baboony.

------
gitgud
Good comedian's do this too. They might tell a funny story (that _they_ were
involved in) from a 3rd person perspective. This allows them to approach a
situation from multiple people's perspectives.

It makes for good comedy because it show's how each character's view/opinion
could be misconstrued and humorous depending on their context, prior knowledge
and stereotypes...

------
acjohnson55
I wonder if this is a reason people find prayer so meaningful, aside from any
metaphysical/supernatural beliefs. Though I've left organized religion and am
probably some sort of agnostic theist, I still occasionally pray. I don't ask
for outcomes anymore, as it's pretty clear to me that tragedy and fortune
visit the pious and impious all the same. Yet, it brings me some comfort and
clarity to externalize my hopes, fears, and joys, all the same. Perhaps our
rich, egoistic inner life as humans is really useful for the steady-state of
the systems we've invented for ourselves, but unsuited for navigating
disruptions. For that, we created mechanisms to dissolve our fragile egos and
externalize our thinking.

------
QuinnyPig
To be fair, speaking to yourself is the second person; speaking about yourself
is the third person.

~~~
solumos
I disagree - the audience of one's speech doesn't necessarily dictate point of
view.

I can tell myself "I can do it!", "You need to settle down", and "solumos
needs to remember to lock the back door" without breaking any rules.

------
mberning
Do many people speak to themself in the third person? It seems kind of odd in
my opinion since we usually think of people that speak about themselves in the
third person as being self absorbed, eccentric, or both. I do often take on
the role of a third party in my own thoughts. For example, if I am fixing
something on my house and not 100% sure of the results. It may seem ok to me
or my wife, but then I think of the previous owner (a very meticulous person
named Tim) and think “what would Tim have to say about this”. Then I proceed
to scrutinize things from their perspective. It’s not really the same thing,
but I think it serves a similar purpose and doesn’t seem so internally
awkward.

------
almog
Given that I find it natural to use second person (singular) pronoun for the
"voice" in my head, I find it weird that only second and third person pronoun
(sigular) were part of the research.

~~~
taneq
What's the difference between second person singular and plural? I thought
they were both "you"?

I find I tend to slip between first person singular and plural depending on
what I'm doing. In particular, I always comment my code in first person plural
because it's a conversation I'm having with whoever reads the code.

~~~
almog
> What's the difference between second person singular and plural? I thought
> they were both "you"?

Didn't think about it while writing that comment, but my main language is
Hebrew, which makes this distinction in second person.

~~~
taneq
I did wonder if it'd be something like that. I learned something new today! :)

------
quotemstr
> In a series of laboratory experiments

Every single result in the social sciences ought to be considered false until
independently reproduced. There have been far too many failed replications
lately to take studies at face value, even when these studies are published in
prestigious journals. You should apply this skepticism even more assiduously
in cases where some study claims that one weird trick makes you a better
person.

No. Stop it already. Stop believing p-hacked nonsense. If it hasn't been
reproduced independently, it's a fairy tale.

~~~
nefitty
I agree with your sentiment. If the cost is minimal, and the potential gains
large, is it not worthwhile to try out for yourself?

~~~
quotemstr
Because self experimentation is very hard to blind properly and the cohort
size is tiny

------
russellbeattie
Russell thinks this might be a good solution for people who don't currently
(or maybe ever) have a significant other or a close best friend. Normally,
Russ likes to bounce ideas off his partner, but when he isn't in a
relationship, it feels like he's hamstrung when making daily decisions. He's a
little worried about seeming like a complete lunatic by talking to himself
though - especially if he starts to talk or write like this in public.

~~~
biggio
Russell is a wise guy

------
ggm
Talk to yourself in the third person, but talking _about_ yourself in the
third person to others is .. creepy. (and it is. It is just .. creepy "he
said")

~~~
biggio
What I was thinking exactly

------
petra
Anybody read the original research ?

If so , how big was the effect ? What are the stats ?

~~~
waynecochran
The article mentions the "research" which, even though I think self-
introspection is worthwhile, is extremely subjective and the self-measurements
would influence the results. I wish social studies like these had other terms
so that it wouldn't be conflated with real science.

~~~
slips
What would you classify as "real" science? Be cautious of dismissing research
because it doesn't fit into your personal definition of reality.

~~~
waynecochran
Quantifiable, repeatable, falsifiable theory that is peer reviewed and forms a
foundation for other theory. Physics is at the peak of hard science. Social
science is a worthy endeavor, but it belongs in a different category.

------
zw123456
When it comes to introspection or when examining yourself or working out a
problem, in my view, anything that gives you some level of objective
detachment can help. I can see where speaking in the 3rd person could be one
approach. Other people find that journaling and reading it back helps. Still
others find talking with an objective 3rd party (friend, therapist, etc.) is
helpful. For me, one trick I use is to pretend that I am preparing a
presentation of the problem to a group of people. I think this let's me
approach the problem in a methodical and objective way.

Everyone is different so the best thing I think is to try different approaches
and use what works best for you.

------
carapace
Robert Anton Wilson describes a process of using only the third person in
speech and thought for psychological change, and IIRC he got the idea from
Alestier Crowley, so the idea could be nearly a century old.

~~~
procgen
He also extolled the wisdom-widening effect of writing in E-Prime, a subset of
the English language that excludes all forms of the verb 'to be':
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime)

------
blue4
Seem to always remember this because I feel it opened my eyes to how much
speech can influence, but also assist you. I'm talking about Lebron James and
when he was going through his decision making in 2010. To stay in Cleveland,
with the hometown team who nurtured his career and it is home, or should he
sign on with Miami. For him to begin making an unemotional decision, he
distanced himself from the situation; at the time he was supposedly pressured
from many sides.

“I wanted to do what’s best for LeBron James and to do what makes LeBron James
happy.”

------
wwarco
I consider myself an introvert, but feel-good books like quiet are pandering.
Is this the same? I looked at the website. It looks like pandering next to
click bait in _insert your_ town. Look at the website. Sorry, if you talk to
yourself in the third person - take advantage of it. I talk to myself in the
third person constantly - don't need studies to prove that it's helpful. It
definitely helps me with presentations - rehearse and rehearse. Because, I'd
be considered crazy if I didnt.

------
crucialfelix
During an intense Vipassana retreat I was examining how my inner personality
was being projected and it suddenly fell away as unnecessary. I smiled and
internally said Chris has been releived of duty. For several days I perceived
my self non subjectively as a friend might see me. I observed my face in the
mirror as a third person. It's hard to describe the actual physical feeling.
We view ourselves through one hell of a subjective filter. It was a very calm
and real experience.

------
corysama
I am a very poor student of mindfulness meditation. But, one of the big
benefits I do recognize is practicing this strategy.

Have you ever watched someone screw up in slow motion? Where you sat back and
said “Duuuuude... don’t go there!” And, it went badly exactly how you knew it
would?

Wouldn’t it be great if you could practice doing that for yourself in intense
situations? That’s a lot of what mindfulness meditation can be about.

“Can be” because there are a zillion variations out there depending on where
you look.

------
tunesmith
I've always seen wisdom as the ability to reason well from moral axioms,
whether yours or others, to normative conclusions. If reasoning from the
axioms of others to normative conclusions you yourself would disagree with,
you've demonstrated the ability to understand their views.

Once you're able to do that you're able to engage in the synthesis of several
viewpoints to do things like conflict resolution, negotiation, leadership,
etc.

------
biggio
People who speak about themselves in the third person on their profile feels
like they have some kind of narcissistic personality.

------
delinka
How about speaking of oneself in the third person to others? Does this make
one _seem_ wiser? Or perhaps arrogant.

~~~
taneq
I actually misread the title to be this, and thought of all the Yoda-esque
'wise people' who do this in popular media. I think the actual post is much
more interesting, though.

------
noisy_boy
One thing watching Thai daily soaps has taught me is that nobody in Thailand
uses pronouns like "I" or "me" \- everyone just refers to them in the third
person by name as if there is a copy of them standing right there. I thought
it was totally weird but maybe they are just wiser :)

------
thrownaway954
Next time you are angry, upset, frustrated; say out loud to yourself, "Why is
<your name> angry?" and "What is making <your name> angry?" Start answering
those questions to yourself and I can guarantee that your anger will subside.

------
Iv
That's how praying works.

------
PaulHoule
I think it just makes you sound like a cute anime character:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImhfIv5NSqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImhfIv5NSqY)

------
kiterunner2346
I can only agree. But I thought the reason this worked was that it assured I
engaged the assistance of the brightest person in the room.

Aside: I wish I were joking.

------
dspillett
He'd throw a fit if I did that though.

------
k__
Interesting. I only talked to myself when I was depressed or when I was a
child.

------
ummonk
An exercise that has you expend extra mental energy to think about your
decisions results in you making better decisions. Duh.

I doubt the specifics of the exercise (thinking about it in the 3rd person)
are all that important, except inasmuch as it takes more mental energy to
think of yourself in the 3rd person.

------
oblib
Some of the comments and responses here provide huge insights about what it's
like to live with "voices" and ways that have helped manage them. This is
truly great information. I'm going to bookmark it and come back later and
spend some time learning.

------
zettaquark
I must be brilliant then, at least that's what the voices tell me.

------
jaybna
Jimmy and misunderstandings kinda clash

------
achu32
This is incredibly useful information

------
sebiche
It puts the lotion in the basket.

------
Apocryphon
Bob Dole, the Rock- is there any evidence that this thesis isn’t intuitively
correct?

------
crimsonalucard
Oh the irony. I always thought the people who do this were slightly insane.
Guess I'm wrong.

------
konart
So this is the reason I have so much gray hair in my early thirties!

------
cryptozeus
Imo “learning to be wiser” is an oxymoron

~~~
JadeNB
I think that the idea that wisdom is either innate or entirely absent is the
main reason that there aren't more wise people around. (Kind of the "I was
never any good at math" school of thought.) Wisdom is, and should be, a
learned attribute.

~~~
gallerdude
In fairness, learning implies a sort of intentionality to study something.
While math can be picked up with some hard work, in my experience, what a lot
of people call wisdom is just reflecting on your life and what’s worked and
what hasn’t.

~~~
sachdevap
I don't see why self-reflection can't be learned. It's a matter of building
the right habits and processes to make it a natural thing for your mind.

