![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Why do people define "speaking to oneself" as crazy? If you're speaking to yourself, you're just thinking. I mean, that's all thoughts are, right, a way of communicating with yourself? Especially if your thoughts are in words, that's speaking silently to yourself.
It's when you're speaking to people who aren't there that we should worry, but that's not what anybody says. They say "speaking to himself", like that's something strange.
Oh, and what about hearing/seeing things? What else is one expected to hear and see other than things??? Why not just say "hallucinating", which is the actual word, or, if you MUST use a convoluted expression, try "hearing/seeing things which aren't there". Unless, of course, they are there, and we're the crazy ones who don't know that....
It's when you're speaking to people who aren't there that we should worry, but that's not what anybody says. They say "speaking to himself", like that's something strange.
Oh, and what about hearing/seeing things? What else is one expected to hear and see other than things??? Why not just say "hallucinating", which is the actual word, or, if you MUST use a convoluted expression, try "hearing/seeing things which aren't there". Unless, of course, they are there, and we're the crazy ones who don't know that....
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-20 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 10:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 02:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 07:32 pm (UTC)Once again, in my neck of the woods saying that someone is "hearing things" has the additional meaning that the "things" he/she is hearing may not be audible to everyone.
If I were to point out a sound that others may or may not have heard, I would say "I heard something."
When you criticize language for being inexact, you usually run up against colloquialisms sooner or later.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 04:01 am (UTC)As for "hearing/seeing" things, the simple answer is that people are lazy (as was already implied in the reply above this one) and will try to shorten and simplify things as much as possible. Sure, when you just look at the words like that it doesn't seem to make sense, but used in context people know what's meant 99% of the time, so there's no need to be more explicit.
"things"
Date: 2004-06-21 08:39 am (UTC)The example is "do you hear or see things?" The answer, of course, is "yes." For clarity, the shrink asks, "do you hear or see things that other people cannot?" The individual, being able to hear people talking from the other side of wall, and being able to see the flicker of almost all monitors, says "yes" again.
The imprecise nature of neurotypical communication, with all it's implication and entendre, isn't always easy for straightforward thinkers.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 10:09 am (UTC)You Should Know
Date: 2004-06-21 01:28 pm (UTC)Re: You Should Know
Date: 2004-06-21 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-22 08:13 pm (UTC)People probably perceive an adult who is "talking to themself" as crazy because that's what actual "crazy people" do. In many ways, "crazy" is defined as being detached from reality and talking to yourself--maybe even talking to people that aren't there--is a sign of being that way.
Natural language is not and never has been straightforward. Often it only makes sense within a specific social and cultural context. People understand perfectly well what you mean when you say "I see things." It's a statement that was never meant to be taken literally.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-20 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 10:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 02:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 07:32 pm (UTC)Once again, in my neck of the woods saying that someone is "hearing things" has the additional meaning that the "things" he/she is hearing may not be audible to everyone.
If I were to point out a sound that others may or may not have heard, I would say "I heard something."
When you criticize language for being inexact, you usually run up against colloquialisms sooner or later.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 04:01 am (UTC)As for "hearing/seeing" things, the simple answer is that people are lazy (as was already implied in the reply above this one) and will try to shorten and simplify things as much as possible. Sure, when you just look at the words like that it doesn't seem to make sense, but used in context people know what's meant 99% of the time, so there's no need to be more explicit.
"things"
Date: 2004-06-21 08:39 am (UTC)The example is "do you hear or see things?" The answer, of course, is "yes." For clarity, the shrink asks, "do you hear or see things that other people cannot?" The individual, being able to hear people talking from the other side of wall, and being able to see the flicker of almost all monitors, says "yes" again.
The imprecise nature of neurotypical communication, with all it's implication and entendre, isn't always easy for straightforward thinkers.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 10:09 am (UTC)You Should Know
Date: 2004-06-21 01:28 pm (UTC)Re: You Should Know
Date: 2004-06-21 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-22 08:13 pm (UTC)People probably perceive an adult who is "talking to themself" as crazy because that's what actual "crazy people" do. In many ways, "crazy" is defined as being detached from reality and talking to yourself--maybe even talking to people that aren't there--is a sign of being that way.
Natural language is not and never has been straightforward. Often it only makes sense within a specific social and cultural context. People understand perfectly well what you mean when you say "I see things." It's a statement that was never meant to be taken literally.