Question!

[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....

Comments

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Well, for clarity's sake you can choose to say "hearing things" rather than "auditory hallucinations" and save five syllables on the deal.

[conuly]

But that's not clear. EVERYbody hears things.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Not deaf people.

[conuly]

True. Actually, many deaf people DO hear things, it's just that the noise stays in the ears and never makes it to the brain.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Now we're getting into semantics and colloquialisms.

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.

[conuly]

Yeah, I know, but that doesn't mean I like it. In fact, I really really dislike it. Inexact language = more thought for me.

[deceptica]

Well, I think speaking to oneself is considered crazy because you generally don't actually say your thoughts out loud when you're just thinking them for yourself. You should be able to just hear them in your head. So when people talk to themselves, other people think something must be wrong with them. At least that's my guess.

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"

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I think it's in Tony Attwood's book, but it might be some other book on autism.

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.

[conuly]

I talk to myself all the time. That has nothing to do with insanity, just ease. It's simpler to speak to myself aloud than silently.

You Should Know

[yousuckinform.livejournal.com]

People have been saying this. Sorry :( (http://www.livejournal.com/users/mollisaur/502.html?thread=1782#t1782)

Re: You Should Know

[conuly]

Yeah, you already told me. I said it was cool. Now it's just silly, heading quickly towards Old Fucking News.

[thaumaturge.livejournal.com]

Most children speak to themselves quite frequently. It's really part of their development process as they gain an internal monologue. Nobody calls kids crazy when they do that, but normally it becomes internalized.

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.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Well, for clarity's sake you can choose to say "hearing things" rather than "auditory hallucinations" and save five syllables on the deal.

[conuly]

But that's not clear. EVERYbody hears things.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Not deaf people.

[conuly]

True. Actually, many deaf people DO hear things, it's just that the noise stays in the ears and never makes it to the brain.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Now we're getting into semantics and colloquialisms.

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.

[conuly]

Yeah, I know, but that doesn't mean I like it. In fact, I really really dislike it. Inexact language = more thought for me.

[deceptica]

Well, I think speaking to oneself is considered crazy because you generally don't actually say your thoughts out loud when you're just thinking them for yourself. You should be able to just hear them in your head. So when people talk to themselves, other people think something must be wrong with them. At least that's my guess.

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"

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I think it's in Tony Attwood's book, but it might be some other book on autism.

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.

[conuly]

I talk to myself all the time. That has nothing to do with insanity, just ease. It's simpler to speak to myself aloud than silently.

You Should Know

[yousuckinform.livejournal.com]

People have been saying this. Sorry :( (http://www.livejournal.com/users/mollisaur/502.html?thread=1782#t1782)

Re: You Should Know

[conuly]

Yeah, you already told me. I said it was cool. Now it's just silly, heading quickly towards Old Fucking News.

[thaumaturge.livejournal.com]

Most children speak to themselves quite frequently. It's really part of their development process as they gain an internal monologue. Nobody calls kids crazy when they do that, but normally it becomes internalized.

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.