Thinking in Third Person

"Speak the truth of today and don't worry about tomorrow. If tomorrow contradicts today, tomorrow can stand up for itself."


When a student asked me why I forced him to write in the third person, I said something that surprised me, something I think is highly debatable. For that reason, I think it is a good idea to discuss it. After all, science advances through the process of elimination, why shouldn't the softer sciences?

I said, "We teach students to write in third person because we are hoping that they will learn to think in third person."

To begin with, to think in third person is ridiculous. We are always human beings, from a culture, from a father and a mother, from a hometown, and from DNA which, like a snowflake, has never been duplicated.

I think many of us think of objectivity like a light switch. Either we are objective or we are not. Either we are fair or we are biased. But it is not a light switch. Even if it was, postmodernism has reminded us that human beings don't have the ability to turn it on.

Instead of imagining objectivity like a light switch, what if we entertain the idea that it is a dimmer. Even if the switch is broken, even if it cannot get to total light or total darkness, compared to the alternative, it is much better to have your hand upon the switch.

That is what we hope to teach you.
This is a skill that does not come naturally; evolution doesn't prepare you to think like this. Presenting your ideas to diverse groups of people, people who do not share your culture, your parents, or your hometown, people who will not accept your ideas because of how you look or who you are, is how you prepare to think like this.

This is why writing about "boring" topics are better practice that writing about something you choose.
This is what businesses want from you, to think about a situation clearly. No one will pay you to keep talking about and thinking about yourself.









----------------------------------------

-Noone speaks Standard English
-Noone writes Standard English
-Everyone has a limited perspective
-Everyone has a biased perspective.
-Everyone writes from a birds "I" view.

-----------------------------------------------

The brain is a jump to conclusions machine.   Trying to explain one's thoughts in detail is one method of thinking more objectively.   A second method is by focusing on the evidence before creating an interpretation of the evidence.

Quotes from Thieves in High Places

by Jim Hightower

The Pedagogy of Riddles

In zen buddhism, the means to enlightenment, to transformational change, is solving an unsolvable riddle called a koan.

For example, "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
For example, "what is the color of the wind?"

All of their usual intellectual techniques are frustrated. The riddle is designed to have no logical answer. It is given by an authority figure, who confidently explains that it does have a meaning, that he/she knows the meaning, but that there is no benefit from being told the meaning.

the only benefit is from unraveling the mystery oneself.

Now the naive perspective thinks this is crazy. How could the answer not be the important part? And there are a bunch of typical attempts to avoid doing the work.

Well this is just like reading a novel to determine it's "meaning."

I've heard somewhere that Abraham Lincoln's favorite riddle went as follows: how many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?

The answer is four. What you call something doesn't change what it is... But by saying that so quickly, I changed one thing. Your level of participation. Your level of involvement.

Consider these points.
1. The phenomenon of teaching tales is prevalent in almost every culture.
2. We value ambiguity in literature. Why? Why don't we read Harry Potter books or John Grisham novels?