Thinking in the third person: A mark of expertness?

<span>The observation that publication manuals disagree about the desirability to use the third person is explained by arguing that the third person detracts from communication at the surface structural level of linguistic encoding but adds to experts' thinking at the deep structural leve...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Guido Peeters
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Ubiquity Press 2004-12-01
Series:Psychologica Belgica
Online Access:http://www.psychologicabelgica.com/articles/164
id doaj-3c4b9d248f044280ab97bca17885052e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3c4b9d248f044280ab97bca17885052e2020-11-24T23:53:50ZengUbiquity PressPsychologica Belgica0033-28792054-670X2004-12-0144424926710.5334/pb-44-4-249164Thinking in the third person: A mark of expertness?Guido Peeters0Catholic University of Leuven<span>The observation that publication manuals disagree about the desirability to use the third person is explained by arguing that the third person detracts from communication at the surface structural level of linguistic encoding but adds to experts' thinking at the deep structural level of cognitive organization. At the deep level, the third person is defined in terms of processing information defined over relations between entities with the restriction that it is ignored whether relations are reflexive (with self) or non-reflexive (with others). Research is reviewed suggesting that reflexivity is not ignored by default, and that ignoring it facilitates a kind of "depersonalized" thinking reminiscent of the natural sciences and expertness. An experiment is reported confirming that perceivers tend to draw inferences that take reflexivity into account, except in a condition where stimulus information is related to the perceivers' expertise. In the latter, condition inferences are drawn in both ways: either ignoring or not ignoring reflexivity.</span>http://www.psychologicabelgica.com/articles/164
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Guido Peeters
spellingShingle Guido Peeters
Thinking in the third person: A mark of expertness?
Psychologica Belgica
author_facet Guido Peeters
author_sort Guido Peeters
title Thinking in the third person: A mark of expertness?
title_short Thinking in the third person: A mark of expertness?
title_full Thinking in the third person: A mark of expertness?
title_fullStr Thinking in the third person: A mark of expertness?
title_full_unstemmed Thinking in the third person: A mark of expertness?
title_sort thinking in the third person: a mark of expertness?
publisher Ubiquity Press
series Psychologica Belgica
issn 0033-2879
2054-670X
publishDate 2004-12-01
description <span>The observation that publication manuals disagree about the desirability to use the third person is explained by arguing that the third person detracts from communication at the surface structural level of linguistic encoding but adds to experts' thinking at the deep structural level of cognitive organization. At the deep level, the third person is defined in terms of processing information defined over relations between entities with the restriction that it is ignored whether relations are reflexive (with self) or non-reflexive (with others). Research is reviewed suggesting that reflexivity is not ignored by default, and that ignoring it facilitates a kind of "depersonalized" thinking reminiscent of the natural sciences and expertness. An experiment is reported confirming that perceivers tend to draw inferences that take reflexivity into account, except in a condition where stimulus information is related to the perceivers' expertise. In the latter, condition inferences are drawn in both ways: either ignoring or not ignoring reflexivity.</span>
url http://www.psychologicabelgica.com/articles/164
work_keys_str_mv AT guidopeeters thinkinginthethirdpersonamarkofexpertness
_version_ 1725468329566535680