4 ms·

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 b

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.

saghm 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.