Seen, Heard, Valued: The Magic of Validation & Pronouns Are Weird! Here’s Why

Your snacking routine can get a little dull.

Time for a light and fit remix.

Like a crunchy storm of graham cookies,

caramel pearls, and dark chocolate,

showering down into a smooth, creamy yogurt.

Enjoy three light and fit remix varieties

with craveable flavors and up to 120 calories

and 10 grams of protein per 4.5- serving. See RemixYogurt.com.

Today on Something You Should Know, why are there different blood types? And do you know yours? Then the new science of validation, validating another person's experience. Validation is the single most important quality of any relationship.
It is as important as love, it is as central as empathy, and yet we rarely talk about it in those terms. Also, what hiring managers say should and should not be on your resume, and the strange world of English pronouns.
What is it about English that, you know, all little kids speaking English naturally say, him and me went to the park, and then you tell them, no, it's he and I went to the park, because you wouldn't say him went to the park. But then the question becomes, why is it that you always have to be taught that? All this today on Something You Should Know.

I know a lot of business people listen to this podcast because I hear from them on LinkedIn or in emails.

And if you're one of those people, there always comes that day when you have to hire someone, which I've had to do as well.

And it's tough.

Usually you need someone right away. You want to hire the right person, but how do you determine that? Which is why I've come to discover that when it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need.
Indeed has something called sponsored jobs. With sponsored jobs, your post jumps right to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster.
And it makes a huge difference. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs.
And that's what you want, more applications from relevant qualified candidates. Indeed works.
In fact, in the minute I've been talking to you, 23 hires were made on Indeed according to Indeed Data Worldwide. Look, there's no need to wait any longer.
Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com slash something.

Just go to indeed.com slash something right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast.

Indeed.com slash something.

Terms and conditions apply.

Hiring? Indeed is all you need.

Something you should know. Fascinating intel.
The world's top experts. And practical advice you can use in your life.
Today, Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. Do you know your blood type? You probably should, and I'll tell you why.
Hi, and welcome to another episode of Something You Should Know. There are four blood types, A, B, A, B, and O.
Blood types were first discovered in 1900, and the person who discovered them won a Nobel Prize for it in 1930. Yet here we are, over a hundred years later, and science still has no idea why we have different blood types.
However, knowing about blood types is what allows for life-saving blood transfusions. Earlier, doctors had tried blood transfusions, but unless they just happened to match up a donor and a receiver by chance who had the same blood type, or if the donor had universal type O, the patient would die.
Because your immune system knows your blood type and recognizes another blood type as an invader it cannot defeat. In 1952, some people were discovered to have no blood type at all.
It's called the Bombay phenotype, because Bombay, which is now Mumbai, is where the first people with this were discovered. It is very rare.
One in 10,000 people in India have this, and one in one million people outside of India have it. And people with no blood type must get transfusions from other people with no blood type.
Even the universal type O can kill them. And that is something you should know.
There's a term in psychology I know you've heard before. Validation.
To validate someone is to acknowledge their experience. It's not agreeing or disagreeing.
It's simply acknowledging the validity of what they believe. And it turns out to be a very powerful way to connect with someone and deepen the conversation and deepen the relationship.
So why does validation work so well? And how do you do it exactly? Well, here to discuss this is Caroline Fleck. She is a licensed psychologist, adjunct clinical instructor at Stanford University, and author of the book Validation, How the Skill Set that Revolutionize Psychology Will Transform Your Relationships, Increase Your Influence, and Change Your Life.
Hi, Caroline. Welcome to Something You Should Know.
Hello. Thank you for having me.
So I just explained what validation is from my understanding, but let me have you start by putting a finer point on that. Yeah.
So validation just communicates that you accept and see the validity in another person's experience. It's a way of showing that you're there, you get it, and you care.

And can you validate someone that you don't like, you don't agree with,

you have nothing in common with, can you still validate them?

Such a good question, yes.

In fact, I would argue that these are some of the most important times to validate someone.

Validation consists of some degree of being mindful, of understanding and empathizing with the other person. But you don't have to hit all of those notes.
If you can just be mindful, if all you can do is attend, that in and of itself can signal some degree of validation. It shows that you are engaged, that you are being nonjudgmental, that you are accepting what you are hearing.
That is different, very different from saying that you agree with what you are hearing or what the other person's position is. Ah, yeah, I would think that's a huge difference because I've had people tell me things that I certainly don't agree with, but I honor their right to believe and say what they believe and say.

Yeah, I think, you know, it even goes beyond that, actually. If we really want to be effective

in challenging somebody else's perspective, we cannot get there if we open with disagreement.

And I learned this, you know, kind of, I had a crash course in this through my work as a therapist, where you're working with folks who have extremely distorted thoughts, oftentimes to the point of like delusion. And I have to help that person change how they're thinking.
But in order to do so, I need a foot in the door. And so I have to be able to communicate some degree of acceptance.
And that is what validation allows me to do. And you do that why? What is the magic of validation? What does it do? Validation is the single most important quality of any relationship.
It is as important as love. It is as central as empathy.
And yet we rarely talk about it in those terms. But if one does not feel seen or accepted by another, it is very hard to have an intimate, close, trusting relationship with that person.
So I often think of validation as like the skeleton key, not just the key to change or the key to connection, but the skeleton key in that it fosters connection in all sorts of different relationships, in all sorts of different contexts. So it really is that critical.
And so can you give me some very typical everyday examples of validations? Because we've been talking about it as something that people supposedly know what that is, but what does it look like? Yeah, so validation can take all sorts of different shapes. Sometimes it's something you say, sometimes it's something you do, but some examples would be saying something to the effect of, well, anybody in your shoes would want a second opinion.
You know, after perhaps a friend tells you that they don't like their doctor and aren't sure about the advice they're getting. If you were to say, yeah, anyone in your shoes would doubt that.
I would get a second opinion, too. That's validating.
It shows that there is validity in the person's perspective, that they are not crazy for thinking or feeling whatever they're thinking or feeling. So if validation is so powerful, why don't we just do it naturally? Why don't we just kind of revert to that? We confuse it with agreement.
We worry that in validating some part of a person's experience, we will communicate that we agree with them.

And that is not the case.

So I'll take an extreme example of, say, working with a paranoid schizophrenic, as I have in the past, who thinks that I, as the therapist, am colluding with the government to, you know, read their mail and sabotage them.

I do not believe, I do not agree with that thought process.

However, if I was thinking those things, I sure as heck would not trust this therapist. I would withdraw.
I would not feel comfortable speaking to them. So if as the therapist, I say, listen, it makes total sense that you are distrustful of me.
I understand that you think X, Y, or Z. I can see if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want to open up either.

So with that, what I'm doing is really just validating that person's emotions.

Given what they are thinking, their emotions make sense.

I can focus on that part of their experience, validate that, just the emotions.

In so doing, I am not in any way validating their thoughts, i.e. communicating that I think it's logical or that I agree with the rationale, nor am I necessarily validating their behavior, which is another thing we get worried about doing.
So it allows me to narrow in on what is valid, what is the kernel of truth in another person's perspective.

Because instead, what we

tend to do is focus on what we don't like or what we disagree with. That is our innate negativity bias.
Validation forces us to do the opposite. It forces us to find and speak to the validity.
what are some ways, because most of us don't deal with schizophrenics or governments or anything, but just like in everyday life with my kids or my wife or my, like, how would validation, some examples like that would be really helpful? I'll give a really, a really personal example if that's okay. I was diagnosed with breast cancer, and actually right after completing the book, and I had to do the whole gamut of treatment, you know, mastectomy, radiation, chemotherapy.
And in that process, I lost my hair. And my daughter has felt that I am not the same person since I lost my hair.
As though almost like there was like a body swap situation. Like I am a fundamentally different person.
I am not the mom that she knows. This has been obviously incredibly painful for me.
I don't agree. I see some ways in which I've changed, but I love her dearly.
I am still her mother. And I have worked so hard this past year since I've been in recovery to rebuild that relationship with her.
And we've gotten to

such a better place. And just the other night, we were cuddling, and we were just having this really intimate moment.
She was saying how she'd missed me throughout the day. And then she said, mom, could you just be the old you for just a minute? Could you just try and be the old you? and it was like a dagger to my heart, right?

It's just, oh God, this disease has just, it just feels like it's taken so much. And in that moment, what I want to do is say, I am the same person.
Honey, I'm here. I'm your mom.
I love you. But what probably needs to happen there, what I know needs to happen there, is for her to

feel validated.

And in that moment, I'll be honest with you, it hurt so bad that I found myself saying,

no, baby, I am your mom.

I am your mom.

I don't know how to change to convey that.

And in that moment, I immediately realized

I'd invalidated her. She shut down.
She did not feel seen or heard. And so what I needed to do

was circle back around with her the next night as I did and say, last night, I shouldn't have

jumped in there and insisted that I'm your mom.

I know this has been really, really painful for you. And nobody else sees what you're seeing.

That must feel really lonely. And I get it.
It's almost like mourning someone,

right? Except you're the only one who sees that. That must be really scary.

And in that conversation, there was so much tenderness, so much opening up, and we were able to reconnect. And so that, I think, is the power of validation.
That's what it looks like when we're confronted with things that we really don't like and we see so much wrong with. We're forced to attend instead to the person behind those beliefs or those statements or whatever the case may be.
Well, that is such a great example, and I want to ask you a question about it. We're talking about the power of validation, and my guest is Caroline Fleck, author of the book Validation,

How the Skillset that Revolutionize Psychology Will Transform Your Relationships, Increase Your Influence, and Change Your Life. You chose to hit play on this podcast today.
Smart Choice. Progressive loves to help people make smart choices.
That's why they offer a tool called Auto Quote Explorer that allows you to compare your Progressive car insurance quote with rates from other companies. So you save time on the research and can enjoy savings when you choose the best rate for you.
Give it a try after this episode at Progressive.com. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates.
Not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy.

The basketball playoffs are here on PrizePix,

the best place to cash in on the action.

The app is simple. Pick more or less on at least two players for a shot to win up to

2,000 times your cash. Download

the PrizePix app today and use code

FIELD, that's code FIELD, and get $50

instantly when you play $5. That's code FIELD on PrizeP field and get $50 instantly when you play $5 that's code field on price picks to get $50 instantly when you play $5 win or lose you'll get 50 bucks for just playing guaranteed price picks run your game must be present in certain states visit pricepicks.com for restrictions and details so caroline that example you just gave a moment ago of you and your daughter, if I were in your shoes, it would never even really occur to me to validate what she was feeling.
I would rush to correct her why what she's feeling is wrong. Yeah.
So one of the biggest problems we run into, be it with our kids or our partners, is do I respond with problem solving or validation? Okay. Nine times out of 10, when people come to us with an issue, they're looking for some degree of validation.
They want to know that we get it, we see it. And instead, nine times out of 10, what we do is we problem solve.
So kiddo comes home having failed their spelling quiz, and they say, I don't know what happened. They're so upset.
They're crying. And our inclination is to problem solve.
Hey, you know, tomorrow on the drive into school, we can review the words, okay? Or not tomorrow, but let's say the next time you have a spelling test, we'll review the words on the drive-in so that they'll be fresh in your mind. Or maybe we can get a tutor.
Maybe that would help. So when we see our kiddos in pain, we want to change that situation.
We want to intervene in some way to prevent them from feeling that pain in the future. That's a disaster because in that moment, the kid is not looking for problem solving.
They just want to be validated. And so if instead I say, oh, you've got to be kidding me.
You must be so disappointed. You studied so hard.
That's so unfair. You'll start to have a very different conversation.
One that ironically or strangely enough may lead you down the path to problem solving at some point. Because once the individual trusts that you get it, they're exponentially more likely to listen to your ideas on how to fix whatever's going on.
So in any given moment, be it with our kids, our spouse, whomever, I try to slow down and ask, should I respond with problem solving here or validation? And that little pause is everything. It really is.
What happens when, what is it that happens when you validate me for whatever reason? What goes on in my head when I hear that? Yeah, it's a great question. And it kind of depends on the situation.
So we know that validation is almost like a natural sedative. It functions to decrease physiological arousal.
And so that increased heart rate and even things like pupils dilating that we may or may not be aware of, all of that calms down. And we start to, in calming down once we're validated, through that process of regulation, our brains become able to process more effectively.
We're able to listen better. Our memories are sharper.
All of that, all of that which gets shut down when we're flooded, comes back online once we've been validated. Yeah, it's like a magic elixir that just changes everything.
And it's so, from what you're saying, I mean, it's not hard to do if you just remember to do it. Yeah, that's right.
And I mean, magic elixir kind of, these sound like such extreme metaphors or examples, but really, that is what this does. I mean, that is why I am so passionate about it.
Like, validation revolutionized clinical psychology when it was introduced to the field some 30 years ago. and it did so because it is so powerful so I think it is a matter of just

helping more people understand the concept when it's needed and how to communicate it. I mean, I've heard of validation in this context for a long time, but is there like emerging science here or is this just kind of a tried and true method that people just don't use? That's such an interesting question to me because it was kind of new science back in the, say, 1990s.
So up until that point, and a lot of this stuff originated in clinical psychology, where you're trying to help people make changes when it's really difficult for them to do so for various reasons, right? So if you think it's hard to get someone to commit to a workout routine naturally, imagine doing so when they're severely depressed, right? Like those are the stakes that we're often dealing with when we're working with the clinical population. So what works in those cases tends to work amazingly in less severe cases.
And it was in the 90s that we started to develop therapies that coupled this emphasis on change, good habits, reinforcement, all these terms that most folks are familiar with, with a corresponding emphasis on validation. And it was once we combined that kind of acceptance with change that things really blew up in the field of clinical psychology.
So I would say that, you know, in the last 30 years, there's been a lot of research and science, but it hasn't gone much beyond that, although this sounds new to a lot of people outside of the field. I would imagine that one of the reasons people don't want to validate, as I think about people that I know, to validate is, it's not to agree with them, but it elevates their position.
It gives them some validation that what they think is correct. And I've been in situations with people where I don't feel like I want to do that, that I don't want to give them an inch of anything because I have my position and I think I'm right.
And yet, as I listen to you, I think it probably would be helpful to validate for all the reasons you've said, but it doesn't feel right. It is, again, it is that negativity bias, right? We're wired to focus on what we don't like or don't agree with, but that is on steroids when we perceive somebody to be a threat to us.
And so from that perspective, connecting, relating at all feels dangerous. And evolutionarily, we can see why that would be the case.
Yet, in everyday life, that very kind of basic, animalistic, I'm going to use those terms again, fight or flight way of responding or reacting to people isn't always adaptive or in the service of our goals, our values, or our relationships. But what I would say for you in the context of that situation, remember, you don't have to hit all of the notes of you're mindful, you're understanding, you're empathizing.
At a bare minimum, you can just attend. You can just copy, which is exactly what it sounds like.
You literally just repeat almost verbatim what another person has said to you. And the fascinating thing about copying is that it's an intervention we use as couples therapists in the context of conflict management.
So we will have, as couples are arguing, I might tell one partner to write down exactly what the other person is saying. Okay.
And I want you to just repeat it back to them. Don't add your interpretation.
Don't give your rebuttal. Just restate what they have said.
And then I will have them switch places. So the speaker becomes the listener and vice versa.
Let me tell you, that is one of the most powerful interventions. And I was shocked

by that. I did not want to, I thought this sounded very contrived when I was trained in this method.
But there is something about just being heard. And the fascinating thing about using those basic skills is that they actually foster understanding and empathy.
Copying in particular, we know functions to help us feel through mirror neurons, some of what the other person is feeling. And in so doing, we start to empathize and perhaps understand.
Well, I'm really glad we had this conversation because, you know, I have, and I'm sure everyone has heard about validation at times and how important it is, but I never really knew exactly how important it is or also how it worked and why it worked. And I appreciate you coming on and explaining this all.
I've been speaking with Caroline Fleck. She is a licensed psychologist and adjunct clinical instructor at Stanford University and author of the book, Validation, How the Skillset that Revolutionize Psychology Will Transform Your Relationships, Increase Your Influence, and Change Your Life.
There's a link to her book at Amazon in the show notes. Caroline, thank you for being here and explaining it.
Thank you so much. Have a great one.
Click fast and save big. Shop Blinds.com Spring Cyber Monday sale and elevate your space with new custom window treatments today.
DIY or let our pros handle everything from measure to install. Blinds.com makes upgrading your home easy with free virtual consultations, honest pricing, and free samples delivered to your door.
Shop confidently with our 100% satisfaction guarantee. Hurry to Blinds.com Spring Cyber Monday Sale now.
Save up to 45% with minimum purchase, plus a free measure. Blinds.com.
Rules and restrictions may apply. I didn't think the pain from the shingles rash would affect simple, everyday tasks like bathing, getting dressed,

or even walking around. I was wrong.
Though not everyone at risk will develop it, 99% of people

over the age of 50 already have the virus that causes shingles, and it could reactivate at

any time. I developed it, and the blistering rash lasted for weeks.
Don't learn the hard way,

like I did. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist today.
Sponsored by GSK. Imagine how many words you say or write every day.
And a lot of those words are pronouns. You know, he, she, we, they.
Pronouns. And despite what you might think, pronouns are a fascinating category of words.
All languages have some sort of pronouns, but English pronouns behave differently and have evolved differently than in other languages. Here to explain all this is John McWhorter.
He teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University, and he hosts a podcast called Lexicon Valley. John is the author of 23 books, including his latest, Pronoun Trouble, the story of us in seven little words.
And since you use these pronouns all the time, I think you will be fascinated by the stories he's about to tell you. Hi, John.
Welcome to Something You Should Know. Hi.
Thank you for having me. So, I get that you're a word guy, a language guy.
You like that. But why pronouns? Why single them out? Why single them out and talk about them as a group? I was interested in pronouns because English actually has, depending on how you count it, a compact collection of seven words that we use to replace nouns when we're speaking spontaneously and quickly.
We don't say the noun over and over again. And words have interesting histories and pronouns are included in that.
And pronouns change a lot from one stage of the language to another. And I think a lot of

people would be surprised at how English's pronouns worked in Old English as opposed to the way they do now. So give me an example.
What is so interesting about pronouns? Well, the funny thing is that, for example, we think that having just our word you to refer to both a single person and a bunch of people is normal. Nothing feels more normal than that to an Anglophone.
But the truth is that normal languages have one word for one you and then another word for two or more yous. Or they can even cut the salami thinner than that.
And certainly in earlier English, thou meant just one person. You was

not used for one person. It was used for two or more people.
And then both thou and you had different forms depending on whether they were subject or object. And in Old English, there was even one you used when it was only two but not more people.
There was a word yeet. And so you would have said thou, yeet, and you.
That's one, two, and then three or more second persons, so to speak. Now all we have is you.
English in the modern sense is a very telegraphic language compared to most languages when it comes to pronouns, but even earlier Englishes. So I can say you and talk to you, or I could say you and talk to a group of people, hundreds of people, and it's still you.
Whereas Chaucer would have found that bizarre. Exactly.
Do other languages find that bizarre? Yeah. I mean, really, if you think about it, if you try to learn pretty much any other language, Hindi is one exception.
But if you try your hand at French or Russian or Polish or Chinese or just about anything else, one of the first things you have to learn is that there is a word for you with one person, and then there's a word for you with several people, like tu in Spanish, and then you have, well, let's use French. So for example, tu in French is one you, and then vu is plural you.
Now there are all sorts of issues with how you toggle between the two of those, including politeness. And so, for example, in French, you can use vous, the plural one with one person, to indicate politeness and everything.
But the thing is, there is a tu, and that's the way languages are supposed to work. In Spanish, tu, and then, depending on what Spanish you're speaking, either vosotros or you've got ustedes or something for more than one you.
That's normal. It's English that's the odd man out in this sense.
So talk about I and me because I think people, well, I hear people get it wrong or what I think is wrong or maybe it isn't wrong. So talk about those.
Yeah, there's an issue with what we call subject and object in English. And it's based on the way Latin works, because the people who first formally described how English works were people who were in the thrall to Latin as one of the most wonderful and complex and elegant languages that had ever existed.
And we can understand their perspective. Travel was harder and Westerners, whatever you want to call that, were not as cosmopolitan as many of them are now.
But there was a kind of a Latin fetish. And so, we're led to think that I is the subject and me is the object.
And therefore, if you say Billy and me went to the store, you're making a mistake because me is an object form and you would never say me

went to the store. And again, it's understandable that people think that you're taught that by

people who take themselves quite seriously. But the truth is, it's always been a myth that English

has subject and object pronouns in that way that Latin does. And the idea that it does is something

that people created in the 1700s based on an idea that that's the way English must work.

But then the question becomes why is it that you always have to be taught that what is it about english that you know all little kids speaking english naturally say him and me went to the park and then you tell them no it's he and i went to the park because you wouldn't say him went to the park. When this is the issue, one, French works exactly that way.
You couldn't say Guillaume et je went to the park. You have to say Guillaume et moi, and nobody in French has any problem with it.
Why is it such an issue in English? And then also in a language like Spanish, which really does observe the rule that we're told, nobody messes it up. There's no error.
No kid would ever say Guillermo y me went to the park. Guillermo y yo.
They know to do it. Why is it that in English kids have such trouble and that people without a certain amount of education supposedly have so much trouble? The truth is that English works differently than Spanish and Latin, and it very much works.
There's a whole different rule, it's French's rule, that we're not taught. So there's a grand confusion about that.
And I openly understand that because we associate Billy and me went to the store with being kind of slovenly, we'll always have to correct ourselves to Billy and I went to the store in formal situations. But we should understand that that is as arbitrary as the fact that 125 years ago, men were running around in top hats.
You know, there was nothing necessary about it. That's just the way that it was.
But Billy and me went to the store, him and me went to the store, perfectly ordinary English that Shakespeare wouldn't have had any problem with at all. And yet, who says it's a problem now? I mean, just English teachers? Pretty much, because they were taught it by other English teachers.
And I think deep down, most of us feel it more natural to say me and Billy went to the store rather than Billy and I. We condition ourselves, and just like you learn to kind of put your legs together if you feel food about to fall down on the floor, but it's a conditioned reflex.
It's not how English really goes, which is why if you watch a bunch of kids breaking a lamp and then somebody asks you, who broke that lamp? You don't say, oh, they, even though they would be the subject, they broke it. Who broke that lamp? You say them, even though you would never say them broke it.
So the reason that we end up not learning this quote unquote rule is because you can't speak English without breaking it all the time. You have to say it was them.
You have to say them if asked who broke the lamp. If you knock on the door, you can say it is I, but you don't.
You say it's me, even though that me isn't an object. And so that's what kids grow up internalizing, and then they're told that they're breaking the rule to say me and Billy went to the store.
Really, me and Billy went to the store is because you say, who broke the lamp? Me. So we could have a more consistent rule, but, you know, life is never perfect.
The idea that we, in your example, me and Billy went to the store, and when you're corrected, it's not only that you change me to I, but you change the order, that Billy always goes first. It's Billy and I, not me and Billy.
Is that true in other languages? Does everybody else go first and you're at the end? I am aware of no language where that's the way it works. And what's really at issue with that sentence is, I and Billy went to the store.
Notice that it sounds like a Martian is speaking, but it shouldn't because after all, I is a subject. But in terms of the order of pronouns, it being based on that issue of respect, no.
Now, they're languages that do subject pronominal forms, if I may, to certain orders just because that's the way it goes. But it wouldn't be that the woman goes before the man or that you don't talk about yourself first out of some kind of courtesy.
And, of course, I do not control anything like every language in the world. But a linguist such as me messes around with a whole lot of them.
And I feel pretty comfortable in saying that grammar does not work according to formality when it comes to the order of pronouns. That would be quite unprecedented.
Is it completely up to whoever is speaking as to when to use the pronoun versus the noun? Is it just to mix things up? I mean, is there a proper way to do it or it just sometimes you use the name and sometimes it's he? Well, pretty much after you've used the name or you've named the thing, then you use the pronoun unless you need to clarify because the subject has changed and you need to go back to cases. But for the most part, pronouns are what you use to specify after you have made it clear what you're talking about, which means that we use them an awful lot.
They're very deeply seated. You could almost say they're not words, they're more things, they're tools, they're screws.
And it's the sort of thing that you end up writing a book about because they really do constitute a class of their own. You wouldn't write a book about adverbs.
They're not a distinct enough category. But with pronouns, they're their own thing.
Well, the thing that really drives me nuts about pronouns is when people, when there's two guys, right, or two women in the sentence or in the story. So he told him that he was going to, and I don't know who,

which he you're talking about. And, and then that gets confusing.
Are you talking about the, the Billy he or the Tommy he, and, and they know what they're saying, but I don't know what I'm hearing. Yeah.
English has an issue with that. And sometimes if you're talking about controlled language, such as writing, it's the writer's job or the editor's job to make that sort of thing clear.
What he do you mean or which her do you mean? I just read a very long nonfiction book by a brilliant person I'm not going to name, where that was a major problem. And for some reason, the editor didn't fix it.
And so I was always looking back to figure out which he would he mean, which Edgar, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But you know, it's interesting that part of the reason we have a problem with that is that English is just so impoverished.
There are languages where you would use two different words there for he, depending on the two of them. And you would be able to always know which he it was, because one of them came up first, one of them came up second, and you would use a different word.
English takes it light.

And that means that we end up having to use context and sometimes a little bit of kind of beard-pulling effort to figure out things like that. So is it your position that me and Billy went to the store is just fine? I mean, people may correct you, but it's okay to say? If I could wave a magic wand, I would make it that nobody felt at all bad about saying it, and nobody would say Billy and I went to the store at all, because it's modeled on a language we don't speak, which is Latin.
I can't always have what I want, but yeah, I find that to be a perfectly logical and even elegant sentence in English, where our rules about, quote-unquote, subject and object pronouns are just different from the way they happen to be in Latin. Talk about they, the singular they, the plural they.
It gets confusing and I have no idea what the rules are. Well, it's one of those things.
You look at they and you think about other languages that you may have learned and you think they is plural.

And therefore, to say something like tell each student that they can hand their paper in after five o'clock if they want to is wrong because a student is a single thing rather than a plural thing. But that singular they was something you can find as far back as, again, Chaucer.
chaucer been felt to be natural to say things like, a person can't help their birth, as Thackeray said in Vanity Fair, not a person can't help his or her birth or something like that. A person can't help their birth, because even way back in highly sexist times, there was an underlying sense that to say a person can't help his birth leaves out women.
You can pretend that it also includes women, and many people have, including some female grammarians back then. But it doesn't, and psycholinguistic experiments since then have shown.
So you want there to be a gender-neutral one. The pronoun we, well, talk about that.
Why is that, or where is it? It seems like that's fairly non-confusing. Yeah, we's kind of the boring one because we kind of keeps to itself and there's a whole lot of drama about it.
But it's interesting, the little corners that it pops up in. And so, you know, now it's time to take our pill, you say to one person.
And the reason that you say our pill is because you're trying to soften the blow by making it seem like it's something the two of you are involved in together. The person who's making you do it is kind of pretending that they're going to suffer as well.
And so, we use we in that way to indicate a kind of softening or politeness that, frankly, normal languages like French and Spanish use other pronouns often for. And so that's why you call one person vous, to kind of soften the blow so that you're not kind of up in their face.
English can't do that the way those languages do it. And so we have stealth ways of doing it.
And one of those things is, you know, let's take our pill or give us a look at how much money you got. Two criminals might say in a novel.
I'm thinking specifically of one by Joyce, but just by chance. You could find this in America, too.
You know, give us a look. And what the person means is give me a look because you already know what's in your hand.
But again, that is less blunt than saying, let me see what you've got in your hand. Give us a look implies that you're sharing the experience that you're not asking just for yourself.
So we use we in that way. But it's an interesting little pronoun in that its history is very obscure.
You can trace the other ones back pretty neatly. We is not always that clear, especially where we as opposed to us comes from.
But it's subtle how subtle we can get how much have pronouns changed and and how likely are they to change like english is always evolving but pronouns seem to be with few exceptions seem to be pretty rock solid yeah pronouns don't change easily And so they do change, but they resist it, especially because they are so deeply seated. Old English was different in that there was not only yeet, meaning you too, but there was also a we too, as opposed to we three.
It was wheat. And so there was wheat and yeet, and you had thou and thee, and you had a he and a she and a they, and the they was semi-sensitive to gender back then.
There was kind of a female they in some dialects. But for the most part, what you had was there was I-ness and we-ness, and then there was thou-ness and you-ness, and now we just have the you-ness, but still.
And then there was he, she, it, and they. And so, it's not utterly unrecognizable.
The word for she was, the word for she was heia. We would have no idea what an old English speaker was saying if they said heia was or something like that.

But in general, it was it was the same basic plan, whereas the rest of English has changed so much that it's a completely different language.

Old English might as well be German, whereas modern English is modern English and is not really very much like any other language in terms of a lot of the things that have happened to it. But the pronouns are, you know, they're recognizable for the most part, and that's because pronouns are kind of rock solid.
What was that word for she? Heia, believe it or not. Spell it.
He was he, he, and then she was hea. And so, H-E for he, H-E-O for she.
But it wasn't pronounced hea-o, it was pronounced hea. Isn't that weird? That was she.
And the two of them sounded a little alike, and so there were some dialects where people were just saying hea for both he and she. But that was not embraced as a gender- neutral pronoun.
They wanted there to be a female pronoun back then, a feminine pronoun. And so they brought in a word that had originally meant that and was used with things of feminine gender in the sense of in Spanish, la luna.
And so the moon for some reason is feminine, the moon is a girl. Well, Old English worked that way too, like normal European languages too.
It's modern English that's abnormal. So there was a word for that that you used with, you know, the moon, so to speak, except I don't think moon was feminine in Old English.
But that word came down to us as she. But originally what it just meant was that feminine gendered thing over there.
So when I think of Old English, I think of words like thee and thou, and, you know, we have words for, you know, there's old English and there's new modern English. And so when did that change? I mean, was it just a very gradual, because thee and thou seems like, what's wrong with them? We don't use them anymore.
Yeah, thou and thee just kind of dropped out. Thou was subject, thee was object.
Then they collapsed together, and a lot of people were using thee for both, especially here in America. And then they just went away.
We used to be able to draw a distinction between both singular and plural, and also there was an issue of politeness. And so you might refer to a single person as you to indicate politeness.
So I want to ask you about you guys. Women and maybe more girls, younger girls, younger women will often be referred to as a group, hey, do you guys want to go do something? And it's all women.
Guys used to mean males, men. But guys seems to have now become just a way of saying this group of people over here and i wonder like when did that happen when did that change it doesn't seem like it was that long ago that guys took on this new meaning i have found one piece of evidence of it from as far back as the 50s so it's not as as brand new as many people think.
But on the other hand, no, nobody was saying you guys with women in, say, 1870 or even the flappers in the 20s, etc. But it is occasion and controversy because it's really settled in.
And I think also because alongside it has come the same women saying dude to each other. So there's this issue.
Why are women talking to each other like men as if they were men? And I think a way of looking at it is that those words are just no longer gendered. When somebody says you guys and it's among women, those women do not mean you men.
Guys has just completely lost its mojo in that sense. But there is controversy over it.
Well, because guys and gals seem to be at one point kind of equal words for the same, you know, different genders, but the same thing. But gals has just disappeared.
Nobody says gals anymore. No, it's a quaint word.
It's kind of like perky. Gal is kind of the way you look back to the 50s, 60s or 70s.
And partly because it was highly feminized and a little bit dismissive. You know, gal kind of implied somebody who had a little bit less of a place on the totem pole than a guy.
And so I can see why it's falling away. Well, I think words are fascinating and really how English works and how we, you know, make it work and what's proper English and what isn't.
I always find it fun to talk about. I've been speaking with John McWhorter, who teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University, and he is author of the book, Pronoun Trouble, the story of us in seven little words.
And there's a link to that book at Amazon in the show notes. John, thanks for coming on again.
Thank you very much for having me. Are you happy with your resume? When you're putting your resume together, it makes sense to know what prospective employers are looking for.
And according to Entrepreneur Magazine, here are some things to remember. The most important thing HR managers are looking for in a resume is relevant experience.
If you don't have experience relevant to the job you're applying for, you're probably doomed. They also want to see that the resume was tailored specifically for the job.
Generic resumes don't work very well unless you're just posting it to a job board. Specific accomplishments are far more important than vague claims of your talents.
Key words like problem solving, leadership, team building, these are all good to include in your resume. Your resume should be well organized, machine readable, and have clear contact information.
What managers don't want to see are typos, references, not yet, they'll get to that later, and they don't want to see a lot of irrelevant detail. For example, if you have college experience, you don't also need to list your high school education because you wouldn't have gone to college if you hadn't gone to high school.
And that is something you should know. If you enjoyed this episode and you're not yet a follower of something you should know, the app that you're listening to this on has a follow button so that you will get episodes delivered to you when they become available.
So click on that, become a follower, and then you'll never miss another episode. I'm Mike Carruthers.
Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know. I'm Amy Nicholson, the film critic for the LA Times.
And I'm Paul Scheer, an actor, writer, and director. You might know me from The League, Veep, or my non-eligible for Academy Award role in Twisters.
We love movies, and we come at them from different perspectives. Yeah, like Amy thinks that Joe Pesci was miscast in Goodfellas, and I don't.
He's too old. Let's not forget that Paul thinks that Dune 2 is overrated.
It is. Anyway, despite this, we come together to host Unspooled, a podcast where we talk about good movies, critical hits, fan favorites, must-sees, and in case you missed them.

We're talking Parasite the Home Alone.

From Grease to the Dark Knight.

We've done deep dives on popcorn flicks.

We've talked about why Independence Day deserves a second look.

And we've talked about horror movies, some that you've never even heard of, like Ganja and Hess.

So if you love movies like we do, come along on our cinematic adventure.

Listen to Unspooled wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget to hit the follow button.
Have you ever heard about the 19th century French actress with so many lovers that they formed a lover's union? Or what about the Aboriginal Australian bandit who faked going into labor just to escape the police, which she did escape from them. It was a great

plan. How about the French queen who murdered her rival with poison gloves? I'm Anne Foster,

host of the feminist women's history comedy podcast, Vulgar History. Every week I share the

saga of a woman from history whose story you probably didn't already know, and you will never

forget after you hear it. Sometimes we reexamine well-known people like Cleopatra or Pocahontas.

She's going to be able to do this. the saga of a woman from history whose story you probably didn't already know and you will never forget after you hear it.
Sometimes we re-examine well-known people like Cleopatra or Pocahontas sharing the truth behind their legends. Sometimes we look at the scandalous women you'll never find in a history textbook.
Listen to Vulgar History wherever you get podcasts. And if you're curious the people I was talking about before, the Australian woman was named Marianne Bug and the French actress was named Rochelle.
No last name, just Rochelle. And the queen who poisoned her rival is Catherine de' Medici.
I have episodes about all of them.