In the realm of expressing thoughts and opinions, I have identified two forms: Externalised and Non-Externalised. Externalised expressions convey concepts as independent of the speaker, while Non-Externalised expressions rely on the speaker's personal factors. It's important to note that the chosen expression style does not definitively reveal the speaker's true perception. One can still acknowledge their personal characteristics while attempting to justify an externalised perspective. The effects of these expression styles, regardless of intent or inner thoughts, are worth considering.

Non-Externalised expression places the speaker at the forefront, making their personal viewpoint relevant. For example, saying "I don't like country music" reveals information about oneself, and the speaker's musical preferences may be more pertinent than the genre itself. It opens the door to discussing personal reasons and preferences, as the topic begins with the speaker's emotions, experiences, and interpretations.

On the other hand, Externalised expression shifts the emphasis onto the subject and the argument, distancing it from the speaker. Responding to an externalised expression often involves sharing one's own view, agreeing or disagreeing, and engaging in topic-based discussions. It discourages questions that divert from the argument and focus on personal circumstances or experiences because they are not directly related to the judgment being made about country music, for example.

Each form of expression impacts the applicability and relevance of the speaker's position to others. Externalised expression presents concepts as objective, introducing them independently of personal criteria. For instance, saying "Country music is bad because it's too slow and boring" conveys a potentially less subjective judgment. The language used is akin to describing feelings in a more objective context.

In contrast, Non-Externalised expression, such as "I don't like the pacing of country music because I prefer a faster tempo," removes this ambiguity. Preferences do not qualify as objective reasoning. Although Non-Externalised expressions can still be forceful, Externalised expression inherently carries a stronger force due to its establishment of concepts as potentially objective. By stating "X is better than Y" instead of "I prefer X to Y," the speaker implies that their position reflects an objective perspective. Depending on the context, this could lead to the implication that those who enjoy country music have bad taste or should not enjoy it.

One's reaction to someone holding a different view may vary based on whether Externalised or Non-Externalised expression is used. In an Externalised expression like "Country music is bad because it's too slow and boring," disagreement may be perceived as rejecting the entire argument, rather than simply expressing a different viewpoint. There might be a desire to challenge the notions of "slow" and "boring" to undermine the argument. This ambiguity is absent in Non-Externalised expressions, where one cannot disagree with someone's preference for faster-paced music but can only accept their subjective experience.

Furthermore, the choice between Externalised and Non-Externalised expressions can influence one's perception of their own opinions. Justifying an Externalised view may unintentionally lead to more objective reasoning, considering it as a position on the concept rather than an expression of personal feelings. In response, discussions may naturally shift towards the topic and the validity of arguments. Contexts where Non-Externalised expression is inappropriate tend to be more objective, leading individuals to default to treating Externalised expressions as more objective as well.

These are some general thoughts on the influence of expression styles on communication and thought. While definitive conclusions on these effects may remain elusive, I still think it's worthwhile to consider these kinds of topics, even if we can't really pinpoint how much of an impact they have.