= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stabilizer comments on Rationality Quotes February 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (482)
-The Last Psychiatrist
A lot of stories are about characters trying to fix problems in their lives, but to claim that this is "story" as a whole isn't really accurate.
You could gather a bunch of kids around a campfire and tell them how the Earth turns and the Sun rises in the morning when we rotate into its light, then it becomes dark as we spin away from it. If the kids didn't know this, they would probably be fascinated by it. This would have nothing to do with a character putting their life in order.
In order to innovate, it helps to find the most reductionist definitions of things that you can, so you can find new ways to do that thing. In the case of "story," it's more accurate to say that it's communicating a series of events that give people enjoyable emotions. You get a lot of potential emotions out of talking about people trying to overcome problems, but you also get some enjoyable emotions out of other things, like my example of the Sun lighting the Earth, which gives the feeling of satisfying curiosity.
Did you actually do this experiment in reality?
I also think that the kids would treat the Earth and the Sun as protagonists.
Some of the kids might do that out of habit, but the value of the story is independent of whether or not they do that, thus protagonists, while very common and very useful in storytelling, are not required.
Also, it's not a story. It's a fact. It might be a fascinating fact. But it's not narration.
Hi Cruetzer,
Stories can be factual. Those aren't mutually-exclusive categories.
I didn't mean to say that factual events cannot constitute a story in principle, although I see how you arrived at that implicature. When I said "It's a fact", what I had in mind was that that is the reason why you would tell it to children. Because you're not supposed to tell people things that are not stories and also not facts.
Hi,
You definitely can tell factual things to children (or people in general) in order to teach them about the world. But, you can also tell them factual things in order to let them hear something interesting or stimulating while they're bored.
Sort-of like how someone might tell you how their car broke down when they come in late to work. And if you go to a comedy club later, he might tell you about the same thing, but for a different reason: Because it's funny.
So when I bring up the sun-moon example at a campfire, I intend to mean it as being something that will draw the kid's interest (basically an emotional effect), and yeah, I imagine it as being told in a way where it is more like narration and describes thing in a more dramatic way. But since it's intended to create an emotional effect, and the factual nature of it is really much less important, I say that's a story, since the emotion effect is what I've found the core purpose of storytelling to be.
Hopefully I put that clearly.
That would be an example of a story without a protagonist. Your life has, by definition, a protagonist; you. it cannot therefore be a story without a protagonist. It might not be 'story' as a whole, but as long as you desire something, it seems to me that the story of your life will fit into that definition.
Hi CCC,
The story of your life would definitely include a protagonist. But I think there are other things we could agree would fit the category of a story (like perhaps "How the Universe was born" with an actual scientifically supportable account of the big bang), but which wouldn't have any type of human or living protagonist.
Hopefully this makes some sense.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. I can list several ideas for stories without a protagonist, as well; any physical process (e.g. the hydrological cycle) would do, amongst others.
My point was that, though these are stories, they are not and cannot be the story of a person's life (due to the lack of a protagonist). Looking back over my comment, I see it was a good deal less clear than I thought it was at the time, and for that I apologise.
Hi CCC,
I think we're on similar ground. But let me be clear, stories exist (according to my best estimates) to create positive emotions. So a physical process would be a story IF it was something you could or would tell to other people to interest them. Or, similarly, to thrill or excite them (I think some people would view stories about comets impacting planets etc as exciting).
You're right though that these definitely are NOT the story of someone's life. I was just trying to point out originally that the quote used the term "story" without any additional qualifiers when talking about a person and so on...and I wanted to make it clear that while it is VERY common and useful to use people or main characters when telling stories...it's not actually a requirement. And of course, knowing the core requirements and meanings for terms or ideas help us to think about those ideas clearly and use them properly.
Similar to what you said at the end, I know that my examples may not have been perfectly chosen, and I hope this helps. Like I said, this is my personal pet-topic and I'm looking into starting a series of posts on it, since I don't see much related to it here, and there are amazing things to be learned when you approach books, movies and other modern stories with rational tools to understand how they really work.
I think I agree.
Hmmm... some stories are written with the intention of creating negative emotions (sadness, anger, fear). While these are not the stories I enjoy, they do exist. And some stories are written with the intention of passing along information, not emotion (for example, to give a true account of some historical event(s)).
"Story" is a very broad term.
I'm perfectly in agreement with your second paragraph, and I do believe I would find such a series of posts interesting. One can learn things from books, yes, but one must be careful what lessons one takes away; not all things that fiction teaches are true.
Hi CCC,
Yes, there are stories that seem to have the sole effect of pissing people off. And there are also some rare people who write what they think are stories with the intent of making people angry or sad (fear in a lot of cases creates excitement or adrenaline, which is why a lot of people like horror movies so I can't list fear among the negatives).
But I think in the majority of those cases, if you speak to most of those people and look at their work, you'll find that their intent was, in their minds, to "educate" or "inform" other people. (though often these people don't have anything very insightful to really say), so their intent was to do something positive via negative means.
At the end of the day though, and here's an example of how my thoughts aren't coming out in a clear order, there's an important distinction here and I'm glad you found it to help me clarify myself. Stories exist, according to our modern usage, to create emotions, positive OR negative, but we WATCH stories to get positive emotions. When we get overall good feelings (whichever they may be, excitement, satisfaction etc), we will say things like "that was a damned good movie." And when we don't get those feelings, we'll say and think that it was bad.
A lot of people who write stories do so to create the negative emotions, and I think those people are confused and, if their goal is to be professional writers and build an audience, they're dooming themselves to fail. As I'm sure you can know from other fields, writing has many people who don't really understand what they're doing and don't think clearly about it and get bad results because of it.
As far as sad stories go, I do believe that one particularly famous example can be found in Romeo And Juliet (Shakespeare). Some people actually do enjoy a well-written sad story; there's even a whole page on tvtropes called "Downer Ending" which lists a lot of sad stories, some of which are actually quite well-written and thought-provoking.
I don't think they were all written with the explicit intention of being sad stories, though. I imagine that quite a few were written with the intention of, instead of provoking an emotional response, rather provoking some other response. For example, Flowers for Algernon (I don't know if you're familiar with it) is most certainly a sad story, especially near the end; but the intention seems to be to inspire thought and raise questions rather than to inspire emotion. (It also won a few awards; sad stories don't necessarily fail).
So, yes, while inspiring emotion is one reason to write stories, even a common reason, it is far from the only reason.
(I don't know the formatting yet, so when I use capitalized words here, I'm just doing it for emphasis, not to yell at you, of course)
Hi CCC,
That is a great thing to bring up, and very important. There are indeed stories, like Flowers for Algernon (or my favorite example, almost every episode of the original Twilight Zone), that quite clearly exist to give IDEAS instead of what appears to be basic emotions. And this leads us to one of the most eye-opening conclusions I ever had about storytelling.
You see...YES, some stories ARE primarily intended to inspire thought and raise questions, BUT...and here's one of the things that was a "eureka moment" for me...getting those new ideas...those inspiring ideas or things to think about...ALSO give us a positive emotion...and THAT positive emotion...a feeling I refer to as "enlightenment"...IS why those stories exist.
This is exactly why I say (and I'm sure others say) that a good scientist has to BE right, regardless of how he sounds, but a good storyteller has to SOUND right, regardless of whether or not he actually is right.
Quick example...THIS is why creation-myths are so popular as stories. They aren't actually RIGHT, but they are plausible enough to satisfy the curiosity of the ancient people who heard them. They wanted to know where the Sun came from. The idea that Horus created it (or a chariot pulled it across the sky), did the job for them nicely, so that story was successful and spread through the culture. If you had tried to tell them about gravity as a physical force, it wouldn't have involved things they understood, so it wouldn't have worked. It would've been fine for science, but would've failed to spread, interest and capture the imagination of the audience, which is basically what a great story does.
There are plenty of ways this applies, and lots of ways we get these feelings of new, useful or satisfying ideas from stories...but it is indeed one major thing that stories can do. But I hope I did a decent job here of describing how it fits with this idea of stories existing to generate emotion.
Which positive emotion is the story that you did tell in your post supposed to create?
Hi Christian,
The sun-and-moon story is intended to create the release of the pleasure-chemicals (I think dopamine) that we feel when we get a new idea or are exposed to new or interesting thoughts.
This feeling (I just refer to it as "enlightenment") is actually one of the strongest positive emotional experiences we can have. And that feeling, of an interesting or correct new idea, is what actually is important for the story to work. Whether or not the idea is true in reality is basically irrelevant.
Hopefully this makes sense.
Your post was not about selling the sun-and-moon story but about telling a story about how stories create positive emotions.
If you want to understand stories you don't learn much when you only focus on the kind of stories that you see on TV, read in fiction books or tell at campfires.
Start investigating the stories that you tell other people. Start investigating the stories that you tell yourself. As far as strength of stories I don't think the sun-and-the-moon story in the form you told it is very strong.
I do have the experience at being at NLP seminars (Bandler line, the line after Grinder is less narrated). There you have people who tell stories that take away someone's phobia of spiders without the person noticing. Other stories did affect me on a physical level in a way where I switched from having my body weight from being in the inside of my feet to being at the outside of my feet.
Apart from the experience of NLP I did QS press work that about telling a story. After doing it for half a year I found myself giving a talk in front of 300 hackers at the Chaos Computer Congress. In addition I had brought along 3 journalist to cover it for their documentary about measurement in general. Two of them do the core documentary and the third was the camera man.
Dealing with the energy that flows when you throws yourself into a bigger story isn't easy. I did things like giving an interview for two hours knowing that the journalist picks less than one minute of what I say. Doing that and not saying details that I don't want in the story is mentally challenging.
Most of my Lesswrong posts aren't heavily narrated. On LW I focus on trying to communicate intellectual ideas instead of focusing on telling stories. I do sometimes add narration into a post but not at the expense of intellectual depth.
If you want to understand stories take a look at my latest LW post about stories: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jly/on_straw_vulcan_rationality/ahns . When you have got the first layer of the story, read it again and see what payload it contains besides the obvious message. It's a story that does a little more than just creating positive emotions (despite being narrated the post is all true facts).
Hi Christian,
I'm focused on any type of story that causes a positive reaction from people or spreads among people. I personally have found it to be wonderfully complex and have learned an incredible amount studying this.
Let's not misunderstand each other. I didn't say that it was a strong story, that goes into a list of multiple things that stories can do for us, that would be enough for a number of discussions...and strong stories do many things from that list. I only provided a single example to try to isolate one thing, which is that stories don't require protagonists.
Well firstly, neuro-linguistic programming is speech. It might overlap with stories, but it is not the same category. We'd have to discuss the actual nature of what was said to see if it fits the commonly accepted idea of a story (and of course we'll have to come to some reasonable definition). Also, we would investigate whether you enjoyed this experience, and if so we can see if you spread or shared what happened to you because of that enjoyment, which would bring us back to what I said about what makes stories spread or be successful.
I'm sure you're a very intelligent person with relevant experiences. Naturally though, I'm most interested in the ideas we're discussing, and the examples, logic and so on we can bring to it, as we can always be wrong regardless of what qualifications we have.
I understand totally. We always have to strike the balance between covering what we need and not saying too much. I certainly at times have this issue too.
Let me clarify my point here. Stories CAN do more than give you positive emotions (like give you actual true and useful information), but I hold that positive emotions are the primary thing they do, and play the major role in causing people to like stories and spread them to others, which are key to stories (and books, movies, storytelling speeches, myths etc etc) being profitable or just well-known and "successful."
True, but that is not the defining aspect of 'story'; nor is your scenario of a campfire. There's nothing stopping anyone from reading the phone book while sitting around a campfire, but that does not make it a story.
Hi Rolf,
You're free to read the phone book around a campfire, but no one would care. That's a key thing. Remember, I added that the kids (if they had curious minds and didn't know it) would probably be fascinated by it. If you ask google to "define story," the second definition you get is...
"An account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something."
Not that I necessarily think dictionary definitions are the be-all end-all authority in the meaning of our conversational terms, but it gives at least some indication that we don't NECESSARILY need a protagonist (though they are VERY VERY common and very useful). Instead, I think there's a second real purpose and definition of "stories" (and as I'm sure you gathered, I think it also dictates that some segment of the population tends to care about the story or want to hear it).
Obviously this conversation would require more space and I've been considered writing a bunch of posts (or a sequence? Not totally familiar with the terms yet) to go into it.
(lastly, I didn't vote your comment down)
My argument is precisely that it's not a key thing; you can have a story that nobody cares about or a non-story that people find deeply interesting. If you don't like the phonebook, make it a journal article describing a measurement of nonzero CP violation in charm mixing; I know any number of people who would find that extremely fascinating, but you just cannot call it a story.
Your account of why night and day exist would not meet this definition.
Hi Rolf,
You definitely can have a story that is uninteresting or fails. But they take the form of things that people WOULD care about. Likewise, you can have a computer that doesn't turn on, but it takes the form of something that WOULD if it functioned properly. Offering that value to people IS in fact the key purpose of a story, even if sometimes it fails to do so. I apologize if this isn't clear.
A scientific journal article, which I assume is your example, exists to communicate true information (though just like the bad story, they may sometimes be falsified). So a journal article that someone finds interesting would NOT be a story. But if that article was outside of that purpose, and existed to CREATE positive emotion though (not yelling at you just trying to emphasize and don't know the formatting yet), then it would be classifiable as a story.
That's the point I was trying to put across with the campfire-sun-and-moon example. You're telling it to interest the kids or entertain them (or scare them, make them laugh etc.). That's why we "sit around the campfire."
Lastly, the night and day example is quite clearly an account of how our cycles of night and day come to exist. It seems clear that this fits the second half of the definition.
I hope this helps to put things across.
Am I missing something, or is this almost a tautology? "Sometimes you will desire things. I don't know if you'll obtain them." Is there anything else that that quote says?
You are missing something.
The quote says that we seek the object of desire as a means to bring our lifes into balance. As a spoke lately about Eliezer in relation to story telling it means Eliezer is trying to safe the world from UFAI in order to fulfill his psychological need to bring his own life in order.
The way I imagine Eliezer he would tell you that you misunderstand him if you would treat him like he just wants to safe the world because he has a strong need to bring his own life in order. He might tell you that psychoanalysts are full of crap if they identify an imbalance in his life as a course for his quest to safe the world.
Most people are not seriously out in a quest to safe the world. If you believe in what the psychoanalysis textbook said you might ask: "What event happened that brought so much imbalance into Eliezer life that he went into the quest to safe the world?"