[HN Gopher] If you can't tell a story about it, it isn't real
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       If you can't tell a story about it, it isn't real
        
       Author : azhenley
       Score  : 51 points
       Date   : 2023-06-21 15:50 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (surfingcomplexity.blog)
 (TXT) w3m dump (surfingcomplexity.blog)
        
       | Spivak wrote:
       | The missing piece is that there is a, to me, well meaning effort
       | to not publish these out-of-narrative stories because their real
       | life effect is pouring gasoline on other hate. With covid there
       | was so much avoiding talking about China being the origin because
       | there was a hoard of people frothing at the mouth waiting to
       | justify their hate. It's the whole reason respectability politics
       | exists.
       | 
       | You see it with everything, some people are murderers, rapists,
       | thieves, jaywalkers, but when people of certain demographics are
       | caught the story spreads like wildfire after a drought -- "see
       | see we told you they were horrible people!!"
        
       | anonymouskimmer wrote:
       | Posted by the same submitter a couple of days ago:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36387187
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | Freedom2 wrote:
       | This seems like a shallow article. I have an intelligent,
       | switched-on colleague who is also a great friend. If that
       | colleague, who has a hard time expressing themselves due to
       | factors outside of their control, cannot tell a story about
       | something that they have uniquely experienced, it isn't real?
       | Ridiculous.
        
         | CyanBird wrote:
         | This article refers to public messaging, not personal one to
         | one discussions by specialized individuals with specialized
         | training
        
       | pjs_ wrote:
       | Two things that are real but aggressively story-resistant are
       | quantum mechanics and the self-stability of bicycles.
       | 
       | Tens of thousands of pages have been written in an effort to
       | provide an intuitive, natural-language story about what is
       | happening in a double-slit experiment, but every one of them is
       | broken. Of course the math is simple and
       | superposition/entanglement are real, but none of the stories are
       | good.
       | 
       | Similarly, when you push a bicycle with no rider, it recovers
       | from a partial fall surprisingly well - but there's not a good
       | story about how. Stories are told regarding various real effects
       | such as gyroscopic forces, the rake of the fork, caster effects,
       | and so on - but it is also possible
       | (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1201959) to build a
       | bicycle which inverts each of those effects and is still
       | categorically self-stable - at that point it is hard to tell a
       | good story.
        
         | omginternets wrote:
         | I'm not sure what you're suggesting -- that seeking narrative
         | explanations is wrong, or that the models we have of
         | bicycle/quantum-mechanics are wrong?
        
           | AlbertCory wrote:
           | I don't think he's "suggesting" anything. He's noting that
           | two phenomena are resistant to story-telling.
        
             | nomel wrote:
             | This idea that there's an agenda for every observation
             | seems to have started in the past 10 years. I find it very
             | strange. It really shackles the mind, and conversation.
        
               | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
               | I notice my mind tends to think this way as well.
               | Thinking about _why_ I will think that usually yields
               | recollections of people making  "innocent" observations
               | while they clearly had ulterior motives; such memories
               | are in-person events, not this sort of interaction
               | online. That said, it's easy to (read: difficult not to)
               | apply similar heuristics to online interactions.
               | 
               | Not to excuse it; I agree with your conclusion. Hopefully
               | such an understanding can help people to be patient with
               | the behavior despite the annoyance.
        
           | rhn_mk1 wrote:
           | The parent didn't make any suggestion that the models are
           | wrong. "the math is simple" means that not only does the
           | model work, it's also simple to calculate. That leaves the
           | interpretation that seeking good narratives will sometimes be
           | fruitless.
        
         | johnpublic wrote:
         | there's a quantum interpretation that is fairly easy to
         | explain, it's called Pilot Wave theory. It posits that quantum
         | effects are caused by a something akin to a bouncing ball
         | creating a standing wave. This leads to phenomena associated
         | with both wave and particle. Interestingly the theory fits
         | available experimental data, as far as I am aware.
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory
        
       | theonemind wrote:
       | As someone into Buddhism, I'm more in the "if you can tell a
       | story about it, it isn't real" camp. The 180 degree polarity just
       | struck me as amusing.
        
       | kristopolous wrote:
       | Not everyone is story oriented or needs them.
       | 
       | There's this presumption whenever I read this argument that every
       | person is story dominant.
       | 
       | Sure, many people need captivating stories and poorly comprehend
       | statistics and orders of magnitude. You probably need stories to
       | reach a majority of people. The cinema is more popular than
       | abstract math classrooms.
       | 
       | But some people are different. They don't watch TV, movies,
       | Netflix or read fiction. They live fully productive lives without
       | being constantly enraptured in melodramas.
       | 
       | These people will read a story and think "bullshit bullshit blah
       | blah". Don't forget about those people as well. They're often the
       | ones put in control of the money.
        
         | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
         | I wonder how much this difference can be observed between
         | academics with a Math major and those with a History major.
        
           | kristopolous wrote:
           | It probably maps less cleanly than you imagine. People are
           | complicated.
        
         | TeMPOraL wrote:
         | I think this is about different kind of stories. Not
         | "captivating stories" and "melodramas". More like... whatever
         | it is one would produce if asked to ELI5 something.
         | 
         | Like the two cases 'pjs_ mentions[0] - double-slit experiment
         | and the self-stability of bicycles. In both cases, we know it's
         | a real thing, and it's easy to demonstrate it. In the double-
         | slit case, we even have a relatively simple mathematical model
         | describing the phenomenon. But try to explain why either
         | happens to a random person, without ending up at "the math says
         | so" or "look, we've tested it many times; it just works like
         | this", and... well, that's the story many (most?) of us seek to
         | understand something.
         | 
         | --
         | 
         | [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36422981
        
       | rapatel0 wrote:
       | I don't know what this means or what value this framework
       | provides.
       | 
       | Literally any random sequence of events is a story. That doesn't
       | have any bearing on it being true or false.
       | 
       | Example:
       | 
       | - I was hungry
       | 
       | - so I ate a sandwich
       | 
       | - Then I took a shit.
       | 
       | - Then cows started flying.
       | 
       | Completely fabricated and not real. (I had oats today)
       | 
       | Also, "Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 on Earth." Not a story a but
       | definitely true and explainable to the average person.
        
         | Gordonjcp wrote:
         | > Also, "Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 on Earth." Not a story a but
         | definitely true and explainable to the average person.
         | 
         | Okay, so explain it, what does it mean?
         | 
         | Don't use a story though.
         | 
         | Pretend I didn't do physics in high school.
        
         | barelyauser wrote:
         | >>Also, "Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 on Earth." Not a story a but
         | definitely true and explainable to the average person.
         | 
         | This can only be explained with the aid of a story. Gravity
         | being this thing that results in this falling to the ground and
         | so on.
        
         | jstarfish wrote:
         | It's not about truth, it's just a reflection on packaging and
         | presentation of ideas. You're taking it too literally.
         | 
         | The argument boils down to anything you can't explain doesn't
         | exist, which is shortsighted and pseudointellectual. It's an
         | Agile project manager's understanding of Story. A top comment
         | mentions physics, and I would suggest the concept of mental
         | illness and "hurt feelings" also qualifies.
         | 
         | We don't understand a fucking thing about psychology (the field
         | is rife with fraud and psychiatrists are no more effective than
         | shamans), though there are clearly problems that exist within
         | people's brains. Schizophrenia is very real to the afflicted,
         | yet they can't coherently explain their experience. That
         | doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Whether it's True or Real or not
         | isn't really the point.
        
         | AlbertCory wrote:
         | > Literally any random sequence of events is a story. That
         | doesn't have any bearing on it being true or false.
         | 
         | The author didn't say any set of events is true or false. He's
         | remarking on how people _want_ a story to explain things, which
         | is what Hollywood thrives on.
         | 
         | And how things that don't easily lend themselves to a story
         | tend to be ignored.
        
       | AlbertCory wrote:
       | The article is bemoaning this tendency,not celebrating it.
        
       | ajuc wrote:
       | What human brain is good at: chains of causation with clearly
       | defined relationships. I.e. stories.
       | 
       | What human brain is bad at: fuzzy mess of thousands or billions
       | of interrelated events that all influence each other slightly.
       | 
       | This is the reason we have to use machine learning to find a
       | program that seems to solve OCR or natural language or image
       | recognition instead of just writing these programs ourselves. We
       | cannot comprehend the complexity, we can only recognize if it
       | works roughly how we want it to.
        
         | interroboink wrote:
         | I sort-of agree, but maybe not on the term "human brain".
         | 
         | I think there is definitely something (or several things) in
         | that brain that is _extremely good_ at fuzzy messes of
         | correlations. It 's just not the conscious mind that maybe some
         | people think of as their "self".
         | 
         | After all, those difficult image-recognition and language tasks
         | _are_ carried out by the human brain, even if we can 't explain
         | how they work in the "explainer" part of our mind.
         | 
         | Tangentially related, I find the split-brain experiments
         | fascinating[1], in how they demonstrate clearly that there can
         | be multiple "consciousnesses" at work, and the one that does
         | the talking is only one of them, and is not necessarily running
         | the show.
         | 
         | [1] example, with interviews with a patient:
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv4K5aStdU
        
           | ajuc wrote:
           | Yeah, should have said the conscious, abstract thinking part.
           | 
           | We also have coprocessors for intuitive physics, face
           | detection, inverse kinematics for muscle movement, etc. And
           | even some virtualization so we can simulate other people
           | minds.
        
       | crummy wrote:
       | I like the idea that incident reviews should include a gripping
       | retelling of events to ensure we remember the lessons from it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-06-21 23:02 UTC)