Tiny Machines
Write a new F(x)
Stories work as functions inside the brain. Something goes in, a process occurs, something comes out. The types of functions vary. The best ones draw a direct line between an object and an idea, a cause and effect.
Positive stories give us hope (both in the moment, and as a guide for future problems). Clever stories give us new ways to attack tricky problems. Sad stories give us a strong desire to protect and cherish those we love.
Hume-an nature
Our brains crave explanation, even ones we suspect are wrong. Each story accomplishes a task of associative reference—sometimes specious, sometimes supererogatory—but always an influence. We cannot help it. We group and associate causation even if we doubt the reliability of the claim. As Hume said, in 1740
“Causality is the cement of the universe.”
Eisenstein’s montage
When we see two events, we can’t help but try to string them together into a narrative. Film theorist Eisenstein described this in his montage theory, which basically claims that we have no choice but to try to make a story from separate scenes, even when the combination proves absurd.
If we see a man look out a window, and then we see a view, our brains stich this together and imagine the view to be what the man saw (even with no other direct “proof” and even against contextual logic). This happens because we must work around the edit to reconcile the narrative whole in the same way a child discovers object permanence (the toy does not disappear when hidden under a blanket, any more than a parent disappears during a game of peek-a-boo).
If we doubted the solidity of a narrative every time the camera cut, we’d either only have movies with no breaks, or lose the pleasure of the cinematic apparatus as it takes us on a journey of projected subjectivity (we love to imagine ourselves as others—heroes on the move through adventures and strife).
Fill in the blanks
We create stories out of partial experiences. Our brains simply fill in the blanks; we imagine/invent/construct whatever evades perception. We guess. We speculate. We assume (even with only the tiniest amount of actual information) that we know the facts.
Structure and details
When we hear stories, our brains are exposed to both the details of the stories and the story structures. Take two of the most common literary stories with positive outcomes: Man in a Hole and Boy Meets Girl.
Man in a hole
Ordinary man, ordinary day. Something goes wrong. He struggles to get his life back. He emerges transformed.
Boy meets girl
Ordinary man, ordinary day. Meets someone wonderful. Something happens, loses her. Gets her back again.
These positive story structures live in our minds as ready architecture for partial facts that emerge in our lives. We encounter a problem (man in a hole) and we expect to solve it, somehow, someway.
We meet someone (boy meets girl) we expect it to turn out well, even if challenges arise along the way.
We apply our experiences (and story structures) to every new experience in life, even if the past has limited usefulness to inform what we should do next.
