back
16 comments
I wrote a post about public speaking (amazingly, I'll refrain from self-promoting it here /s ) and part of that was reviewing other "advice" on speaking.

One of the things they almost always say is, "tell a story."

The problem is that everyone does it these days. You're listening and thinking, "oh, he's telling a story now."

Maybe the New Yorker's moved on, but for years, their standard template was,

1. Introduce a person A who does X

2. Expound on X, occasionally mentioning A

3. Finish the story about A.

> The problem is that everyone does it these days. You're listening and thinking, "oh, he's telling a story now."

I think there's something about the human brain that is hardwired prefer things that are framed as stories. It's only natural that this practice should be widespread.

Yeah, it IS useful. You don't want to be too obvious about it, though.

It's like hand gestures when speaking. Yeah, they're important, but you don't want to look like a robot, either.

That's not just the New Yorker, you see it all over.
Great piece. "How efficiently it enables us to forget to look up and ask: What is it that story does not allow us to see?"--that's a good guideline for critical reading and thought. The trend of narrative leads to journalism by individual anecdote, and that's a sign to keep an eye out for spin and deception. It was a surprise to know that storytelling had its skeptics even in Plato's time. To improve understanding and to improve the lives of mankind, the world needs explanations with data, logic, a critical eye, and plausible causation--not stories.
I agree with the premise. Stories are powerful and can be used to effectively cage us into thinking in terms of simple lines ( and unable to see that there are multiple other outcomes ). Some stories are more potent than others. Some resonate more than others, but everyone recognizes their power.

The question naturally becomes why, all of a sudden, New Yorker would want to put a spotlight on this? Did the stories become a tool that has been used all too often? Did the wrong person harness the power of the story? Are wrong stories circling around?

One thing that I've noticed in recent years is just how good the general population has gotten at bullshiting.

Where before you didn't have too many teachers in this dark art of spinning any argument, the internet has given everyone a crash course into what arguments are easier or harder to combat.

This democratization I think ironically led to better arguing of worse concepts.

Maybe a critical mass is finally forming against bullshit.

> Maybe a critical mass is finally forming against bullshit.

Oh, this is surely not it.

The previous mass media has been reacting to the new distributed propaganda machines for a while already, in self-preservation mode. This article is just them trying not to be too confrontational for a change, because it backfired very badly.

I keep hoping that some anti-bullshit memes spread, but when that happens, you won't see them on the mass media for a while.

(And yes, I keep having to remind myself that protections against mass media appeared only after a pandemics of crimes against humanity it helped creating from the WWII to the 80's, and in only very few formats mostly useless against most problems. It's not a given that anti-bullshit memes can spread at all. The future is a dangerous place.)

>The question naturally becomes why, all of a sudden, New Yorker would want to put a spotlight on this?

You're suggesting a degree of coordination/calculation which I'm not sure exists here. Someone felt this would make a good article, the editor agreed, the end. Does there need to be more to it than that?

I would guess that it’s because the current approach is no longer working as well as it should as the gap between the political class and citizens grows larger and the narrative appears less and less believable or comes off as nonsensical. This sort of narrative spinning is driven by the political class and is an essential element to keeping a grip on power or affecting change.
This is delightful -- a piece of comment-performance-art!

To any confused readers, consider the second paragraph in the context of the first.

"Stories are powerful and can be used to effectively cage us ..."

Stories are one rhetorical device that a service like boringreport.org can shield us from. But that certainly does makes content more boring, which leads to consuming less news. For me the opportunity cost of news is mostly too high anyway.

The internet has exposed us to more points of view than ever before.

The internet has also prioritized stories that get more clicks. Clickable stories have certain characteristics, including easy to understand morality (blame THEM, it's their fault!).

Headlines have trended towards the hate-click and the mystery-click.

If you think it's a good idea to actually engage with ideas, this is bad. Long-form periodicals are built on the premise that it's good to engage with ideas.

> Stories are powerful ... but everyone recognizes their power

I don't. What is 'power' and do all stories have it?

Hmm. Power is the ability to do what you will. Being able to convince people to your point of view is an extension of that. You truly do not think there is a connection between the two?

I do not want to assume, but have you considered why the movie tropes are so prevalent in the movie industry? Do you really think no one can think of anything new or.. there is a simpler explanation?

What a concise narrative that would be!