Telling us a story.

[tar]

Stories are at the heart of human understanding.

 

The story an electron tells us when it hits our eye or equipment.

The story an authority figure tells us to teach us.

The story we tell ourselves to explain and plan our thoughts and actions.

The story we tell our teacher to explain our failures.

---

(some defintions from Google)

 

narrative: a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events; presented in writing or drama or cinema or as a radio ...

 

a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events; "he writes stories for the magazines"

 

floor: a structure consisting of a room or set of rooms at a single position along a vertical scale; "what level is the office on?"

 

history: a record or narrative description of past events; "a history of France"; "he gave an inaccurate account of the plot to kill the president"; "the story of exposure to lead"

 

report: a short account of the news; "the report of his speech"; "the story was on the 11 o'clock news"; "the account of his speech that was given on the evening news made the governor furious"

 

fib: a trivial lie; "he told a fib about eating his spinach"; "how can I stop my child from telling stories?"

---

Life tells us a story, that each of us views from our unique perspective. We all have access to our own stories.

 

There are groups of individuals that share the same story. And together, their story becomes again unique.

 

But a unique story does not assure objective truth.

 

What stories are we to trust?

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

That's a good point, Tar, but we do have a method of making sure that we only rely on objective "stories". That's what the scientific method is all about.

 

Most notably, if a "story" allows you to accurately predict future phenomena, then the "story" is pretty objective.

 

zcavPAFiG14

Edited September 27, 2009 by mooeypoo

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

Good to hear from you directly. I imagined I had earned my way off your list.

 

I say a lot of unsupported, tangential, opinion type stuff. And to boot, some of it is wrong. But I am a great lover of knowledge, the scientific method, the great thinkers and scientists upon whose work we have built our lives, and humanity in general.

 

Consequently, I give everybody, initially, the benefit of the doubt, and consider nobody my enemy, until I have good evidence that that is the case. (like if some flies a plane full of passengers into my twin towers.)

 

And as a scientist would, I improve my worldview when new information comes to my attention, and discard the unworkable portions. I learn all the time. But I am subject to comfirmational bias within my own thinking, and I come to this board to subject myself to some peer review.

 

I started this thread, as sort of a vehicle for testing my worldview. My presence on scientific threads, I have found out, is usually a distraction, taking the thread off topic, to discuss some tangential branchoff, and often the ensuing debate is not the aspect I was investigating, or seeking to add an insight to.

 

There are many levels that a story can be talking on.

 

I am the kind of guy that looses the thread of the story(movie) when I see the car way in the background, during a scene where no car should be, if the story was true. It proves to me that the story isn't real, it has been staged, the characters become actors, the scenes become sets, and what ever magic the movie was weaving for me, falls apart. I have to consciously acknowledge that it is just a movie, and work, to get myself back to enjoying the movie, and appreciating its intended purposes.

 

For an example. In the "religion hijacks" thread I had watched a clip of the researcher telling the pirate and the sandwich story. She says "and the wind blows the sandwich off the chest", while she knocks the sandwich off with her hand. Now to me, the story just got complicated, an invisible agent, the authority figure story teller, has pushed off the sandwich and fibbed to the child, assigning the action to the wind. Now the story is completely in the hands of the researcher, as far as the child is concerned, and what is true or not true about the story, is completely up to the imagination of the researcher. She can tell the child anything. The child doesn't know the point of the story, just that the researcher is telling one, and pirate sandwiches are being knocked off of chests.

 

Granted, many tests as these have been constructed and performed in enough different settings with enough different children that much about childhood development can be learned, and accepted as fact.

 

But in the pirate and the sandwich story, the dynamics of story telling are involved.

What previous lessons has the child learned from story tellers?

What level of authority has been assigned to the reseacher, by the child? (Now Chester, listen to the nice lady, and do what she says, and you will make mommy happy.)

What level of intelligence does the child have, on how many levels is the child listening to the story?

When the child assigns thoughts or feelings to one or the other of the pirates, are they the child's thoughts, the pirate's thoughts, the researcher thoughts, the child's parent's thoughts, the child's teacher's thoughts, or is the child's answer what the child thinks the researcher, or the child's parent or the child's teacher, would want the child to answer based on lessons learned through previous stories? (or some combination of the above.)

 

Regard, TAR

[JillSwift]

For an example. In the "religion hijacks" thread I had watched a clip of the researcher telling the pirate and the sandwich story. She says "and the wind blows the sandwich off the chest", while she knocks the sandwich off with her hand. Now to me, the story just got complicated, an invisible agent, the authority figure story teller, has pushed off the sandwich and fibbed to the child, assigning the action to the wind.

Huh? Everybody who uses props as part of their storytelling is a "fibber"?

 

Now the story is completely in the hands of the researcher, as far as the child is concerned, and what is true or not true about the story, is completely up to the imagination of the researcher. She can tell the child anything. The child doesn't know the point of the story, just that the researcher is telling one, and pirate sandwiches are being knocked off of chests.

Which is actually the point - to isolate the knowledge of the events in the story so the children would be less likely to insert prior knowledge/expectation.

 

Granted, many tests as these have been constructed and performed in enough different settings with enough different children that much about childhood development can be learned, and accepted as fact.

 

But in the pirate and the sandwich story, the dynamics of story telling are involved.

In what way?

 

 

What previous lessons has the child learned from story tellers?

None. The published study says these are all "fresh" kids - meeting the research team for the first time.

 

What level of authority has been assigned to the reseacher, by the child? (Now Chester, listen to the nice lady, and do what she says, and you will make mommy happy.)

Can you suggest a way that the authority of the storyteller would have affected the answers to her questions? Would they assign a different meaning to the outcome has the researcher had little authority over having much? If so, why?

 

What level of intelligence does the child have, on how many levels is the child listening to the story?

This is why we have to have a large sample size.

 

When the child assigns thoughts or feelings to one or the other of the pirates, are they the child's thoughts, the pirate's thoughts, the researcher thoughts, the child's parent's thoughts, the child's teacher's thoughts, or is the child's answer what the child thinks the researcher, or the child's parent or the child's teacher, would want the child to answer based on lessons learned through previous stories? (or some combination of the above.)

Again, these questions are negated by a large sample size, and the fact there were more than just the project lead doing the stories and interviews. The result of a single child's answers are meaningless, the video showed only examples of the methodology. Get into about a thousand samples, and you have a meaningful pattern going there.

 

Then you add the corroborating evidence:

The FMRI studies of children.

The magnetic pulse interference tests of the adults.

 

The results of the study seem very solid to me because she followed a very rigorous methodology, and found corroborating evidence through other studies that also has rigorous methodologies. Most importantly, her findings were peer reviewed, and some of her studies have already been repeated.

 

Ignoring my apparent "argument from authority" there, if you think you've found a real hole in her methodology, I'd love to see it actually explored - that is, give us a mechanism or phenomenon can be tested that would bias the findings. "What if" style questions are interesting but don't actually provide much to go on.

[tar]

JillSwift,

 

I liked the Rebbeca Saxe clip. I learned a lot from it, and am not suggesting that I found a hole in it. Just room for a different interpretation of the evidence, if you include the importance of story telling, in the development of children's moral vocabulary.

 

In the clips, we saw peices of each of the interviews with the children. The responses and body language of the children revealed an understanding of earlier moral lessons that the children had learned. The younger boy hung his head at one point, ashamed at what the "pirate" had done. All the children already understood the concept of ownership through, I speculate, the lessons that had been taught to them.

 

Rebbeca Saxe told us that the development of this part of the brain, associated with moral judgements, and Theory of Mind, was slow in developing, and the decision results eminating from this area were both different in various adults, and were affected by magnetic disruption.

Such evidence would also be consistent with effective story telling, relaying to the individual, the rules and morals of society, in place to make sure your actions and thoughts considered the rights and feeling of others.

 

Perhaps an enhancement or further example of the truth revealed by her study. But a point that should be carried along with the overt results of her study in terms of what story the results of the study is telling us.

 

Regards, TAR

[JillSwift]

<snip>

 

Oh, I see;

 

You're pulling in ideas the study isn't concerned with. What was being revealed by the study was children's ability to think about what others were thinking about. The moral issues were the catalyst and weren't being tested.

 

The twist in the story where the sandwich is replaced by accident is "known" only to the child and not to the first "pirate". This is what brings out whether or not the child could "put him/herself in the shoes of the pirate".

 

What the study showed was that the younger children made their moral judgment based on what they knew. As the children grew older, their moral judgment started to include the idea that the person being judged wasn't aware of the same facts - in short, the child could better think about what the first pirate was thinking.

 

This same effect was shown in the magnetic disruption tests of adults. When that part of the brain was disrupted, it was more difficult to think about what another was thinking, and so the judgments were more often being made from thier own knowlege of the situation - i.e. they couldn't consider that the other person was unaware of their mistake because they didn't have the information the judging adult did.

[tar]

JillSwift,

 

I didn't get the point of the study.

 

And I didn't even get your explanation until I learned that the "false belief" test was something already discovered years earlier, and she had found the part of the brain that took the "other's shoes" perspective.

 

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid716696176?bctid=11084256001

 

But thanks, I think I have it know.

 

Regards, TAR

 

P.S. I just had to watch the clip you linked in the "hijack" thread again, and read your post above about 15 times to figure out the logic, and what was being said, and not said.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Excuse the merge. Tangential question.

 

Mooeypoo,

 

From post #112 in the "religion hijacks" thread.

 

That bridge depends on our explanation; the facts exist and the facts need to be explained. The bridge doesn't verify the facts or "finding its place in the total picture"' date=' the bridge serves to explain the facts, and it is totally DEPENDENT on the facts.

 

Not the other way around.[/quote']

 

I have a favor to ask of you. I have had difficulties understanding the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, all my life. I am never sure which one I am doing, which one I am allowed to do, when I am doing them both at the same time, putting the wrong one first or what?

 

I have taken logic courses, I have taken math courses, I never got it.

I never understood "proofs" in math.

I never understood what a teacher wanted from me, in a paper, my ideas were off topic or unsupported, known ideas were other people's ideas which I couldn't use without plagiarizing?

Never understood when I was supposed to be finding new truth, or restating the known.

 

The facts fit together to make the story, and the story is made up with the facts. I never got the distinction. Seems to me like you are still talking about the same true thing.

 

Would you make an attempt to get through to me, the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?

 

Regards, TAR

 

P.S. I didn't want to muck up iNows thread with this.

Edited September 29, 2009 by tar
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

Hey tar,

 

It's rather late here and I am about to go sleep, but I am going to have to think of how to demonstrate what you're talking about. I think I understand the problem, it's not an easy one, but it will take me a bit more than the five minutes of half-sleepy not-quite-coherent thought I'm operating on at the moment.

 

For now, though, i found this article that seems to give the basics about the difference between Inductive and Deductive reasoning: http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm

 

One more thing, though - I'm not too sure the problem are with those. Those two "sets" of reasonings both have their pros and cons and they're both dependent on what type of conclusion you're using.

 

It's more about noting what type of logic you use and KNOWING its limitations than which type of logic to use. Sometimes making conclusions from generalizations is appropriate, sometimes it's not. Sometimes making generalizations from conclusions is appropriate, sometimes it's not. The important thing is to *remember* which of them you're doing so you can note the weak parts of the reasoning.

 

I'm going to think up examples and try to give them when I'm a bit more awake.

 

~moo

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

Yes, that is the article I read, before I asked for your help.

 

I sure will appreciate your examples. I think they will help a lot.

 

It's more about noting what type of logic you use and KNOWING its limitations than which type of logic to use. Sometimes making conclusions from generalizations is appropriate, sometimes it's not. Sometimes making generalizations from conclusions is appropriate, sometimes it's not. The important thing is to *remember* which of them you're doing so you can note the weak parts of the reasoning.

 

Is certainly the abilty I am missing, and I will appreciate any insights and examples that will get me closer to being able to do that.

 

Thanks Mooeypoo.

 

Special Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

MooeyPoo,

 

I remember sitting in the livingroom of a Religion Professor, back in my college days with my dad (who was a college professor of Psychology), and a Philosophy Professor (the most brilliant man I have ever met in my life, he solved integral calculus problems for relaxation.) They were having a conversation, completely coherently about a topic, when I realized they were talking, completely coherently, on an other level, about a different topic at the same time. When I caught the drift of a third topic, I realized they were doing it on PURPOSE, they were actually communicating on all three topics/levels and enjoying the challenge and each other's awareness and company. I was amazed. And to this day couldn't tell you if they were not connecting on more levels that I didn't get.

 

When I sense kindred minds, I try to connect on more than one level at a time. I try to talk about more than one thing at once. To me, it is fun and friendly, instructive, and a good way to gain insights the other has, and share and validate my own insights.

 

Sometimes, between kindred minds, you can talk about a topic and reason from both directions at once. Fitting the facts to the story, telling a new story with the facts, and learning new lessons, having the same insights, together.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 29, 2009 by tar
Consecutive posts merged.