CENTRAL NARRATIVE. It’s the basic divide between the two Clintons as Thomas Friedman pointed out yesterday.
BEING DECLARATIVE ABOUT THE NARRATIVE
Here’s something that currently distinguishes Bill from Hillary Clinton.
“Nothing in Bill Clinton’s Administration made sense except in the light of his overall take on the world.”
“Nothing in Hillary Clinton’s campaign makes much sense (so far) because of her lack of an overall take on the world.”
These are two extrapolations from what Thomas Friedman had to say yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press. The first uses my “Dobzhansky Template” which I will be formally presenting in my new book in September (“Nothing in _____ makes sense, except in the light of _____ .”). The second is a variation on the first sentence.
Here’s what Friedman had to say about Bill Clinton yesterday on Meet the Press:
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: I’ve only covered one campaign, it was Bill Clinton’s, and I knew why he was running. From the beginning, he was a conservative Democrat, he had a take on the world and everything was connected to that.
That’s the Dobzhansky idea — that there was one central narrative and “everything was connected to that.”
Now here’s what he had so say about Hillary:
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: I think what hobbled Hillary last time, is what I see hobbling her again, which is — why — what is your take on the world — what do you really believe — and how is this connected to that — and until she fills that void everything — money and everything else is going to jump into there.”
Bottom line: Hillary is lacking a central narrative so far. Which is not good in politics.
MCKEE, ARCHPLOT AND MINIPLOT
Here’s a little more sneak preview of my upcoming book. A major part of it is reaching into the narrative structure developed within Hollywood for tools and templates that can be of use in science. One of the most powerful is Robert McKee’s narrative triangle. At the top of his triangle he places “archplot.”In his 1997 book, “Story,” he rather passionately defines it as the classical form of narrative over the ages. Here’s what he says about it:
“These principles are ‘classical’ in the truest sense: timeless and transcultural, fundamental to every earthly society, civilized and primitive, reaching back through millenia of oral storytelling into the shadows of time. When the epic Gilgamesh was carved in cuneiform on twelve clay tablets 4,000 years ago, converting story to the written word for the first time, the principles of classical design were already fully and beautifully in place.”
This is part of what I’m trying to say — everyone needs to understand the power, importance and shape of archplot. Bill Clinton does. Hillary doesn’t.
May 11th, 2015
I can’t say it enough. Daniel Kahneman said it. Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post said it yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press. The most important question the science and environmental communities could address is, “How do we build public trust?” And yet there is little talk of this. Instead, they talk about “The public understanding of science.” Which sounds more like, “You people need to do a better job of learning this stuff.” The world doesn’t work that way any more. Sorry.
WHO CAN YOU TRUST? Above is what Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post had to say yesterday in talking about next year’s Presidential elections. The issue is age old.
A ROTTEN ACRONYM
It’s about to be three years since I began quoting Daniel Kahneman’s line about how, “the source has to be liked, and the source has to be trusted.” It’s such a simple element, yet is overwhelmingly powerful. And is fundamentally lacking in the mindset of the science community.
I know this well from a few years ago. I was recruited to the AAAS committee that went by the foul and disgusting acronym of COPUST. At the core of that acronym was the old phrase, “public understanding of science and technology” — the wretched PUST part of the name. I was told this phrase came from England where it has been in use for a looooong time. Which figures.
I quit the committee, saying I couldn’t be part of something with such an off-putting acronym. I recommended they rework their name into something that took the reverse perspective — instead of having the tone of lecturing the public, they send a signal that we are interested in what the public thinks of us. And in fact, given the Pew Poll earlier this year showing declining public trust in science, I’d say it’s about time for this mode of thinking. I recommended something that included the phrase “public perception of science.”
They did throw out the old name (yay!) and at least went so far as to put “engagement with the public” into the new name. Which is halfway there. But eventually they need to go the full distance.
It’s about LISTENING. People trust people they feel are listening. They don’t trust people who don’t listen. Scientists are VERY bad at listening. This is part of why we use improv techniques in our workshops — they foster listening.
Again, it all comes down to trust. As Kahneman says, it doesn’t matter how much data and how strong your arguments are. Without trust, you have nothing.
May 5th, 2015
There’s a popular and fun TED ED animated video about applying “communications theory” to lying that came out last fall which is nice, BUT … it’s still more complicated than necessary. It attempts to identify several characteristics of liars, but there’s a simpler principle underlying most of what is said, which is the fundamental rule of, “the power of storytelling rests in the specifics.” Bottom line: Dude, most of this stuff just ain’t that complicated.
LIAR, LIAR, WORDS ON FIRE
Last fall Noah Zandan, who is big on “quantified communication” posted a fun TED ED video about ways to spot liars using “communications theory.” He opens the video with a simple ABT about how lots of ways have been developed over the ages to detecting lying AND they all work to some extent BUT ultimately they can all be fooled, THEREFORE we need a different means to analyze the language of a liar. From there he points to what is called linguistic text analysis.
Which is nice, BUT … I’m going offer up an even simpler way to look at this, which is to examine the underlying narrative dynamics.
THE CLEAR TRUTH ABOUT OBFUSCATION
What he presents are four different shapes of the language used by liars. In the video he gives detailed explanations of each and offers up examples, especially from famous politicians who got caught lying (no shortage of material there). Here’s what he concludes — four language patterns common among liars.
1 MINIMAL SELF-REFERENCE – “liars reference themselves less when making deceptive statements” “often using the third person to distance and dissociate themselves from their lie.” What this means is putting the focus on someone or something else, leaving yourself more vague.
2 NEGATIVE LANGUAGE – “liars tend to be more negative” “for example they might say my stupid cell phone died, I hate that thing.” This means they add on extra, conflict-rich wording as a means of distraction.
3 SIMPLE EXPLANATION – “liars typically explain events in simple terms” “As a U.S. President once famously insisted, ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman.’” This means in addressing the material they need to lie about, they resort to vagueness.
4 CONVOLUTED PHRASING – “liars tend to use longer and more convoluted sentence structure, inserting unnecessary words and irrelevant but factual-sounding details to pad the lie.” They achieve vagueness through narrative confusion.
The overall pattern is: DISTRACTIONS: clarity good THE LIE: clarity bad
THE NARRATIVE RE-INTERPRETATION
I don’t know exactly what “linguistic analysis” is but it sounds more convoluted itself than what is needed to grasp the basic dynamic of what’s going on. The core principle at work is basic storytelling, for which one of the most simple and universal principles is that, “the power of storytelling rests in the specifics.”
Take a look at these four patterns described and you can see at their core, the main variable at work is simply specific versus general communication. If the liar is wanting to distract, then specifics provide the power. If the liar is wanting to be vague, then leaving out specifics is the answer.
1 MINIMAL SELF-REFERENCE – liars paint a SPECIFIC picture of something else, leaving themselves more general and vague
2 NEGATIVE LANGUAGE – conflict-rich SPECIFICS distract from the truth
3 SIMPLE EXPLANATION – the liar is covered up by not being SPECIFIC (remaining general and vague)
4 CONVOLUTED PHRASING – the lie is covered up by presenting an overly SPECIFIC narrative
He also goes on to apply “linguistic analysis” to the lies of Lance Armstrong and John Edwards. But in both cases, it’s the same simple pattern. When the dude is lying, the narrative is weak through over-complication or being non-specific. When he wants to be honest he is specific. Same, same.
He ends by saying how you can use this information in your daily life. He offers up the four categorizations, but I’d make it simpler, which is more useful — just develop a sensitivity to “the power of specifics” in storytelling.
FOREVER STORYTELLING ANIMALS
As Jonathan Gotschall said with the title of his 2013 book, we are, “Storytelling Animals.” This is the core premise of my upcoming book, “Houston, We Have A Narrative,” which will come out in September but is now posted on Amazon. What the book is about is that we have been recording stories for at least 4,000 years, but recorded science only goes back a few hundred years. Which begs the question of which means of communication would you expect to be more dominant?
The idea of “linguistic analysis” sounds cool, but in the end, the simplest and most powerful of all dynamics for understanding communication is simply narrative, for which there are just a few very simple rules of thumb that explain so much. The power of specifics is perhaps the most all-encompassing of all. The deeper you absorb it, the more you see how much of what goes on in our world is driven by it.
And p.s. — beware of communications folks looking to over-complicate the world. When I finished film school at USC I did a 20 minute video called, “Talking Science” where I interviewed faculty from both the Cinema School and the Annenberg School of Communication. That’s where I first saw this pattern, clear as day. The communications folks could theorize about how to communicate. The film folks knew how to actually communicate.
April 14th, 2015
In my upcoming book I present something I have labeled as “The Dobzhansky Template” for finding the core theme or message of a narrative. Marco Rubio gave a speech yesterday that felt almost like he had used the template. It was a model of clear messaging.
HOW TO MESSAGE EFFECTIVELY IN A SPEECH by Marco Rubio
I’m not a fan of Marco Rubio (the dude’s a climate skeptic for starters), but he showed the kind of aggressive messaging that the right wing is so adept at in a speech yesterday, labeling his opponent, Hillary Clinton, with exactly that word — “yesterday.” Here’s what he said.
RUBIO: Just yesterday, a leader from yesterday, began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday.
Skillfully done. And kinda funny, too.
THE DOBZHANSKY TEMPLATE
In our Connection Storymaker Workshop of the past 5 years we developed the idea of a template for finding “the one word” at the core of your narrative using the famous quote from geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”).
The idea is the search for “the one thing” that captures the bulk of the narrative. Here’s the sentence as a template:
Nothing in _____ makes sense except in the light of _____ .
And here’s the template as Rubio would have used it.
Nothing in HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN makes sense except in the light of YESTERDAY.
The object of messaging is that once you figure out that one thing — you hit the note over and over, from a variety of angles. As Rubio did in a single sentence. I’m not sure about the rest of his speech, but he could easily have continued hitting that message in multiple ways — always coming back to the bottom line — that his opponent is out of touch with today.
It’s a very simple and fairly harsh label to put on her, but that’s how it’s done by the big boys — creating the frame around their opponent before the opponent can create their own frame. Whether it sticks remains to be seen, but for now, it was a model effort for how a challenger takes on a superior opponent. It’s also a cue for her to swing back, which she hopefully does with equal skill.
April 13th, 2015
One is complete, the other three will finish by the end of next month. Ten hours and you’ll never view text the same.
ABSORBING NARRATIVE STRUCTURE AT THE GUT LEVEL. The four prototypes that started in late January.
THE CURE TO BOREDOM AND CONFUSION
It’s very simple. At the core of it everything is the ABT — the simple structuring device that tracks back to Aristotle. It’s the narrative ideal. Everything else is either a tiny bit more boring or a tiny bit more confusing.
It’s five people doing 10 one hour sessions where they first, analyze the narrative structure of abstracts, then work on their own stories using the narrative tools developed in our Connection Storymaker Workshop.
The specifics are laid out in my new book, “Houston, We Have A Narrative: Why Science Needs Story,” coming in September. All of the sessions have been recorded. We are about to begin analyzing the videos, producing a novel data set on how people improve their communication skills.
Story Circles is the solution to the problem I laid out in the third chapter of my first book. The chapter was titled, “Don’t Be Such A Poor Storyteller.” It puts you on the path to solving that problem.
April 7th, 2015
Wanna know what the new book is about? It’s pretty much right there in the Table of Contents.
March 13th, 2015
Just got back from Chicago where Story Circles co-producer Jayde Lovell and I launched the postdoc-level prototype of Story Circles. This one is being sponsored by the NIH/University of Chicago My C.H.O.I.C.E. program. I’ll return in three weeks to launch the grad student prototype. In the meanwhile, next week will be the 10th and concluding session of the undergrad prototype at Hendrix College where five brave and intrepid students, in addition to enjoying it, are now changed for life. Never again will they bore or confuse anyone. Hopefully. They also had a lot of fun.
OPERATION STORY CIRCLE: Five people, one hour a week, ten sessions. That’s what each circle consists of. We liken it to fitness training. We give you the narrative tools on the first day, you just do weekly one hour workouts consisting of analyzing research abstracts with the tools, then work on your own stories with them. Almost no homework. Pretty much the same as going to the gym, just a different set of muscles you’re working out.
THERE IS A CURE TO BOREDOM AND CONFUSION
COMPASSIONATE COMMENTATOR: There’s no need to suffer narrative deficiency alone any more. A cure is here. It’s called Story Circles. It’s fun, it’s painless and it works. Ask your doctor about Story Circles today.
That’s going to be the tagline eventually for our TV commercial for Story Circles when that day arrives. For now, it’s time to start spreading the word — Story Circles works.
With Story Circles (sounding like an infomercial again, sorry) you’ll never look at content the same way.
It’s true. How can it not be true. There simply aren’t any tools for simple structural analysis of narrative. Now there are.
We can see it in the undergrad prototype group at Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas. Two months their analysis of content was little more than, “It’s not very well written — kind of clunky, doesn’t flow, didn’t grab me, too wordy.” Inarticulate, mostly just gut level analysis.
Now they have specific vocabulary to analyze structure analytically. They have a whole page of terms and templates, most of which can be found in my last book, “Connection,” all of which will be found in my new book in September.
Big things lie ahead for Story Circles. For now we need to finish the prototypes and analyze them properly (everything is being videoed). This will give a clear picture of how it works and what can be expected. Then we’ll be ready to release it widely.
I’m in Chicago next week, speaking at University of Chicago, launching our third Story Circle prototype with a group of their NIH postdocs, and meeting with the good people at University of Chicago Press who just locked this in as the cover artwork for the new book.
TIME FOR A CHANGE. A lot of thought has gone into that subtitle — “Why Science Needs Story.” The world has changed. We are now driven by communication dynamics, which in turn are driven by 4,000 years of storytelling. It’s time for science to catch up with this. I’m not saying scientists need to tell stories, only that they all need to understand how it works better.
February 19th, 2015
Ever been part of a discussion where everything suddenly turns negative as the group rips up every good idea, plowing the whole thing into the ground? I’ve seen a few. Related to this, I heard a wonderful comment last week from a scientist about the impact of our improv training on their organization.
HAVE YOU EVER … been part of a discussion that turned negative and ended up like this? Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a way to pull out of such a negation nose dive?
Happens every day, in conference rooms around the world. It’s not just a science thing — but the negation/falsification process of science can make it worse.
Sometimes it feels really good as you watch a flimsy idea get taken to pieces through tough, incisive questioning that has at the core of it the premise that everything presented is wrong until shown to be otherwise. It’s what science is based upon — a process of falsification — testing ideas to see if they can be falsified until you finally have subjected them to so much rigor and they haven’t failed that you can conclude you have something robust. It’s great when it works that way.
But it comes with a potential down side, which is the tailspin of unrestrained negation, obliterating everything that might have been salvaged as worthwhile.
SOLUTION: CHANGING THE COURSE OF DISCUSSIONS
A little over two years ago we ran our Connection Storymaker Workshop with the folks at National Park Service headquarters in Ft. Collins, Colorado. We had two groups of about twenty people each. It felt like a successful experience, but I never believe anything I do really works until someone gives me some proof (me to self: “Don’t be SUCH a scientist!!!”). Which is what happened last week.
I had a long phone call with one of our hosts. He said, “You wouldn’t believe how many times in discussions, since that training, we have brought up the basic, ‘Yes, and …’ approach you taught us in the workshop. There have been multiple instances when everyone is headed in a negative direction, then someone says, “Let’s remember the ‘Yes, and …’ thing,'” and the discussion reverses almost immediately.”
That warmed my heart sooo much. It had never dawned on me — that application of improv. We always present it as a tool for enhancing creativity, making you more human and alive, getting you out of your head … but I’ve never thought to talk about it as an emergency maneuver for a negation nose dive.
Yes, and … I think I’ll be including that attribute of improv in the future when I talk about it. I can’t say enough good things about the training, and Brian Palermo (who will be doing improv next week at the ASLO meeting in Spain).
February 10th, 2015