compulsive narrative syndrome

Yes, one of my authors came up with it. Yes, it really fits. Yes, some people love it.

www.thenorth.com...
Andrew Pollack on 01/18/2015 at 11:18 AM EST comments on it
“The human brain is trained to look for and identify patterns, but in abstract concepts, fixed and unarguable facts are hard to find. So the brain looks for narratives instead, stories that can tie together various ideas and facts in a way that seems to make sense, to make a pattern. And the human brain, always seeking a pattern as a basic cognitive function, will latch onto a narrative pattern compulsively, and use that pattern as a framework within which to store new information, like a tradesman honing his skill, or someone learning a new language. That’s why religions tell such great stories, the story makes a pattern within which everything makes sense. A synchronicity of apparent facts. Political ideologies, too. Humans are suckers for a great story because we can’t resist the logical pattern it contains."

“When you’re learning a new skill, discarding irrelevant information and organizing the relevant stuff within that framework is good. But in ideologies, it means any information that doesn’t fit the ideological narrative is literally discarded, and won’t be remembered . . . which is why you can argue facts with ideologues and they’ll just ignore you. They’re not just being stubborn, their brains are literally structurally incapable of processing what they perceive as pattern-anomalous data. That’s why some ideologues get so upset when you offer facts that don’t match their pattern, it’s like you’re assaulting them.

www.onepoliticalplaza.com...
likes it as well.

Can you see it in yourself & others?

a reply to: Doctor G

Certainly brings into question Carl Jung's theory of synchronicity, where events are not causally related, but seemingly connected meaningfully.

Precognition, remote viewing, that sort of stuff,
also possibly related to the theory and what youve put forth OP.

S and F

originally posted by: Doctor G
Yes, one of my authors came up with it. Yes, it really fits. Yes, some people love it.

www.thenorth.com...
Andrew Pollack on 01/18/2015 at 11:18 AM EST comments on it
“The human brain is trained to look for and identify patterns, but in abstract concepts, fixed and unarguable facts are hard to find. So the brain looks for narratives instead, stories that can tie together various ideas and facts in a way that seems to make sense, to make a pattern. And the human brain, always seeking a pattern as a basic cognitive function, will latch onto a narrative pattern compulsively, and use that pattern as a framework within which to store new information, like a tradesman honing his skill, or someone learning a new language. That’s why religions tell such great stories, the story makes a pattern within which everything makes sense. A synchronicity of apparent facts. Political ideologies, too. Humans are suckers for a great story because we can’t resist the logical pattern it contains."

“When you’re learning a new skill, discarding irrelevant information and organizing the relevant stuff within that framework is good. But in ideologies, it means any information that doesn’t fit the ideological narrative is literally discarded, and won’t be remembered . . . which is why you can argue facts with ideologues and they’ll just ignore you. They’re not just being stubborn, their brains are literally structurally incapable of processing what they perceive as pattern-anomalous data. That’s why some ideologues get so upset when you offer facts that don’t match their pattern, it’s like you’re assaulting them.

www.onepoliticalplaza.com...
likes it as well.

Can you see it in yourself & others?

Reporter David Aaronovitch takes the same kind of stance when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories, that people easily believe that their own government, or parts thereof ochestrated the whole thing rather than a few guys with stanley knives form a distant land, trouble with him is, he's a bit short on facts himself....as well as arrogant, and always like to quote the 911 commission report for instance, in that case. He uses the same meme for most CT's...that makes all CT's the same more or less rubbish, and by default any aspect of 9/11 has to be true to the official story if you get the drift. He's actually applying the same methodology to himself in opposition.
But he has done a lot of British TV work on 9/11 as an 'expert' of something or other as if debunking this or that, but always pushing the same idea that people are deluding themselves. Trouble is, his use of 'facts' don't always hold up, and maybe because of his partial Jewishness never mentions the 'dancing Israelis' that's if he even knows about them.

However, one killer remark he made in 2003 in his support for the Iraq war, was that, "If these weopons of WMD are never found, I'll never believe what a British or American government tells me ever again"
Yet he continues to push the same narrative over 9/11, and expects people to believe him when he tells them they are deluding themselves. Wonderful stuff eh?

a reply to: smurfy
Distrust of the government doesn't mean you have to invest in whatever claptrap someone who claims to be "anti-establishment" is selling. Ignore appeals to authority and look at the facts, in other words apply the same burden of proof to alternative theories as you do to mainstream ones.

Back to the topic, and I think this is a very valid idea. People prefer a "cool story" to messy reality. It makes a better narrative to believe that events are orchestrated by a shadowy cabal, than to realise that in fact the world is pretty chaotic and nobody is really in charge, however much they try to be.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: smurfy
Distrust of the government doesn't mean you have to invest in whatever claptrap someone who claims to be "anti-establishment" is selling. Ignore appeals to authority and look at the facts, in other words apply the same burden of proof to alternative theories as you do to mainstream ones.

Back to the topic, and I think this is a very valid idea. People prefer a "cool story" to messy reality. It makes a better narrative to believe that events are orchestrated by a shadowy cabal, than to realise that in fact the world is pretty chaotic and nobody is really in charge, however much they try to be.

You miss my point somewhat, I was talking about somebody else, who's perpetual narrative was that the 9/11 event happened exactly as the 9/11 commission stated, and that any idea that it wasn't, was an easy alternative, simply because people were incredulous that such a thing could happen, and that government couldn't possibly not know about it going to happen, the fact is though, as it turned out, a lot of people did know that something was going to happen. So he too is deluding himself in exactly the same way.

"Stories, then, are at the root of our ability to communicate and understand what's going on around us. Because understanding and memory are intertwined we shouldn't be surprised that they are also very powerful mnemonic devices."

We used to talk about learning new topics as going through the following phases:

1) building a wall
2) putting pegs on the wall
3) hanging new topics on the pegs
4) understanding the arrangement

If you were at stage 1 and they started humming details at you, we often said things like "You're throwing details at me but I have no walls yet" or "I don't have pegs for this yet, let's start over with the big picture once more"