Stories or facts?

On story telling

I am a fan of mythology and have read Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.  I am primarily a huge fan of Prof. Heinrich Zimmer who was Joseph Campbell's professor and guide at the Columbia University.  Prof. Zimmer passed away at the early age 53.

Alan Rickman the actor who played memorable roles in the movie Die Hard and the Harry Potter movie series, talks about our civilization depending on the ability to tell stories.  To make sense of the world, I presume.

So I am all for it.

At a more practical level, we know that to motivate people, to explain a clear rationale, it is most important to tell a story.  Give an example.  Create an analogy.    Share a best practice.

However, in another regard stories are not so compelling.  And that is worth exploring.

Here is a one and half minute video from 1944, by Heider-Zimmer.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FIEZXMUM2I

It is worth seeing the video above, since it runs only for a minute and half, before reading on.....

//////////////////

Almost everyone (except those with autism, I am told) sees a dramatic and emotional story unfolding in the minute and half video on triangles and circles.

As can be readily observed, there is 0% cue on the story in the video itself - no sound, no expressions, no dialogue and sub-text.  Yet almost all viewers of the video see a story.

There-in lies a paradox - the universe is triangles and circles (energy and matter) and they interplay.  Yet we anthropomorphize it with a story.

Not so compelling it seems are the stories we tell ourselves.  Not because the stories are not grand and universally acknowledged; nor because story telling is not important.

Facts, we don't need no stink in' facts .... !

The power of stories may not so compelling in light of our newly gaining understanding of the human mind through cognitive science and neuroscience.  And the willingness to recognize mental errors in judgement in light of empirical and statistical evidence.

Here is a fantastic example:

Steve is a shy, introspective individual.  He is also methodical and organized.  Is Steve likely to be a farmer or a librarian?

One might be forgiven for answering the question by saying Steve is one or the other, and giving a seemingly sound reason for it.

However, it turns out that the description of Steve is misleading.  But the human mind which likes stories more than facts immediately gravitates to the description given of Steve being shy and organized.  Thus most of us answer the question based on the description of Steve ...

But the real answer is the following:

The only meaningful information in that question is  'Steve.'  That is, Steve is male.  Using department of labor statistics, we can determine how many males are farmers and how many females are farmers.  As an illustration, let us say 80% of farmers are male and 80% of librarians are female.  Then regardless of personality, the probability answer is 'Steve is more likely a farmer than a librarian.'

This category of information (data) is called 'base rates.'  So for any question we first need to ask 'what is the base rate' and only then answer a predictive question

Stories are not statistically valid for predictions.

Defining Knowledge

Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking Fast and Slow, defines knowledge as ability to predict events going forward.

For example Newton's 3 laws of motion, represents knowledge - because we can use these laws to predict the trajectory of a projectile.

Looking backward in time is filled with selective memory at best and hindsight bias at worst.  For example if we look back we can pick every single winning stock; but if we look forward we can barely do so!

Thus, when I read now article after article explaining why Mr. Trump won the election, I am careful to take into account this hindsight bias.

For example, does the data shared in the article analyzing the election allow us to predict what happens next ... and whether the author is willing to invest in line with his or her thesis.

Kahneman suggests, we abolish the word 'knew' from our vocabulary.  Here is his quote and the breakout passage in glaring red lights from his book:

"I have heard of too many people who “knew well before it happened that the 2008 financial crisis was inevitable.” 

This sentence contains a highly objectionable word, which should be removed from our vocabulary in discussions of major events. The word is, of course, knew . 

Some people thought well in advance that there would be a crisis, but they did not know it. They now say they knew it because the crisis did in fact happen. This is a misuse of an important concept. 

In everyday language, we apply the word know only when what was known is true and can be shown to be true. We can know something only if it is both true and knowable. 

But the people who thought there would be a crisis (and there are fewer of them than now remember thinking it) could not conclusively show it at the time. 

Many intelligent and well-informed people were keenly interested in the future of the economy and did not believe a catastrophe was imminent; I infer from this fact that the crisis was not knowable. 

What is perverse about the use of know in this context is not that some individuals get credit for prescience that they do not deserve. It is that the language implies that the world is more knowable than it is. 

It helps perpetuate a pernicious illusion."

Moneyball

A special example of the above discussion was described compellingly in the book Moneyball by Michael Lewis and acted charismatically by Brad Pitt in the movie of the same name.

The illustration here was the game of baseball.  Up until Billy Beane came along at the Oakland Athletics team, baseball player selection and compensation was based on stories and reputation.  

'He looks the part, he plays the part' were the impressions with which critical decisions were made.

But as Moneyball so compellingly illustrates, Billy Beane and his Yale trained statistician turned the baseball world upside down with their focus on statistics and not stories. 

Theo Epstein the General Manager of the Boston Red Sox, then used that insight to get both the Red Sox and the Chicago Cubs their World Series victories.  Theo Epstein's story is brilliantly portrayed in The Ringer blog:  Everybody Wants Their Own Theo Epstein.

Summary

We are living in the 21st century in very exciting times.  Our ability to process vast amounts of data, our understanding of biology and genetics, our understanding of particle physics, the leaps in understanding of cognition, the advent of Artificial Intelligence and its applications in all walks of life and business, are leading us to a cusp of seeing the world in new ways.  

Thus in my view we are living in a time that the story of human civilization is about the change!

However to tell that story it seems to me that we need to do, as hard and as unnatural it is, is to record and use facts and statistics so we can gain knowledge.  

And then we are free to use stories to fulfill the very human needs of purpose, motivation and  meaning.

And we should take care not mix-up the two!