讲故事与叙事2018nautil.us编辑精选
我们的大脑是讲故事者，而不是内心报道员
Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world
导读
这篇文章主张：大脑并不是如实报道“内心世界”的记者，而是一个不断编造故事的叙述者。对写作者来说，它提醒我们，人物真正的动机往往藏在“他如何解释发生的事”里，而不是事件本身；同时也要警惕把复杂心理压缩成单一因果故事。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
写人物时不要只写“发生了什么”，更要写人物如何解释这件事，因为叙事会决定他的情绪和反应。
- 02
用具体场景展示“外部事实”与“内在叙事”的错位，比如一句普通请求被人物解读为不尊重。
- 03
记忆不是体验的录像，而是被结尾或关键片段改写的故事，可用“记忆自我”制造不可靠叙述。
- 04
不必给人物心理提供全知因果；意识常常只能事后模式匹配、编故事，留白反而更真实。
HN 评论精选
批评文章把“潜意识模型不准确”误当成“没用”，并用自我形象与焦虑的例子说明潜意识信念会影响行为。
“所有模型都是错的，但有些是有用的”这句话在这里很合适。受访者同时反对“潜意识思考”模型的正确性和有用性，却把两者混为一谈，听起来像在说：潜意识思考有这么多错误和混乱，所以它一定也没用。他把运动神经元和感觉处理称为无意识大脑过程，但这与我们所说的“思考”差得太远，叫它无意识思考并不合理；随后又抨击荣格、弗洛伊德和心理学，这是稻草人。据我有限了解，弗洛伊德等人谈的不是机械脑过程，而是我们某一刻持有的自我形象和期望。比如我长期自尊很低，在女孩或某些社交场合会感到尴尬不安；那些时刻的潜意识信念是“我本身有问题、不可爱、没价值”。十年前你若问我，我会说自己很棒，意识层面我大概也相信，但当时的焦虑程度说明那不是真的；经过一些内在探索后我才看见……
vladgiverts查看英文原文
The saying “all models are wrong, some models are useful” seems appropriate here. The interviewee is arguing against both the correctness and usefulness of “sub-conscious thought” as a model for the human mind. But he seems to conflate the two arguments. It sounded to me like he was saying: “Here are all the ways that the sub-conscious thought is wrong and confusing, so it must not be useful either!” He talks about motor neurons and sensory processing as an unconscious brain process, which is so different from what we consider “thought” that it doesn’t make sense to call them unconscious thought. He then goes on to rail against Jung and Freud and psychology in general. But that’s a straw-man. Based on my limited knowledge, I don’t Freud et al were talking about the mechanical brain processes when they wrote about the unconscious mind. Instead, they were talking about things like the self-images and expectations that we hold at any given moment. Like, if I hold a very low opinion of myself (like I did for most of my life) I might feel awkward and insecure around girls or certain social situations. The unconscious belief in those moments was that there was something inherently wrong with me (I was unloveable, of little value, etc). Ten years ago if you had asked me I would have told you I was amazing. I probably believed it at conscious level. But given my levels of anxiety back then, it certainly wasn’t true. It’s only now after some inner exploration that I am able to see and realize this. Is it fair to call that unconscious or subconscious if these beliefs were there all along I wasn’t aware of them? I personal find that a useful model and I think that’s what psychologists have in mind when they use those words.
叙事会扭曲日常互动；改变故事不能只靠内在肯定，而要采取行动并与他人共同创造新现实。
“发生的事不是发生的事。发生的事是我们对自己讲的故事。”一个刻意构造的例子：成年子女和父母在家，一位父母让她收拾餐具，她立刻本能反应：“我本来要做的！唉！”实际发生的是父母想清理桌子。但因为她脑中有“父母不尊重我”的流动叙事，她立刻把简单请求当成“他们不尊重我”的证据并情绪化反应，像恶性循环。就像坏日子时，我们会解释成一切都在针对自己。我们一直在解释发生的事，不必像文章里那本书的作者那样找单一起源或根因。向前看的方式是朝你想要的故事采取行动。人不能离群索居，所以不能只对着镜子念肯定语或做愿景板，必须与纠缠在你现实中的人一起把它放出去。对这个成年人来说，可以是诚实沟通（比如非暴力沟通），告诉父母自己感到不被尊重，并和他们一起“共创”新现实。
wallflower查看英文原文
"What happens is not what happens. What happens is the story that we tell ourselves about what happens." A contrived example: Adult is home with parents. One of the parents asks her to clean up her dishes. She reacts quickly with a knee-jerk "I was going to do it! Ugh!". What happened was that the parents wanted to clean up the table. However, since the adult has this shifting narrative in her head about 'my parents don't treat me with respect', she immediately interpreted the simple request as proof or evidence that 'they are not treating me with respect' and emotionally reacted. Kind of like a vicious circle. It's kind of like when we have a bad day, we can interpret it as everything is conspiring against us. The thing is that we are interpreting what happens to us all the time. It doesn't have to be a single origin story/root cause like the author of the book in the article states. The way to look forward is to actually start taking proactive actions towards the story that you want. Since we don't exist without other people, you cannot simply spit affirmations into a mirror or make a vision board. You must put it out there with the people who are entangled in your reality. For the adult in this example, it would be something like being honest with her parents (something like non-violent communication) and telling them how she feels they are treating her without respect and working with them to "co-create" a new reality. Note: This is not my thought. It comes from a personal development organization that starts with 'L' and ends with the letter before 'l'. The extent of my involvement was going to a weekend seminar on invitation from a friend.
记忆自我会改写体验，结尾的糟糕片段能覆盖整段美好记忆，写作中可用这种不可靠记忆塑造人物。
这让我想起丹尼尔·卡尼曼的“体验自我”与“记忆自我”（讲故事自我）。他讲过一个人听完一场辉煌的交响乐，录音最后却有可怕的刺耳声，那人情绪激动地说这毁了整个体验。但其实没有毁掉体验，毁掉的是对体验的记忆。他有过20分钟美妙音乐，却因为留下的记忆被毁，记忆就成了他唯一保留的东西。
kashyapc查看英文原文
This reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's notion of "experiencing self" vs. "remembering self" (the story-telling self). Here's a story he shares in one of his talks[1] about how the "remembering self" dictates what a person gets to keep as a memory: Now, I'd like to start with an example of somebody who had a question-and-answer session after one of my lectures reported a story, and that was a story -- He said he'd been listening to a symphony, and it was absolutely glorious music and at the very end of the recording, there was a dreadful screeching sound. And then he added, really quite emotionally, it ruined the whole experience. But it hadn't. What it had ruined were the memories of the experience. He had had the experience. He had had 20 minutes of glorious music. They counted for nothing because he was left with a memory; the memory was ruined, and the memory was all that he had gotten to keep. And here's [2] another reference -- "Memory Vs. Experience: Happiness is Relative". [1] https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory/transcript [2] https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/memory-vs-experience-happiness-is-relative
意识对无意识过程只能事后编故事，写作可呈现解释的局限，而不是给出全知因果。
我最近在想：人工神经网络的行为很难解释，我们意识解释自己的无意识行为可能也同样难，最多只能模式匹配和讲故事。文章说：“如果我们能理解数十亿神经元如何合作帮助我们认出一张脸或解读一段语音，我们会发现这些过程与意识流无关，就像肝脏的运作一样。”
kilovoltaire查看英文原文
I was thinking about this recently—given how difficult it is to explain "why" an artificial neural network behaves a certain way, it's probably similarly difficult for our conscious minds to explain our unconscious behavior, the best they can do is pattern match and tell stories. From the article: "If we could understand the processes by which billions of neurons cooperate to help us recognize a face or interpret a fragment of speech, we would find these as unrelated to the stream of consciousness as the operation of the liver."
同类还值得读
Pixar in a Box：可汗学院的皮克斯讲故事课
Pixar in a Box – Khan Academy
这篇是 Khan Academy 与 Pixar 合作的“Pixar in a Box”项目介绍，用计算机图形和动画制作来讲解数学概念。
讲故事与叙事2015 · 753 分 · 65 评4 条写作要点编辑精选皮克斯的讲故事法则
Pixar's Rules of Storytelling (2013)
这是皮克斯动画工作室流传甚广的 22 条讲故事法则清单，从“从前有个___，每天___，有一天___”的骨架，到如何重写自己讨厌的作品。
讲故事与叙事2018 · 513 分 · 74 评4 条写作要点编辑精选皮克斯通过可汗学院提供免费在线讲故事课程
Pixar offers free online lessons in storytelling via Khan Academy
这篇报道介绍皮克斯与可汗学院合作的免费在线课程《讲故事的艺术》，把皮克斯内部的故事创作方法公开给普通学习者。
讲故事与叙事2017 · 503 分 · 93 评4 条写作要点编辑精选用皮克斯的故事公式说服投资人
Use Pixar's story formula to win over investors
这篇文章借用皮克斯的故事公式（以《海底总动员》为例）来示范如何给投资人讲创业路演故事：先讲目标、再讲障碍、最后讲改变。
讲故事与叙事2021 · 439 分 · 188 评4 条写作要点编辑精选贝索斯如何把叙事变成亚马逊的竞争优势
Jeff Bezos Turned Narrative into Amazon's Competitive Advantage
这篇讲杰夫·贝索斯如何把“六页叙事备忘录”变成亚马逊的管理与竞争优势：用可独立阅读的叙述性文档替代口头汇报和 PowerPoint。
讲故事与叙事2019 · 435 分 · 181 评4 条写作要点编辑精选