讲故事与叙事2015macdrifter.com
警惕简单的故事
Beware Simple Stories
导读
这篇文章提醒读者警惕"简单故事"：流行叙事和畅销科普常常为了好读、好传播而牺牲准确性，把一个直觉性的概念包装成看似完整的解释。对写作者来说，它值得一读，因为它让你在动笔时多问一句：我的故事讲得顺，是因为它真，还是因为我把它修剪得太顺了？
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
检查因果链：很多报道和故事把结果当成原因讲（"湿街道导致下雨"式叙事），写作时要确认因果方向站得住脚。
- 02
别让流畅掩盖漏洞：连贯、简洁、干净的论证是读者喜欢的，但读者喜欢不等于事实成立，叙事的顺滑可能正是问题的藏身处。
- 03
谨慎引用流行科学：畅销科普提供的常是吸引人的概念化解释而非完整科学，越流行的观点越可能后来被推翻，引用时要点明局限。
- 04
承认简化的代价：面向大众的内容必然剥离语境，写作者应自觉标出自己简化了什么、省略了什么。
HN 评论精选
读者会在自己熟悉的领域识破错误，却转眼忘记，继续盲目信任同一来源的其他内容。
每个人都该知道默里·盖尔曼失忆效应。你翻开报纸读到一篇讲你熟悉领域的文章，发现记者根本不懂事实或问题所在，文章甚至把因果讲反了——我称之为"湿街道导致下雨"式报道，报纸上遍地都是。你一边恼火或好笑地读着这些错误，一边翻到国际新闻版，又兴致勃勃地读起来，仿佛其余版面比刚才那篇可靠得多。你翻过这一页，就忘了自己知道的东西。
bdhe查看英文原文
I think everyone should know of the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. To quote from Michael Crichton: > Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.) Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. > That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia. Very intriguing when you think about it.
畅销叙事追求的是传播性而非准确性，高概念加包装比严谨更能卖。
有趣的是格拉德威尔自己承认他不在乎连贯性或一致性，他只想卖书。他说："写得越多我越发现，有些东西作家和评论家看重，读者却不在乎。我们执着于连贯、一致、论证干净，读者对这些无所谓。"他的书不是可靠的知识来源，却是商业范本：拿一个清晰的直觉点子，裹上足够多的文字填满一本书，概念高到没读过的人也能在派对上聊，传播性拉满。
paulsutter查看英文原文
Funny thing is Gladwell admits he doesn't think coherency or consistency matter, he just wants to sell books: "As I’ve written more books I’ve realised there are certain things that writers and critics prize, and readers don’t. So we’re obsessed with things like coherence, consistency, neatness of argument. Readers are indifferent to those things." - Malcolm Gladwell Edit: I stand by my interpretation. Gladwell's books aren't useful sources of knowledge, but they ARE a commercial gem. He takes a clear intuitive idea, and wraps enough text around it to fill a book. So high-concept that anyone can discuss his books at a cocktail party, even if they havent read it. Maximum virality. It does sell a lot of books.
流行科普的过时错误会长期流传，因为书还在卖、故事依然好听。
这点很重要。卡尼曼、格拉德威尔这类人卖的是吸引人、新颖的概念和故事，而不是完整的科学。他们说的很多内容引发关注、引来后续研究，这很好，有时就导致了像本文这样的被推翻。但这里有个偏差：流行科学书里的观点更容易被证伪，恰恰是因为它们更容易被研究——这不等于这些观点本身更可能是错的，文章忽略了这一区分。而且即使被证伪，书还摆在书架上，错误的观点仍被广泛重复，包括在 HN 上。作者还想卖旧书，哪怕里面已是被认定错误的东西；他们讲的故事依然迷人，哪怕它误导了一整代人。
learnstats2查看英文原文
This is very important. Kahneman/Gladwell etc are selling attractive and novel conceptualisations and stories, not complete science. A lot of what they are saying attracts attention and becomes more likely to be researched further. This is important and great and sometimes leads to disproofs such as the example here. There is a bias here: the ideas presented in popular science books are more likely to be disproven, just because they are more likely to warrant further study. It's not that the ideas are necessarily more likely to be false - this is an important distinction and I think the article misses this point. But, even when disproven, the popular science books still remain on the shelf and the wrong ideas from them still get repeated widely. On forums including HN. The authors still want to sell their old books, even when they contain ideas now known to be wrong. And the stories they tell are still attractive, even if they are misleading a whole generation of people.
简化是大众传播不可避免的代价，问题在于意识到它而非否认它。
任何东西变成主流，都是因为它被剥离了更深的语境以迎合大众消费。科普注定会让科学家不爽，就像艺术评论家瞧不上业余爱好者。为大众量身定做、一口一个的小块科学内容，会显得比它实际更确凿——这点你说得对。但即便代价是公众不那么"有科学头脑"，我也接受；有 TED 的世界比之前更好。
Yalqaysi查看英文原文
Whenever something becomes mainstream it's because it has been stripped of deeper context to appeal to the consuming masses. Pop Science will inevitably piss off scientists just like art critics will scoff at inexperienced amateurs or public commentary. Bite-sized feel good scientific content fashioned for larger audiences can come across more concrete than it should - you're right on that. If it comes at the expense of a more "scientifically minded" public, i'm fine with that. We're better off in the world of TED than we were before it.
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