# What storytellers do Since we think with [stories](stories.md), everyone [communicates](people-conversation.md) with them. They're necessary for [influencing](influence.md) others, the basis for how we [feel](mind-feelings.md) about things, and why we ever start [changing](people-changes.md). Stories that are grounded in [reality](reality.md) (or, at least, when we [believe them](understanding-certainty.md) to be reality) have *far* more influence over us than fiction. A fictional story is strictly the domain of [imagination](imagination.md), but a real story implies that [consequences](results.md) will likely repeat themselves. To effectively convey a story, a storyteller *must* have a [value](values.md) they're trying to [prove](influence.md), and their effectiveness is in how much they can get their audience to [believe](understanding-certainty.md) them. APPLICATION: It's safe to say that every single storyteller is the propaganda arm of some other [large group](groups-large.md). As the writer of this essay, For example, while this is informational, I'm aiming for [brevity](information.md) that maximizes [meaning](meaning.md), driven by my [personal spirituality](https://theologos.site/testimony/). ## Not present Gossiping is talking about someone else when they're not present. It usually has a negative implication to it, mostly because it's sharing [information power](power-types.md) without permission, but many [cultures](people-culture.md) consider it an acceptable form of [punishment](mind-feelings-shame.md) for breaking [social rules](people-rules.md). Since people can't know precisely what the subject of their gossip is doing at that moment, gossip typically describes what another person [has done](results.md), but can also include what they [plan to do](imagination.md) or [are likely doing](results.md). We gossip for various reasons: - We can gain [power](power.md) through additional [knowledge](understanding.md) of someone. - We're [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) of someone's reaction if we told them something or did something. - We want to [do things](results.md) without someone knowing. - We have more interest in the people we're referring to than the people we're with. - We specifically care more about our [*connection*](people-friends.md) with the people we're with than the people we discuss. APPLICATION: The means to communicate 1 idea powerfully is critical to conveying ideas and influencing others. If someone isn't [certain](understanding-certainty.md) about their ideas, they'll speak [vaguely](unknown.md). Adding more ideas complicates others' [understanding](understanding.md). ## Tales Each person is sharing a [story](stories.md) through the [medium](creations.md) of their speaking or recordings, so their story is at least one degree removed from the [facts](reality.md) than if we had perceived it firsthand. This isn't an attempt to lie, though, but to instead [artistically associate](mind-creativity.md) to the [symbols](symbols.md) that attribute to [mythological realities](stories-myths.md). APPLICATION: Since the news of information isn't the information itself, a story and its [implications](image.md) can change *very* rapidly, and without notice. In retrospect, it's clearly evident what caused it (typically through what people [felt](mind-feelings.md) strongly about but didn't have [words](awareness.md) to say), but it's impossible to [predict it](imagination.md). People typically [understand](understanding.md) any kind of story, but they need to be legitimately *[interested](purpose.md)* for that story to reach anyone. This is determined by a few factors: 1. Stories must be relatable, which most easily comes through directly connecting someone to a physical representation of [feelings](mind-feelings.md) (i.e., an object that reminds someone of an experience). 2. Simpler stories are typically [more interesting](https://stucky.tech/stories/), though simpler stories are typically less true. 3. Unlikely stories are more fun, though they create reinforced [bias](mind-bias.md) as a side effect. Storytellers of all forms want their listeners to suspend our natural [disbelief](understanding-certainty.md). They use [feelings](mind-feelings.md) to evoke a realistic experience, and would prefer if we don't ask questions that sabotage that experience. Some people or [groups](groups-small.md) make a [career](jobs-specialization.md) of sharing these stories. They can do this from one of several avenues: 1. The [authority in charge](groups-large.md) wants someone to spread information, sometimes as if it were an independent [perspective](image.md). 2. Enough people are willing to pay someone who will deliver gossip. In the case of both, they often have a good [reason](purpose.md) to be [influential](influence.md). A dull restatement of the facts typically doesn't [resonate](mind-feelings.md) as heavily as a [sensational](mind-feelings.md) [story](stories.md). This means there's *always* a [spin](image.md) to the story that oversimplifies the [truth](reality.md) and dramatizes certain elements of reality to make it more interesting. This embellishment is always present, even if it simply includes aspects of virtue signaling. In a fast-paced society, one of the easiest methods to create the greatest [marketing](marketing.md) [results](results.md) is to employ A/B testing. By sending two alternating versions of the same headline to people who encounter it and [measuring](math.md) responses, creators can keep testing which information creates the greatest [emotional](mind-feelings.md) reaction. Unfortunately, the most intense emotional reaction is usually wrong because it's also simple. Revising facts to provoke [feelings](mind-feelings.md) (frequently to gain [power](power.md) from a [large organization](mgmt-badsystems.md) or from [large demographic groups](groups-large.md) via popularity) can also falsely defame or venerate someone. When used correctly, language can redirect the [image of power](image-distortion.md) to intentionally [favor or shame](image.md) specific people. Further, even by simply stating facts, the proportion of stated information can *still* [distort what things look like](image-distortion.md). Making 100 articles about an incident and only 1 about the events leading up to the incident, for example, can make the incident [feel](mind-feelings.md) more severe without the context of its surrounding events. Even when they *say* they're stating the truth and the statements they make are true, the [production values](values-quality.md) often embellish the truth or avoid saying other things that are just as relevant. APPLICATION: We must be [critical](logic.md) of what we hear, but also *why* people are saying things. Observe closely what you're *not* hearing. The untold stories are, often, the more important ones. APPLICATION: The second-best way to discover the historical and journalistic facts are to read *both* sides of the story and [conclude](logic.md) for yourself. However, it's difficult to share those conclusions (or not share) without your *own* [political](power.md) manipulation. The *best* way is to read the facts themselves, but that's typically more boring than most people can withstand. Naturally, a masterful image manager can make themselves look more authoritative. The [natural trust](groups-member.md) people give [large groups](groups-large.md) makes large-scale "news outlets" sound [reputable](image.md), even when they haven't [proven](results.md) their reputation's [trustworthiness](trust.md). This maintains itself because they build stories designed to confirm the audience's [bias](mind-bias.md). APPLICATION: The most reliable way to convey a message is through embellishing the truth. By converting the story into a [mythological tale](stories-myths.md), it travels farther because it hits the [emotions](mind-feelings.md) more. Plus, if the reality of the story is *also* absurd, the "fact-checkers" who oppose the story will give more weight to that story's credibility. ## Retelling Irrespective of their factual truth, [stories](stories.md) can give [meaning](meaning.md), so their characters have a tendency to [appear](image.md) "living". A creator with few to no constraints (e.g., unlimited license to express, unlimited budget) will create a predictable [trend](trends.md): 1. The story will significantly expand itself to the point that the main character is lost in a *much* larger world. 2. Derivative and parallel works will arise that expand smaller characters' roles into altogether new content. 3. Eventually, "nonfiction" fiction will authoritatively arise to clarify certain plot points that may risk shifting (from either fan interpretation or multiple creators). 4. The work will continue until it's a disjointed mess of content across many media, and it becomes needlessly burdensome to watch/read/play all of it. As a story develops from a tale into a saga, it will grow to disinterest people as they see discrepancies in [logic](logic.md) (i.e., plot holes) and that it'll never technically end. If spoken frequently enough and long enough, stories about real things tend to become the "[truth](reality.md)", even if they never happened. While we're more likely to propagate positive fictional stories over negative ones (i.e., they give a positive [feeling](mind-feelings.md)), we'll tend to propagate negative actual stories more than positive ones (because they may deliver adverse [effects](results.md) to us). ## Legendary people When a person *becomes* a [story](stories.md), they're officially a "celebrity". At that point, they're simply a well-groomed [image](image.md) designed to evoke strong [feelings](mind-feelings.md) and [beliefs](trust.md). Anytime we only hear about someone but don't have a [personal connection](people-friends.md) with them, they're nothing but a story. While a person [ages](maturity.md), [changes](people-changes.md), and is prone to errors and silly behaviors, but the [myth](stories-myths.md) transcends that person and will [often persist](legacy.md) *long* after that person has died. Every [large group leader](groups-large.md) is some form of celebrity. Successful leaders must always maintain some aspect of their celebrity status to have long-distance [influence](influence.md) with their group. When a [creation](creations.md) becomes extremely [popular](trends.md), the creator frequently becomes a separate legend entirely, especially if they have a unique [personality](personality.md). Clever creators keep their creations close to their [natural identity](identity.md) (e.g., by calling their character's name their given name) to prevent themselves from becoming a stereotype. A [large group](groups-large.md) can work *very* hard at maintaining a myth of a person. While an organization is an unfeeling combination of relatively similar people, a dramatic performer is easier to tailor and [market](marketing.md) as a "mascot", which can imply they lead and direct that organization. APPLICATION: [Advertising](marketing.md) mascots are an attempt to create a human face on an otherwise emotionless legal organization. People fall for the false [image](image.md) because it appeals to whatever [sentiment](mind-feelings.md) a demographic prefers to associate with. APPLICATION: Since [stories are a relatively straightforward mechanism](stories.md), they're easy to duplicate when you make [a popular one](trends.md). Barring the artist [devoted](purpose.md) to creating [meaning](meaning.md), most storytellers will simply reproduce the same tired framework over and over. ## Old tales The people who define the world's style are between their 30s and 50s. Since they weren't cynical about things when they were [adolescents](maturity.md) but old enough to recognize what they were experiencing, they remember that media as the "best". For that reason, the style of just about every mainstream media employs a wave of nostalgic style based on [trends](trends.md) that hit about 20-40 years prior. APPLICATION: If you want to know what will be popular 5 years from now, it'll probably incorporate whatever was overwhelmingly popular about 15-35 years ago from today. Today's news, after enough time, becomes a historical record. Historians in [a free society](politics-conservativeliberal.md) have less [reason](purpose.md) to [skew](image.md) the story, but they still advance [religious](religion.md) or [political](politics-leftism.md) causes just as frequently, and they *frequently* miss the context of the original creation. APPLICATION: Most of the tales and creative works of the distant past that have survived were propaganda, [parody](humor.md), and designed for unsophisticated people. We lose that in translation (especially with the people who [teach it](education.md)), so we assume there was something more dignified about the past than there really was. Often, old information drifts back into public awareness, but with less context about the original [culture](people-culture.md). It can be a lack of information, but other times revisionists will adapt the story to fit the [fashions](trends.md) of the present time: - The American story of Thanksgiving was originally an anti-[leftist](politics-leftism.md) message, *not* simply an act of generosity on the Native American's part. - Christmas traditions are borrowed from *dozens* of sources across the last few thousand years, and most of the traditions' origins are *not* Christian. - People have *not* believed the Earth was flat since Ancient Greece, with the notable exception of a [political](politics-conservativeliberal.md) push during the Protestant Reformation, so Christopher Columbus didn't prove it to anyone. - Across most written history, the average lifespan of 30 included infant mortality, so everyone who lived past their 5th birthday typically lived until about 65. Often, those misconceptions become popular culture upon *other* [media](creations.md) that reference it: - Greek statues were brightly colored, but the paint chipped off. - The dinosaurs may have had feathers or fur. - Elaborate clothing like feathered hats, buckled shoes, decorative uniforms, long dresses, and bright ornaments were only for special occasions. Beyond [royalty](classes.md), everyone typically wore standard clothes. However, we enjoy the spectacle and tend to like what we [feel](mind-feelings.md) more than [reality](reality.md), so the [myths](stories-myths.md) will always propagate. Often, we'll venerate an old story (e.g., John D. Rockefeller) and condemn a currently developing one (e.g., Donald J. Trump). People frequently revisit old stories and old ideas, but rebuild them using different words (e.g., "grit" vs. "character" vs. "integrity"). Its practical result is that every society ends up saying almost the same thing while believing it's a revolutionary new idea. APPLICATION: One of the advantages of exploring the cultures of the past (i.e., history) is that you have an easy viewpoint to see how they behaved and [what happened from it](results.md). Though you can't [speak with them directly](people-conversation.md), you can still use your [imagination](imagination.md) to connect how they likely lived and thought. It's easy to [believe yourself superior or removed](mind-bias.md) from them in some way, but never forget they were [as human as you](humanity-universals.md), and [others will see you the same way](legacy.md). ## Meta-tales We want a story to have [meaning](meaning.md) on a grander scale, so we tend to connect stories together based on [patterns](symbols.md) we've experienced. There is a [political reason](politics-conservativeliberal.md) to add specific types of meaning and omit other types, especially in a [democracy/republic political system](politics-systems.md). There are several major ways to do this: - When a single event happens: - If it matches existing prejudices, that event confirms the existing prejudice. - If it contradicts existing prejudices, it's an isolated anomaly. - As a further step, those who draw attention to that contradiction can be portrayed as bad people. - When a scandal happens: - For an ideological opponent, the scandal is non-negotiable and requires [punishment](people-rules.md). - For an ideological ally, there's constant questioning over the source of the information. - If an extremist of an idea exists (often to the point of [violence](people-conflicts-war.md)): - For an ideological opponent, highlight and focus heavily on them. - For an ideological ally, ignore their existence. - As a further step, [curate the environment](image-distortion.md) to prevent that information from arising. APPLICATION: News coverage and history are *never* exempt from [political manipulation](image-distortion.md), since the ability to craft [convincing](power-influence.md) [stories](stories.md) is a *tremendous* [form of power](power-types.md). If someone gains enough [power](power.md) telling the news, they will actually *make* future news events. By claiming things about [public opinion](image.md) or [informing](understanding.md) people about details, a news outlet has the [power](power.md) to bend the [opinions](understanding-certainty.md) of sometimes millions with a few choice [words](awareness.md). APPLICATION: While we can gain a tiny bit of power via publicly protesting, boycotting, and writing letters, it's *rarely* as much [power](power.md) as communicating to the public with a form of large-scale media (e.g., social media). ## Censorship The [image](image.md)-based form of how we perceive means half-truths are easy to spread and excessively difficult to [disprove](science.md). Every culture has to wrestle with this reality by taking preemptive action. Our intuition may oppose the distribution of shameless lies, and preventing the free publication of false information seems like a [morally good](morality.md) action. Unfortunately, it's also difficult to detect *which* things are lies, especially since many statements have portions of [truth](reality.md) contained within them. Far too often, [extremists](morality-taboo.md) will say [unfashionable](trends.md) truths that begin radical social [changes](people-changes.md). APPLICATION: People with the power to censor have *tremendous* control. Unless those people are held fully accountable for each censorship activity they perform, a benevolent situation will *rapidly* become [oppressive](people-boundaries.md). Stifling the free expression of false stories is *always* a bad idea because the people who censor are essentially given full [dictatorial control](politics-systems.md) over the flow of [ideas](values.md). The [power](power.md) is so significant that it's far too tempting to abuse that power for self-interest. Given enough time, any [culturally](people-culture.md) accepted censorship will lead to propaganda for a certain [value system](values.md), which will eventually unbalance the culture enough to create a [bad system](mgmt-badsystems.md). APPLICATION: Eventually, if the product of a storyteller is good enough, their amassing of power will mean that they will become a [bad system](mgmt-badsystems.md). At the same time, by giving the *worst* members of society (around 3%) the same room to anonymously speak as much as everyone else, they will [abuse their power](power-types.md) and tyrannically control the conversations and dialogue. APPLICATION: The internet has broken the media/listener wall. Now, *everyone* can become a media personality with enough people interested in following it. This [trend](trends.md) has transformed news and [education](education.md) forever. Thankfully, we're all relatively bad at predicting how much others can be [influenced](influence.md) ("[third-person effect](mind-bias.md)"). Thus, most people are quietly taking in information, but people sharing the information imply that others are *way* more swayed by the information than reality. APPLICATION: Given [human universals](humanity-universals.md), if you're angry about a news story you have no [influence](power-influence.md) to change, the very fact you've heard the story means someone is publishing it, and that other people who *can* do something about it may also be [angry](mind-feelings.md) about it. ## The prediction industry Since we can't even know what we *don't* know about the future, we hire people to deliver [certain](understanding-certainty.md) statements about [the unknown](unknown.md). At one time they were part of a [religious order](religion.md) as prophets, soothsayers, or seers. With the move toward secularization and [post-modern thinking](philosophy.md), they are now game theorists, quantitative analysts, actuaries, statisticians, and poll analysts under a type of [scientific order](science.md). Irrespective, they are effectively [imagining](imagination.md) everything they do to create compelling [stories](stories.md). APPLICATION: Statistics and statisticians [feel](mind-feelings.md) more accurate because they're a [group](groups-member.md) instead of an individual, but look very closely at how they receive and manipulate their data, and don't [trust](trust.md) their predictions if it doesn't match your [instincts](mind-feelings.md). They might be trying to [distort the truth](image-distortion.md), especially when they have something to gain or have [competitors](people-conflicts-war.md). They can only work on the [logic](logic.md) of known things, but they continue having jobs and receiving [honor](image.md) because they're the [safest](safety.md) way to explore the [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) of [the unknown](unknown.md). Ironically, most of their analysis comes from *their* fears, and their risk aversion frequently contributes heavily to suppressing healthy [social risks](socialrisk.md). APPLICATION: Statistical analysis is useful for finding correlations, not causation, so it's reliable to see whether your expectations have become [reality](reality.md). If you must [decide](people-decisions.md) instead of tracking [results](results.md), ask for advice from [industry](jobs-specialization.md) veterans instead. For the sake of their livelihood, most of them will justify their [beliefs](understanding-certainty.md) with many [reports](math.md). If it confuses [leaders](groups-large.md) enough, those leaders will often [agree](people-conflicts.md) and trust them even more. However, the opinions of a veteran professional in a [specialty](jobs-specialization.md) still have more validity. APPLICATION: We can't predict the future, so we must stay open-minded for all imagined circumstances to be [logically](logic.md) possible, then stop thinking about it. Unless we're having [fun](purpose.md) with it or minimizing [presently fixable risks](safety.md), dwelling on the future serves little benefit to our [souls](humanity.md).