I suspect the two biggest barriers for writers engaging with Dramatica are the steep learning curve and what you identify here. Bonus points for inventing the word "puritistical".
Have fun storyforming the castle.
It's really the same doubt repeated ad nauseum – which might be an indicator the topic has reached the end of its productive value. But thanks for the kind words, anyway!
I agree with this entirely. It's the same reason why I couldn't care less if the "hero's journey" is truly a cross-cultural monomyth or a bunch of euro-centric nonsense. The problem it presents to me as a writer is that it doesn't expand my avenues for developing a story but rather reduces them. That's not to say it isn't helpful for other writers – only that its "truthiness" is irrelevant.
That's not what objective means. Here's a fairly common definition: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
If we were to have a debate on whether Canada was better than the US at hockey and decided to settle the argument with a vote, that would be fair. It just wouldn't be objective.
This is quite possibly true, which is why I've repeatedly added "people with the appropriate level of expertise in Dramatica." There are notably few people who would be considered to have that expertise, which might be a clue to something . . .
Astrology works the same way, too. That doesn't lend it any particular credence.
I agree with this. So establish the tolerances.
I never called it a failed heuristic. In point of fact, I called it a useful heuristic.
You have a highly reductive notion of science and of proof in general.
I have no interest in "doing" science. I've pointed out that the Dramatica analyses don't represent an objective process.
People who bring "there's no such thing as absolute proof" to a discussion seem to do so in hopes the rest of the world will somehow think that because there's also no such thing as absolute disproof then all forms of nonsense are equally valid to scientifically-tested principles.
This is true. I doubt astrology because there's no empirical evidence for its predictive value. To someone who's invested a great deal of time and money into astrology, that no doubt looks like "radical skepticism."
Hey, thanks for the link to some guy's blog. That really turned me around. I think it's the part where the article declares "Skepticism is doubt with attitude" that showed me I was really missing out on the leading edge of philosophical inquiry.
Somewhere along the line you seem to have come to the belief that by labeling the other person and/or their position and then progressively ascribing negative connotations to that label they would find themselves helplessly cornered by your semantic wizardry.
Alas, I'm both unmoved and unimpressed by rhetorical douchebaggery.
But feel free to keep recruiting excerpts from a blogger's forthcoming book titled "The Curious Christian" into your argument.
How can you solve some of the problems you have with astrology with curiosity? Perhaps you could resolve your doubts about the existence of Our Lord And Saviour Jesus with curiosity? Is there some way you could come to understand the existence of ghosts better with curiosity rather than skepticism?
Maybe read that statement back to yourself and you'll see why it is so dubious a declaration that it could prompt skepticism in the reader.
Consensus is neither a high nor a low standard. A hundred climate scientists working from a large body of data on climate change coming to agreement would be a high standard. You and me coming to an agreement about whether ghosts are real would be an incredibly low standard.
Perhaps curiosity could help you overcome your problems with understanding the inductive power of ouija boards.
I've watched a number of the Dramatica User Group videos. They seem like thoughtful discussions of both Dramatica and the movies under consideration.
Thoughtful discussions are an excellent thing. They give people opportunity to voice their ideas and glean insight from the ideas of others. They're just not proof of anything in particular.
For what it's worth, in most of the videos I've watched, Chris patiently asks questions and gives people the opportunity to discuss each one until they eventually come round to the answer he started with. Kind of like Socrates. If you want evidence of this, you'll note that when people give the answer he's already worked out, he doesn't keep probing. When they give an answer contrary to his, he does keep probing.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that – Chris is the co-creator of the theory, after all, so it makes sense that he can most efficiently apply it. But that doesn't make the conclusions reached by the group objective in any sense. Like so many of the discussions on this board, they go on until either Chris or Jim weighs in and then everyone quickly shifts to that position or else just abandons the debate.
Even that's not necessarily a bad thing. Most people, I assume, come to this board to learn more about Dramatica. So having the authorities on the subject tell them what's what is helpful to that endeavour.
But it still doesn't make the process objective.
Don't jump off a building. You'll hurt yourself.
Because gravity is real.