A bit off topic, but how would one become a certified Dramatica expert? What’s the process behind that look like?
First, you must snatch the Problem/Solution from Jim Hull’s hand…
I agree with this. I also think that confidence should come into play, as it does with any measurement. Some instruments are more accurate (less uncertainty) than others, and in the case of a storyform analysis, it’s our minds and perceptions that are the instruments. The best I can think of is to state a confidence for each part of the analysis, like one analyst might say “highly confident about Domain/Concern, not so confident about the rest”, another might say “confident down to Problem quad, but might have flipped the Problem/Solution” while another might be confident of the whole storyform.
This would allow you take confidence / uncertainty into account, just like how a measurement of the speed of light of 250,000 +/- 60,000 km/s agrees with the actual value of 299,792 km/s.
I’m not worried about this at all because of how often people can duplicate the published results on their own.
I’m not necessarily the protagonist here.
What is your MBTI type?
I’m guessing you’re a Thinker “T” on the decision scale. Am I right? Certainly you aren’t a skeptic of the most widely used personality test on the planet, are you?
I think this will help you see where you are having trouble following the logical argument.
You seem to be having a problem with deduction based on your responses. Many people who struggle with deduction focus on induction as the solution to everything when in fact induction has limitations. Deductive reasoning doesn’t focus on empirical data.
No one is claiming to do scientific studies here. But, I would be happy to do them if you can find someone to finance the research. There is sample size of 350 or so stories that show correspondence between the model and reality. This is the only criteria required in Math. If you want to make it a science it just needs to be more formalized and do the studies as you have proposed. There will be human error though as that is the nature of observation.
But, I can tell you that Dramatica does fit the criteria of a mathematical model and stories are one of the possible data sets for examples of that in the real world.
Let’s try some deduction:
Is your problem with the premise, the conclusion or the deductive reasoning of the theory?
Or
Can we agree that the theory itself is sound?
—-let’s start with this before we try to do any sort of science because if you don’t think the theory is sound, we don’t need to pursue applying it until that is resolved.
And we’re not in a story, so that’s okay.
ENFP - We are the champions!
Alas, no. You have hurt by Feelings “F”.
What, me question a self-reported questionnaire that has low retest reliability (in other words, people taking the test a second or more times tend to come up with different results)?
Next you’ll be accusing me of failing to accept the science of astrology!
In my high school human behaviour class they called this an ad hominem argument: “The reason you can’t see why I’m right is that you’re deficient.”
Oh, sorry, I was really off-base with that ad hominem thing…
Not that I don’t love pedantry in service to obfuscation, but is there a point coming anytime soon?
Nope. There are 350 storyforms arrived at through various means – none of which are independently replicated. This doesn’t mean they aren’t worthwhile to spark ideas or even correct on some level. It just means that you invoking them as being definitive evidence of a correspondence between the model and reality is nonsense.
A data set requires things which can be measured. For a thing to be measured, it has to be measurable independently by multiple observers. Put simply, unless separate and independent observers can produce the same measurement, you don’t have a data set.
Okay, but the question you present isn’t actually an example of deductive reasoning.
My problem is with the process by which measurements (i.e. the domains of a particular movie) are arrived at (i.e. six guys in a room discussing it until they agree.)
It’s that simple. You can’t call a theory proven without having a means to independently verify its conclusions.
Maybe this is a simpler way to resolve the issue: Dramatica is a model of story that produces several useful heuristics: practical ways of solving narrative problems in a subject area that doesn’t allow for optimal or perfect answers.
Often it can show you why a particular story isn’t working, or give you avenues to explore to make that story feel more complete and meaningful. No need for pure objectivity or validating the theory. It’s just a helpful way of looking at stories and how to improve them.
In my business, that’s pretty great.
I am not what you would call a handsome man. The good Lord chose not to bless me with… with charm, athletic ability… or a fully functional brain. You see, you’re an inspiration, to all of us who… who weren’t born handsome, and charming and cool, and and…
I’m accurate within a meter. That’s some quality H20. 
(belated emoji so that isn’t taken as anything other than a movie reference and a joke)
What I find interesting about this whole concept… I imagine that personality type shifts dependent upon the other personalities that exist within your social situation. I’d imagine it to be entirely different depending on who’s there with you.
I also imagine that quite a different result would come about if you took the test or various people took the test on your behalf.
I sincerely enjoyed a book by Orson Scott Card about character. He touches on how we are different people in different relationships.
Hell, maybe on different days.
Well, fellow Champ, I am also an ENFP. So, we can likely do this all day long if we want.
I see now where you are coming from. Thanks. So far, you’re demonstrating extreme skepticism. All of these arguments are deduced from that. Even what you’re pointing out with the MBTI is a flaw with testing and ignores the theory.
You haven’t actually addressed any of the points I’ve raised with sophistication even though you are quoting me. Skepticism isn’t science and it is often abused in amateur philosophy.
If you want to be a skeptic, there is no philosophy in the world that can compete. Espousing skepticism can be done with anything. I’m not making an ad homenim attack. I’m simply saying you’re using a philosophical nuke that can be used to obliterate any argument.
But, like all skeptics, no argument is being made that we can’t also be skeptical of. So, either stop and let’s get down to business or else…I see your skepticism and raise it with my own. I’m skeptical of all of your skepticism. Consequence is we can’t know.
Now, can we have a real discussion about a theory or how to apply it?
So far it sounds like you have no logical complaints about the theory, but are not clear on how it is applied. As a skeptic, you can’t know anything for certain. So, how do you know that Dramatica is ESP? How do you know if gravity will work tomorrow? Is there any link between cause and effect? —how about proving that —I’ve never seen a philosopher pull that off. It would be easier to prove God exists necessarily.
As a skeptic you know nothing.
Skepticism is a cheat. I’m not attacking you. I’m just asking you to stop the behavior because it won’t get the results you want. It isn’t how science is done.
I’m also an Aquarius, so who knows where this could go.
You keep writing as if I’m making a bunch of arguments. I’m not. I’m making one incredibly obvious point: for a thing to be objective, it has to be independently observable.
It’s not rocket science. It doesn’t require an advanced degree in philosophy and certainly not random word salad posed as syllogisms.
I haven’t spent a lot of time with philosophers amateur or otherwise so I can’t speak to the veracity of that statement. But please, do go one bringing up skepticism as many times as possible.
That’s a start, I suppose, but can you get it five times in three sentences?
There we go.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
To be skeptical of something means you have doubts about something. It doesn’t mean you spin around in a circle going, “I can’t prove that gravity will exist tomorrow, so gravity does not exist, but I can’t prove that gravity doesn’t exist, so it must exist, but it cannot exist because I am skeptical…skeptical…skeptical.”
In that high school course I mentioned, they called this “reductio ad absurdum”.
If you want proof of cause and effect, drink a glass of water. See how the water is now in your tummy? Now, don’t drink a glass of water. notice that it’s not in your tummy? This is cause and effect – not the ridiculous absolutist nonsense you’re aiming for, but a common understanding of cause and effect.
Just like a common understanding of an objective phenomenon is expecting that it can be independently observed. Which remains my only point about the problem with calling Dramatica analyses ‘objective’.
If only scientists would stop being skeptical about God and start addressing the theory of God – independent of evidence – then we could really get things going.
Look, I’ve offered you two pretty simple points. You can take them or leave them or try to reason out why they’re wrong, but tossing around nonsense pseudo-philosophical pronouncements isn’t going to get anywhere. Trying to state that “you’ve expressed skepticism therefore are a skeptic but skeptics can never know anything therefore being a skeptic means you know nothing so please stop being a skeptic” isn’t nearly as profound or convincing an argument as you seem to think it is.
Here’s what I have to offer on this issue:
-
For something to be objective it has to be independently observable, so you can’t call Dramatica analyses objective and proven until you can show that to be true.
-
Dramatica’s principles offer a heuristic that – like all other heuristics – provides a practical means to a solution within a realm where no perfect or absolutely precise solution is likely to exist.
That’s it. That’s all I’ve got for you.
I was just thinking about the relationship between the story forms and stories as completed consumable fiction.
Is it fair to say that Dramatica is reductionist and stories are holistic?
Perhaps Dramatica appeals to linear problem solvers because it attempts to bridge the chasm between creativity and form. And vice versa for holistic problem solvers. It brings form and creativity closer together.
I imagine one direction is easier for holistic folks and the other is easier for linear folks.
I’d almost call Dramatica an attempt to create holism via linear explanations. It is faux-holism.
In the end, I am sometimes turned off by what seems to be a puristical application. It can sometimes come off as zealous or fanatical.
On the other hand, I understand it completely, because of the outlay of time that is required to be deemed a master, but it hurts accessibility.
Does it matter if Dramatica is hard science or a soft science? I feel as though Dramatica can help me even if I use it wrong… as long as it gets me to thinking and working.
I love a good movie reference. Especially that movie. Feel free to Princess Bride me anytime. I have a near perfect Wallace Shawn impression. Sadly, it isn’t difficult for me to do at all.
1 Like
@decastell, I just want to say that I appreciate how willing you can be to express your doubts and skepticism while engaging in conversation. Reading those conversations and, particularly, being personally engaged in them really helps me with some of the issues I have. As I think you mentioned to Jim, they may not look productive but I feel like they really are productive for me. So thanks for being the resident antihero in that regard!
- Objectivity exists outside of observation. Your statement is self referentially incoherent because it is not independently observable in and of itself. For something to be objective it simply needs to be fair. I think what you are trying to do is discuss whether or not something is a fact or not. Since a fact is something that is independently observable by someone with the proper observational equipment. Because Dramatica is complex, many lack the operatus to decipher said facts the same way one might struggle with science that requires advanced training in the observation.
2.Dramatica relies on inductive reasoning to apply the theory to reality. All applied math works this way. It is no different than music theory or color theory. Perfection isn’t the goal, it is simply within tolerances. Any argument for a failed heuristic would have to show that it is out of bounds and not that it lacks perfection. How is this a problem?
Science can only disprove the null hypothesis which is a resuctio ad absurdem argument. So, if you want to do science, I’m all ears. But, that isn’t what you have demonstrated. What is your hypothesis? What is the contradiction implied by your hypothesis?
Radical skepticism and having doubts are two different things.
What are you doubting?
That people can properly analyze a story based on induction.
Or
That stories have storyforms.
Or
Humans can be objective.
Or
Subjective beings can perform an objective process.
Or
Reality is objective.
Or
Induction is a sufficient proof
Or
The sample size isn’t statistically relavent
…How much of this has to do with Dramatica vs developing a worldview about models in general?
I would encourage curiosity over skepticism:
How can you solve some of the problems that you are seeing in the analysis process with curiosity?
@jhull and I may disagree about a storyform like whether or not Star Wars has a trilogy storyform. But, we know one of us will be right in the end. I’m using my doubt to be curious and try and find one. Jim uses his doubt to encourage me to try even though he thinks he’s done. But, neither of us is disputing his current findings. I may add to to it, extend one or two across the third film or uncover some substories. But, there aren’t two competing storyforms for a given narrative that is drawing disagreement.
When I got the timelock wrong on the Accountant, I knew I got it wrong because I lost the argument. I didn’t lose a debate. I lost a logical argument. I was outside the tolerances on my induction. I couldn’t beat Chris’ argument. So, I conceeded.
Consensus is a pretty high standard.
Perhaps you could join us in the room or telecommute. Consensus can still be reached with a large number of people. It can be independently verified the same way a math proof is independently verified. But, that also means it can’t be verified by an untrained person. Even trained people make mistakes.
But, acting like we are playing with a ouija board on top of the Dramatica chart is extremely skeptical. So, that is on you to prove if you think you can. However, I can save you some time and you could just believe me that we don’t agree easily. And it is possible that we make an error. What is not possible is that we are all deluded—unless you think we live in the Matrix. In which case, I may jump of a building to see if I can fly. Descarte would be so proud.
I think the issue is less about outlay of time and more about defending rigor. That is, Dramatica as presented is a rigorous discipline that has “correctness” within certain tolerances (as @crayzbrian put it). The problem is that if it’s not approached with a certain rigor, it just becomes a kind of Mad Libs – good for brainstorming, maybe, but not much beyond that. Diluted, it becomes a lot less useful.
One thing that’s interesting is how the same experts who will argue until the ends of the earth to defend a point of theory don’t take that approach to creation – it seems like there are lots of different and useful approaches to applying Dramatica to the creative process, and a consensus that being too obsessive about it when creating is actually harmful.
I continue to think that a more important question than whether or not Dramatica is “correct” is “is it useful for my creative process”? And, how can I approach it in the most useful way? Of course that still requires an understanding of theory – if I arbitrarily put my OS in Universe when what I’m really trying to write is a story with the OS in Physics, I’ve probably done more harm than good.
2 Likes
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.
Gravity is nature’s Impact Character.
2 Likes
This used to be the case in the late 90s and early 2000s when Chris would work out a storyform beforehand. Since about ‘05 or ‘06 he arrives with a blank slate. What you’re interpreting is really him running through the suggested storypoint and determining how it holds up against the theory.
Also, Chris isn’t obsessive about the theory as much as I am, or @sandystone is. He doesn’t have the entire model committed to memory and very often has to recreate why things are the way they are on the spot. That’s also what you’re seeing.
I find it refreshing that he’s like this because I don’t feel like I’m there to guess what storyform Chris thinks is right. I’m there to find the most accurate storyform. Winters Bone and Zootopia are both examples of storyforms where his initial impressions upon starting to think about a possible storyform were overturned by more convincing arguments.
We’re doing Pretty Woman tonight. I haven’t seen the film in ten years and didn’t rewatch it this past weekend. Yet I could tell you the right storyform in a matter of seconds.
I’m not saying this because I’m amazing, I’m saying it because after exposure to well over 400 storyforms, not including professional and amateur works in production, there is an identifiable code to narrative structure that Dramatica defines. And once you familiarize yourself with enough of them you start to see them quite readily and quite easily. Some stories are more obvious than others—Pretty Woman is super boring, Moonlight was fascinating.
But who knows—I could show up tonight and be wrong 
4 Likes
I’m not convinced by any of your responses. I’m not persuaded by repeated skepticism since it doesn’t prove or disprove anything. I’m also not pursuaded by logically falcious argumentation.
We have shown that there is a connection between our theory and reality far more than any other story theory has done and with less resources. Every time we do analysis, we assume there is no connection and the storyform is that contradiction—if that isn’t disproving our null hypothesis, then I don’t know what is. You are more than welcome to apply your apparatus and see if you can produce an error. But, skepticism, logical fallacies, sophistry, and problems pervasive to all models do not disprove your null hypothesis—which is what you need to compete with our work.
So, all I can say is we will formalize things more over time, increase the sample size, organize the knoweledge base, and continue to clarify our process.
If you are interested in developing the skill to do what many others have learned to do, you will have to stop running confusion and learn to do it. After that, if you want to expose the magic and show everyone what we are doing…be my guest. I think you will find that the only magic is the eureka moments when you discover how connected things are.
There is a huge difference between knowing something is objective and something being objective. You can be sekptical about knowing something all day long. But, that epistemological concern doesn’t make something not objective. Something is objective if it is true or fair or real independent of observation. No observation is required. If I shut my eyes, the world is still there.
Science is an objective process done by subjective people. The reason we make mistakes is because we are subjective and not because science doesn’t do its job. Methodologies and evaluations can always be advanced. I don’t delete google maps when it produces a dead restaurant…I either let them know, ignore it, verify it, or strike it out. This doesn’t make me skeptical of maps, mapping software, the territory, or survey equipment. It makes me think the map needs to be adjusted.
More robust science requires a tremendous amount of resources to do at a statistically relevant level. Until then, we have to get by with what we have.
I encourage you to invest your resources in learning how to analyze stories better so you can better teach others how it works or doesn’t work instead of wasting your energy on cheap skepticism or making claims outside of the tolerances of science.
Fair point. I’ve tended to watch out of sequence so I might be ascribing something that, as you say, was more the case in past years.
Hey, I’m fully on board with that possibility – that someone with sufficient knowledge of Dramatica can quickly identify the storyform. Should be easy for a group of people to submit the storyforms they see ahead of time and see how closely they align. Maybe on some films like Pretty Woman everyone would come up with close to the same storyform. Maybe on something like Moonlight they wouldn’t.
Sounds like we’ve reached the natural end of our discussion. Thanks for setting down your points.
I hope to see you show up to a DUG meeting in person or telepresence since I believe being in the room and participating is one of the best ways to master the storyforming analysis process.
I guarantee that it will not only relieve skepticism, but it will also allow your powerful contribution to drive the theory application to something more statistically relevant.
I have a feeling that you will be quite the Dramatica apologist once it clicks.
I feel as though this argument comes down to holistic vs. analytical cognition styles.
That’s to say that a holistic cognitive style will, by nature, favor a dialectical approach: emphasize change; reconcile, transcend, or accept contradictions; and demand multiple points of view.
Whereas an analytical style will favor rules, categories, and logic. It cannot allow for A and Not-A to exist.
But A and Not-A are interdependent in the world of holism. Yin and Yang.