Do we think & communicate (almost) entirely in fabricated stories?

I can’t shake the sinking feeling that we (humans) communicate entirely by stories/narratives.

I’m certain there are educated philosophers/social scientists who can set me straight here, but I think I can make a pretty good case.

This theory is this: facts and evidence are very minor players in someone’s worldview and how they communicate, They can be incorporated as window dressing, or a minor prop, but not integral to the story they tell. They don’t even need to be in the story at all.

It’s all about Feelings.

Some examples: “They’re eating the cats & dogs”

The facts are not what’s important - the feeling is the key - people are afraid of change and of people who look different. The pet story conveys this message much better, faster, and clearer

“Chen trails are real”

It’s a story about the teller having secret knowledge and (again) fear of chemicals (chemophobia) or institutions (govt) - feeling powerless

“I helped my buddy with his mower yesterday”

The guy at work tells you of his heroism by going over to his neighbours yard, successful diagnosing the issue and using his bare hands pulls a stick out of the blade and saves the day.

While some or all of it may be true, it’s told in a way that presents the teller in a positive light.

“God is my saviour” No better example exists than the belief in religion. It’s a story that celebrates whatever culture is telling it. It’s about feelings - the described events are not important. They are only important for conveying a feeling or emotion.

I’m aware that we are pattern seekers, but I’m talking deeper than that. It seems to have explanation power for a lot of weird social behaviour. Tribalism, racism, greed, conspiracy theories, religion,

It’s depressing because misinterpreting facts (or completely ignoring) leads to very bad outcomes.

Any thoughts? Can anyone recommend some reading?

The closest I have found is The Theory Of Narrative Thought

I think it’s more pervasive than this theory implies

The "Narrative Turn" precedes you; there are libraries upon libraries written on this subject, and indeed the general shift toward Narrativism in the 1980s was one of the final nails in the coffin for Modernism in the social sciences. Most psychological and sociological studies written in the European academy after the 1990s incorporate narrativist thinking to at least some degree, and it is one of several coincidental trends in my field of anthropology that lead to a strong before and after feel in terms of styles of ethnography, centered around 1983.

Consider a few of the following as potential jumping off points:

• William Labov and Joshua Waletsky, "Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience" (1967)
• Michel de Certeau, "The Practice of Everyday Life" (1974)
• Jerome Bruner, "Actual Minds, Possible Worlds" (1986)
• Donald Polkinghome, "Narrative Knowing in the Human Sciences" (1988)
• Lisa Capps and Elinor Ochs, "Living Narratives: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling"(2001)

Most of us aren't knowledge seekers, we've evolved to seek just enough knowledge to survive. So our understanding of the world can only be as good as our cognitive processes, and the information floating around in our immediate environment. This means that unless we have access to people who do understand the world (not common), or realize we can seek out information intentionally, our understanding of the world is going to be equivalent to the collective knowledge embodied in our culture.

So to re-frame the 'narrative' angle you suggest, it's maybe always a narrative. But the narrative is a best guess on what reality is based on our cognitive ability and cultural inputs. Basically it's always knowledge, but the question surrounds the quality of that knowledge.

In other words, coming to a true understanding of the world is hard, because high quality knowledge isn't easy to come by, and most of us aren't looking for it. For reference, I would describe myself as someone with a reasonably good understanding of the world, and I've read a lot of high quality books. A handful of centuries ago and most people didn't even have access to books, so understanding and learning isn't really a historical feature of the human experience.

JohnG said:

I can’t shake the sinking feeling that we (humans) communicate entirely by stories/narratives.

Click to expand...

There is no reason I can think of, for you or anyone else, to think otherwise. We fail to immerse ourselves in the reality of life and death because the “story” of who we are and what we do, is so much more comfortable. When we are confronted with the reality of our microscopic existence, we retreat to inner narratives about “our place in the universe”.

JohnG said:

I’m certain there are educated philosophers/social scientists who can set me straight here

Click to expand...

Your certainty is another feature of that inner narrative. Nobody can set anybody “straight” on that point. All anyone can do is offer yet another story to accommodate your discomfort, leaving you ‘free’ to take it or leave it.

I’ve not read The Theory of Narrative Thought, but my own narrative process translates it immediately and without consideration, to “The Narrative of Theoretical Thought”. Such is the automated process of translating sensory input. Things that run deeper than what my comfort permits, are converted to forms that fit my pre-existing narrative about my place within a “reality”.

Is it any different for the wisest among us? I hope so but I have my doubts.

It can be argued that ALL our ideas about the world, including those derived from science, are simply narratives, and that scientific findings no more touch on the “true” world, perhaps Kant’s noumena, that do other stories. One current philosopher likens our impressions of the world to icons on a desktop computer, where we have no access to what is going on under the hood.

Of course, likening our impressions of the world to icons on a desktop computer is itself a narrative, derived from the computer. Just as at the dawn of the industrial age reality was supposed to be a big engine or machine of some sort, and before that a clockwork device in the metaphor of clocks.

And according to Thales, the earth was a big rock floating on and infinite ocean, becuase people looked around and saw a lot of rocks girdled by water. It seems our impressions of reality, whatever that is, exactly, are conditioned by our current circumstances and ever subject to change.

pood said:

It can be argued that ALL our ideas about the world, including those derived from science, are simply narratives, and that scientific findings no more touch on the “true” world, perhaps Kant’s noumena, that do other stories. One current philosopher likens our impressions of the world to icons on a desktop computer, where we have no access to what is going on under the hood.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that based on current knowledge it's possible to get pretty close to the true world, but actually reaching that understanding is hard because you're getting outside the Overton window. You're not going to find these descriptions in books or regularly communicated.

rousseau said:

pood said:

It can be argued that ALL our ideas about the world, including those derived from science, are simply narratives, and that scientific findings no more touch on the “true” world, perhaps Kant’s noumena, that do other stories. One current philosopher likens our impressions of the world to icons on a desktop computer, where we have no access to what is going on under the hood.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that based on current knowledge it's possible to get pretty close to the true world, but actually reaching that understanding is hard because you're getting outside the Overton window. You're not going to find these descriptions in books or regularly communicated.

Click to expand...

This is the realist vs. anti-realist debate in science. Another possibility is that we’re not smart enough to figure out what is really going on at some fundamental level. I believe it was William James who likened us to a dog in a library. The best that the dog can do is tell that books are something, but the dog can never know what they really are. This idea is also called “cognitive closure,” that we are closed to discovering any deeper truths because of the limits of our brains.

The idea that an external world exists outside our minds is itself an assumption, and hence ultimately a narrative. The alternative, metaphysical idealism, is itself a narrative. This is the postmodernist line about narratives and their claimed absence of a meta-narrative, but the postmodernist line is itself a narrative.

Plato anticipated all of this in antiquity with his cave narrative.

pood said:

rousseau said:

pood said:

It can be argued that ALL our ideas about the world, including those derived from science, are simply narratives, and that scientific findings no more touch on the “true” world, perhaps Kant’s noumena, that do other stories. One current philosopher likens our impressions of the world to icons on a desktop computer, where we have no access to what is going on under the hood.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that based on current knowledge it's possible to get pretty close to the true world, but actually reaching that understanding is hard because you're getting outside the Overton window. You're not going to find these descriptions in books or regularly communicated.

Click to expand...

This is the realist vs. anti-realist debate in science. Another possibility is that we’re not smart enough to figure out what is really going on at some fundamental level. I believe it was William James who likened us to a dog in a library. The best that the dog can do is tell that books are something, but the dog can never know what they really are. This idea is also called “cognitive closure,” that we are closed to discovering any deeper truths because of the limits of our brains.

Click to expand...

As a species we have a pretty intricate understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology etc. As an individual the challenge is understanding all of those things and how they interrelate, it's hard, but not impossible. There isn't a whole lot of fundamental knowledge that we don't already understand as a species, so it's theoretically accessible for individuals.

Basically what I'm saying is that people can and do understand the world, just very few of them ever achieve this goal.

rousseau said:

pood said:

rousseau said:

pood said:

It can be argued that ALL our ideas about the world, including those derived from science, are simply narratives, and that scientific findings no more touch on the “true” world, perhaps Kant’s noumena, that do other stories. One current philosopher likens our impressions of the world to icons on a desktop computer, where we have no access to what is going on under the hood.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that based on current knowledge it's possible to get pretty close to the true world, but actually reaching that understanding is hard because you're getting outside the Overton window. You're not going to find these descriptions in books or regularly communicated.

Click to expand...

This is the realist vs. anti-realist debate in science. Another possibility is that we’re not smart enough to figure out what is really going on at some fundamental level. I believe it was William James who likened us to a dog in a library. The best that the dog can do is tell that books are something, but the dog can never know what they really are. This idea is also called “cognitive closure,” that we are closed to discovering any deeper truths because of the limits of our brains.

Click to expand...

As a species we have a pretty intricate understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology etc. As an individual the challenge is understanding all of those things and how they interrelate, it's hard, but not impossible. There isn't a whole lot of fundamental knowledge that we don't already understand as a species, so it's theoretically accessible for individuals.

Basically what I'm saying is that people can and do understand the world, just very few of them ever achieve this goal.

Click to expand...

My point, though, is that “understanding” the world is always filtered through our particular phenomenal apprehension of it, by the particular architecture of our brains. The anti-realist in science argues that scientific models of reality are just models of our own cognitive architecture. An alien intelligence might have a radically different interpretation of reality, even including with mathematics that might be totally foreign to us.

To relate this to the OP, it might be that everything is inescapably a narrative/story, including math and science.

pood said:

rousseau said:

pood said:

rousseau said:

pood said:

It can be argued that ALL our ideas about the world, including those derived from science, are simply narratives, and that scientific findings no more touch on the “true” world, perhaps Kant’s noumena, that do other stories. One current philosopher likens our impressions of the world to icons on a desktop computer, where we have no access to what is going on under the hood.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that based on current knowledge it's possible to get pretty close to the true world, but actually reaching that understanding is hard because you're getting outside the Overton window. You're not going to find these descriptions in books or regularly communicated.

Click to expand...

This is the realist vs. anti-realist debate in science. Another possibility is that we’re not smart enough to figure out what is really going on at some fundamental level. I believe it was William James who likened us to a dog in a library. The best that the dog can do is tell that books are something, but the dog can never know what they really are. This idea is also called “cognitive closure,” that we are closed to discovering any deeper truths because of the limits of our brains.

Click to expand...

As a species we have a pretty intricate understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology etc. As an individual the challenge is understanding all of those things and how they interrelate, it's hard, but not impossible. There isn't a whole lot of fundamental knowledge that we don't already understand as a species, so it's theoretically accessible for individuals.

Basically what I'm saying is that people can and do understand the world, just very few of them ever achieve this goal.

Click to expand...

My point, though, is that “understanding” the world is always filtered through our particular phenomenal apprehension of it, by the particular architecture of our brains. The anti-realist in science argues that scientific models of reality are just models of our own cognitive architecture. An alien intelligence might have a radically different interpretation of reality, even including with mathematics that might be totally foreign to us.

Click to expand...

I get it, but at some point you just need to call a spade a spade. If we can send a rocket ship to the moon, fly airplanes over oceans, and develop vaccines, we have a solid model of reality.

rousseau said:

pood said:

rousseau said:

pood said:

rousseau said:

pood said:

It can be argued that ALL our ideas about the world, including those derived from science, are simply narratives, and that scientific findings no more touch on the “true” world, perhaps Kant’s noumena, that do other stories. One current philosopher likens our impressions of the world to icons on a desktop computer, where we have no access to what is going on under the hood.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that based on current knowledge it's possible to get pretty close to the true world, but actually reaching that understanding is hard because you're getting outside the Overton window. You're not going to find these descriptions in books or regularly communicated.

Click to expand...

This is the realist vs. anti-realist debate in science. Another possibility is that we’re not smart enough to figure out what is really going on at some fundamental level. I believe it was William James who likened us to a dog in a library. The best that the dog can do is tell that books are something, but the dog can never know what they really are. This idea is also called “cognitive closure,” that we are closed to discovering any deeper truths because of the limits of our brains.

Click to expand...

As a species we have a pretty intricate understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology etc. As an individual the challenge is understanding all of those things and how they interrelate, it's hard, but not impossible. There isn't a whole lot of fundamental knowledge that we don't already understand as a species, so it's theoretically accessible for individuals.

Basically what I'm saying is that people can and do understand the world, just very few of them ever achieve this goal.

Click to expand...

My point, though, is that “understanding” the world is always filtered through our particular phenomenal apprehension of it, by the particular architecture of our brains. The anti-realist in science argues that scientific models of reality are just models of our own cognitive architecture. An alien intelligence might have a radically different interpretation of reality, even including with mathematics that might be totally foreign to us.

Click to expand...

I get it, but at some point you just need to call a spade a spade. If we can send a rocket ship to the moon, fly airplanes over oceans, and develop vaccines, we have a solid model of reality.

Click to expand...

We have a solid model of something.

pood said:

This idea is also called “cognitive closure,” that we are closed to discovering any deeper truths because of the limits of our brains.

Click to expand...

And the limits of language. Language is a pile of metaphors so when we describe anything we use prefab stories to do so -- images from war, for one example, are there in the most allegedly "factual" or "objective" descriptions and it affects our attitude to the whole world. So, we infuse our tales of "the world" with our cultural values. But literal-minded realists think they're talking "facts" about an "external reality" without much, if any, thought about how much we create our very perceptions with that input of values.

To describe anything is to evaluate it.

"External reality"... It's like we're guessing about what's outside of Plato's Cave without ever having stopped staring at shadows on the wall. Realists imagine the sensory signals get projected on a kind of screen inside their heads. But those go through an interpretative process so the representation of a world "inside your head" is a creative act, not a mirroring. So the nearest to "objectivity" anyone can get is agreement on experiences. "Did you and you and you also see [what happened in my brain]?" "Yes we [imagine that] we saw the same thing [in our brains] that you saw [in your brain]" = consensus knowledge.

abaddon said:

pood said:

This idea is also called “cognitive closure,” that we are closed to discovering any deeper truths because of the limits of our brains.

Click to expand...

And the limits of language. Language is a pile of metaphors so when we describe anything we use prefab stories to do so -- images from war, for one example, are there in the most allegedly "factual" or "objective" descriptions and it affects our attitude to the whole world. So, we infuse our tales of "the world" with our cultural values. But literal-minded realists think they're talking "facts" about an "external reality" without much, if any, thought about how much we create our very perceptions with that input of values.

To describe anything is to evaluate it.

"External reality"... It's like we're guessing about what's outside of Plato's Cave without ever having stopped staring at shadows on the wall. Realists imagine the sensory signals get projected on a kind of screen inside their heads. But those go through an interpretative process so the representation of a world "inside your head" is a creative act, not a mirroring. So the nearest to "objectivity" anyone can get is agreement on experiences. "Did you and you and you also see [what happened in my brain]?" "Yes we [imagine that] we saw the same thing [in our brains] that you saw [in your brain]" = consensus knowledge.

Click to expand...

It reminds me of the Wheeler story in the thread about the “unraveling” of space and time. Wheeler seemed to have concluded that our individual experiences are actually just private mental constructs, and he agonized until he died about why we had the impression of consensus knowledge, since he seemed to have definitely ruled out the prospect of an objective, mind-independent real world.

abaddon said:

And the limits of language. Language is a pile of metaphors so when we describe anything we use prefab stories to do so -- images from war, for one example, are there in the most allegedly "factual" or "objective" descriptions and it affects our attitude to the whole world. So, we infuse our tales of "the world" with our cultural values. But literal-minded realists think they're talking "facts" about an "external reality" without much, if any, thought about how much we create our very perceptions with that input of values.

To describe anything is to evaluate it.

Worse, there is no access to an "external reality". It's like we're guessing about what's outside of Plato's Cave without ever having stopped staring at shadows on the wall. Realists imagine the sensory signals get projected on a kind of screen inside their heads. But those go through an interpretative process so the representation of a world "inside your head" is a creative act, not a mirroring. So the nearest to "objectivity" anyone can get is agreement on experiences. "Did you and you and you also see [what happened in my brain]?" "Yes we [imagine that] we saw the same thing you did" = consensus knowledge.

Click to expand...

But if we can understand that there is a limit to language, and we can understand these very concepts that are being described now, then it's also possible to access knowledge beyond these limitations. I think what yourself and Pood are pointing out isn't that no one can do these things, it's that it's very uncommon to see beyond these facets of reality.

The knowledge about the material universe is there, it exists, but most people have a hard time accessing that knowledge, understanding that knowledge, and piecing it together in a way to see deeper truth.

rousseau said:

The knowledge about the material universe is there, it exists, but most people have a hard time accessing that knowledge, understanding that knowledge, and piecing it together in a way to see deeper truth.

Click to expand...

I think there has to be an objective reality, whether we access it or not. It can't just be a bunch of brains each with their own created worlds inside of them, and nothing else. But I don't agree with you about some "experts" who access "the noumena" using a limited tool like science. Maybe some science-based guesses can be made and math would be the better tool for it than language, for the reason that language is metaphors (so humans cannot get outside of stories while using it).

The universe as "material" is a story. No one knows that the universe is "nothing but matter" or "nothing but consciousness", or whatever other story about what the fundamental nature of phenomena they want to tell.

I'm not looking out of my eyes at the screen just now. The screen is "here" in the same space as all my thoughts and memories and feelings... the whole universe, as known to me, is "here" in that same space. When I stick with the first-person POV then there's no "me in here" and a "world out there".

But when I start talking about "external reality", it bifurcates reality into two -- the phenomena alleged to be inside our skulls and the noumena that is alleged to be outside our skulls. So this fellow that @pood mentioned, Wheeler, "agonized" because he thought he's inside his skull and then doubted any "outside".

IMO he should have doubted the dualism (in here/out there) better.

I mentioned metaphysical idealism in passing a few years back, and an engineer said "Idealism? That's solipsism!" I thought on that, and the more I did, the more clear it was that physicalism is solipsistic and idealism is not.

In the physicalist story, there are 8 billion different brains each doing their things wholly separate from each other (after all, what's the connection if mentality is confined to brains?).

In the metaphysical idealist story (and in cosmological panpsychism) there's one "brain", the universe, and we're events in it. So there's one consciousness and each little tidbit, that seems (but only just seems) like its own individual being, shares in it. So there isn't empty space between the activity of this brain and the activity of that brain...

However, if you feel more convinced of the physicalism story, science isn't your escape from the isolation it imposes. The reason is, as I was saying in my earlier post, science's consensus knowledge isn't agreement about the noumena but about the phenomena.

@pood's been making an important point. Science has a notable limitation -- it measures the behaviors of phenomena but cannot get to the fundamental nature of what the phenomena are.

This limit was a conscious choice back in Galileo's day. Spirit-matter dualism was the shared worldview at that time, and smart folk like Galileo knew spirit isn't measurable for being immaterial. So he and others decided that science's focus must be on matter, and spirit would be ignored by science - they left it in a different "magisteria". Then in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, folk decided, in effect, "let's just forget that whole other magisterium, the spirit or mind... all of reality is matter only!" Science cannot demonstrate that -- the maneuver is made in order to seem like they have a completed "true" story. But, again, science's "objectivity" is people inter-subjectively agreeing about what phenomena they experience. So if there's a noumena "out there" (which I doubt, since I lean towards believing idealism) then you don't get there from science.