|
|
        |
| What is Dramatica? | |||
| Dramatica Theory Book | |||
| Dramatica Dictionary | |||
| Tip of the Month | |||
| 12 Essential Questions | |||
| Theory FAQs | |||
| Additional Materials | |||
| Contact Us |
Dramatica Theory BookChapter
11: Problem Solving and Justification
(Continued) Accelerating Inequities! But let's complicate this even more... Suppose the inequity doesn't worsen at first, but only gets worse after a while. Then what may have been the most appropriate response for problem solving at one stage in the game becomes inappropriate at a later stage. In such a complex web of changing conditions and shifting context, how is an individual to know what choices are best? We can't. That is the point: we can never know which path is best because we cannot predict the future. We can only choose what our life experience has shown to be most often effective in similar situations and hope for the best. It does not matter how often we re-evaluate. The situation can change in unpredictable ways at any time, throwing all of our plans and efforts into new contexts that change their evaluation from positive to negative or the vice versa. Stories serve as collective truisms, much like the way insurance works. Through them we strive to contain the collective knowledge of human experience so although we cannot predict what will happen to any specific individual (even ourselves) we can tell what is most likely the best approach to inequity, based on the mean average of all individual experience. Strategy vs. Analysis Although we have covered a lot of ground, we have only covered one of two kinds of problem solving/justification: the effort to resolve an inequity. In contrast, the second kind of problem solving/justification refers to efforts made to understand inequities so that we might come to terms with them. In a sense, our initial exploration has dealt with strategies of problem solving whereas this other area of exploration deals with defining the problem itself. Defining the ProblemWe cannot move to
resolve a problem until we recognize the problem. Even if we feel the
inequity, until we can pinpoint it or understand what creates it, we
can neither arrive at an appropriate response or act to nip it at its
source. You Idiom!We all know the
truisms, "where there's smoke, there's fire," "guilt
by association," "one bad apple spoils the bunch," "the
only good (fill in the blank) is a dead (fill in the blank)." In
each of these cases we assume a different kind of causal relationship
than is generally scrutinized in our culture. Each of these phrases
asserts that when you see one thing, another thing will either be there
also, or will certainly follow. Why do we make these assumptions? Because,
in context, they are often true. But as soon as we apply them out
of context they are just as likely false. Associations in Space and TimeWhen we see something
occur enough times without exception, our mind accepts it as an absolute.
After all, we have never seen it fail! This is like saying that every
time you put a piece of paper on hot metal it will burn. Fine, but not
in a vacuum! You need oxygen as well to create the reaction you anticipate. |
|
Copyright
© 1994-2009 Write Brothers, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |