Randy Olson's "Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story," Part 3: Synthesis

Part 3 of Randy Olson's Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story is not the longest part of the book, but it's the most difficult to summarize. Part 2, while much longer, concentrated on three methods for making research into story. This chapter is more disjointed and goes in a few different directions.

What does "story" mean?

Olson begins by defining the term he used throughout the entire book: story.

I define "a narrative" or "a story" as "a series of events that happen along the way in the search for a solution to a problem."

This then means a "storyteller" is just someone who recounts the series of events that happened along the way in the search for a solution to a problem. 

Why are scientists so hesitant or afraid to use stories? Because they think they are untruths. But with Olson's definition, they aren't. They're just retelling events. But it isn't just a list of facts. That's not a story. It is only, well, a list of facts. The AAA (and, and, and) method is not actually a story because there is no problem.

McKee's Triangle

Olson relates this to Robert McKee's Triangle of archplot, miniplot, and antiplot. Antiplot is the stuff where nothing happens. There's not even a narrative.

In a miniplot, nothing much happens, but there's always good acting and character development. Archplot is the stuff Olson has been talking about. There's a real problem with a protagonist and antagonist, and the protagonist has to save the day. And everything's pretty linear.

Archplot is the ABT method (that's and, but, therefore for those that don't remember from last time). But archplot must have a positive result. The research proved that something is true. Miniplot is the stuff of null results. Not much happens, but you have to know the information anyway. And the AAA method of listing facts is the antiplot. Nothing happens. At all. It just keeps going with a bunch of images.

The Global Warming Miniplot

This archplot, miniplot, and antiplot metaphor explains why global warming has such problems. There's not a clear cause. Events in the weather patterns appear random. There isn't a single protagonist or antagonist. But most importantly, there isn't a closed ending. Do we try to stop it or is it too late, but we should mitigate it, or do we have to try to learn to live with it?

For Olson, global warming is a "miniplot mess." Just like Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. An important movie, certainly, but not something that we return to again and again. It's just not that exciting.

But imagine this:

Once upon a time on a small blue plant there was an atmospheric crisis that threatened all of humanity [ozone hole] AND by the early 1980s the problem seemed dire, BUT then the nations of the world came together and passed a treaty, THEREFORE today that problem is set to go away...

BUT THEN a second atmospheric problem emerged in the late 1980s (global warming) and those same nations that solved the ozone problem have been unable to solve this problem. WHY IS THAT?

And then it goes into its plot. Why haven't the countries of the world been able to solve this problem? That would be an archplot.

Conclusion: Buy this book

Olson wants scientists to form groups to tell their stories so that they can build their narrative intuition. It's a good goal, but it's hard to do. Trust me. I've tried.

But Olson's book is a good start. It has definitely made me want to continue reading about stories. I think I need to read Olson again, though.

This really is a book that can be returned to again and again. Not only to learn but to enjoy. The writing here is better than in Don't Be SUCH a Scientist, and the stories may be more fun.

Remember: if there is a book that you would like for us to summarize, send us a note.

Randy Olson's "Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story," Part 2: Antithesis

The main, long part of Randy Olson's Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story is the second part, "Antithesis." In the first part, he goes into detail about the power of story and why science should learn how to make its work relevant and exciting by learning how to craft stories. In this second part, he shows how to do that.

He has broken his forms into what he calls the WSP model, or word, sentence, and paragraph.

The word template, or Dobzhansky template

When you want to boil down your main idea, turn to the Dobzhansky Template, named after a famous Russian American geneticist who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

That's the essence of narrative right there. Just fill in the blanks: "Nothing in ________ makes sense except in the light of ________." Without that narrative that makes sense of the big picture, all you have are a list of facts, and nobody likes those.

Try to boil your work down to one sentence, to the main theme. What exactly are you trying to say? To get at? Why should we care about this aspect of science that you study? Because nothing in the bigger picture makes sense without it.

The sentence template: and, but, therefore

I already mentioned the and, but, therefore (ABT) template in my last post, and most of this second part is devoted to this form. Olson calls it the "Universal Narrative Template." The "Nothing in ________ makes sense except in light of ______________" is the main theme of your work, but the ABT template is how you should really try to communicate it.

Scientists often get stuck in the and part, though. They just want to say, "and...and...and...and....and," which is what Olson calls the AAA structure. They never make it to the "but," which is really the problem that they're trying to solve. That's the conflict. Without the "but," we don't care about what you have to say. Without the "but," there really is no story. It's just blah, blah, blah.

It is the "but" that allows us to see the "therefore."

But then there are some who get bogged down in the "buts." They give us three or four or five problems instead of just one! This is the despite, however, yet (DHY) problem. The AAA bores us, but the DHY confuses us. Neither one allows us to follow the exact story. It's best to figure out the Dobzhansky Template and work from there.

Here was a wordy draft of the ABT template from Katelynn Faulk:

In my lab we model moderate sleep apnea in rats with a chronic intermittent hypoxia protocol in order to investigate the physiological mechanisms of sustained diurnal blood pressure, BUT we have realized the importance of molecular pathways within the central nervous system contributing towards blood pressure control, THERFORE we have begun exploring novel molecular pathways that develop as a result of our sleep apnea model.

She eventually drilled down to the core:

We were looking one way but realized there's another way therefore we're looking at that way.

Which allowed her to revise to something optimal:

I my lab we're studying sleep apnea using rats as our model system, AND we've been focused on physiological mechanisms, BUT lately we've realized the real controls may lie at the molecular level in the central nervous system, so AS A RESULT we've begun exploring novel molecular pathways. 

That's the kind of revising we should all do.

The paragraph method: developing narrative intuition

This part is the hardcore part in story developing following Joseph Campbell's hero's journey. Olson gives us his "Logline Maker" to help:

1. In an ordinary world
2. A flawed protagonist
3. Has a catalytic event that upends his/her world
4. After taking stock
5. The protagonist commits to action
6. But when the stakes get raised
7. The protagonist must learn the lesson
8. In order to stop the antagonist 
9. To achieve his/her goal

It works!

To show us how well it all works, Olson goes through several actual abstracts and explains how they use the ABT template. Then he goes through James Watson's The Double Helix and shows how Watson uses the entire hero's journey. It's fascinating, and it shows the power of narrative, even in science.

Randy Olson's "Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story," Part 1: Thesis

Randy Olson wants scientists to learn narrative but they have a tendency to want things to be complicated. Scientists love complexity, it's true, but narrative is about simplicity, not complexity.

"It's all the same story."

Olson insists that science and story follow the same structure. In fact, he says, "Dude, it's all the same story." Meaning ALL. Everything. De todo.

Part of the problem with scientists is that they want to jump straight to the numbers, to the data. But we as the audience or readers, we want to care. We want to be moved. And numbers don't do that. Stories do.

The public gets bored with numbers alone. They want specifics. They don't want a jumble of facts, they want a story that moves them.

And stories have problems. People want solutions to problems, but they need real motivation, a reason to listen in the first place. Without a central problem, there's no need to listen. Scientists sometimes have trouble defining the problems that they're trying to solve.

No, really, it's all the same story

One of the central themes of part 1: Thesis is that all stories are basically the same. Whether it's science's introduction (why), methodology (how), results (what), and discussion (so what?) (IMRAD) or a standard piece of narrative literature like a novel, they all pretty much the same.

Olson uses Joseph Campbell's 1949 work The Hero with a Thousand Faces to prove his point that narrative is all narrative; there's a common thread through all of it.

Part of what people expect from story or narrative is specifics. Olson says, "If I tell you the story of one little girl in Africa who is going to die next year from a disease, you are going to get upset by exactly X number of 'units of upset.' But if I tell you the story of two little girsl in Africa who will die from the disease next year, wouldn't you get twice as upset?"

But that's not how it works. Instead, "the death of one individual is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic." Too bad, but that's the way it works. Stories need specifics to be moving, to be powerful, to truly communicate.

Enter the humanities

Scientists don't take humanities courses, though. Well, most schools require a few general education humanities courses, but scientists in general don't like to take them. They seem like a waste of time. So scientists haven't internalized narrative. They haven't learned narrative intuition.

So the humanities should be there to rescue scientists. After all, they're both on the college campus, so they should help one another.

But nope, the humanities are just a bunch of academic eggheads:

I'm afraid they're a bit of a write-off for the sciences when it comes to addressing this serious, and I think urgent, problem of narrative deficiency. Scientists need help, but they must get it from people who go beyond theorizing and work in the real world.

Hollywood to the rescue!

So what scientists need is Hollywood. Hollywood is cutthroat. If you can't cut it, you're cut. You're only as good as your last good movie.

And Hollywood understands narrative. Just like the humanities folks, Hollywood has developed the narrative intuition. They understand how narrative works. They have to. They must keep telling good stories again and again. They have to practice it. Their entire lives depend on it.

Not like those humanities eggheads who get their tenure and then stop caring. They never really even have to practice it.

Randy Olson's "Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story," Chapter 1: Introduction

For the next few weeks, we turn back to Randy Olson. After reading his 2009 work Don't be Such a Scientist, I wanted to read more from Olson. In Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story, he continues the project he began in Don't be Such a Scientist; again, he wants scientists to learn from Hollywood and mass marketing about how to get their messages across. Here, however, the focus is on storytelling. He wants scientists to become storytellers, and this book explains how.

The first chapter explain why scientists need to become storytellers.


Olson begins by saying that science is inundated with story. IMRaD, the structure of scientific papers, is itself a narrative structure: introduction (why), methodology (how), results (what), and discussion (so what?). Scientists know that structure, but they refuse to think of it as narrative.

And that refusal to tell stories causes problems.

Problems from not using narrative in science

First, the refusal to craft stories leads to exaggerated claims. Scientists can't get published if their results do not amount to something new and positive. Null results, ones where there is no pattern, can't get published.

Because scientists refuse to use the narrative structure to make even null ideas exciting, they instead exaggerate their claims to make the results themselves exciting. If they would tell a good story, even the null results would be seen as important (which they are. All scientists know that proving something is not true is just as important as proving something is true.).

Second, the lack of storytelling or narrative leads to a public that doesn't buy many of the claims of science. Story makes people listen, and on many issues the general public isn't willing to listen to scientists because they don't use narrative. Narrative makes the public care.

The And, But, Therefore (ABT) method

Olson advocates the and, but, therefore (ABT) method for communicating science:

"In my laboratory, we study physiology AND biochemistry, BUT in recent years we've realized the important questions are at the molecular level, THEREFORE we are now investigating the following molecular questions..."

He calls it the "DNA of story," as well as the DNA of argument, and they're both based on the Hegelian dialectic, which is, not coincidentally, the DNA of the scientific method.

Therefore, Olson sets up his own book in a similar manner. He begins with a section called "Thesis," then moves into "Antithesis," and concludes with "Synthesis."

What he wants is to create a narrative intuition and a narrative culture, where scientists think in terms of story and can evaluate the stories of others.

Let's continue and see exactly what he means here.

Alexei Kapterev's "Presentation Secrets": Chapter 11, Where to Go Next

The answer to Kapterev's question "Where to Go Next" for you  is to go buy this book, of course. Presentation Secrets is well worth the investment in money and time. After all, you have already read a summary of it, but there's more to learn, to be sure.

But he gives the answer "Where to Go Next" for those who already own the book and want more. He summarizes everything he has covered in the text itself and then provides further resources for slide design, storytelling, delivery, and even general presentation advice.

His list of resources is impressive and well thought out. He describes everything and says why it would be the next step. He doesn't just list everything.

Overall impressions of Kapterev's Presentation Secrets

This book is good. It's scope is impressive, certainly, but it's the depth of his advice that gets me. It's his refusal to give a list of do's and don't's that most grabs me. He goes into the why before he goes into the how. He doesn't just tell you where to stand; he goes into the psychology of where to stand and how to get the audience to go along with you.

Kapterev is an expert, and we can all learn from him. I know I did.

Alexei Kapterev's "Presentation Secrets": Chapter 10, Unity in Delivery

"Unity in Delivery" is the last main chapter in Kapterev's Presentation Secrets. He has discussed focus--eye contact, voice, confidence; and contrast--confrontation, offense, humor, and copying others. Now it's time to move into improvisation and authenticity.

Notice here that Kapterev isn't content to just give a list of do's and don't's. He actually wants to provide all of the tools to allow us to become better presenters. But it's extremely difficult to teach improvisation and authenticity, and it's nearly as hard to summarize a chapter on the subject.

But these are two of the most important aspects of good presentation skills, so we have to grapple with them.

According to Kapterev, authenticity is there at the intersection of honesty and improvisation. You have to be honest, but you have to give up a little control in order to really come across as authentic. We want honesty, make no mistake, and we want leaders who can admit their faults, who seem like real people.

Censoring yourself

Part of the problem here is that we're taught to censor ourselves, to cut out all language that is inappropriate. And that's amplified when we're presenting because we go into the gobbledygook mode Kapterev discussed earlier.

And it makes it look like we're lying.

Or we lose our creativity through our desire to control.

Or we focus on our interior censor rather than on the audience.

So we have to give up control. It's better to give up that control and speak freely than to come across as lying. We really do have to learn to let our unconscious minds flow more freely. In other words, say what you mean the way you really think it. Then watch the audience's reaction and adjust your delivery.

Rehearsal

Improvisation doesn't mean you don't rehearse, though. According to Kapterev, rehearsal is the key to improvisation. It leads to so much confidence in the subject that you can ditch the exact words at the last minute, and everything will be alright.

And you should actually say the words, the presentation, aloud to your imaginary audience. Try saying things differently the second time you go through it. Record it. Try something different again. Watch yourself. Try it again. You will realize that the most interesting parts are the ones where you struggled to say something and did it anyway. You let go.

Mistakes

They're difficult to overcome, of course, and we all make them. But what do we do about it? Kapterev recommends we exaggerate them. In other words, if we need to pause, pause. If we find that we cross our arms, we say something about crossing our arms. Or we cross them tighter in exaggerated fashion. In other words, we make it purposeful. We make fun of ourselves.

And audiences respond to those bits of improvisation as authentic and honest. And they will be more willing to listen to us.

Alexei Kapterev's "Presentation Secrets": Chapter 9, Contrast in Delivery

It's all about passion

"Contrast in Delivery" is all about being passionate in presentations. As a speaker, you aren't expected to be a great actor, but you are expected to be "openly in love with whatever you're in love with." So if you don't love what you do, it's hard to give a good presentation. In fact, Kapterev says, you may need to start looking for a job that you will actually love. Because you can't give a good presentation about something you care nothing about.

The joy of confrontation

To keep things interesting, Kapterev says he likes conflict (which is, in itself, a confrontational statement). He likes it because it keeps things interesting. He wants people to disagree with him so that he can have a dialogue rather than just a boring monologue.

One of the ways he confronts people is by using humor. Not telling jokes, but stories about others, not the audience. Or to exaggerate claims so that people don't get offended. Instead, they may laugh at themselves but they do recognize that their previous behavior was wrong. So they may change.

But confrontation and offense aren't necessarily bad, either. Kapterev insists that a good presentation will upset a few people. That's because the ideas are new. Or the speaker is passionate and uses strong language. Not necessarily swearing, mind you, but showing passion about the subject. Like the example from Robert Lustig about the dangers of sugar, where Lustig calls sugar and corn syrup poison.

That's strong language. And it offends people.

Learning from great presenters

I always tell my students that if they want to become better presenters, they need to watch and pay attention to other presenters, both good and bad. Emulate the good; try not to become the bad.

Kapterev agrees. He says that you can only become yourself, the presenter that is uniquely you, by knowing others. You need to create your own personal style, yes, but you do that by learning from others. In fact, he recommends copying other presenters. The whole presentation. Try to become like your favorite presenter by becoming your favorite presenter and actually giving that presentation.

Copying someone else allows you to learn how to be passionate because it can actually teach you compassion. You get inside the other person's patterns, and you learn to act. Which can allow you to become a different, more passionate person onstage.

The rest of the chapter is devoted to the mechanics of copying another presenter:

• choosing a person to copy
• finding videos
• writing the transcript
• recording yourself

and Kapterev gives lots of good advice.

But it's mostly pretty simple.

Learn how to present by copying the best presenter you know. Actually try to give their presentation.