Deliberate vs...: A Post About Thinking (Part Three)

If you didn't read part one of this post series, you should really go back and do that. I don't actually say that very often, even when I do a series of posts. Generally, I try to keep the individual posts episodic in nature while being related in overall subject matter. However, this post is directly linked to the first post in this series, and, although you can read it all on its own, it won't have the same relevance. As such, I'm not repeating my disclaimer about how this is not meant to offend anyone.

Within the spectrum of how quickly people decide things (most people (80%) doing it quickly and with little to no thought), there are three categories of how people make decisions: emotionally, intellectually, and intuitively. As you may have guessed, the emotional decision makers are the ones that most quickly make decisions because they are reacting based upon how they feel about the subject. But it's not that simple...

Recent studies have shown that emotions are an essential part of the decision-making process for everyone. Yeah, it defies reason, because you'd think that making decisions is based on logic and reason and stuff, but, well, it's totally not.

"So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion." *

"Their ultimate decision is based on self-interest. That’s emotional. I want this. This is good for me and my side." * 

*link

"The brain's wiring emphatically relies on emotion over intellect in decision-making" **

**link

There's a lot more I could go into with this stuff, such as how almost all people accept the first piece of information they receive on a subject as true whether it's true or not [There was a fascinating study done where people were intentionally given false "facts" and, later, when the researchers came back and gave them the real facts, most of them (yeah, around 80%) would not look at the new information. They steadfastly held to the falsehoods even when told "we lied to you." They had already formed an "emotional attachment" to the information and no amount of counter evidence would persuade them. They believed they were being lied to in the second case rather than believe they had originally bought into a lie.], but, then, this piece would go on forever.

To give this some personal flavor, I ran into this kind of behavior for the first time around the third grade. I had learned some new fact at school, and, for some reason, it came up later with my family. My (step)father disagreed with my fact and told me I was wrong. I fell back on "my teacher said," and he told me she was wrong. I wouldn't let it go, so, later, we looked it up, and it turned out that I was correct, but my father said the resource material was also wrong. When I tried to argue with that, he told me he was right because "he said so." Then I got punished. It was a very eye opening situation.

Unfortunately, later, I would find out that most people are actually like this, refusing to accept facts in favor of what they already believe. They may not be quite as volatile about it as my dad was, but they are just the same.

The point is that very few people can break out of their emotional center when making decisions and most people (around 80%) make decisions solely based upon how they feel about whatever it is that's being decided. I like this; therefore, it is right.

The second group of people are the ones that make decisions intellectually. This is a more rational process in which the person needs information in order to make decisions. These are the list makers, those people that you know that list out all of the pros and cons of something before they can figure out what to do. Unfortunately, emotions are frequently behind the need to make the decision in this manner, such as the fear of making the wrong choice or, even, the driving desire to make the correct choice. Frequently, people also use this technique to bolster the decision they have already come to from an emotional standpoint, but they want or need for it to appear to be a rational decision. Still, all of this is slightly better than reacting from a purely emotional standpoint. These people make up most of the remaining 20%.

The last percent or two of decision makers are what's called intuitive thinkers. Science isn't really sure about these guys. Intuitive thinkers gather information, but it's not in the same way as the intellectuals. The intuitives are more likely to evoke empathy in their decision making by looking at the argument from multiple points of view. This goes beyond a mere list of pros and cons but involves taking into account how the differing sides feel about the situation. It takes the varying emotional viewpoints into consideration. After gathering all of the information, the intuitive decision-maker attempts to make the "right" decision, not necessarily the most objectively correct decision.

One thing we do know is that empathy, actual empathy, is fairly rare. Mostly, what people do is sympathy and mistake that for empathy. Sympathy is "I feel bad for you," but sympathy is also imagining how you would feel if you were in the same situation as the other person, "I'd feel really bad if I was going through that, so I feel bad for you." People often get that second one mixed up with empathy and, while it is a step toward empathy, it is not empathy. Empathy says, "You feel bed, so I feel bad with you." Or whatever the applicable emotion is. One keeps your own emotions intact; the other suppresses your own emotions in favor of the other person's.

Yeah, not even science has a good grip on empathy, what it is, how it works, or why so few people are capable of it. What we know for sure is that animals, especially dogs, are much better at it than people. Sure, many people may experience a flash of empathy once or twice in their lives, but actual empathetic people (on a sustained basis) are few and far between. What studies have shown, though, is that empathy is required in order to make decisions that go against your own emotional needs. It  takes the ability to be able to say "that other person's emotional requirements are more important than mine are, right now, so I'm going to put my own decision aside in favor of the other person's."

What all of this says is that reasoning with someone with an opposing view is rather pointless, because less than 20% of people have even a chance of being swayed by rational discourse. It doesn't matter what kind of logic is used or how much evidence you have; you can't change someone's mind that way. The only way to change someone's mind is by manipulating their emotions, and, guess what, that's exactly what commercials strive to do, get you to make an emotional connection with the product, whether that product is a thing, a person, or a position.

The other thing we know (scientifically) is that ideologies are strong emotional positions, and it's very (very) difficult to sway someone to an opposing viewpoint. In fact, unless the person only has a very shallow belief, psychology suggests that it's impossible without some sort of emotional crisis. For instance, a person that believes we have the right to own guns and own any kind of gun we want to own and that the government has no business knowing anything about it is likely to change his position if a loved one is killed in an episode of gun violence. He will suddenly "see the light" and realize how wrong he has always been and switch sides in the gun debate. As an example.

So, great, we have all of this information, but what good does it do us? Well, most of science will tell you that you are one of these ways because you were born that way and tough luck; however, there is some research that suggests that empathetic behavior models can be taught to children. The research is ongoing in that. I do know that people can learn, through (very) concerted effort, to make better decisions. To remove themselves from the emotion and approach the situation from the outside. Most people just aren't willing to do that. I also know that through (very) concerted effort people can learn to not accept every bit of information at face value.

I got kind of lucky with that. I had a great teacher at just the right time that taught me never to just accept what anyone was telling me, no matter who it was or how much I trusted that person. Even when it's people we trust, we can be mislead, not necessarily because that person may be trying to be misleading us but because that person might believe the wrong thing. Like my dad. That really became the operating basis for my life. Always confirm. Not that I always do that, because the piece of information may not be important enough to spend the time on, but I also won't give it any weight until I've seen evidence to back it up.

Let me just say that I've been in the room with preacher teaching an internet hoax as fact and leave it at that. You just don't want to be that person.

Anger, Laughter, and Chocolate

Some anger:
My younger son just finished reading Animal Farm for school. He loved it and hated it. At one point, he became so angry at what was happening that he threw the book across the classroom. Well, not all the way across, but he threw the book. I applaud his outrage over the depredations of Napoleon. The interesting thing to me is that of the kids in his class, only my son and one other kid grew upset over what was going on in the book, and that outraged my son even more. He kept saying to his friends that Napoleon was evil, and they couldn't understand why he was saying that. Right up to the very end. I think this may be very indicative of our culture, because all the kids expected it all turn out okay in the end and, really, Napoleon was just trying to do the right thing. It's interesting and more study should be done about this.

As a side note, I don't remember there being any issue among my friends with understanding the book when I read it in middle school. Now, I'm curious if that was a product of my school (smart kid school) or a product of my generation. I think this question is coming to me about 30 years too late.

Some laughter:
Well, actually, I'm just still laughing over "It was a sock," but, because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you something else to laugh about:




And, now, the chocolate:
Remember, Wednesday is the deadline for submissions in the Great Chocolate Contest. Briane Pagel has a great story in the works, but I'd hate for him to win by default... even if he does say he's going to win anyway.


But, now, the real "Anger and Laughter"! Today is the FREE! release of the newest piece of Shadow Spinner:

Yeah, those are the proof copies, one of which someone should be winning very soon. Only three in existence! My son temporarily has the third one. But, anyway, today, Monday, February 4 and tomorrow, Tuesday, February 5, "Part Fourteen: Anger and Laughter" will be available for FREE! You can't beat that price is all I can say. To go along with the FREE! release of "Anger and Laughter," I also have FREE! today only:
"Part One: The Tunnel"
"Part Six: The Man with No Eyes"
"Part Seven: The Moth and the Shadow"
"Part Twelve: The Gash in the Floor"
"Part Thirteen: The Clearing"
Tell your friends, and don't forget to click the little "like" button. That would be awesome!
And, if you've read "The Tunnel" or any of the other parts, it would be great if you'd feel lead to leave a short (or a long) review.

Paperman

I wasn't really planning to post anything today, but I had to share this. This is nominated for best animated short film, and, without having seen any of the other shorts that have been nominated, I hope this wins. You should all watch it and go off and have a great weekend.

How To Win at Magic: Part 1: The Harry Potter Effect

Back in 1993 a game came out that sort of changed everything about gaming. That game was called Magic.

There were really only two types of gaming back around 1990: RPG (role-playing (like D&D (get your minds out of the gutter))) and tabletopping (like Warhammer). That had been the status quo for a decade or so at that point. [Being a "gamer" meant something completely different back in 1990 than it does today (a good example of how terms change meaning), because video games had not yet had the explosion that MMOs such as Everquest and WoW would bring them.] To make this clear, prior to the release of Magic, my gamer buddies and I met several times a week to play many different games.

There was a night for D&D. There was another night for some other kind of role playing game which varied based on who was GMing and whatever game they wanted to be running. Other nights would be for Warhammer Fantasy Battle, the tabletop game we played. At least two nights of that a week in various formats. Sometimes, there were even board games like Risk and, every once in a while, poker. So, yeah, I was a pretty serious "gamer."

Mostly, the guys I gamed with had actual, real social skills. Many of the guys on the fringe, the guys we didn't play with on a regular basis, did not have social skills. As an example, on of those guys was called "Boogie" and that name had nothing to do with dancing. This was not a name that he was called behind his back. It was what he was known as, how he referred to himself, and he was in full knowledge of where the nickname came from, and he was fine with that. I only tell you that to confirm that some of those stereotypical views of "gamers" had a strong basis in reality.

Like I said, though, the guys I gamed with were mostly not like that, although they had all gone to the same high school as me, which meant that there was some amount of nerd in each of them just for the sake of the fact that you had to be smart to get into the school.

Mostly, we met at a particular friend's house, because, of all of us, he was the only one that was married and had a house. And a kid. This was probably the reason that only the socially adept were in our group, because, below a certain aptitude at communication and social graces, my friend's wife would not allow the person over to the house. Boogie was one of those people. He was allowed over one time to participate in a tabletop event, and my friend's wife very firmly let it be known after he had left that Boogie was not to come over again. We had another guy in the group that was only barely able to be there. The wife was always on the verge of kicking him out, because he had no control over his mouth.

There were some nights when we'd meet at the comic shop when those that were more like Boogie were allowed to be involved in whatever it was we were doing.

All of that is kind of beside the point, though. Mostly, it's just to show you how things were. We gamed. We played a lot of different games. We tried out new games. There were all kinds of things going on that we did, and we had different nights for the different things, so you could kind of pick and choose what nights you wanted to be involved. It was a lot of fun. Yes, I do miss those days.

Then came the fall of '93. One of the guys in our group took a trip out here to CA and brought Magic back with him because it hadn't yet made it to Louisiana. It changed everything. We were all, and I do mean all of us, fascinated by the game, and we all undertook it to get cards and put in a big group order through the mail to a CA retailer to get some. Seriously, it was well into '94 before the cards became available enough for any of the local stores to be able to stock the cards. Magic had the same effect on out little gaming world as Harry Potter had on the book world.

After Magic, everything was Magic. That's all we did. Often, we got together four or five nights a week to play. Once the local retailers were finally able to start stocking the cards (summer of '94 with the release of the Legends expansion), tournaments started happening, and everything became focused on that. Often, our evenings of playing were really only to refine our decks for the weekly tournament. [I was the top ranked player in north LA through '94 while we were tracking player stats. After that, Wizards of the Coast came up with their own ranking system, and we quit tracking it. It was a lot of hassle, and we had a lot of players in and out of the store by that point. (We were the biggest tournament location in north LA, so people would come from hours away to play every week.)] It was more than two years before we started filtering back into doing things that weren't Magic.

Harry Potter had pretty much the same impact on books and, well, kind of, everything. Harry Potter changed the landscape of popular culture and reading and movies and... like I said, everything. It was a, ready for it?, game changer.

The interesting thing to me about both of these phenomena is that neither creator created with the intention of "taking over the world." They made an excellent product, and it, the taking over the world, just happened. In fact, Richard Garfield, the creator of Magic, wasn't even trying to make/sell Magic. He had this other game, RoboRally, that he was trying to sell to WotC, but the guy at WotC told him what they really wanted was something portable. Garfield decided on a card game.

So... the first way to win at Magic: have a good idea and make it into the best product you can.

Here are some of my favorite cards from the Beta edition of Magic:

It's a great card, but it also went well with my whole elf thing from Warhammer (in which I played wood elves). No, I'm not going to explain how those things go together.

Not incredibly powerful but nice art and, again, elf.

The first Mox I ever pulled from a pack. The pack of cards cost $2.49; the Mox Emerald is currently worth over $500.00. I own this.

The most expensive card in Magic at up to $2000.00. Yes, I own this, too.

One of the best pieces of art from the initial series of cards.

"There's a poop on my floor."

Before I start into today's post, Briane Pagel has been working on his short story for the Great Chocolate Contest. He is, of course, serializing it. I'm not sure why exactly I'm saying "of course" other than that, coming from Briane, it feels like an "of course." At any rate, you can read the story up to its current part
here (part 1)
here (part 2)
here (part 3) and
here (part 4).
This is a good example of why I wanted to do this contest. Briane has taken this in such a different direction than I ever would have thought, and that is an "of course." Still, it's like nothing I would have imagined, and I can't wait to see where he's going with it. My favorite thing is Seal Team i. That's just pure genius. [Just in case you don't have the math background to understand why: "i" is the imaginary number used in all sorts of advanced mathematics. Since this is all based on the "Imagination Room," this is an awesome concept.] Also, the story guest stars Rusty, which is just awesome in and of itself. You should go read!

Today's post:

When you have an animal living in your house, you can just expect the occasional... accident. Even from potty trained animals, it's gonna happen at some point or another in all likelihood. Now, don't get me wrong, the dog is pretty good. She never pees in the house, and she only ever poops in the house if her stomach is upset, and she can't get outside. Like in the middle of the night. And I'm not gonna expand on what "upset" means. Let's just say that the last time we had an issue with her was at Christmas when I let her have a bunch of ham scraps, and by ham scraps I mean mostly ham fat. I will never do that again, because her stomach was upset for about two days after that, and, well, no one wants to clean that up.

Anyway...

This last weekend, my daughter had a friend over to spend the night. The dog

slept in the boys' room. Not that that's not where she normally sleeps, but she did that night because of the friend. The kids sleep with their doors closed at night, so, see, the dog slept in the boys' room means that that is where the dog was the whole night.

The cat was in my room. That's where the cat has decided he needs to sleep of late. At the end of my bed on either my feet or my wife's. Mostly, this is fine. Except that my daughter is more than a little upset that he, the cat,

I think he's contemplating painting his claws.

has decided not to sleep with her anymore. But, then, she's kind of dangerous when she sleeps, so I can understand why the cat might want to be somewhere else.

Basically, that night there had only been two living beings in my daughter's room: my daughter and her friend.

The next morning, as I was semi-dozing on the couch with the dog (because I'd had to get up at 6:00am to let the cat out), my daughter came and poked my in the arm and said in a half-dazed voice (because she wasn't completely awake yet), "Dad, there's a poop on my floor." I'm sorry, but pre-7:00am on a Sunday morning is too early to deal with that sh... stuff. Besides, my kids know that they are responsible for any poop left for them as gifts in their rooms. I took care of anything not in their rooms, but they get to deal with the stuff in their rooms. Let's call  it the price you have to pay for having a pet and for having that pet sleep in bed with you. However, it didn't make any sense that there could be poop in her room, because there had been no animals in her room.

In an effort to find out more information, I said, "What kind of poop?" This is a perfectly logical question and has specifically to do with what kind of clean up job the poop will entail. Basically, "is it hard or soft?" which is the framework within which I expected her answer to fall. Instead, she held up her hands indicating the size of the poop. What she was showing me with her hands was... well, much bigger than, say, a twinkie. My dog, my little dog, has never had a poop that got anywhere near the size of a twinkie, and, if she did, I'd immediately take her to the hospital, because something would be terribly wrong with her. I responded with the only thing that made any kind of sense in my brain (poop is too big for the dog, and the dog wasn't in her room anyway), "Maybe <her friend> pooped in your room?"

No, it probably wasn't the nicest thing to say, but, when you rule out the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be true. Right? Besides, I've known kids to do much, much worse.

The comment did not amuse my daughter. At all. She sort of stomped away down the hall. I didn't get up. Poop on her floor is her job to clean up. And I was still busy trying to figure out how there could be poop on her floor anyway. And I still wasn't completely conscious. The dog was warm and cozifying, and I just didn't feel like moving. Yes, her friend was asleep through all of this.

I think my daughter really was, too.

A couple of minutes later, she came back, stopped next to me and said very flatly, "It was a sock," and walked away.

The laughter, my laughter, woke me up.

And that is the kind of thing that makes me, as a writer, glad I have kids, because there is no way I would ever have thought of anything like that on my own. Seriously, Alex, all writers need kids just as a source of material. They have a genius that adults can never find, and they don't even mean to do it. Don't be surprised if something like this shows up in something I someday write.

Vampire Karate Witches

As those of you that have been around for a while will know, I frequently mention the difference between what is good and what we like and that they are not necessarily the same thing. For you newer people, you can go back and check this post in particular to get the background). People like to think they are, because people want to think "I like this, so it is good" or "I don't like this, so this is bad." Whether we like something or not has no bearing on its quality of "goodness."

I have a direct experience of this to relate.

Over this past weekend, I went to see Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. Let me just start by saying that we didn't go see this so much because we wanted to see it but because we were willing to see it. I was going with a friend and there weren't that many options of movies that he hadn't already seen, so that left us with less than a handful of movies to pick from (I think the actual number was three), and this was the one that rose to the top of things that we were both most willing to go see. For me, it was mostly about Jeremy Renner.

To say that this movie was bad is an understatement. The dialogue was horrible. The story was full of more holes than Swiss cheese. What's really big? Hmm... let's say a planet. But not a small planet like Pluto that gets downgraded from being a planet; let's say something around the size of Uranus, yeah, that one works for this. The plot holes were so big, Uranus could orbit right through them. The movie was absurd. Ludicrous, even. Actually, the movie was at Ludicrous Speed.

And I loved it for that. Okay, well, maybe I didn't love it, but I love it in concept. I enjoyed most of the heck out of it despite how bad it was.

I can imagine how the concept for this movie came about:

#1: Let's make a vampire movie!
#2: Vampires are too done, right now. People are over vampires.
#1: Well, let's make it vampire hunters, then!
#2: No, that's still vampires.
#3: What about witches? No one is doing witches.
#2: Ooh! We could do Hansel & Gretel! They fight a witch.
#1: Witches are lame. They're old hags that can't fight. You'd just have witch hunters walking in and killing all the witches.
#3: We can give them powers.
#1: Like vampires! They can be super strong and super fast.
#2: And know karate!

And, so, we get these huge fight scenes of pasty faced witches that look like vampires and act like vampires, except for the biting, where everyone smashes through trees and boulders and flings spells and never get hurt. It was kind of awesome. I mean, it was completely unashamed of itself in how bad it was. It was like watching a four-year-old rolling around in a mud puddle being all self-satisfied. In fact, it was exactly like that.

I mean, it was like watching kids play an imagination game where they keep making stuff up as they go.

It starts out in a pretty normal Hansel & Gretel setting with some peasant abandoning his children in the woods. The look of the movie is as if it's set in the 1600's. All hovels and burning at the stake and all of that. But, then, as they become witch hunters, there's a scene of newspaper clippings of all the witches they kill as hunters. Newspapers which, of course, didn't exist. All of the "photos" are sketches. The movie is full of anachronistic things of that nature. The movie just doesn't care if it fits the time period or not, which is part of what made it fun. It's also part of what makes it ludicrous.

Kid #1: We're being attacked by a witch!
Kid #2: I pull out my crossbow and shoot at her!
Kid #1: She's too fast for your lame crossbow.
Kid #2: It's a double-barrel machine crossbow!
Kid #1: Fine! I pull out my gun!
Kid #2: You can't have a gun! They didn't have guns!
Kid #1: They didn't have machine crossbows either.
<silence>
Kid #2: You can have a gun.
Kid #1: It's big shotgun, and I shoot at the witch!

The whole movie is like that, and, really, it does just wallow in it, and it made it a lot of fun.

Unlike, say, Van Helsing (with Hugh Jackman) which is much  the same but took itself much too seriously to be enjoyable. In fact, Van Helsing is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, which is unfortunate, because I thought Jackman did a more then fine job with what he was given. Hansel & Gretel never takes itself seriously, and, so, I never had a problem with it. Despite all of the horrible inconsistencies. Even as I sit here writing this, I'm thinking about some of the stupid things in the movie, like the witches being, basically, a separate race and the fact that they don't actually look human at all, so why is there ever a witch problem to begin with? But I kind of also don't care even though my brain is yelling at me that I should care.

Seriously, it's up there yelling, "That's so stupid!" And I'm shrugging and responding, "But it was fun."

Which is not to say that I'd actually recommend the movie to anyone, because I wouldn't. Unless you like mindless action, because that's what this is. Mindless action with a vague setting. Total cotton candy. If you like that kind of thing, this movie is just for you.

Deliberate vs...: A Post About Thinking (Part Two)

If you didn't read part one of this post series, you should really go back and do that. I don't actually say that very often, even when I do a series of posts. Generally, I try to keep the individual posts episodic in nature while being related in overall subject matter. However, this post is directly linked to the last post in this series, and, although you can read it all on its own, it won't have the same relevance. As such, I'm not repeating my disclaimer about how this is not meant to offend anyone.

Also, the planned part two of this series has been pushed to part three, because I realized there's something else that needs to be talked about in relation to part one that is more closely related than where I was going next. So those three types of thinking will be in part three.

I find this particular piece of information fascinating. I find it fascinating, because I completely do not understand how anyone can be this way, and, yet, most people are precisely this way. And that, actually, scares me, because, as I said, I just can't comprehend this.

80% of people (and I have to wonder how strongly this 80% correlates to the last 80% I was talking about) can not (pay attention to that: they CAN NOT) anticipate negative outcomes. Wait a minute, it gets better. Not only can they not anticipate them, when told what the negative outcomes might be along with the positive ones, they can not retain the negative ones. Their brains focus only on the positive outcomes and completely forget that anything bad could happen.

There is that "everything will work out for the best" thing that people say, and, it turns out, it is not just something people say, it is something people really believe. Not in a general sense, either; they believe it in a personal sense. 80% of people believe that everything's going to be okay but, not just "okay," they believe things will be awesome. For them. Personally. Sometime in the future. And, I suppose, that's how people keep from existing in terminal depression even when things are horrible and, worse, completely hopeless.

This whole area of study began over gambling addiction. Some people wondered why gambling addiction happened so as to be able to prevent it from happening, and what they found is that people suffering from gambling addiction absolutely cannot foresee the possibility that they might lose. Given scenarios of lower and lower odds of winning, they would keep going, and they would keep going because they believed that they would actually win. Some of them would keep going even if they were told "there is 0% chance that you will win this. You will not win this," because they couldn't believe that there was no chance that they would win.

That makes sense with gambling addicts, right? Well, when the financial collapse happened, that study was broadened because some people wondered if the cause or, at least, part of the cause was, basically, gambling addiction. Were those people that were in charge of all of that money behaving in the same way that gambling addicts behave? Well, yes. Yes, they were. But what they found out is that that behavior is endemic to all people. 80% of them, anyway. Because they literally can not believe that they will lose.

Even more interesting, they've found this same "risk taking" behavior in animals at around the same percentages. Evolutionary biologists are all over this. At the moment, the simple explanation is that the cautious members of the group insure the survival of the group against the recklessness of the rest of the group. The risk taking behavior is necessary, though, because, otherwise, the group would settle into its niche and cease to grow and change and, then, if there was any kind of catastrophe, the group would be wiped out.

From this perspective, it makes sense that so many people want only "decisiveness." Heedlessness is part of their brain chemistry. So to speak. However, that doesn't change the fact that most of those decisions are the wrong ones. That is why there are so many of those people, though. The cautious members hang back and watch the 80% stumble blindly ahead, most of them getting killed. The cautious ones then follow the ones that fortuitously chose the correct path. It's an interesting dynamic.

Now, I would imagine that most writers, the good ones, at any rate, fall into the 20% group that can envision bad outcomes to situations. You have to be able to think of the bad things to make the story interesting. Otherwise, you're just a happy happy joy joy writer. And I'm sure there are some of those out there, but I bet they are the minority among writers. I'd like to see a study on that, so, "science," get out there and do that! Beyond just thinking of the hypothetical bad outcome, the writer has to be able to put him/herself in the mental space of the character and experience that nastiness. I suppose, in the end, that's why there aren't more people that write. They can't think of the bad stuff.

I suppose, also, that that's why the 80% are attracted to stories where bad stuff happens and why they are surprised by the bad things that happen -- they just cannot anticipate those things, so they get the joy of being surprised every single time because, as I said, not only can they not anticipate those things, they can't remember them from one situation to the next.
That's good for us writerly people, I would say.

Next time we'll get back to those three thinking styles.