Comments on: The Functions of Fictions http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: lelo elise http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2158 lelo elise Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:04:56 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2158 thanks for the post thanks for the post

]]> By: GilM http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2165 GilM Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:23:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2165 Also, appreciating literature doesn't mean you've mastered reading people. Perhaps those most interested are those who are the worst at reading people, and they're constantly surprised by other people's perspective; while those who are good at reading people are bored with literature because it's all so obvious. Also, appreciating literature doesn’t mean you’ve mastered reading people.

Perhaps those most interested are those who are the worst at reading people, and they’re constantly surprised by other people’s perspective; while those who are good at reading people are bored with literature because it’s all so obvious.

]]> By: GilM http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2166 GilM Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:23:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2166 Also, appreciating literature doesn't mean you've mastered reading people. Perhaps those most interested are those who are the worst at reading people, and they're constantly surprised by other people's perspective; while those who are good at reading people are bored with literature because it's all so obvious. Also, appreciating literature doesn’t mean you’ve mastered reading people.

Perhaps those most interested are those who are the worst at reading people, and they’re constantly surprised by other people’s perspective; while those who are good at reading people are bored with literature because it’s all so obvious.

]]> By: JFB http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2163 JFB Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:32:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2163 Glen's nailed it. Being empathic does not imply that one can successfully behave in an empathic manner, nor at reading people. Reading fiction, though, is another matter. I do believe you've your cause and effect reversed. Glen’s nailed it. Being empathic does not imply that one can successfully behave in an empathic manner, nor at reading people. Reading fiction, though, is another matter. I do believe you’ve your cause and effect reversed.

]]> By: JFB http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2164 JFB Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:32:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2164 Glen's nailed it. Being empathic does not imply that one can successfully behave in an empathic manner, nor at reading people. Reading fiction, though, is another matter. I do believe you've your cause and effect reversed. Glen’s nailed it. Being empathic does not imply that one can successfully behave in an empathic manner, nor at reading people. Reading fiction, though, is another matter. I do believe you’ve your cause and effect reversed.

]]> By: Glen http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2161 Glen Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:26:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2161 Okay, I think the whole problem is bogus. Look, opposable thumbs were adaptive for a variety of reasons, including allowing humans to hold weapons and other survival-relevant tools. But they also allow us to hold other things, like vibrators and baseballs. Do we expect evolutionary theory to have a specific explanation for why thumbs allow us to grasp these unnecessary things? Of course not. The ability to hold vibrators and baseballs is just a (nice) side effect of our having thumbs, whose evolutionary survival value resulted from other things. Likewise, we don't need an evolutionary explanation for each and every type of fictional story that humans might create. All we need is an explanation for why a general capacity for creating and enjoying fiction would, on net, improve reproductive fitness. Pinker's story does that just fine, as does Carroll's. Okay, I think the whole problem is bogus. Look, opposable thumbs were adaptive for a variety of reasons, including allowing humans to hold weapons and other survival-relevant tools. But they also allow us to hold other things, like vibrators and baseballs. Do we expect evolutionary theory to have a specific explanation for why thumbs allow us to grasp these unnecessary things? Of course not. The ability to hold vibrators and baseballs is just a (nice) side effect of our having thumbs, whose evolutionary survival value resulted from other things.

Likewise, we don’t need an evolutionary explanation for each and every type of fictional story that humans might create. All we need is an explanation for why a general capacity for creating and enjoying fiction would, on net, improve reproductive fitness. Pinker’s story does that just fine, as does Carroll’s.

]]> By: Glen http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2162 Glen Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:26:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2162 Okay, I think the whole problem is bogus. Look, opposable thumbs were adaptive for a variety of reasons, including allowing humans to hold weapons and other survival-relevant tools. But they also allow us to hold other things, like vibrators and baseballs. Do we expect evolutionary theory to have a specific explanation for why thumbs allow us to grasp these unnecessary things? Of course not. The ability to hold vibrators and baseballs is just a (nice) side effect of our having thumbs, whose evolutionary survival value resulted from other things. Likewise, we don't need an evolutionary explanation for each and every type of fictional story that humans might create. All we need is an explanation for why a general capacity for creating and enjoying fiction would, on net, improve reproductive fitness. Pinker's story does that just fine, as does Carroll's. Okay, I think the whole problem is bogus. Look, opposable thumbs were adaptive for a variety of reasons, including allowing humans to hold weapons and other survival-relevant tools. But they also allow us to hold other things, like vibrators and baseballs. Do we expect evolutionary theory to have a specific explanation for why thumbs allow us to grasp these unnecessary things? Of course not. The ability to hold vibrators and baseballs is just a (nice) side effect of our having thumbs, whose evolutionary survival value resulted from other things.

Likewise, we don’t need an evolutionary explanation for each and every type of fictional story that humans might create. All we need is an explanation for why a general capacity for creating and enjoying fiction would, on net, improve reproductive fitness. Pinker’s story does that just fine, as does Carroll’s.

]]> By: Kenny Easwaran http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2159 Kenny Easwaran Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:07:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2159 It's not clear to me which direction the causation is supposed to work. Are we supposed to be genetically inclined to like fiction because it helps us read other people, or (more plausibly, I think) are we supposed to be genetically inclined to read other people, which includes fictional people. I think the latter is far more likely, and it also has the charitable benefit of being more consonant with Pinker's views about arts other than literature. We like paintings with green landscapes and a few people, because those are the sorts of territories we like to expand into. We fool ourselves with fictional representations of what we like in other arts; we can do so with fiction as well. It’s not clear to me which direction the causation is supposed to work. Are we supposed to be genetically inclined to like fiction because it helps us read other people, or (more plausibly, I think) are we supposed to be genetically inclined to read other people, which includes fictional people. I think the latter is far more likely, and it also has the charitable benefit of being more consonant with Pinker’s views about arts other than literature. We like paintings with green landscapes and a few people, because those are the sorts of territories we like to expand into. We fool ourselves with fictional representations of what we like in other arts; we can do so with fiction as well.

]]> By: Kenny Easwaran http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2160 Kenny Easwaran Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:07:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2160 It's not clear to me which direction the causation is supposed to work. Are we supposed to be genetically inclined to like fiction because it helps us read other people, or (more plausibly, I think) are we supposed to be genetically inclined to read other people, which includes fictional people. I think the latter is far more likely, and it also has the charitable benefit of being more consonant with Pinker's views about arts other than literature. We like paintings with green landscapes and a few people, because those are the sorts of territories we like to expand into. We fool ourselves with fictional representations of what we like in other arts; we can do so with fiction as well. It’s not clear to me which direction the causation is supposed to work. Are we supposed to be genetically inclined to like fiction because it helps us read other people, or (more plausibly, I think) are we supposed to be genetically inclined to read other people, which includes fictional people. I think the latter is far more likely, and it also has the charitable benefit of being more consonant with Pinker’s views about arts other than literature. We like paintings with green landscapes and a few people, because those are the sorts of territories we like to expand into. We fool ourselves with fictional representations of what we like in other arts; we can do so with fiction as well.

]]> By: Kenny Easwaran http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/17/the-functions-of-fictions/#comment-2153 Kenny Easwaran Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=546#comment-2153 It's not clear to me which direction the causation is supposed to work. Are we supposed to be genetically inclined to like fiction because it helps us read other people, or (more plausibly, I think) are we supposed to be genetically inclined to read other people, which includes fictional people. I think the latter is far more likely, and it also has the charitable benefit of being more consonant with Pinker's views about arts other than literature. We like paintings with green landscapes and a few people, because those are the sorts of territories we like to expand into. We fool ourselves with fictional representations of what we like in other arts; we can do so with fiction as well. It’s not clear to me which direction the causation is supposed to work. Are we supposed to be genetically inclined to like fiction because it helps us read other people, or (more plausibly, I think) are we supposed to be genetically inclined to read other people, which includes fictional people. I think the latter is far more likely, and it also has the charitable benefit of being more consonant with Pinker’s views about arts other than literature. We like paintings with green landscapes and a few people, because those are the sorts of territories we like to expand into. We fool ourselves with fictional representations of what we like in other arts; we can do so with fiction as well.

]]>