scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/8gs0h2.md

## An interesting video on the importance of Irrationality for organic characters.

* Author: u/None *
* URL: https://youtu.be/5_y7G-PFBY4
* Score: 21

* Created: 2018-05-03T17:13:33

### Post:

[Link to content](https://youtu.be/5_y7G-PFBY4)

### Comments:

> **u/PurposefulZephyr** [+29]  (16 hours later)
> 
> I enjoy the idea that's presented, and think that the criticism on it is a bit too harsh.
> 
> For one, author didn't praise every movie that has 'irrational' characters in it. Not every movie uses irrationality well, as shown by Prometheus. A scientist shouldn't touch the space cobra, that's dumb. He's a trained, rational person who faces a possibly hostile, alien fauna.
> 
> But when a bunch of scared, free-spirited teenagers are confronted with a mortal danger, they behave like monkeys with guns? Okay, that's believable. Oh, and the pseudo-soldiers are scared of people who behave so recklessly? Yep, those are people alright.  
> It wasn't even an improbable victory- only *two* of those kids survived. 
> 
> Don't get me wrong- most movies are dumb. Characters there make stupid decisions for no other reason than to drive the plot.  
> But on the other end of the spectrum, we have rational chess-masters, making perfectly correct decision in blink of an eye, having elaborate monologues in middle of the action. That can be entertaining, but it's very far from human.
> 
> It doesn't even require a person to make dumbass decisions to be "organic".   
> Let me just write a few hypothetical movie scenarios:
> 
> * A poor guy is running through the woods, escaping a bloodthirsty monster. You see a cabin in the distance, but know that a road is not that far away.  
> Let's assume that after a long discussion we'd all come to a conclusion- run to the road, cabin is a death trap.  
> What did the tired, scared, wounded, dirty and overall exhausted man do? He chooses the cabin, cause it's "safety", even if for a moment. For all we know, the man forgot about the road in his extremely limited state of mind.
> 
> * A middle aged woman wakes is abruptly woken up, her loved ones chained in front of her. Her choice? She has two buttons, killing either of her children.
> The clever viewers we are, we'll notice that she doesn't *have to* press *any* of the buttons. In fact, the cruel villain would gloat about this very fact, as she mourns the child she needlessly killed.  
> Shock, fear, worry, facing a new and bizzare situation. Lots of information to take in. And unlike us, reclining in our chairs, sipping a hot beverage of choice, she's not in such an open state of mind. Rules lawyering is not the first choice when someone puts a deadly ultimatum in front of you, first thing in the morning. 
> 
> Okay, so those were *dumb*, but *believable* decisions. Certainly not smart enough for you, rational readers, starved for intelligent heroes.  
> So how about a decision that's 'locally optimal'? It makes sense when you made it, and maybe it even worked, but regretted it soon after. 
> 
> * Horrid alien creatures appeared on a farmer's neighborhood. He's taken by surprise, as they enter his house. Quickly identifying their *unique* senses (let's say focusing on electromagnetic), he whips up a number of clever distractions, and ultimately outmaneuvers them by locking them in his basement! All well and good, but his dog was sleeping there, since his doghouse got wrecked the day before...  
> A successful mission, except simple forgetfulness took it's price.
> 
> * A boy is locked in a barn with a crazed murderer! The door is locked and the key is nowhere to be found! Desperate, our hero brings his car and *barrels* through the door! With some difficulty, boy gets rescued, and the duo drives away. Car was ravaged, but is still functional. As it turns out, the key was in our hero's jacket. It was a *looong day*.  
> "Where did I leave my keys?" is a lot more stressful question when lives are on stake. In this case, the search was discontinued in favor of a faster, if a bit reckless, solution. 
> 
> What I want to say is- characters can make their own decisions that are flawed, but meaningful to the plot all the same.  
> We don't really need geniuses. Even an idiot would do, if he used his brain in the first place.

>> **u/Nighzmarquls** [+7]  (22 hours later)
>> 
>> This right here is good.
>> 
>> I read a lot of rat fic that fails to remember these things and rat fic fans judges things a bit overly harshly.
>> 
>> But I also read a lot of fiction where people bemoan how a character acts like a robot who is more or less behaving like I have in comparable situations.
>> 
>> So as often comes to be, human beings are a lot more diverse then readers will imagine.

>> **u/SimoneNonvelodico** [+6]  *Dai-Gurren Brigade* (a day later)
>> 
>> > Don't get me wrong- most movies are dumb. Characters there make stupid decisions for no other reason than to drive the plot.
>> 
>> Exactly. That's really the issue that "rational" fic IMHO deals with, not stupidity in general but *plot induced* stupidity, the so called "Idiot Ball". In the end, rational fic, especially fanfiction, is a form of satire. Its purpose is to highlight how much plot induced stupidity drives certain stories by showing what would happen without it. Yes, you can end up with the exact opposite - as you said, realistic or not, battles of masterminds are *fun*. But that's not the core of it, the core is showing how much potential can lie for example in a given world building that isn't explored because the author didn't bother. A character being stupid or irrational is one thing, a character being *conveniently and selectively* stupid or irrational quite another. Sometimes in fact you ought to do the opposite - have your character act irrationally even when a bit of rationality would make the story simpler because that's just what *they* would do.

>> **u/CommonMisspellingBot** [+3]  (16 hours later)
>> 
>> Hey, PurposefulZephyr, just a quick heads-up:  
>> **bizzare** is actually spelled **bizarre**. You can remember it by **one z, double -r**.  
>> Have a nice day!
>> 
>> ^^^^The ^^^^parent ^^^^commenter ^^^^can ^^^^reply ^^^^with ^^^^'delete' ^^^^to ^^^^delete ^^^^this ^^^^comment.

> **u/Sparkwitch** [+18]  (3 hours later)
> 
> This seems like apologetics to me. It's an attempt at generalized deconstruction of why stories in film operate the way they do rather than actual advice on how to produce quality stories.
> 
> It's the tired old "realism" argument, where something is supposed to be satisfying because it's accurate rather than because it's interesting or revealing or drives the story forward. Sure, in retrospect there can be some justification and even emotional resonance in such moments. This analysis of Green Room is just such an example.
> 
> At the same time, I prefer to watch capable people triumph over other capable people because their knowledge and experience allow them to succeed. Good luck one achieves by being informed and prepared is a lot more satisfying than good luck one achieves by accident.
> 
> Cathartic sympathy inspired by the suffering of the hapless is effective, but their success through rash action or luck isn't something I can realistically hope for in my own life. It's bad behavior that should be (and usually is) punished by the grim crushing weight of reality.

>> **u/ben_oni** [+2]  (a day later)
>> 
>> I think it's more than just an argument for realism in fiction. One of the points here appears to be that people don't make good decisions when facing unfamiliar situations they are not prepared to handle.
>> 
>> Most choices people make are based on heuristics rather than decision theory. For important decisions people will take their time and figure out the best thing to do; something like buying a home. And when rushed... decisions tend to get pretty bad. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a hard-sell you'll know how effective a timer can be.
>> 
>> From a rationalist point of view, you really can't expect a person going into these unfamiliar and stressful situations to make good choices. If they do anyways, like sometimes happens in rationalish fiction, the character begins to look rather unbelievable and suspension of disbelief is shattered. And if these sorts of scenarios aren't showing up, then the character probably isn't being pushed far enough and they end up being too powerful for the story (or maybe the antagonist is underpowered relative to the hero).

> **u/1337_w0n** [+3]  (9 hours later)
> 
> The video made a good point about believable mistakes at the beginning. Other than that, I'm not sure it has much value. The examples don't really seem very compelling beyond their novelty. This is especially true of his description of the green room, where the leader of a hate group is said to behave rationally. 
> 
> Of course, this might be a bias on my part, since I don't consider the idea of a hate group member behaving intelligently to be very likely. Further, in my experience, people in hate groups tend to be dumb and emotional. (I live in bumblefuck nowhere U.S. so I've met plenty of racists.)

> **u/Makin-** [+5]  *homestuck ratfic, you can do it* (an hour later)
> 
> I feel like "organic" writing is overrated. If you've ever read a book where the characters talk like real people you understand what I mean.

>> **u/CWRules** [+3]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> > If you've ever read a book where the characters talk like real people you understand what I mean.
>> 
>> Has such a book been written? Did someone actually attempt this, look at the results, and decide to publish the story anyway? If so, I'd be curious to see it.

>>> **u/None** [+0]  (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> [deleted]

>>>> **u/TempAccountIgnorePls** [+12]  (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> > alleged "teenspeak"
>>>> 
>>>> Sounds to me like the problem here wasn't that the authors made the characters talk like real people, but rather that they *tried* to make the characters talk like real people and failed.

>>>> **u/ZeCatox** [+4]  (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> If your only example of what portrays a "realistic teenager talking" is the featuring of some specific "teenspeak" vocabulary, I'm afraid that doesn't explain much of what the problem you're talking about is.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know... The "alleged" you put in there makes me understand that the problem is not so much that teenspeak is being used but that it's badly done... which, if it's the only problem, goes back at the origin of your reaction and implies that the organic writing isn't the problem at all.

>>>>> **u/Makin-** [+2]  *homestuck ratfic, you can do it* (2 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh, maybe I misspoke. The teenspeak was only part of the problem, and it was still realistic, just not really part of my ingroup.

---