84 KiB
[META] /r/rational “Characteristics of Rational Fiction” Sidebar Rewrite Discussion, Week 3: Solution Proposals
-
Author: u/ketura Organizer*
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/8zodpo/meta_rrational_characteristics_of_rational/
-
Score: 21
-
Created: 2018-07-17T19:42:54
Post:
#####Week 1: Problem Discussion
#####Week 2: Solution Brainstorming
#####Week 3: Solution Proposals [You Are Here]
With the grand marketplace of solution ideas brought to everyone’s attention the week before, we now have a chance to try our hand at composing a definite, authoritative update to the sidebar. Top-level posts must all be full solution proposals, i.e. a replacement for the relevant section in the sidebar.
#####Week 4: Solution Voting [2018-07-24]
Our grand journey come to an end, we now take all solution proposals from the last thread and create a contest mode vote-only thread (with a companion discussion thread) to run for a week or more. Once the allotted time has run out, the winner is declared and the sidebar updated, to huzzahs and parades and, to be certain, an absolute and utter dearth of drama.
We’re almost there. Now is the time for solution proposals; if you authored a decent candidate to the sidebar definition of ‘rational fiction’, whether in previous threads or not, please submit it here. If you notice that the author of your favorite proposal has neglected to repost here, feel free to do so yourself.
Now is the last chance to clean up solutions. Please continue to post critiques, either of wording or spelling or content or whatever. Feel free to fork submissions -- if your favorite solution has gone through too many edits and no longer represents what you think is correct, then repost the original and mark it as such. Also feel free to mix and match from the previous thread, with appropriate attribution.
####ALL top-level posts must be a complete proposal for replacing the “Characteristics of Rational Fiction” section of the /r/rational sidebar. Any non-solution top-level posts will be removed (but please make your feelings known as replies to posted solutions).
(If you have meta comments or concerns, please make them known here.)
####Solution authors are encouraged to reply to their own top-level posts with links to previous discussion and/or new summaries or rationale. Please keep top-level posts themselves mostly free of commentary.
####In the next thread, all top-level posts here will be copied over to be voted on, so do make sure you post here in time!
Template to use when posting proposals:
#Title_of_Proposal
#Originally authored by /u/XXX. [optional: Proposed/Reposted by /u/YYY].
Comments: (< 5 lines)
----
Full_Formatted_Text_goes_here
Comments:
u/oliwhail [+18] Omake-Maximizing AGI (a day later)
#Rationality On A Scale
Compiled by /u/oliwhail from posts by /u/Noumero, /u/Sailor_Vulcan, /u/ArisKatsaris, /u/SimoneNonvelodico, and /u/turtleswamp
‘Rationality’ is a specific quality of fictional works - it does not simply mean ‘good’, nor is all good writing necessarily rational.
A work of fiction is rational to the extent that it focuses on competent characters with consistent motivations proactively pursuing their goals in settings whose premises are rigorously thought-out and consistently applied.
In particular, characters in rational fiction often follow unorthodox or genre-defying courses of action which require clever planning, careful analysis, and the creative application of resources or knowledge.
Settings in rational fiction may or may not include fantastical elements, so long as the consequences of their underlying rules are carefully considered and taken seriously in crafting the story’s world.
Common Elements
Though the presence of any particular feature below is not a requirement, the following characteristics and tropes appear often enough in rational fiction to help point to the cluster.
- Careful Worldbuilding: The "rules" a setting runs on remain consistent, as do their effects and implications. In preexisting settings (e.g. fanfiction), the author may seek to remove or justify incongruities, or to explore their implications.
- Fair-Play Whodunnit: A story's mysteries or problems could, in theory, be solved by attentive readers ahead of time, and the reader should be able to see at least in retrospect how the characters came up with their ideas.
- Munchkinry: Characters strive to exploit their world's rules and solve their problems by leveraging their available resources in creative ways.
- Cerebral Values: The story demonstrates the usefulness of deliberation, preparation, deduction, etc.
- Aspiring Rationalism: The story focuses on revealing characters' thinking, motives, decision-making, and/or their attempts to improve their reasoning abilities. This is often a particular feature of the rationalist fiction subgenre of rational fiction, particularly if the reader is meant to be able to take practical lessons from the work.
u/suyjuris [+7] (2 days later)
Left-Brained Values: A respect for themes such as intelligence, reason, and forethought.
I strongly dislike the use of 'Left-Brained' in this statement. It implies an overly simplistic model of the brain, which is scientifically inaccurate (see e.g. here) and thus unnecessarily detracts from the very point the definition is making.
Additionally, for some people (me, for example) it does not carry meaning by itself, as I would not have been able to tell you the difference between 'left-brained' and 'right-brained' values had you asked me an hour ago.
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (2 days later)
I know it’s inaccurate, but chose to use it to appeal to (what I thought was?) the common understanding.
What might be a better name for the class? System-2 Values?
u/LupoCani [+7] (3 days later)
I know it’s inaccurate, but chose to use it to appeal to (what I thought was?) the common understanding.
That's not wrong rethorically, but I think our shared public-facing definition needs to be held to a higher standard than that. Referring to a concept that's pseudoscientific - or at least oversimplified to the point where it carries similar connotations - might be taken seriously by a portion of readers, which doesn't look good for us.
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (4 days later)
Edited again, FYI
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
E: Yikes, sorry, didn't mean to double-ping you. I hadn't refreshed this tab.
Would be curious how you feel about the revised version, if you have the time and inclination to check it out :)
u/LupoCani [+1] (5 days later)
Not to worry - double-pinging me got the job done where your first reply alone likely wouldn't have.
"Respecting intelligence" is probably better, though not perfect. It might sound pretentious to the average redditor, but I'm not qualified to judge whether that's a statistically significant problem.
One phrasing I did come to think of is "Enlightentment [values|ideals|spirit]". It is, as pointers-in-conceptspace go, somewhat inexact - the immediate connotations for The Enlightenment seem to be philosophical and social, while that-which-is-pointed-at by the paragraph feels more immediate and practical, much like referring to science when you were actually trying to describe engineering. Nevertheless, it is related, and harmless-sounding enough that I'm putting it up for consideration.
u/oliwhail [+1] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
Hmmm, yeah, I can see where it might come off as pretentious. Maybe 'intellectual values' instead...?
E: Changed to "My Mind is My Weapon" - watcha think?
u/LupoCani [+2] (6 days later)
Both of those work okayishly, though I'm not sure I can offer much more in the way of detailed critique. MMiMW might sound narmy, I guess? I did come to think of "Cerebral values", so I'm proposing that too.
u/suyjuris [+1] (2 days later)
Difficult. System-2 would be much better. Still, it is very technical and not very evocative. Usually, I would be inclined to call it 'rational', but obviously that does not work here. Just removing the class title breaks the aesthetic, we can do better. The word Intellectualism fits somewhat, but has negative connotations and is thus equally unsuitable. So, I do not have a good drop-in replacement handy.
Have you considered restructuring the line? I think something like 'Respecting Intelligence: The story acknowledges the value of advance planning, deductive reasoning and logical thinking.' would circumvent the problem.
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (3 days later)
Respecting Intelligence: The story acknowledges the value of advance planning, deductive reasoning and logical thinking
Yeah, I like that! Stolen :)
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
/u/suyjuris I ended up changing the pre-colon part to "My Mind is My Weapon" - opinions?
u/suyjuris [+1] (5 days later)
No strong feelings either way.
u/Noumero [+6] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
Very good, I like it. Minor suggestions/nitpicks:
The first sentence is pretty complex/long, if apt. Could it be divided in two, perhaps?
The term "agent" from the first sentence could be misunderstood by unenlightened people. Could it be substituted?
Reformatting. I don't think the definition itself should be written in large letters, or formatted as a quote. (Also, a nitpick among nitpicks: the template calls for the header and the definition itself to be divided by a line.)
Rewording. I think it looks better if all entries on a list follow a common pattern. The first two entries on your list read a bit differently from the rest. Something like [Name]:[Description] would be ideal.
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (a day later)
Formatting should all be fixed, as are the first two bullet points below :)
Thoughts on how the first sentence has been modified?
u/Noumero [+3] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
Yes, that seems better. By the way, what do you think about this point by u/Silver_Swift?:
I think it might be better to think of rational fiction as a qualifier that attaches to other genres, rather than as a genre on its own. You can write rational fiction in just about every genre you feel like, but you can't write just rational fiction. Rational Fantasy and Rational Sci-Fi are the most common combinations and I can easily imagine rational westerns, rational animes, rational horror, rational mysteries and even rational romance stories, but I come up short trying to imagine a rational story that isn't also part of some other genre.
The way you framed your definition seems most compatible with this point, out of all proposals so far. What do you think about explicitly incorporating it?
^(
Actually, you should go back to write the next update of Marked for Death. I need more data to plot our party's awesome doom.)
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (a day later)
Actually, you should go back to write the next update of Marked for Death. I need more data to plot our party's awesome doom.
DON'T ENCOURAGE ME, I'm already being bad by going on reddit when I should be reviewing my presentation for lab meeting in a few minutes :P
The way you framed your definition seems most compatible with this point
Indeed! That was definitely the intention - I liked the discussion of rationality as a scale rather than a classification that I saw in last week's discussions.
I'm certainly open to incorporating the definition more explicitly - have any thoughts on how that might be done in an elegant way?
u/Noumero [+2] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (6 days later)
I'm certainly open to incorporating the definition more explicitly - have any thoughts on how that might be done in an elegant way?
I adapted my definition to reflect the "rationality-is-a-quality" point better, and this is how I did it:
"Rationality" is a specific quality of fictional works, applicable to all of them regardless of genres and settings.
What do you think? (I also took major inspiration from your definition; I hope you don't mind.)
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (6 days later)
I hope you don't mind.
Not at all!
What do you think?
I feel “applicable to all of them” is slightly vague - the idea is that you could in principle evaluate any given work’s level of rationality, right?
u/Noumero [+2] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (6 days later)
I see. What about this?:
"Rationality" is a specific quality of any fictional work, independent of genres and settings. It describes the extent to which the work <...>
In case of your definition, <...> = "focuses on competent characters with consistent motivations proactively pursuing their goals in settings whose premises are rigorously thought-out and consistently applied".
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (7 days later)
Like it :)
u/Noumero [+1] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (6 days later)
By the way, I would suggest moving the point about "rational fiction ≠ good fiction" near the end of the main part of the definition. Starting with it seems excessively defensive, as if it is taken from the middle of some argument.
Risky last-minute plan adjustments. Feels familiar, eh?
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+3] (a day later)
The first paragraph gets to the heart of the matter, good. However the wording is difficult to understand, especially for someone not familiar with what rational fiction is in the first place.
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (a day later)
Thoughts on how the first sentence has been modified?
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+2] (a day later)
It requires way too much working memory to process.
A fictional work’s level of ‘rationality' describes the extent to which that work focuses on exploring what happens when consistently-modeled characters pursue their goals in settings whose premises, however fantastical, are rigorously and consistently applied.
Here's a suggestion for a re-write:
A fictional work's 'rationality' can be measured on a scale; fiction on the 'rational' end of this scale explores what happens when characters with consistent motivations pursue their goals in settings with consistent premises. These settings may or may not be fantastical in nature, as long as the underlying rules are internally consistent.
I think it's (nearly) semantically equivalent while easier (for me) to understand.
u/oliwhail [+3] Omake-Maximizing AGI (a day later)
I think I see what you're getting at. Let me know what you think:
A work of fictional ‘rational' to the extent that it focuses on exploring what happens when characters with consistent motivations proactively pursue their goals in settings whose premises are rigorously and consistently applied. These settings may or may not be fantastical in nature, as long as the underlying rules and their implications are taken seriously. As a result, characters in rational fiction often follow courses of action which violate genre conventions and which frequently require deliberation, preparation, and the application of resources or knowledge in creative and clever ways.
u/ArisKatsaris [+5] Sidebar Contender (a day later)
A work of fictional ‘rational'
I think you mean
A work of fiction is 'rational'
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (2 days later)
Indeed I do, thanks for the catch!
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+3] (a day later)
I like it and find it much easier to understand.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+2] Dai-Gurren Brigade (3 days later)
Thanks for the heads up - just a small thing. Personally I like the idea of mentioning the concept of a story "needing" or not rationality, as I did in my original post in the previous thread. Even if worded differently, the main concept that I think would be important to express is that rational =/= good, and most importantly, non rational =/= bad. I know most people get this anyway, but I've seen criticism of r/rational that makes me inclined to think perhaps some people on first glance misunderstand this. Do you think this could be worked in? Any other opinion on this?
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
Hmmm. So, I like what this is driving at - I've seen those same criticisms, and they're really frustrating. I'll definitely give some thought to how the idea could be integrated, though I'm having some trouble thinking of how to do it smoothly and would love suggestions :)
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
/u/SimoneNonvelodico I added a line emphasizing the distinction between rational and good - how well does that fit what you were going for?
u/ketura [+2] Organizer (5 days later)
As another data point, I personally think that line adds nothing good to the overall strength of the definition. Obviously the people who subscribe to a given subreddit are after the content posted to that subreddit; spelling this out is a bit redundant.
I would remove that paragraph and work the sentiment into the first. Something like adding a line like: "This focus on rigor is orthogonal to the quality of the work itself, but produces a unique and desirable flavor all its own."
u/oliwhail [+3] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
While I’m sympathetic to the sentiment, I’m not sure a less explicit message will be clear enough to the type of folks who want to make fun of rational fiction?
u/ketura [+2] Organizer (5 days later)
Do we care about them? The sidebar is for the ~10k of us here and those whose tastes line up with ours. We didn't start this rewrite process because trolls were making fun of us, we started it because we ourselves who are served by it felt it was insufficient.
u/oliwhail [+1] Omake-Maximizing AGI (6 days later)
Do the current r/rational readers really need an introductory definition? I find myself more worried about newcomers and expanding the readership
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+1] Dai-Gurren Brigade (5 days later)
Yeah, I think that's at least enough to clarify that we're not setting out on a righteous crusade to "fix" all of the world's literature :D. Good enough for me!
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (6 days later)
In approximately 20 hours from the timestamp of this comment, I will be creating the voting thread using the content of your submission at that time. Please make sure that any last minute edits are completed well before then; submission entries will not be edited after the voting thread has been made.
Thank you for helping us make the subreddit better!
u/Sophronius [+0] The Need to Become Stronger (5 days later)
Nice summary! I think those bullet points cover it. However, your explanation above is far too complex and far too long. Nobody will read it. I would leave out the entire explanation and just keep the bullet points.
(This is a super common problem with smart people who try to explain things: They always talk in the abstract rather than allowing newcomers to infer the meta-level logic from the object-level rules themselves. This is especially weird given that said smart people almost always learned the rules themselves using the latter method.)
You could also probably leave out bullet point 4, since it's mostly covered by the other points. That leaves us with this:
A rationalist story commonly has the following elements.:
- Careful Worldbuilding: The "rules" a setting runs on remain consistent, and their consequences are taken seriously. In pre-existing settings (e.g. fanfiction), the author may seek to remove or justify incongruities, or to explore their implications.
- Fair-Play Whodunnit: A story's mysteries or problems could, in theory, be solved by attentive readers ahead of time, and the reader should be able to see at least in retrospect how the characters came up with their ideas.
- Munchkinry: Characters strive to exploit their world's rules and solve their problems by leveraging their available resources in creative ways.
- Aspiring Rationalism: The story focuses on revealing characters' thinking, motives, decision-making, and/or their attempts to improve their reasoning abilities. This is often a particular feature of the rationalist fiction subgenre of rational fiction, particularly if the reader is meant to be able to take practical lessons from the work.
u/ketura [+3] Organizer (5 days later)
Half the problem we have now is that the current definition is a bunch of bullet points that describe works but aren't cohesive. The summary does a good job of addressing those issues.
u/oliwhail [+3] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
I worry that this loses our on emphasizing that a particular work can be more or less rational rather either being rational or not
u/Noumero [+14] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (7 minutes later)
###Agenty Characters On A Scale Plus Tropes
Originally authored by /u/Noumero; includes ideas by /u/haiku_fornification, /u/Silver_Swift, /u/oliwhail.
"Rationality" is a specific quality of any fictional work, independent of genres and settings. It describes the extent to which the work explores thoughtful behaviour of people in honest pursuit of their goals, as well as consequences of their behaviour on the fictional world or the story's plot. In highly-rational fiction, realistic intellectual agency is put above established literary tropes, and all other aspects of the narrative.
Highly-rational fiction could include one or more of the following features:
Focus on intelligent characters solving problems through creative applications of their knowledge and resources.
Examination of goals and motives: the story makes reasons behind characters' decisions clear.
Intellectual pay-off: the story's climax features a satisfying intelligent solution to its problems.
Aspiring rationalism: the story heavily focuses on characters' thinking, or their attempts to improve their reasoning abilities. This is a feature of rationalist fiction, a subcategory of rational fiction.
Thoughtful worldbuilding: the fictional world follows known, consistent rules, as a consequence of rational background characters exploring it or building realistic social structures.
Presence of these particular features is not necessary: overall impression of the work is more important.
Adjacent tropes: Rational stories tend to include certain narrative elements. Though their presence doesn't make a story more rational, this community highly enjoys them. Most important ones include:
Fair-Play Whodunnit: story's mysteries could be solved by attentive readers ahead of time.
Absence of Deus Ex Machina: established story rules are never broken.
Deconstruction: genre tropes are re-imagined in a more realistic manner.
Munchkinry: characters attempt to exploit their world's rules in creative, non-intuitive ways.
Genre Savviness: characters are familiar with common genre tropes and try to avoid or exploit them.
u/LieGroupE8 [+7] ** (an hour later)
I like the listing of bullet points and tropes after the main definition. This helps clarify the definition, and I think it should be part of whichever solution is chosen. However, I think the main definition is still too general here.
Rational fiction is written with intent to explore thoughtful, goal-driven behaviour of people in reaction to their world
I can just imagine writers unfamiliar with the rationalist community seeing this definition and saying to themselves, "Well, yes, I should hope that my characters are thoughtful and goal-driven! That's just good writing advice." I'm not sure that this definition alone adequately conveys the idea that rationalist fiction specifically goes beyond other kinds of fiction in its focus on this aspect of the story.
Rational characters always strive .... their decision-making is never warped ....
"Always" and "never" are strong words... I'm sure exceptions could be cooked up easily.
This definition also makes rational characters a core feature of the genre, excluding works that might explore consistent worlds in other ways besides having such characters. That's not necessarily bad; the community needs to decide whether it wants rational characters to be a necessary condition for the genre, or just a common sufficient condition.
u/Noumero [+5] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (2 hours later)
I can just imagine writers unfamiliar with the rationalist community seeing this definition and saying to themselves, "Well, yes, I should hope that my characters are thoughtful and goal-driven! That's just good writing advice."
"Always" and "never" are strong words... I'm sure exceptions could be cooked up easily.
Good points. Reworded that section. Better now?
(However, I do think rational fiction is just fiction-which-must-be-good-in-certain-ways, not really a "genre". Yes, all perfectly-good fiction would be rational. It doesn't mean that all commonly-accepted good fiction is rational, or that all rational fiction is good. It means rational fiction is always good in one particular way.)
This definition also makes rational characters a core feature of the genre, excluding works that might explore consistent worlds in other ways besides having such characters
Well, sort of. As a possible counter-example, consider Arthur Clark's Rendezvous with Rama. It's about a crew of astronauts exploring an alien starship. It doesn't, as far as I remember, focus on their thinking process and reasoning; however, the starship is explored in-depth. It could qualify as rational fiction, however, since the ship is a creation of alien background characters. If their engineering decisions were sensible → the worldbuilding is consistent, then that part of the work is rational.
There's two types of debatably-rational works which my definition excludes: about irrational characters living in a natural, consistently-written world, and textbooks about fictional natural worlds with no characters at all. I don't think it's a major problem, but my mind could be changed.
u/LieGroupE8 [+3] ** (3 hours later)
The rewording is better, yes.
However, I do think rational fiction is just fiction-which-must-be-good-in-certain-ways, not really a "genre"
I think of it more as a nebulous genre whose defining features correlate strongly with some good writing advice.
Yes, all perfectly-good fiction would be rational
I disagree. Different genres aspire to different things. For example, a perfectly good comedy is not likely to be rational in any sense.
It could qualify as rational fiction, however, since the ship is a creation of alien background characters
This seems like a huge stretch of your definition.
There's two types of debatably-rational works which my definition excludes... I don't think it's a major problem
It's not a major problem, at least right now, but personally I would allow room in the definition for other kinds of works. I think it's up to the community to vote on this. (I will post my own write-up eventually).
u/Noumero [+3] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (4 hours later)
a perfectly good comedy is not likely to be rational in any sense
So, a perfectly-good comedy could have inconsistent characterization?.. Hm, alright, granted. There's no objective standard for "good fiction", let alone "perfectly good fiction". My point was that all short summaries of what rational fiction is would sound like good writing advice, because rational fiction is built around treating certain pieces of good writing advice as core concepts.
This seems like a huge stretch of your definition.
I don't think so. Brief digression: In practice, when reading rational fiction discussions, I frequently saw questions along the lines of "Why didn't character X do Y?", "Why didn't population F take over the world, if they could A, B, and C?", or "Why was M set up this way?". A Perfectly Rational Story, according to the intent behind my definition, would be such that answers to all of these questions about it exist and are followable. Questions about aliens' engineering decisions definitely fall under this as well.
However, what's important is that it does seem like a stretch to you. It's not supposed to; the aforementioned idea should be made clear. Do you have any suggestions on how to achieve this?
I think of it more as a nebulous genre whose defining features correlate strongly with some good writing advice.
That's an interesting point, actually. I found this comment by u/Silver_Swift particularly insightful:
I think it might be better to think of rational fiction as a qualifier that attaches to other genres, rather than as a genre on its own. You can write rational fiction in just about every genre you feel like, but you can't write just rational fiction. Rational Fantasy and Rational Sci-Fi are the most common combinations and I can easily imagine rational westerns, rational animes, rational horror, rational mysteries and even rational romance stories, but I come up short trying to imagine a rational story that isn't also part of some other genre.
u/LieGroupE8 [+4] ** (5 hours later)
So, a perfectly-good comedy could have inconsistent characterization?
What I meant was that it would have irrational / non-agenty characters and weird, improbable plots.
what's important is that it does seem like a stretch to you
It seems like a stretch to me because your definition says that a rational work should focus on thoughtful characters with agency. I don't automatically consider the aliens in Rendezvous with Rama to be "characters"; they are part of the setting, at least the way my brain parses these categories. That's why I would suggest having some mention of consistent settings in the definition.
I come up short trying to imagine a rational story that isn't also part of some other genre.
Hmmm, I suppose I do too. "Rational" is a genre-modifier like italics are a text-modifier.
u/Noumero [+2] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (5 hours later)
It seems like a stretch to me because your definition says that a rational work should focus on thoughtful characters with agency
Reworded again, explicitly stated that it applies to protagonists as well as background people.
Downside: I think it's getting a bit convoluted up there. Three sentences, four references to "characters" or "people". I'll need to simplify it somehow.
Hmmm, I suppose I do too. "Rational" is a genre-modifier like italics are a text-modifier.
Well. Great.
I'll write up a second proposal based on that sometime this week, it seems different enough that changing my own wouldn't be a good idea. u/ketura, can I do that?
^(Inb4 we have to restart the discussions from the beginning because everyone is coming up with insightful ideas near the deadline.)
^(Inb4 we get stuck in an infinite loop of discussion threads, never to make it to Solution Voting.)
u/ketura [+4] Organizer (6 hours later)
Have multiple proposals from one person? Sure, I see no reason not to, so long as they are sufficiently distinct from one another to warrant it, and so long as it doesn't get abused by spam.
u/LieGroupE8 [+5] ** (7 hours later)
Maybe have two rounds of voting: first round commits to a general format / theme, subsequent rounds commit to one among several possible variations. Or perhaps have something like line-item voting. Or maybe all of that is too complicated.
u/ketura [+2] Organizer (8 hours later)
Such a thing isn't impossible but definitely stands as a time and effort sink (I haven't had to do terribly much for these discussions, and that would change my role from one of OP to actually needing to curate the content). My current plan (unless convinced otherwise) is to just let the kitchen sink vote run its course, and if there's multiple entries at the top end that are super close, then do a second round with just those entries.
u/Noumero [+1] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (9 hours later)
One pretty time-consuming idea is to vote on necessary elements first, then craft a definition to fit.
To elaborate, we have different "pieces" of the definition, which many people agree should be included into the final definition, whatever it will be. E. g., framing it as "what the work does, not what it is", my "tropes", "definition + bullet points" construction, and so on.
u/Noumero [+2] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (6 hours later)
Yes. Good to know, thank you.
u/LieGroupE8 [+1] ** (7 hours later)
Hmmm, I suppose I do too. "Rational" is a genre-modifier like italics are a text-modifier.
Well. Great.
Wait, what did I say? There I was just reacting to the comment you quoted.
Anyway, I think multiple proposals are better than making the current one increasingly convoluted.
u/Noumero [+1] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (9 hours later)
So, you think that change solved the issue with Rama's background aliens?
Wait, what did I say? There I was just reacting to the comment you quoted.
Yes, you quickly agreed with it. Which means it wasn't just my opinion, that point is insightful, which means the definition likely should account for it, which means more work. Also, it was posted during the last day of the previous thread's life, which doesn't imply good things about exhaustivity of the discussions.
u/LieGroupE8 [+1] ** (21 hours later)
I agreed that it's hard to think of rational fiction that isn't also in another genre. I think it might be possible to write some, but the result may not be very enjoyable to read.
So, you think that change solved the issue with Rama's background aliens?
Whether they're protagonists or background people, character agency is put above all other aspects of the narrative.
Not really, to be honest. "Background people" is an awkward phrase, and it just makes me think of minor human characters in the background. The aliens in Rendesvous with Rama are not properly characters (if I remember correctly; it's been a while since I read it). They are in the background, yes, but my mind still doesn't automatically group them in with the rewording. I think what you had before that second rewording was better. You can add the "background characters" concept to a second submission, like ketura said.
u/Noumero [+1] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
Hmm. I reworded it again, now it says that "realistic intelligent agency is put above established literary tropes". I think it should cover main characters as well as worldbuilding-aliens. What do you think?
Regarding second submission: no, it's supposed to be a fundamental part of this definition in particular.
u/LieGroupE8 [+1] ** (a day later)
I like this rewording.
u/Noumero [+1] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
Great. Our discussion was very productive. Thank you.
u/ArisKatsaris [+2] Sidebar Contender (5 hours later)
So, a perfectly-good comedy could have inconsistent characterization?
That sounds like a non-sequitur. You don't treat "consistent characterization" as your sole defining characteristic of rational fiction, so why do you think that when someone talks about a non-rational story, they mean one with inconsistent characterization?
What would a 'rational' version of a surreal comedy like 'Airplane!' look like? Or of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Do you think those would be improved by making them fit more into the rational genre?
u/Noumero [+1] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (6 hours later)
You don't treat "consistent characterization" as your sole defining characteristic of rational fiction, so why do you think that when someone talks about a non-rational story, they mean one with inconsistent characterization?
Well, the statement I was responding to said that a good comedy is "not likely to be rational in any sense". I just picked a rationality-adjacent quality at random and considered whether a good comedy could lack it. At which point I realized that yes, it could, and conceded the point about all perfectly-good fiction being rational.
I may not have made that clear in the actual post, I suppose.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+1] Dai-Gurren Brigade (3 days later)
irrational characters living in a natural, consistently-written world
I would tend to consider that as still counting as rational. HPMOR of course uses Rational!Harry as its main plot device to expose all the tropey-ness of the canon, but in any work that's not fanfiction, I don't see why such a character would be strictly needed. It'd be pretty boring if all rational fiction was "a hyperintelligent hyperrational protagonist and everyone dances to their tune" - however fun it is the first few times. For example, I was reading Fargo, a PMMM fanfiction which I think is classified as rational (read about it here) and none of its characters is especially rational. They're what Eliezer calls first level intelligent: they make decisions that make sense for them, and show the appearance of possessing a consistent self, but that self isn't necessarily rational. To be precise
u/Noumero [+2] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (4 days later)
I used H-zombie!"irrational" there, not, ugh, rational!"irrational". As in, I was talking about stories taking place in a consistent world, whose characters are nothing more than mindless, non-consistently-modeled puppets of the Plot. Not about characters with deeply, but realistically, flawed reasoning.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+1] Dai-Gurren Brigade (4 days later)
Ah, ok, thanks. Sorry for the misunderstanding then.
u/tjhance [+1] (8 hours later)
I can just imagine writers unfamiliar with the rationalist community seeing this definition and saying to themselves, "Well, yes, I should hope that my characters are thoughtful and goal-driven! That's just good writing advice."
I don't know; I think many characters are NOT thoughtful or goal-driven, and that it is often intentional. It's not uncommon to have a character who is impulsive, lazy, etc. while having that be what the author is going for.
u/Silver_Swift [+3] (11 hours later)
In rational fiction, characters are written as striving to achieve their goals to the best of their ability instead of conforming to established literary tropes.
The full line from the solution is "In rational fiction, characters are written as striving to achieve their goals to the best of their ability instead of conforming to established literary tropes.". That doesn't exclude lazy or impulsive characters.
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+4] (18 hours later)
The first paragraph feels clumsy to me. Can it be made more concise or reworded?
Also:
in reaction to their world or the story's plot
This could be misunderstood to imply that characters must be reactive rather than proactive.
The rest is great.
u/Noumero [+2] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
The first paragraph feels clumsy to me. Can it be made more concise or reworded?
Yes, I know. It's because I revised it several times based on my discussion with u/LieGroupE8.
Attempted to optimise it. Is that better?:
Rational fiction is written with intent to explore thoughtful behaviour of people in honest pursuit of their goals, as well as its consequences on the fictional world or the story's plot. In rational fiction, realistic intellectual agency is put above established literary tropes and all other aspects of the narrative.
Should take care of your second point as well. I'm still not entirely satisfied with it.
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+2] (a day later)
I definitely find this better. Thanks for putting in the effort.
u/Noumero [+3] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (8 minutes later)
I think wording needs some work, especially with regards to descriptions of tropes. I aim for conciseness and understandability. Also, need a link for munchkinry.
u/haiku_fornification, I liked your point and attempted to incorporate it into my definition. Feedback?
u/ArisKatsaris, your point is somewhat similar to u/haiku_fornification's. Suggestions how to better reflect it?
u/causalchain, reworking of the definition in response to two points above allowed me to include your point on a more high level. Thoughts?
u/1337_w0n, I liked your approach, but I'm not sure how best to combine it with my definition. I'm sure it could be done. Help?
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (6 days later)
In approximately 20 hours from the timestamp of this comment, I will be creating the voting thread using the content of your submission at that time. Please make sure that any last minute edits are completed well before then; submission entries will not be edited after the voting thread has been made.
Thank you for helping us make the subreddit better!
u/ketura [+4] Organizer (6 minutes later)
If you feel like one week is not enough time and should be extended, please make a note here.
If you have any other meta comments, this is also the place for that.
u/LieGroupE8 [+6] ** (2 days later)
Has anyone thought of doing a sanity check on these definitions by showing them to people who are not in the rationalist community and asking if they make sense? Though it's a bit late to do this officially, it would be nice if someone could get an out-of-the-loop friend to look this thread over and respond with feedback.
u/oliwhail [+2] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
I really like this idea. In particular, I wonder if there are any other forums (writing-centered subreddits?) where we could get a range of feedback quickly?
u/Sailor_Vulcan [+9] Champion of Justice and Reason (22 hours later)
Sorry accidentally deleted this post.
Edit: and then I accidentally reported this post. Stupid bus shaking my phone while I'm trying to get the share link.
#Psychosocial Realism Given the Premise #Originally authored by /u/Sailor_Vulcan.
Rational fiction is fiction that is psychologically and socially realistic given the premise. In other words, characters, organizations and societies in works of rational fiction think and act in ways that are plausible given the rules of the setting.
This doesn't mean the setting itself has to be 100% realistic overall. Works of rational fiction can contain many fantastical elements, as long as their in-universe characters, organizations and societies think and act in ways that are plausible in such a setting.
This means that highly intelligent and sane characters must also think and act in ways that are plausible given the rules of the setting. So when highly intelligent and sane characters are portrayed in a work of rational fiction their intelligence and sanity is portrayed realistically. However, a work need not include highly intelligent and sane characters to be considered rational fiction.
u/Sailor_Vulcan [+6] Champion of Justice and Reason (22 hours later)
Commentary:
No need to invent overly complicated lists of criteria. All rational fiction has one common denominator, one characteristic that every single work that has ever been referred to as rational fiction has: Psychological and social realism given the rules of the setting. In other words, characters think and act the way they would think and act if they and the world they reside in actually existed.
Notice this is not the same thing as being 100% realistic. You can have as many fantastical elements as you like as long as individual characters, organizations and societies think and act in ways that are plausible given the setting. For instance, in HPMOR, Harry's magical dark side isn't psychologically realistic in a real life setting, but it is psychologically realistic in a world where HPMOR-style level-1 horcruxes exist.
Any work that someone would call rational fiction, this definition applies to. Even Unsong falls under this definition (How would people and society really think and act if Hebrew scripture was actually true). Same thing with Harry Potter and the Natural 20 (how would individuals and societies in the Harry Potter universe really think and act in response to a first contact scenario with an alien "human" from a Universe that runs on rules as written Dungeons and Dragons).
Notice that psychological realism also applies to intelligent characters, so intelligence would have to be portrayed realistically.
I am quite confident in this definition. It is the only definition that includes every work that has ever been referred to as rational fiction, and if everyone votes for something else, then everyone else is wrong.
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+5] (a day later)
Any work that someone would call rational fiction, this definition applies to
That doesn't necessarily make it a good definition -- it could be too general. In my view, it applies to too much fiction, not all of which will be liked by /r/rational. It seems more like a property of good writing, which is the problem with the current definition. I can't think of a fic I've read that this definition doesn't apply to.
u/Noumero [+7] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
I think it runs into the very same problem that our current definition has, namely that it's too general. "Self-consistent world" just seems like a property of good fiction, and I don't think modifying it to mean "self-consistent psychosocial aspect of the world" restricts it sufficiently well. Using this definition, it would be quite hard to distinguish sufficiently well-written non-rational fiction from sufficiently well-written rational fiction.
Additionally, even if it's a sound definition of "rational fiction" in abstract, it doesn't capture our interests as a community. For example, we enjoy competent protagonists, in-depth exploration of consistent fictional worlds, "solvable" stories, and stories employing real rationality techniques, but this definition doesn't select for them at all.
I think it's too simple.
u/Sailor_Vulcan [+3] Champion of Justice and Reason (a day later)
I disagree. Any definition more specific than that would exclude a lot of works that a lot of people agree are examples of rational fiction. Also, judging by how much people here liked Unsong and Worm, I don't think that the community agrees with you about it not cappturing their interests. Case in point, name me ONE well-written example of something that fits the above definition which this community wouldn't like or wouldn't consider rational fic.Also, this:
> competent protagonists, in-depth exploration of consistent fictional worlds, "solvable" stories, and stories employing real rationality techniques
is merely a consequence of depicting intelligence and sanity realistically. Depictions of intelligence and sanity having to be realistic is implied by my definition, and saying that my definition doesn't select for them *at all* is simply untrue.
Also there are plenty of well-written works that aren't rational fiction which don't fit this definition, such as Homestuck.
u/Noumero [+3] Self-Appointed Court Statistician (a day later)
Any definition more specific than that would exclude a lot of works that a lot of people agree are examples of rational fiction
For example? What kinds of works would they exclude?
name me ONE well-written example of something that fits the above definition which this community wouldn't like or wouldn't consider rational fic
I'll name an entire swathe of literature: Literary fiction. It's set in our world, so you know it's consistent, and it has realistic characters, they're just boring and/or deplorable and/or reactive.
competent protagonists, in-depth exploration of consistent fictional worlds, "solvable" stories, and stories employing real rationality techniques
is merely a consequence of depicting intelligence and sanity realistically. Depictions of intelligence and sanity having to be realistic is implied by my definition, and saying that my definition doesn't select for them *at all* is simply untrue.
Realistic depiction of intelligence and rationality do not imply that main characters must be intelligent or rational. They could be realistically portrayed fools, and it would fit.
In-depth exploration of the world and "solvability" of the story have nothing to do with psychosocial internal consistency. They're properties of the narrative, of the way authors choose to tell their story, not properties of the fictional world.
u/ArisKatsaris [+1] Sidebar Contender (4 days later)
When reading HPMOR, HJPEV is in the story itself acknowledged as not a normal 11-year old -- this is eventually explained, but until it was so explained, would you have denied HPMOR's membership in the rational genre?
This definition feels to me to be missing the qualities that most of us are seeking in stories of this type. Consider "The Promised Neverland". Are the kids there acting 'realistically'? Frankly I have no way of knowing. If I had to guess, I'd guess not.
To the extent that that story is posted here is not because the kids are realistic, but because they're intelligent and go out of their way to prepare in order to overcome their challenges, and the story appreciates intelligence and preparation: e.g it "The Promised Neverland" goes to the trouble of showing in a montagee page of the kids training to slide using tied-up sheets, seeing that the knots were causing a problem in the sliding, then figuring out a solution (sewing the sheet together rather than tying them).
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (6 days later)
In approximately 20 hours from the timestamp of this comment, I will be creating the voting thread using the content of your submission at that time. Please make sure that any last minute edits are completed well before then; submission entries will not be edited after the voting thread has been made.
Thank you for helping us make the subreddit better!
u/ArisKatsaris [+12] Sidebar Contender (3 hours later)
#Author Intent #Originally authored by /u/ArisKatsaris.
In rational fiction:
- The author displays respect for the value of intelligence, reason, forethought, and preparation.
- The author seeks to explore the moral and material implications of the elements in the story, as well as alternate solutions to presented problems, even if they violate the usual conventions of the genre.
Pursuant to the above, rational fiction usually contains:
- Consistent worldbuilding. In pre-established settings (like fanfiction) the author makes an effort to remove or justify seeming incongruities.
- Intelligent characters, who seek to understand the world, and to competently pursue their goals in accordance with their values.
- A focus on the thought-processes of the characters as they pursue said goals.
- Themes and topics that relate to the extensive exploration of solution-space, e.g. metaethics, effective altruism, munchkinism, transhumanism.
In rationalist fiction:
In addition to the above,
- The author describes rationalist and scientific principles and techniques which can be applied by readers in real life.
u/ArisKatsaris [+3] Sidebar Contender (3 hours later)
Relevant links:
My proposal a while back: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/6s2cad/meta_a_suggested_rewrite_of_the_characteristics/
More recent thoughts on the same theme: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/8xqtp0/meta_rrational_characteristics_of_rational/e299xvf/
In regards to rationalist fiction, I don't think we need three additional bullets. I think the explicit inclusion of teachable rationalist techniques suffices -- because that's the criterion used when EY pretty much defined the genre back in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/q79vYjHAE9KHcAjSs/rationalist-fiction with the example of "The World of Null-A" by A.E. Van Vogt.
u/oliwhail [+3] Omake-Maximizing AGI (a day later)
I think the explicit inclusion of teachable rationalist techniques suffices
Strong agreement.
I feel uncertain that the first bullet point is necessary as its own point. I might suggest combining the first two bullet points in something like the following way:
Rational fiction seeks to explore the plausible moral and material implications of story and setting elements, as well as to examine solutions to problems which might reasonably be uncovered by characters in the story, especially if these solutions violate narrative genre conventions and/or require the application of reason, forethought, and preparation.
u/ArisKatsaris [+2] Sidebar Contender (2 days later)
Your suggestion takes the aspect that I consider most important (the author showing respect for intelligence, reason, forethought, preparation), and makes it the subclause of a subclause, so I think we just disagree on what aspects of rational fiction we consider the most important ones.
u/oliwhail [+1] Omake-Maximizing AGI (4 days later)
I guess I can’t grok ‘respecting intelligence’ being more important, in some explicit way, than taking the world and characters seriously, since it’s entailed by the latter. If an author really thinks through how the world should look and how characters should act, the story will emerge in a way that respects competence, deliberation etc. because characters who leverage them will be more successful.
u/ArisKatsaris [+1] Sidebar Contender (4 days later)
If an author really thinks through how the world should look and how characters should act, the story will emerge in a way that respects competence, deliberation etc. because characters who leverage them will be more successful.
I feel that's like saying "If everyone thought things through, they would be an atheist" and then using that argument to define atheism as someone who "thinks things through".
That may indeed be a consequence of thinking things through, but it doesn't get to the central point that should be the definition of the word.
--
Game of Thrones does think things through, and we can see success and respect for intelligence when a thinker like Tyrion is involved. Littlefinger and Varys also tend to be competent and successful.
Would you characterize 'Game of Thrones' as rational fiction though? It doesn't feel as if the primary element displayed when taking the work as a whole (rather than just the Tyrion chapters) would be a respect for intelligence and preparation.
--
Or taking one of my own stories - in "Names and Forms" (https://archiveofourown.org/works/3114287), written almost 20 years ago, I did a retelling of the Minos & Pasiphae story, except set in the Gargoyles universe. If there's a rationalist character anywhere there, it's probably the only-appearing-in-two-brief-scenes tertiary character of Daedalus.
I wouldn't call the story part of the 'rational genre' at all, and not just because it has some badly written implausible elements (though it does), but rather because the value of intelligence, planning, preparation wasn't really anywhere displayed or more importantly nor was it intended to be displayed in the story. Neither Minos nor Pasiphae nor most other secondary characters, are very good thinkers, nor do they have to be for the purposes of the story.
Nor did I bother making them fail because of lack of intelligence. Minos wins against a somewhat better thinker - and then loses against worse thinkers, both cases because of, well... divine power, so to speak, which is perfectly plausible within the setting of the story, since he is the offspring of a god, and gods meddle all the time -- but nonetheless the whole storyline fails to display the respect for intelligence I'd seek in the rational genre.
u/oliwhail [+1] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
I feel that's like saying "If everyone thought things through, they would be an atheist" and then using that argument to define atheism as someone who "thinks things through".
That may indeed be a consequence of thinking things through, but it doesn't get to the central point that should be the definition of the word.
Hm, okay, I think I grasp a little better what you're shooting for. Thinking through the premises of a setting and its characters will have lots of consequences, and some of them are disproportionately important from the POV of asking 'what matters in rational fiction'; of those, 'demonstrating respect for intelligence' is one of the big ones. Does that feel roughly correct to you?
Would you characterize 'Game of Thrones' as rational fiction though? It doesn't feel as if the primary element displayed when taking the work as a whole (rather than just the Tyrion chapters) would be a respect for intelligence and preparation.
I'd characterize it as more rational than a lot of other fiction, which is a useful distinction that is enabled by talking about rationality as a spectrum rather than a binary.
u/oliwhail [+1] Omake-Maximizing AGI (5 days later)
EDIT: Ack, shoot. I had replied to it in a different tab and just not reloaded this one. Sorry.
I thought I'd already replied to this, sorry -
I think the disconnect may arise from my view that respect for intelligence/planning/reason/etc. emerges naturally as a consequence of taking the story's premises seriously, since characters who leverage clever solutions and advance planning will end up being more successful in the absence of plot contrivance.
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (6 days later)
In approximately 20 hours from the timestamp of this comment, I will be creating the voting thread using the content of your submission at that time. Please make sure that any last minute edits are completed well before then; submission entries will not be edited after the voting thread has been made.
Thank you for helping us make the subreddit better!
u/ishaan123 [+3] Sidebar Contestant (6 days later)
#Rational/ist fiction grounded in formal academic study of rational agents + humanist/transhumanist moral frameworks
#Originally authored by /u/ishaan123
Rationalist Fiction attempts to make the reader more rational. Here, "more rational" means more like a "rational agent", a being that acts to maximize a coherent set of preferences according to a logically consistent, empirically sound, parsimonious worldview.
Generally, rational fiction encourages us to try to come up with logical explanations for things, and to seek evidence for our beliefs, encouraging the reader towards a scientific, reductionist worldview. It also encourages us to view "simpler" hypotheses about the universe as more plausible - with a notion of "simplicity" that loosely alludes to more mathematically rigorous notions of simplicity in that it not include things that are merely "simple" for humans to think about, such as magical and supernatural explanations.
Additionally, it encourages us to build more coherent frameworks concerning our preferences, values, and what we want for the universe. Humanist and transhumanist frameworks are common, and the rejection of death and the notion that acceptance of death as good and natural represents a cognitive bias is a staple of this genre.
Finally, it encourages us to be more effective in pursuit of those goals. Explicit discussion of cognitive biases and techniques for identifying and reducing them are discussed, as well as useful heuristics for improving practical behavior.
Rational fiction generally invokes the same worldview as described above, but does not necessarily attempt to teach the reader in as explicit a manner. The criteria for rational fiction are loose and there is no single necessary nor sufficient criteria.
-the use of "common sense" to subvert common narrative tropes is a frequent theme, especially in fanfiction where the original characters did not do so. Sometimes, one character is at an advantage over other characters because they alone are able to use this common sense. Other times, all characters make good use of common sense. This can lead to the characters behaving very differently from what readers generally expect from fictional characters in the genre.
-Often, characters seek instrumental knowledge or power, or exploits a unique situation that they find themselves in to pursue an ambitious goal. This sometimes involves humanist or transhumanist themes, or plays with consequentialist/utilitarian takes on morality.
-Particularly in magical fantasy settings, rational and rationalist fiction often gives the sense that someone, whether the author, the narrator, or a character, cares about attempting to come up with logically consistent explanations of the world as presented…even when the world seems to resist such logical explanations. For instance, if magic exists, the characters may note that this means that the universe seems to have special rules which respect human minds, and furthermore they may note that this strange and resists reductionist explanations.
-It's common for an interplay of conflict and cooperation to revolve around different characters which each have unique set of coherent goals that they are trying to maximize. Some characters may even have completely alien goals, orthogonal to any human values, which they nevertheless pursue rationally. Concepts from game theory are sometimes implicitly or explicitly invoked.
-Sometimes, none of the characters are especially rational, but it is clear that the underlying world has been constructed by the author with an eye to logical consistency and a careful thinking through of implications.
-Sometimes the story itself explores some tangentially relevant philosophical or practical question.
...and so on. Generally, "you know it when you see it" applies.
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (6 days later)
Squeaking in under the finish line! I'll be putting up the vote in about three hours, so make sure you put it any edits you want to do before that time.
u/ketura [+4] Organizer (6 minutes later)
#The OG
#Originally authored by /u/Vivificient
Comments:
As a baseline, this is the current sidebar against which all other solutions must be compared.
##Characteristics of Rational Fiction:
Nothing happens solely because 'the plot requires it'. If characters do (or don't do) something, there must be a plausible reason.
Any factions are defined and driven into conflict by their beliefs and values, not just by being "good" or "evil".
The characters solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources.
The fictional world has consistent rules, and sticks to them.
##In Rationalist Fiction:
As well as the above,
Rationalist and scientific methods are used to demystify mysterious phenomena.
The story shows rationalist techniques, which can be applied by readers.
The story is like a puzzle; readers can reach the same solution as the characters by using the information provided earlier in the story.
u/LieGroupE8 [+2] ** (2 days later)
Cluster of Rationality in Fiction-Space
Originally authored by /u/LieGroupE8
Sidebar definition
Rational fiction is fiction which specifically emphasizes themes related to rationality, where "rationality" loosely refers to a set of ideals such as reason, science, thoughtfulness, learning, excellence, self-improvement, goal-directed behavior, optimal strategy, understanding how things work, and similar ideas. A defining feature of rational fiction is that it strives to stand up to careful reader scrutiny by proceeding realistically given the setting, rather than according to standard literary forms or tropes (if these are used, they must be justified independently). Rational works should possess at least one, and preferably both, of the following attributes:
Competent characters: Characters possess at least Level 1 intelligence; that is, they act as intelligent agents optimizing to the best of their ability towards their goals. Characters do not ignore obvious opportunities and weaknesses for the sake of the plot.
Consistent settings: Settings obey rigorously applied rules. Every aspect of the plot and setting is a plausible consequence of the underlying rules and the initial setup, and conversely, logical consequences of the rules are not ignored for the sake of the plot.
These qualities apply to many works of fiction to some degree, but rational fiction respects them with an extra thoroughness. Other genres may relax the rules in order to establish a certain payoff: action that sacrifices physics for fun, thrillers that ignore probability for the sake of twists, literary fiction whose oddities are designed to be metaphorical rather than literal. In rational fiction, competence, consistency, and rationality are themselves part of the payoff, and are not sacrificed for other considerations.
Rationalist fiction is a subgenre of rational fiction in which reasoning techniques are shown in a way that is realistic and emulatable by the reader. Such works explicitly demonstrate techniques from science, logic, probability, game theory, decision theory, or other fields. The story is often structured like a puzzle that the reader can solve by applying such techniques.
Rational fiction has developed a set of common tropes which convey its aesthetics and ideals, including Munchkinry, Genre-savviness, Deconstruction, Worldbuilding, and others. For a more in-depth list with explanations, please read [the bullet points on the wiki](Link to the following bullet points on wiki). Also check out the TvTropes definition of rational fiction and Yudkowsky's guide to writing intelligent characters to gain a better understanding of the genre.
Bullet points for the wiki page
Although not strictly necessary, works are likely to qualify as rational fiction if they contain some of the following:
Intelligent characters: characters are demonstrably intelligent by real-world standards
Curious characters: characters are curious about their world, and make every effort to resolve their curiosity
Genre-savviness: characters are familiar with standard literary tropes and can subvert them
Munchkinry: characters attempt to exploit the rules of their world in any way possible
Deconstruction: tropes, magic systems, technologies, societies, and other things are reverse-engineered to see what makes them tick
Worldbuilding: settings are crafted in meticulous detail, and non-obvious consequences are considered
Solvability: Twists and problem solutions are theoretically predictable in advance by the reader with clever enough reasoning
Transhumanism: Themes of immortality, self-modification, and existential risk are addressed in depth
Features commonly seen in stories exhibiting competence as applies to rational fiction:
The thought processes of characters are described in detail, and these thought processes can be emulated by the reader
Characters have a strong respect for knowledge and intellect
Characters use every available technique to improve themselves
Characters drive the plot, and often try to "munchkin" or exploit their setting to accomplish their goals, or just for fun
Characters are curious about why things are the way they are, and try to discover the specific principles behind phenemona
Characters are well-read and familiar with standard literary tropes
Features common in stories that do NOT exhibit competence:
Character thought processes are not shown, or are shown very little
The writing informs us that a character is intelligent without showing it
Intelligent characters make deductions like Sherlock Holmes (that is, their deductions are implausible and unlikely to work in real life)
Intelligent characters talk like Spock (that is, they think that being smart means ignoring emotions, using the word "logical" a lot, and giving way too many digits of significance in their calculations)
Characters do not have much causal agency in the plot; they are just along for the ride
Character actions are primarily driven by their emotions, without reflection on whether the actions are intelligent
Characters are not curious about their world and do not make an effort to understand phenomena
Features commonly seen in stories exhibiting consistency as applies to rational fiction:
The setting is based on precise, coherent, and discoverable rules, and all events in the story conform to these rules
The plot proceeds like a simulation of what might actually happen given the established rules; real science is imported as much as possible
Secrets and plot twists are hinted at beforehand, usually in a way that allows the reader to potentially think of them in advance
Phenomena seen in the story have precise mechanisms which are explained in detail
Phenomena, objects, characters, and actions are all entangled together and bound by the rules of the story and their logical consequences
If there is any obvious technology or strategy that the background civilization is failing to exploit, a plausible explanation is provided as to why
Features common in stories NOT exhibiting consistency:
Little or no effort is made to demonstrate the ground rules of the setting
Little or no effort is made to show how and why events happen or how things work
Characters encounter many new technologies, wonders, phenomena, etc. that have no relation to anything that comes before or afterward in the story
There are implausible coincidences and Deus-Ex-Machinas
The writing provides explanations for things that happen, but these explanations are vague, implausible, or full of buzzwords with no moving parts
Characters consistently succeed at things despite having plans that are too complicated or kung-fu skills that are implausibly effective; the success of plans or fights is primarily plot-driven rather than a realistic consequence of the setting.
Features commonly seen in rationalist stories:
Characters have a deep desire to think and act optimally in all things, and this desire for absolute excellence factors strongly into their character arcs
The plot is fundamentally about reasoning, science, optimization, discovery, decision theory, etc., and is driven by them
Competence and Consistency pervade the story fractally, apparent throughout at every level of narrative
The story has core themes relating to transhumanism, immortality, ethics, Good vs. Good conflicts
Features common in stories non-rationalist stories:
Reasoning techniques are not shown explicitly, or are not emulatable by the reader
The plot can't be predicted in advance by the reader, even in principle
Lack of strong plot focus on themes of reasoning, science, optimization, excellence, etc.
Lack of strong plot focus on humanist or transhumanist philosophy
Antagonists who are viciously or comically evil without any explanation
u/LieGroupE8 [+1] ** (2 days later)
Strengths of this definition
Directly addresses the word "rational" in "rational fiction"
Primarily characterizes rational fiction by its ideals rather than by the specific content of stories
Conveys the extra rigor and conviction of rational fiction in contrast to other fiction while remaining flexible as to which stories may qualify
Supplementary bullet points show negative examples as well as positive, allowing readers to form a better classifier in their heads
Weaknesses
May be too long and wordy [Has since been edited to be a bit less so]
The final write-up should also include positive and negative examples of works satisfying each major item in the definition, and an explanation of why each work does or doesn't fit the item. Examples should preferably be close to the decision boundary to give finer intuition.
This definition draws on ideas in the previous thread from /u/derefr, /u/causalchain, /u/1337_w0n, /u/Noumero, /u/haiku_fornification, /u/0Gitaxian0, and also shamelessly appropriates ideas from other people's supplementary bullet points.
u/Silver_Swift [+2] (2 days later)
I like this definition, but I think
May be too long and wordy
is definitely a problem. I think a few lines of text can be cut without losing too much of the intended message:
Rational fiction is fiction which [cut] strives to stand up to careful reader scrutiny by explicitly showing that events are realistic given the setting [cut], rather than like standard literary forms or tropes (if these are used, they must be justified independently).
The first cut specifies the somewhat nonstandard way we use the word rationality here. While this can be helpful, I think it clogs up the definition. I would include it separately or provide a link. The second cut is just redundant text.
Displaying both competence and consistency in this respect is a sufficient condition for a work to be rational. Works which strongly possess one of these qualities, or which explore themes of rationality in other ways, may qualify as rational fiction, if the heart of the payoff is in the right place.
I would cut this entire section. The idea does add to the definition, but I don't think it's worth the word count. If you really foresee problems with people arguing that a setting with competent characters, but no consistent world can never be rational I would change the line: "Rational works almost always possess the following attributes:" to something like "Rational works posses at least one, but preferably both, of the following attributes:"
Rational-adjacent fiction is fiction that acknowledges the ideals and tropes of rational fiction, but bends them for its own purposes.
This line can also be cut. The term rational-adjacent is a useful one, but whenever it's used the meaning is probably self evident from context and if not it can be clarified in a sentence or two when someone asks.
u/LieGroupE8 [+3] ** (2 days later)
Thanks for the critiques! I've made some of the cuts you have suggested, and I also moved the rest of the trope bullet points to the wiki page section.
The first cut specifies the somewhat nonstandard way we use the word rationality here. While this can be helpful, I think it clogs up the definition.
I think it's a key part of this particular definition. Without it, my entry is very similar to several others. I want to convey the specific intent of rational fiction in terms of the ideals that it explores using competent characters and consistent settings.
Even with the cuts, this may still be too long for a sidebar. Hopefully the first paragraph conveys 90% of the message.
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (6 days later)
In approximately 20 hours from the timestamp of this comment, I will be creating the voting thread using the content of your submission at that time. Please make sure that any last minute edits are completed well before then; submission entries will not be edited after the voting thread has been made.
Thank you for helping us make the subreddit better!
(in this particular case I'm going to only put the sidebar proposal and insert a link to this post for the wiki part. If you want to make a comment that has nothing but the wiki bit for me to link to instead, that will make your submission a bit tighter.)
u/None [+2] (a day later)
[deleted]
u/ilI1il1Ili1i1liliiil [+10] (a day later)
Imagine a person stumbling upon /r/rational. They now have to read a Tumblr post by Yudkowsky and comprehend a new concept in order to understand which content is appropriate here. I don't think that's desirable.
Also:
This is the defining trait of "rationalist fiction."
Then why include the other points? Why not include level-n intelligence under the list of related tropes?
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (6 days later)
In approximately 20 hours from the timestamp of this comment, I will be creating the voting thread using the content of your submission at that time. Please make sure that any last minute edits are completed well before then; submission entries will not be edited after the voting thread has been made.
Thank you for helping us make the subreddit better!
u/None [+2] (18 hours later)
[deleted]
u/ArisKatsaris [+2] Sidebar Contender (20 hours later)
Is your proposal including the paragraph that starts "I am quite confident in this definition", namely you're asking people to vote for that sentence to be included in the sidebar?
u/0Gitaxian0 [-3] Sidebar Contestant (17 hours later)
Concept, Characters, Themes
Originally authored by u/0Gitaxian0
Rational fiction must meet the first two listed criteria. Rationalist fiction must meet all three criteria.
Concept Conceptually, rational fiction must include a clearly defined set of rules that the reader can analyze.
Characters At least one major character’s arc must involve interacting with, analyzing, and understanding a ruleset in rational fiction.
Themes Rationality itself must be the central theme of rationalist fiction.
u/0Gitaxian0 [+2] Sidebar Contestant (17 hours later)
I’ve deliberately avoided using words like “intelligent” or “consistent” so that an individual’s perception of those values doesn’t influence whether a work is rational. (Of course those can still be used to argue a work is bad rational fiction.)
To give some examples:
Worm fulfills the first criteria with most powers and how powers function having clearly defined rules, but understanding those rules isn’t important to anyone’s arc. It’s adjacent to, but not, rational fiction.
Worth the Candle hasn’t a clear set of rules and understanding them is part of the main character’s arc. It is rational fiction.
HPMOR has multiple clear sets of rules, understanding them plays into characters’ arcs, and rationality is the core theme of the entire story. It is rationalist fiction.
u/ArisKatsaris [+2] Sidebar Contender (20 hours later)
You've not followed the requested format, please amend.
u/0Gitaxian0 [+2] Sidebar Contestant (a day later)
Sorry, fixed. Was in a rush when I copied it over.
u/ketura [+1] Organizer (6 days later)
In approximately 20 hours from the timestamp of this comment, I will be creating the voting thread using the content of your submission at that time. Please make sure that any last minute edits are completed well before then; submission entries will not be edited after the voting thread has been made.
Thank you for helping us make the subreddit better!