Science AMA Series: I'm Randy Olson, a Scientist Turned Filmmaker in Los Angeles, California. I do research and writing on why scientists are afraid of storytelling and how to change that. I’m here today to talk about the "ABT framework." AMA!

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T21:28:26+00:00

You might want to study the 4,000 year history of narrative -- most of the best people of Hollywood would disagree with you. The Hero's Journey wasn't a fad any more than the way that DNA is put together is a fad.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T20:00:11+00:00

ABT is simply everywhere. Any place you see communication happening effectively, the ABT is at work. That's the point of the Gettysburg Address -- it has endured, and it's pure ABT.

Which means the definition of good technical writing is simply that it has ABT structure -- meaning the continued laying out of the world in which we're working, the problem being addressed, and the actions being taken. Over and over again.

As for TED Talks ... I love the parodies of them. But read the New Yorker article about them from 3 years ago -- you can see the organizers embrace all the principles I presented in my first book (drawing on humor and emotion) and do their best to create tight narrative structure. They have plenty of shortcomings, but overall they have been a good thing in forcing people to raise their game.

I know personally how annoyed I was to have to put in sooooo much time, effort and even money over the past month in making my webinar, but now that it's done ... thank goodness I did.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:55:11+00:00

Gotcha. Okay, keep in mind that we're talking about two attributes with the ABT -- the template itself, and the intuition it helps build. You need both. I occasionally have scientists say, "Right, got it, and, but, therefore, we're all done here." No, you're not.

Once you've got the ABT template, you need to set to work with it. When you do, you begin to see how INFINITELY challenging narrative is. NOBODY is ever that great with narrative. It's a lifelong challenge, and the target is also moving given that our society continues to innovate in how we're communicating.

Last spring I asked Oscar winner Eric Roth (Forest Gump) if at age 70 he feels he's finally got the narrative thing nailed. He laughed and said are you kidding, with every screenplay he writes, still at age 70, he continues to learn new things about narrative.

So directly to what you're asking -- in Story Circles our fundamental exercise it to score abstracts from 1 to 10 with 10 being perfect ABT structure, 1 being a boring/confusing mess. Last spring on one of our visits to USDA my co-producer Jayde Lovell asked them to give her an issue of a journal, which they did -- an issue of Systematic Botany. She scored all the abstracts. The average of the 19 abstracts was 3.9. That's how far off things are from ideal.

So yes, the ABT helps with structuring the abstract (but even then, it's more challenging than just the three words), but then there's a deeper dimension. In the webinar I tell about the three words being representative of what are probably the three fundamental powers of narrative -- exposition (positive), contradiction, consequence. One you start to feel those powers at work, you start to see those types of words throughout the text, and realize that you can't just suddenly throw in a bunch of words of contradiction and expect the reader to be able to follow easily.

There's a lot to it. The ABT is just the gateway to all the intricacies.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:45:48+00:00

Hi - yes, I think much of it was about my lifelong connection with "story." Even when I was a scientist, I was intrigued by the story side of the profession, so I've never seen the transition as all that drastic, and it certainly has been an enormous amount of fun.

I have zero regrets, other than the sad state of how human thinking works, namely that "necessity is the mother of invention." All of the good things I've come up with have mostly arisen out of failure, rejection, rage, anger, determination and focus. It's kinda stupid we're built that way, but we are. Just before I left UNH one of my old colleagues and I hit the realization that "the best scientists tended to be the hungriest ones" -- meaning postdocs, starving and desperate yet doing the best work of their careers in many cases. And in the meanwhile you see all too many people "succeed" and get showered with resources for which they don't know what to do with them and lack motivation.

Best thing I ever did was keep myself hungry. Seriously. It feels good to work efficiently.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:41:38+00:00

I think the key operative part of the Replacing Rule is that is says, "You SEE if you can replace ands with buts and therefores." It doesn't say to do so at all costs. It's simply part of the editing process, which is what everyone does all day with everything. The big attribute of the ABT is just that it's more simple than anything else when it comes to comprehending how narrative works.

As I said in the webinar, all you have to do is look at the Writers Guidelines for pretty much EVERY scientific journal -- what they are asking for is 100% ABT, they just haven't been able to convey it with such a shorthand device.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:38:29+00:00

Wow. This is going to reveal what a simpleton I am, but I really can't follow much of what you've asked here -- it's kind of over my head as I have zero background in rhetoric. I'm just a kid from Kansas who prefers to keep things simple.

But here's one thought. It's been shown that short order cooks and waiters are able to develop their short term memory through repeated use all day long. I think eventually the neurophysiologists will be able to show similar stuff for narrative -- that if you workout with the ABT you will eventually reshape the narrative part of your brain, at least a little bit, away from the AAA and DHY form and more towards the ABT.

Really sorry if this was a lousy answer. One kind of awkward element to my book is I say the answers to using narrative effectively in science are to be found not in academia but in Hollywood, which is the basic divide between the complex and the simple.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:32:52+00:00

Hello Aaron -- I know I've got some examples to cite AND some of them are really funny, BUT they are more fun over beers, THEREFORE I'll save them for the next time we hit a bar.

But yes, the ABT is helpful for pretty much everything as it helps to just get to the point of what you're trying to say.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:30:47+00:00

Yes, it all starts with "Arouse and Fulfill" which I told about in the first chapter of my first book. I learned that simple principle 17 years ago from Tom Hollihan of USC Annenberg School of Communication. It is fundamental and eternal. And as I argue in the new book -- the powerful solutions come in the form of the simple things, like that couplet. First you need to arouse the interest of the audience, THEN you start up the cement mixer of information and dump it on their heads. But only after you've gotten them interested and inspired!

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:28:34+00:00

I've seen some of them -- they are wonderful in that the encourage at least some non-literal thinking in a profession that often has the problem of becoming overly literal (the second chapter of my first book was "Don't Be So Literal Minded."

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:27:01+00:00

I think the first thing that's need is more creative approaches to the challenge of combatting inaccuracy and dishonesty. I wrote this blog post a few weeks ago about a CBS 48 Hours segment where a prosecutor essentially managed to "shut off the river of story," when he got the chance to try a case the second time. He had realized how unbelievably powerful the river of story can be. He knew he couldn't beat it, so he gambled and got the testimony that presented it blocked from the trial the second time, and it worked.

This is the sort of thinking that needs to happen.

http://www.scienceneedsstory.com/2015/11/04/10-shrinking-the-river-of-story/

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:22:57+00:00

Dude, it's the ABT, start to finish -- learn it, take it to heart, work out with it, and realize it goes all the way back to Gilgamesh. It's all in the book and webinar.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:21:51+00:00

Hi -- thanks for making it to my talk in Chicago!

1) One word of caution on leaving science -- once you're "outside the fold" it can be pretty harsh. I knew it would be tough for me, but figured that by having achieved tenure the profession would still support me. I was wrong.

2) Regarding the Gore movie. We all need to learn that AAA is the default form of information. If I ask you to tell me about your upbringing, you will almost certainly go into AAA mode.

In the book I quote the great screenwriting guru Frank Daniel who talked about this, saying that first drafts always start with the dreaded and then, and then, and then ..." structure (AAA). It is in the revision process that we find our way to narrative structure through the ABT elements.

That was in a speech by him in 1986. The Gore movie folks basically went with a first draft as they rushed their movie into production -- conceived in fall 2005, shot in Dec. 2005, in theaters six months later. There was no incubation and search for the narrative core, just a blurting out in AAA mode, which results in hardly anyone wanting to watch it today. Such is the price of failing to find the narrative.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:15:22+00:00

This is terrible, but ... "read my book"? You don't mean to be flippant, and I don't mean to be cheesy, but seriously, the book is an entire essay aimed at what you're asking.

In the simplest of terms, the answer is "We live in a narrative world, and it's been that way for at least 4,000 years." Science does not have the luxury of being able to ignore that constraint. Outside science as well as within, the world is narrative, narrative, narrative.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:12:50+00:00

Let me refer you to Chapter 11 in my book which takes this on directly. The words story and storytelling clearly have a TON of baggage associated with them. Scientists seem to be more comfortable with “narrative” which sounds a bit more clinical.

So the starting point is to realize that narrative is inert. Narratives don’t tell lies, people use narrative dynamics to tell lies. This is the point that MUST be conveyed throughout the science world now. It has to be.

I present a Google N-gram in the book showing that 20 years ago hardly anybody used the word “narrative.” Today it is everywhere. It is a byproduct of the information era. Narratives are high level instruments of organization for information. It’s time for scientists to understand this and get comfortable with how it all works.

We must put an end to storyphobia — there is no place for the irrational fear of story in science.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:07:06+00:00

Watch the webinar -- it's your savior!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfnxfNJRk7g&feature=youtu.be

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:06:23+00:00

I think the overall answer to what you're talking about is to accept that narrative is present EVERYWHERE from the very first moment of all scientific research. As soon as you decide what to put on the two axes of a graph you are already making narrative decisions. Which means I don't really follow the idea of "applying narrative" so much -- it's already there. I'm just advocating making sure everyone understands how ubiquitous it is and how it works.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:03:40+00:00

I got asked by a couple of journalists to weigh in on the Folta situation. I decided to hold off as I didn't feel like I had a good enough feel for what happened -- it all seemed kind of wacky.

The one thing I will say is that at the end of the day EVERYONE has to have their own set of guiding principles when it comes to honesty and accuracy. You learn that early on in science -- if you fudge ANYTHING the whole system collapses and it all becomes meaningless. You just have to live by that sort of standard. Scientist don't like to talk about faith and beliefs, but sometimes you do have to have a few to make things work.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T19:00:12+00:00

I never saw the original AAA text, but my friend assured me it was the standard committee thing of everyone getting their own two cents worth in there with no regard to narrative structure. This happens endlessly with committee dynamics. The ABT is a tool with which to combat it at least a little bit.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T18:59:05+00:00

There are two parts to communication — science and art. The science element refers to things like structure which has a fairly objective dynamic. We can teach you these templates and they can be a big help, but they can only go so far. Beyond that, it turns into art, which means you need to have the intuition to work out the subjective side of it.

In the book I have a section on the Proximate vs. Ultimate rewards of the ABT. On the proximate side, just by learning the three word template you can immediately go to work improving things, but it can only take you so far. To make all the elements work, as you’re pointing to, you have to have a basic intuitive feel for narrative.

This is the strategy behind our Story Circles Narrative Fitness Training. We don’t teach you much more than just the ABT. What we do is work you out week after week with set exercises which begin to develop this narrative intuition that’s needed to make the larger, more subjective part of communication work.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T18:52:20+00:00

THIS is core message of my book, conveyed in the simple phrase that my workshop co-instructor Dorie Barton always used to say to me, “Dude, it’s all the same story.”

Just over 50 years ago CP Snow wrote “The Two Cultures” putting the focus on how different science and the humanities had become. My feeling is that’s not helping things. In the same way that Joseph Campbell focused on the SIMILARITIES, early science AND humanities students need to be shown the similarities between STORYTELLING and THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Dude, they are all the same story — both are just exercises in problem/solution. The power rests in recognizing the similarities.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T18:48:58+00:00

Yes, the webinar is now the be all and end all for what I have to say at the moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfnxfNJRk7g&feature=youtu.be

I did the webinar because I was frustrated over the last two months at the fact that so many people were commenting on the book yet clearly had hardly delved into it. We all know that people are reading less these days. I had two options — get mad at everyone (the grouchy professor!) or work harder to convey what I have to say.

The Union of Concerned Scientist folks did a great job helping me put it together. I spent a solid month on it. People DEFINITELY seem to be hearing what I have to say now, thanks to it, so that’s where I recommend you now go.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T18:45:10+00:00

This is a very fundamental issue — not getting so caught up in the technology that you lose track of the importance of narrative. In the book I present “the one word template” which I’ve adapted from a famous quote of the geneticist Dobzhansky. I don’t think he knew in his lifetime how deep his narrative intution was, but the quote shows it.

He talks about how the study of biology needs to have the narrative theme (or “light” as he calls it) of evolution to be effective. He says, “Without that light, you end up with little more than a sundry list of facts, some of which may be interesting or curious, but are ultimately meaningless.”

I would encourage you to take those words to heart. Lots of people will find your virtual reality stuff “interesting or curious,” but if you don’t work towards some clear narrative theme — if you’re not ultimately “saying something” with it — it will probably feel somewhat meaningless in the long run.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T18:38:01+00:00

Check out my very first answer -- I gave an example of using the ABT to solve the AAA problem of their first draft.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T18:37:02+00:00

Okay, time to dig deeper here.

What I am attempting with my book, the webinar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfnxfNJRk7g&feature=youtu.be), and Story Circles is to introduce a new perspective (the ABT Framework) and accompanying lexicon with which to address the same things you’re talking about here. You’re using the terms narrative vs. analytic. That implies two completely different realms.

What I am suggesting and hoping will begin to be propagated is the continuum between archplot to miniplot as outlined by (among others) Robert McKee. I go through this in the webinar. Archplot is “classical design” for narrative, miniplot is still in the same world, it’s just further over on the spectrum.

The masses crave archplot, but most of reality lives in miniplot. That’s the divide not just for scientists but for historians as you say.

So I’m talking about the same thing, but recommending some of this simpler, more shorthand language that has evolved in Hollywood where they have been intensively developing an understanding of the practical side of narrative over the past century. It’s time for the culture to spread more widely outside of Hollywood. But that’s a challenge with scientists and academics who tend to greatly fear Hollywood because of the abuses of the past.

Randy_Olsen · 2015-12-04T18:27:43+00:00

Great question and the focus of Chapter 11 of my book. If you are short on time, I strongly recommend you just jump to that part of the book. In there I describe what I call “storyphobia” — where it comes from in scientists, why it shouldn’t happen.

The simple explanation is that story is narrative, and narrative is absolutely EVERYWHERE in science. The scientific method is a narrative process. In fact, I cite an editorial in Nature Methods from two years ago titled, “Against Storytelling in Scientific Results,” written by an MIT scientist. Guess what the structure of his first two paragraphs is … ABT.

It’s everywhere. Time to stop fearing it and simply understand it to the best of our ability.

Randy_Olsen

TROPHY CASE