A Writer Comments…

Dear Melanie – I greatly enjoyed the Advanced Dramatica class last night. It is a testament to the power of your ideas that in my sleep-deprived state I could sit still for three hours and be quite riveted.

I had a comment on Male-Female mental sex that might be of some interest to you, though I suspect you may have been over this ground already.

For some time I have thought that there are two ways of knowing – 1) rule-based/logic, and 2) pattern matching. An example of rule-based would be “A=B and B=C ==> A=C”; an example of pattern matching would be a director knowing that the cast of a stage play is motivated to do good work because he’s worked with other successful casts.

Rule-based works well on many classes of problems (e.g., if you fire a rocket at such & such a trajectory it will land on Saturn). It allows you to support a conclusion by referring back to defined elements and their proven interactions. It fails to work when elements are not clearly distinct or interactions are complex. For instance, it seems unlikely that that anyone will ever be able to predict global weather based on number crunching of simple elements such as molecules, pressure and temperature.

To solve these more complex problems, pattern recognition is necessary. In other words, you discover that generally whenever it’s cloudy in Fiji and snowing in New York, Seattle is warm and dry. You don’t know why that is; you can’t “prove” it; yet it is a rule you can live by and therefore recognizing that pattern is adaptive.

So when I hear Male vs. Female mental sex, I frequently translate it to Rule-Based vs. Pattern Matching. This seems to explain all of the relationships simply and helps me avoid getting distracted by stereotyping one gender or the other. However, I do not yet know what to make of Chris’s comment that “the biggest difference between male & female mental sex is the way that time and space are perceived.” So I look forward to hearing more on that at some opportunity.

Mark

My Reply…

Hi, Mark, and thanks for the note. I’m glad you are enjoying the class. I’ll try to make the next one a bit more boring, so you can catch up on your sleep!

As for male/female systems of perception, the linear (IF “a” THEN “b”) and the pattern (WHEN “a” ALSO “b”, as exemplified in the statement, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”) are both inherently male mental sex appreciations, because they are both spatial/binary/particulate. Even in your example of weather prediction by pattern, the “given” that is built into that perspective is that there is a difference between Fiji, New York, and Seattle. Female mental sex would find no such distinction.

You have correctly named two items in a quad of perspectives. The first one is linear, the second one is comparative. Here are the other two, by analogy: If linear sets the direction and pattern determines the speed, then the first FEMALE mental sex perspective would be like acceleration, and the second perspective would be CHANGES in acceleration.

In terms of another analogy, the first female mental sex perspective would be like watching the changing colors in a sunset. The second would experiencing changes in the rate at which the colors change.

Have you ever stepped outside on a blustery day with big puffy clouds that cause dappled patterns of shadow and light to move across the ground, from where you are all the way to the horizon?

Even if you don’t think about what causes the patterns (linear) and even if you don’t register the patterns directly at all, you still get an emotional sense of the “flavor” of the landscape as areas brighten and darken, and this “flavor” is due to the fact that the lightening and darkening is not linear, but accelerates, starting out slowly, then gradually increasing in speed until the final breakthrough of sun happens very quickly. That experience is like the FIRST of the female mental sex perceptions of the world, but female mental sex will experience EVERYTHING IN LIFE primarily from that perspective (or from the second female mental sex perspective.)

The second perspective can also be seen on that cloudy day. Do you know how it feels when the sun ALMOST peeks out but flirts with the clouds instead? So, it is accelerating toward appearing and then slows down, perhaps changes its mind, and heads deeper into the shadows with not only greater speed, but greater acceleration.

That constantly shifting flavor of the emotional experience as the RATE OF ACCELERATION changes is very close to the second female mental sex perspective.

Now, the point about male and female seeing Time and Space differently… Imagine that all four of these perceptions are available to both male and female mental sex individuals. But, the male mental sex begins in the linear, then seeks the pattern, then senses the acceleration (indicating the forces at work) and finally arrives at an awareness of the change in the forces through observing change in acceleration. In contrast, female mental sex would FIRST sense the changes in acceleration, then refine that to see the average acceleration (making acceleration appear temporarily constant), THEN see the patterns as being comprised of distinct units of shadow and light, and FINALLY see the linearity of progress from light to dark to light.

Each mental sex would see all four, but due to the ORDER or SEQUENCE in which the perceptions are experienced, the personal MEANING and therefore the VALUE and IMPORTANCE of both the entire scenario AND it’s components would come out differently.

Looking at SEQUENCE is a binary temporal view of the whole above process. Another way to look at it would be that male and female mental sex individuals give a different EMPHASIS to each of the four perspectives. That is a binary SPATIAL view of the process.

So, as you can see, even in my description of the differences, I have adopted a binary framework as a means of communication. Therein lies the real answer to you investigation: because the spatial and temporal (binary/holistic) frame of reference is built in to the brains of male or female mental sex people, no matter how much you look toward the opposite side, no matter how far you step back, you will always still have a point of view that is biased toward the binary or holistic on top of your perspective.

This is why male and female mental sex individuals will never be able to ever TRULY experience how the other variety sees and feels about life, but can only approximate it in terms of the spatial or temporal bias that forms a foundation of our very awareness.

Hope this give you cause for thought, and doesn’t keep you up all night!

A Writer Asks…

Can a “do-er” change to a “be-er” over the course of the story (and vice <> versa). Also, I’m having a problem changing one character from be-er to do-er at my particular stage of story encoding (seems I’m locked in)

My Reply…

The choice of do-er or be-er describes the Main Character’s preference – not necessarily what circumstances allow him or her. So, although a character will maintain their preference throughout the story, they may be forced to act in quite the opposite way.

For example, a do-er in an Action story will be right at home, manipulating the environment which is just what is needed. But, a do-er in a Decision story will be like a fish out of water, always trying to take action to resolve obstacles when what is needed is internal work to set an example or adopt an attitude. Such a character will try to resolve things in his or her preferential way until, as a last resort he or she may give in and work at it in the other, uncomfortable way.

So, any character can respond either as a do-er or be-er at any point in the story, but it is important the audience know what the character’s preference is in order to understand the kinds of pressures the character is going through.

The concept of “Mental Sex” is one of my personal favorite parts of the Dramatica Theory. In fact, Chris and I didn’t go looking for it but it came out and bit us during the theory development. Eventually, Mental Sex became the driving force behind the further development of the Mental Relativity Theory – a model of psychology which grew out of Dramatica.

Since I enjoy this topic so much, I’ve written quite a bit about it. Chris and I have talked about doing it up right as a book but we haven’t yet gotten around to it. For now, I’ll post a few of these essays on the subject here for anyone who shares the interest. And, if you just can’t wait until they all get posted, you can find most of the work on Mental Sex through the Mental Relativity Home Page.

*******************************

The notion that “Men Are From Mars; Women Are From Venus” is in itself a very male way of looking at the differences between the sexes. A more gender-neutral perspective would describe men as coming from a place and women from a moment. In fact, it is the differing ways in which men and women view space and time that account for all of the principal biologic influences that determine Mental Sex.

An analogy:

First of all, imagine a range of open ground in a valley. Now, imagine the valley is split in two by a fence. In the middle, where the fence is, the valley is somewhat of a bog, half water and half soil. As we move away from the fence to the left, the valley becomes more and more solid, until mid-way from the fence to the left side of the valley, the land is perfect for growing crops.

As we continue to the left, the land gets drier and drier until at the far left end of the valley, it is a desert, where nothing can grow.

Now, imagine as we move to the right of the fence toward the other side of the valley, about mid-way the bog gradually becomes marshland, which harbors all sorts of life. But, as we move all the way to the other side, the land gives way to completely pure water, in which nothing can live.

If we chart the life in the valley, we see that there is none at the far left, none at the far right, and none in the middle. But everywhere in between there is some degree of life. The greatest concentration is at the two points midway from the fence to either side. And each of those points harbors a completely different kind of life.

Men are born with a spatial orientation, meaning they are to the left of the fence. Women are born with a temporal orientation, meaning they are to the right of the fence. How far depends upon the individual. Some men will be born right up against the fence on the left, and some women will be born right up against it on the right. But, statistically, most men will be born toward the middle of the left and most women toward the middle of the right.

This initial bias simply describes where they will be born – not where they will end up.

When we receive our pre-birth bias in the womb, it determines how much spatial or temporal bias we have to our thinking AS AN UNDERLYING AND CONTINUOUS PULL. But it does not indicate where our life experience, training, and personal choice will lead us.

Because this bias “sets” the L and R cells in the ganglia of the brain to a ratio between the production of Seratonin and Dopamine, we are constantly drawn toward one side of the fence or the other for all of our lives. This cannot be changed by our experience, training, or choice. But these three items are built upon that bias, and collectively, have three times the “pulling power” of our initial bias. We can’t get rid of the bias, and but we can compensate for it – or NOT, as we choose, as the cards fall.

So, a given woman might lean way over to the spatial side, due to here experience, while a man might be way over to her right – the temporal side – due to his.

If we just go with our bias because of upbringing or choice, those men would ALWAYS be more spatial than any woman, for she will always be pulled by that initial bias just a bit to the right. Similarly, a woman whose experience leads to a complete temporal outlook will be farther into the time side than any many can ever get.

Now, let’s add the final level of complexity, which really makes the whole thing a lot more simple.

Why would something like this happen?

We all have a space and time sense. We all have a degree of Seratonin and Dopamine producing cells. We also all have a limited mental bandwidth – a depth of field as to how much of the space/time continuum we can span at any given moment. Imagine our mental bandwidth as a railroad car on a track. We can move to the left or right on the track along the space/time line, but we can only cover a certain number of “ties” at any given moment. This is our mental bandwidth. Some of us have a bit more or a bit less, but we all have a limit.

Now, an individual who was centered right in the middle, would see a bit of a spatial view and a bit of a temporal view. But, if a spatial person bonded with a temporal person, collectively they could extend their bandwidth to almost double the number of ties on the track. Of course they would have to overlap a bit in order to communicate, but other than that, they would be complementary. Each one could provide a more clear view of one side, and they would watch each other’s backs.

As a bonded pair, they would be much better suited to survival than any single individual who could not anticipate or appreciate spatial and temporal patterns as well, at an instinctual level.

So, it is my contention that physical sex and sex roles did not create two different minds, but that two different minds formed quite naturally as a strong survival trait, and the differences in the bodies evolved to support the approach of the mind.

Note that although we all have a bias when we are born, it is enhanced by the addition of hormones at puberty. When we are young, before child-bearing years, we need to be more centered. But when we reach child-bearing age, then we need to form bonded pairs. The hormones do both jobs by making us more attractive and attracted to the opposite sex at the same time our minds begin to move farther from the fence and more to one side or the other.

In this way, just about the time we form a bonded pair, our minds have shifted to make it the strongest pair possible.

Now, in pre-society days, survival traits led to a genetic tendency for men to be far to one side and women far to the other in a double “bell curve”. Anyone in the middle was not as attractive a mate, because the bonded pair would not be as strong, and the off-spring would not have as much protection, and would therefore not be as likely to survive.

As we began to build cities and to tame the wild world, we incorporated structural roles for men and women base on these biases. But as we continued to tame the world, the value of these biases became less and less crucial (in perhaps the last 10,000 years).

As society and culture advanced toward the information age, we see more and more individuals being born closer to the middle on both sides, for society itself began to offer opportunities to individuals who were more balanced.

In today’s information society, the bias to one side or the other is actually a deficit. The individual who can jump from the spatial to the temporal at the drop of a hat is the most successful and most desirable of mates.

As a result, the best food, the best care and the greatest resources go to those who carry more balanced genes. In addition, and in support of this, as we pollute our lands, it changes the hormone balance in human beings. Men have a measurable lower level of testosterone and women are significantly taller from generation to generation.

These things are indications that our own environment is rippling back to continue the trend that genetics has already begun. The end result is that the two bell curves are simultaneously becoming flatter and also moving closer to the center.

It is my belief that over the course of the next thousand years or so, the range of humans on the spatial to temporal scale will be almost a flat line, evenly distributed from one end to the other. (Except, of course, that this isn’t likely occur due to genetic tampering with our own DNA).

Still and all, society itself is a structural beast. Human evolution is dynamic, in all of its forms. When the two meet, tensions are created, just like tectonic plates floating on magma.

The structure cannot bend, so it must either break or be progressively dismantled and rebuilt. One approach is cataclysmic, the other constructive. We, as a world of people, have a choice as to which approach to take. The one sure thing is that choice or not, the building pressure will be dissipated in one form or another.

A Writer Asks…

I have a handle on most Dramatica terms but I’m having troubles conceptualizing Objective Character. Is Objective Character the same as Obstacle character?

I Reply…

No, they are quite different.

1. Objective Characters have structural roles and are identified by their functions.

2. The Obstacle character is a SUBJECTIVE character, which are identified by their points of view.

Here’s a bit more background on how it all fits together…

A central concept of the Dramatica theory is that every complete story represents a model of a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity.

This occurs because in order to communicate an author must make a copy of what they have in mind and show it to the audience. This model of the author’s perspective on his or her subject is called the Story Mind.

The audience examines this Story Mind from four different points of view. They are the Objective view (where we find the Objective Characters), The Main Character view (which is the subjective character who represents the audience position in the story), the Obstacle Character view (which is the subjective character who is trying to change the Main Character’s point of view on the issues), and the Subjective view (which describes the growth of the relationship between the Main and Obstacle Characters).

The first view we will examine is from the outside looking in. This is the Objective View. From here, the audience sees characters like soldiers on a field viewed by a general on a hill overlooking the Dramatica battle. There are foot soldiers, grenadiers, etc., all identified by their functions in the battle. In stories, we see these as the Protagonist, Antagonist, Sidekick, etc.

The second point of view with which an audience becomes involved with a story is for them to step into the story as if the audience were one of the players. When the audience leaves the general’s hill and zooms down to stand in the shoes of one of the soldiers on the field, that soldier becomes the Main Character. The Main Character is simply the name of the player who represents the audience’s position in the story.

Because Main Character is a point of view, it can be attached to any of the Objective Characters. So, in one story, the Main Character might be the Protagonist, creating the typical “hero”. In another story, however, the Main Character might be the Sidekick, so that the audience observes what the Protagonist is doing without feeling like they are driving the story forward themselves. This is how things are set up in “To Kill A Mockingbird”, in which Atticus (the Gregory Peck part in the movie) is the Protagonist (driving the action forward) while his young daughter Scout provides the audience position in the story (which is told through her child’s eyes) making her the Main Character.

Now, as the Main Character makes his or her way through the dramatic battle, he or she encounters another “soldier” blocking the path. The other soldier says, “change course!” But is it a friend trying to prevent the Main Character from walking into a mine field or an enemy trying to lure the Main Character into an ambush. This other solder is the Obstacle Character.

The Obstacle Character represents the alternative paradigm to the Main Character’s existing opinions about the central issue of the story. It is their dramatic purpose in the story to force the Main Character to reconsider changing his or her long-held views. This provides the other side of the story’s argument, making it a full exploration of the topic, not just a one-sided statement.

Sometimes the Obstacle Character is right, and sometimes wrong. And sometimes the Main Character chooses the good path and sometimes the bad one. Also, the Obstacle Character may not even know they have such an influence on the Main Character as to make him or her consider changing attitudes or approaches. The Obstacle Character can be a role model, even one on TV or from the past, whose presence or recorded works argue the alternative paradigm and influence the Main Character.

The fourth perspective is the Subjective view. This is simply a tale of the growth of the relationship between the Main and Obstacle Characters, as the Main Character is progressively influenced to change even while seeking to hold on to the tried and true. It is this view that gives a story its passionate flavor for an audience, as they watch the two “boxers” circling each other in the “ring”.

When all four points of view are provided, all the principal ways of looking at a story’s issues are built into the Story Mind. The Main Character is the “I” perspective for the audience – first person singular. Obstacle Character is “you” (for we never see things from the Obstacle’s point of view, but rather look AT the Obstacle from the Main Character’s point of view). The Subjective view is “we” as it describes the relationship between Main and Obstacle. The Objective view provides the “they” perspective, as the audience watches the Objective Characters from the outside looking in.

So, one must develop a complete set of Objective Characters. Then, one of those characters needs to be selected as the audience position in the story (which will affect the whole feel of how the battle unfolds). This will become the Main Character. Next, another Objective Character must be selected as the Obstacle Character. Which one will determine the complex nature of the relationship between Main and Obstacle, as part of their interchange will occur between their Objective Character aspects in the Objective story, and part will occur between the Subjective Character points of view in the Subjective story.

Keep in mind that looking at a character as a doctor, mother, bum, or husband does NOT say anything about whether they are a Protagonist, Antagonist or any other Objective Character. Objective Characters determine who is for something, who is against it, who acts primarily according to Reason and who with Emotion, and so on. The Mother may be the Protagonist, the Reason character, or even the Sidekick. And choosing her as the Main or Obstacle would add another level of complexity.

So, it is important for consistency and completeness of the argument made through the Story Mind to assign all the Objective Characters a role in your story and to make one a Main Character and one an Obstacle Character. But, the “feel” of your story won’t truly develop until you assign the social roles these characters fulfill in your story world as well.

Often an author will wish to start with a Mother character or some other social role. Only then does the process begin of determining who is Main and Obstacle, and then determining what Objective Characters each represents.

How you approach the creation of the full complement of Characters and their roles is up to you. That is must be done is a result of the necessity of creating a Story Mind for the audience to both inspect and possess as the conduit of communication between author and audience.

All too often in stories, relationships and interchanges between characters of different sexes come off stilted, unbelievable, or contrived. In fact, since the author is writing from the perspective of only one of the two sexes, characters of the opposite sex often play more as one sex’s view of the opposite sex, rather than as truly being a character OF the opposite sex. This is because the author is looking AT the opposite sex, not FROM its point of view.

By exploring the differences in how each sex sees the world, we can more easily create believable characters of both sexes. To that end, I offer the following incident.

I was at lunch with Chris (Co-creator of Dramatica) some time ago. I had ordered some garlic bread and could not finish it. I asked the waitress if she would put it in a box to take home, and she did. On the way past the cashier, I realized that I had forgotten to take the box from the table. I said, “Rats! I forgot the bread!”

Chris said, “Go ahead and get it, we’ll wait.”

I thought for a moment and said, “No, it’s not that important.” and started to walk out.

Chris: “It’ll only take a moment.”

Me: “Yes, but I have to go all the way back, and I probably won’t eat it anyway, and it probably won’t reheat very well, and…”

Chris then said in jest, “Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.”

In fact, they really did sound like excuses to him. But to me, the reasons I had presented to him for not going back for the bread were not rationalizations, but actually legitimate concerns.

At the heart of this difference in perspective is the difference in the way female and male brains are “soft wired”. As a result, neither women nor men can see into the heart of the other without finding a lack of coherence.

Here is a line-by-line comparison of the steps leading from having too much bread to the differing interpretations of my response to forgetting the box.

Melanie thinks:

That’s good bread, but I’m full. I might take it home, but I’m not convinced it will reheat. Also, I’ve really eaten too many calories in the last few days, I’m two pounds over where I want to be and I have a hair appointment on Wednesday and a dinner date on the weekend with a new friend I want to impress, so maybe I shouldn’t eat anymore. The kids won’t want it, but I could give it to the dog, and if I get hungry myself, I’ll have it there (even though I shouldn’t eat it if I want to lose that two pounds!) So, I guess it’s better to take it than to leave it.

Melanie says:

“Waitress, can I have a box to take the bread home?”

Chris understands Melanie to mean:

I want to take the bread home.

The balance sheet:

To me there was only a tendency toward bringing the bread home, and barely enough to justify the effort. To Chris it was a binary decision: I wanted to bring it home or not.

Melanie says:

“Rats! I forgot to bring the bread!”

Chris says:

“Go ahead and get it, we’ll wait.”

The balance sheet:

I’m thinking, “How does this change the way I feel about the situation?” Chris is thinking, “How can she solve this problem.”

Melanie thinks:

Well, I really don’t want to be tempted by it, this unexpected turn makes it easier to lose the weight. If I go back I’ll be tempted or give it to the dog. If I don’t go back I won’t be tempted, which is good because I know I usually give in to such temptations. Of course, the dog loses out, but we just bought some special treats for the dog so she won’t miss what she wasn’t expecting. All in all, the effort of going around two corners while everyone waits just so I can get an extra doggie treat and lead myself into temptation isn’t worth it.

Melanie says:

“No, its not that important.”

Chris says:

“It’ll only take a moment.”

The balance sheet:

I’m thinking that since I was right on the edge of not wanting to take it in the first place, even this little extra necessary effort is enough inconvenience to make it not a positive thing but an irritation, so I’ll just drop it and not pay even the minor price. Chris is thinking that since I made up my mind to take the bread in the first place, how is it that this little inconvenience could change my mind 180 degrees. I must be lazy or embarrassed because I forgot it.

Melanie says:

“Yes, but I have to go all the way back, and I probably won’t eat it anyway, and it probably won’t reheat very well, and…”

Chris says:

“Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.”

The balance sheet:

I’m trying to convey about a thousand petty concerns that went into my emotional assessment that it was no longer worth going back for. Chris just hears a bunch of trumped up reasons, none of which are sufficient to change one’s plans.

I operated according to an emotional tendency to bring the bread home that was just barely sufficient to generate even the slightest degree of motivation. Chris doesn’t naturally assume motivation has a degree, thinking that as a rule you’re either motivated or you are not.

The differences between the way women and men evaluate problems lead them to see justifications in the others methods.

Making sense of each other:

Now, what does all this mean? When men look at problems, they see a single item that is a specific irritation and seek to correct it. When they look at inequities, they see a number of problems interrelated. Women look at single problems the same way, but sense inequities from a completely emotional standpoint, measuring them on a sliding scale of tendencies to respond in certain ways.

Imagine an old balance scale – the kind they used to weigh gold. On one side, you put the desire to solve the problem. That has a specific weight. On the other side you have a whole bag of things that taken altogether outweigh the desire to solve the problem. But, you can’t fit the bag on the scale (which is the same as not being able to share your whole mind with a man) so you open the bag and start to haul out the reasons – biggest one’s first.

Well, it turns out the first reason by itself is much lighter that the desire to solve the problem, so it isn’t sufficient. You pull out the next one, which is even smaller, and together they aren’t enough to tip the scales. So, you keep pulling one more reason after another out of the bag until the man stops you saying, “Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.”

To the man, it becomes quickly obvious that there aren’t enough reasonably sized pieces in that bag to make the difference, and anything smaller than a certain point is inconsequential anyway, so what’s holding her back from solving the problem?

But the woman knows that there may be only a few big chunks, but the rest of the bag is full of sand. And all those little pieces together outweigh the desire to solve the problem. If she went ahead and solved it anyway, everything in that bag would suffer to some degree, and the overall result would be less happiness in her consciousness rather than more.

This is why it is so easy for one sex to manipulate the other: each isn’t looking at part of the picture that the other one sees. For a man to manipulate a woman, all he has to do is give her enough sand to keep the balance slightly on her side and then he can weigh her down with all kinds of negative big things because it still comes out positive overall. For a woman to manipulate a man, all she has to do is give him a few positive chunks and then fill his bag full of sand with the things she wants. He’ll never even notice.

Of course if you push too far from either side it tips the balance and all hell breaks loose. So for a more loving and compassionate approach, the key is not to get as much as you can, but to maximize the happiness of both with the smallest cost to each.

All too often, one sex will deny what the other sex once to gain leverage or to use compliance as a bargaining chip. That kind of adversarial relationship is doomed to keep both sides miserable, as long as it lasts.

But if each side gives to the other sex what is important to to the other but unimportant to themselves, they’ll make each other very happy at very little cost.