Some proof that good fiction has its roots in science and research:

“When we are green, still half-created, we believe that our dreams are rights, that the world is disposed to act in our best interests, and that falling and dying are for quitters. We live on the innocent and monstrous assurance that we alone, of all the people ever born, have a special arrangement whereby we will be allowed to stay green forever”

This Boy’s Life

Tobias Wolff

“Psychologist David Elkind introduced two theories in a 1967 paper on adolescents and egocentrism. He suggested that adolescents exist in an empathetically compromised state of egocentrism and that typical teens live their lives as thought they were on a grand stage in front of an attentive audience. Because every action is so important to them, these teens assume that their actions are of equal interest and importance to those around them, that they are performing before a constant imaginary audience. The personal fable theory describes a belief on the part of the adolescent that he or she is unique and special and that when it comes to pursuing his or her destiny, the conventional rules don’t apply. In theory, most teens grow of these dramatic, egocentric stages, as they successfully negotiate a separation from their parents and emerge with unique identities as mature adults.

The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America

Dr. Drew Pinsky

At first glance, Personal Fable Theory sounds a lot like the Narrative Fallacy. Both the This Boy’s Life and The Mirror Effect are very good. Connections are everywhere.

Ryan,

I know you’re a fan of Hugh MacLeod and I was wondering if you use his ‘Sex & Cash Theory‘ in your everyday life. I can’t seem to reconcile the theory (which I think has some merit) with a lot of what I read about people I respect and admire who seem to focus all their attention on something they love. Thoughts?

Regards,

Perry

I think Hugh could have done a better job supporting his argument. When I read it the first time, they were what popped into my head.

If you had a stepmother and a real mother, you would pay your respects to your stepmother, yes…but it’s your real mother you’d go home to. The court…and philosophy: Keep returning to it, to rest in its embrace. It’s all that makes the court-and you-endurable. – Marcus Aurelius

“When some state or other offered Alexander a part of its territory or half of all its property he told them that ‘he hadn’t come to Asia with the intention of accepting whatever they cared to give them, but of letting them keep whatever he chose to leave them.’ Philosophy, likewise, tells all other occupations: ‘It’s not my intention to accept whatever time is left over from you; you shall have, instead, what I reject.'” – Seneca

The problem I have is with the certainty of it. Like “Sex & Cash” is the only way to do it. How wonderful that his natural inclination happened to be the way to do it. The funny thing is that most of the people have talked to locked themselves into a deathground strategy and let desperation push them forward. But what does it matter, because you’re not them and you’re not Hugh either.

Figure out what’s important to you and give it every bit of the attention it deserves. Maybe you can manage something else on the side or maybe you can’t. Or maybe you can figure out how one fuels the other. The critical step is to stop pretending it’s some academic exercise and place it fully into the realm of tangible reality. For me, the theory isn’t anything more than confirmation to what I already felt was right for me. And I only learned that by trying it out.

Jay Hayley has an essay called The Art of Being a Failure as a Therapist and in it he does something interesting. He tries to argue for a method of psychiatry (directive) by discussing all the ways it can be done poorly. By showing specifically where it can go wrong, Hayley knows he is proving it to be quantifiable rather than some vague, indescribable notion. In other words, he tested for falsifiability.

Jake Lodwick used the same idea in a thought experiment that is worth running through occasionally. Try to think, he says, of one thing that would finally convince you that Keynesian economics don’t really work.

A better example might be Umair Haque. Is there anything he doesn’t see as confirmation of his theories? His approach makes for a entertaining record of pithy blog posts but it also makes him callous, excessively general, and open to criticism.

If you combine Hayley’s approach with the thought experiment you have a nice way to test yourself. Think about your job. Can you write out, concretely, what you would have to do to be a failure at it? If you can’t then maybe you don’t really do anything. Or, think about something you have faith in or hold in high esteem. Can you articulate, exactly, what would have to happen for it to lose your respect? If you can’t, maybe it’s closer to worshiping than believing.