Cognitive scientists refer to stories as “psychologically
privileged,” meaning they are granted special treatment by our brains.

Compared to other informational formats, we attend to stories more closely. We understand them more readily. And we remember them more accurately. Image
Research has found that we recall as much as *50
percent* more information from stories than from expository passages.

A thread about why stories exert these effects on us:
One reason is that stories shape the way information is shared, in cognitively congenial ways.

The human brain has evolved to seek out evidence of CAUSAL relationships: this happened because of that. Stories are, by their nature, all about causal relationships:
Event A leads to Event B, which in turn causes Event C, and so on.

If a speaker were to relate a story in which the first part of the tale had no bearing on the second part, listeners would justifiably protest that this so-called “story” made no sense.
At the same time, stories don’t spell everything out for us, either. If a storyteller were to laboriously connect
every narrative dot, listeners would again rightly object: "Okay, we get it!"

When stories are told well, only the highlights are included—
—leaving listeners to fill in the causal inferences that lend the story its full meaning.

Such inferences require some mental effort, though not TOO much, making stories enjoyable to listen to and think about.
But because we DO have to think about stories in order to understand them—do have to maintain a mental chain of events that links beginning, middle, and end—we’re more likely to remember stories than to remember information that doesn’t require such cognitive processing.
In my forthcoming book, I write a lot about how telling and listening to stories is one way that social interaction can extend our minds.

My account draws on the work of UVA professor Daniel Willingham (@DTWillingham)—here's an interesting article of his on the subject.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Annie Murphy Paul

Annie Murphy Paul Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @anniemurphypaul

25 May
In his review of THE EXTENDED MIND in the Wall Street Journal today, writer Matthew Hutson singles out one particular theme of the book, and I'm so glad he did.

That theme concerns the fact that the raw materials of intelligent thought are by no means equitably distributed.
Hutson's conclusion reads:

"By removing the brain from the vat, Ms. Paul writes, thinking 'can become as dynamic as our bodies, as airy as our spaces, as rich as our relationships—as capacious as the whole wide world.'"
"And if you argue that only the privileged have access to untouched nature, large monitors, accomplished mentors and abundant classroom supplies, well, Ms. Paul has beat you to the punch."
Read 6 tweets
24 May
"Groups typically assume their most confident members are their most knowledgeable," note the authors of a new paper on collaboration.

That works out well for everyone when the most confident member also happens to be accurate in his or her judgment.
But I think we all know that confidence doesn't always equal accuracy! Hence the importance of what the researchers (Philip Tetlock and two others) call "collective confidence calibration."
A group is correctly calibrated when more accurate members are more confident in their own judgment, and less accurate members are less confident.

When this happens, the authors found, "subsequent group interactions are likelier to yield increased accuracy."
Read 5 tweets
24 May
We tend to think of attention as an individual resource: MY attention, directed at MY chosen target.

But SHARED attention is an equally valuable resource. When a group of people is skillfully attending to the same thing at the same time, they work better together. Image
Studies of groups laboring on a shared task—from students programming a robot to surgeons performing an operation—show that the members of effective
teams tend to synchronize their gaze, looking at the same areas at the same time.
More of these “moments of joint attention” are associated with more successful outcomes.

Moreover, research suggests that the ability to coordinate such moments can be acquired with practice.
Read 8 tweets
15 Apr
In 2008, Nicholas Carr wrote a seminal article for The Atlantic, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

In the 13 years since then, digital technology has become only more pervasive and more integrated into our thinking processes—for better and for worse. But we know a lot more now. 1/9
In place of what was mostly speculation on Carr’s part, there is now a booming field of empirical research into exactly HOW and WHEN and WHY our encounters with technology influence our thinking.

For example: this new study from researchers at the University of Tübingen. 2/9
The study examines the pluses and minuses of "cognitive offloading"—the act of allowing our devices to hold information or perform operations for us that would usually happen inside our own heads. 3/9
Read 9 tweets
14 Apr
So powerful is the effect of gesturing while learning that it can improve learners’ comprehension of a complex concept, EVEN WHEN they are not aware of the connection between the concept and the gesture they've been instructed to make.
Simply making a conceptually-congruent gesture while they’re learning about the concept helps clarify and reinforce the concept—forming a second channel of instruction that’s independent of the verbal one.
Matthew Hutson writes about "hand movements’ subconscious effects on learning" in a new article for Scientific American. He describes a study led by Icy (Yunyi) Zhang of UCLA, recently published in the journal Cognitive Science.
Read 8 tweets
13 Apr
UNC-Chapel Hill has the monument known as the Old Well. Penn State has the building known as Old Main. UVA has the Rotunda, designed by Thomas Jefferson.

All of these are "iconic spaces" on university campuses—but who uses them? Who feels that they belong there? 1/8 Image
Researchers led by UVA psychologist Sophie Trawalter recently examined the relationship between students' socioeconomic status and their use of iconic public space. Lower-SES students were less likely to feel that they belonged in these spaces, and less likely to use them. 2/8
(Notably, the researchers found similar patterns by race: students of color use iconic public space on campus less than do white students and, in turn, this predicts lower sense of belonging at the university.) 3/8
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!