Bill Conrad's Blog - Posts Tagged "flaws"
When Intelligent People Disagree
People are funny. We consider ourselves to be evolved, liberated, experienced and civilized. However, inside we have many fundamental flaws. I find one of our many faults to be rather entertaining if you can disconnect from the topic. I like watching two intelligent people empathetically disagreeing.
This is different from logically disagreeing. For example, let’s say that Tom remembers that Alan Alda didn’t star in the first season of the television show MASH. Sally disagreed and they refer to the IMBD website. Sally locates the correct information and Tom (while disappointed) concluded that he made an error. Logical disagreements occur in our lives without a second thought.
This disagreement could have taken a drastic turn. Tom could have argued that IMDB didn’t have the correct information. When confronted by another website, Tom still refuses to acknowledge his error. His attempt to prove an incorrect fact can go far beyond a simple discussion. Tom can ask all his friends until one (incorrectly) remembers that fact. Tom then searches the internet to locate an obscure reference that mistakenly confirms his fact. For Tom, this is all the proof he needs and he will harshly argue his mistaken belief for the rest of this life. Side note: A former coworker fully believed that Alan Alda incorrect fact and he couldn’t be convinced otherwise.
Now, if we can take a step back and disconnect from the topic, an exchange of this type is fun to watch. The logical, intelligent and respected Tom will put all his great attributes aside in the argument. He will grasp at the smallest thread to prove his point.
Essentially, a bad person will take over Tom and he will descend into anarchy. As the argument continues, Tom’s intelligence will diminish and he will resort to underhanded tactics. This will include lying, cheating and tossing his morals aside. Afterwards, Tom will not apologize and he will leave a wrath of destruction that poisons his image.
And this is fun to watch? From the sidelines, it is hilarious to listen to Tom’s absurd arguments. “I got a… letter from Alan Alda saying he was not in the first season.” “Really? Let’s see it.” “Oh, I just lost it.” The lies, wild schemes and silly attempts to convince others are better than any television show.
Tom has blundered into one of my favorite topics. Confirmation Bias is a part of our mind that refuses to accept a certain fact. An honest logical person will lie, destroy evidence, become hostile, make unsubstantiated arguments and refuse to acknowledge what is directly in front of them. For certain topics, Confirmation Bias overrides our morals, logic, common sense, judgement and manors. My wife calls Confirmation Bias “the science of being stubborn.”
Often the source of a Confirmation Bias comes out of a topic related to the bias. The reason that Tom didn’t correctly recall Alan Alda’s roll actually came from an article in a magazine where Anan made a remark about Tom’s favorite musician. Tom cannot confront this unrelated fact directly and instead clings to an incorrect belief.
We can see clear cases of Confirmation Bias in controversial topics such as religion, climate change, politics and alternative medicine. All humans have issues and we all have topics we feel strongly about. The difference is how we react. For example, I appreciate the band Rush for many reasons. However, I do acknowledge their lyrics are preachy and the lead singer has a squeaky voice. I also acknowledge their music is not for everybody and I respect those people who care not to listen to their music. Do I feel pain when somebody criticizes Rush? Of course. Do I lash out at them and lie? I choose not to.
On the same topic, I don’t appreciate Jazz and I prefer not to listen to it. Is this bad? Perhaps. One must pick their media battles in life. I admit that I do have a bias (or strong passion) toward Rush and a bias against Jazz. The difference is that in an argument, I can fully admit that Rush has flaws and the musical genre of Jazz has very impressive musicians. In my mind, I have a bias but not a full-blown Confirmation Bias.
What is the difference between Confirmation Bias and a passion towards a topic? A long time ago, scientists proved that the earth to be round. At the time, these scientists were ridiculed for their mistaken beliefs. These scientists passionately believed in their cause and eventually their beliefs were accepted as fact.
Did those scientists have a Confirmation Bias? Or does being correct negate the concept of a Confirmation Bias? The difference is that if the scientists used dishonorable means to prove their point, their actions certainly would fit the Confirmation Bias definition. Otherwise, these scientists simply were passionate for their cause.
Now, on to the topic of writing. It is difficult for a character to have a Confirmation Bias. Readers generally like to know the motives behind their character. “Tom refused to believe that that Alan Alda joined MASH in the first season.” Why did he feel this way? Why is he now making silly arguments? Readers get upset when they are forced fill in the blanks. In general, characters are stubborn for specific well-explained reasons or they have a well-defined backstory. In this area, books/media differ a lot from real life.
What happens when we find a Confirmation Bias in our own lives? This takes a lot of personal effort to identify, understand and confront. It takes even more effort to overcome. Tom would have to understand his deep passion against Alan Alda. Eventually, he might answer, “I used to think Alan Alda didn’t join the show until the second season.”
As for me, I am going to continue to listen to Rush and write about characters with crazy well-defined motives. Or do I have Confirmation Bias against characters that don’t have clear motives? I’ll never know.
This is different from logically disagreeing. For example, let’s say that Tom remembers that Alan Alda didn’t star in the first season of the television show MASH. Sally disagreed and they refer to the IMBD website. Sally locates the correct information and Tom (while disappointed) concluded that he made an error. Logical disagreements occur in our lives without a second thought.
This disagreement could have taken a drastic turn. Tom could have argued that IMDB didn’t have the correct information. When confronted by another website, Tom still refuses to acknowledge his error. His attempt to prove an incorrect fact can go far beyond a simple discussion. Tom can ask all his friends until one (incorrectly) remembers that fact. Tom then searches the internet to locate an obscure reference that mistakenly confirms his fact. For Tom, this is all the proof he needs and he will harshly argue his mistaken belief for the rest of this life. Side note: A former coworker fully believed that Alan Alda incorrect fact and he couldn’t be convinced otherwise.
Now, if we can take a step back and disconnect from the topic, an exchange of this type is fun to watch. The logical, intelligent and respected Tom will put all his great attributes aside in the argument. He will grasp at the smallest thread to prove his point.
Essentially, a bad person will take over Tom and he will descend into anarchy. As the argument continues, Tom’s intelligence will diminish and he will resort to underhanded tactics. This will include lying, cheating and tossing his morals aside. Afterwards, Tom will not apologize and he will leave a wrath of destruction that poisons his image.
And this is fun to watch? From the sidelines, it is hilarious to listen to Tom’s absurd arguments. “I got a… letter from Alan Alda saying he was not in the first season.” “Really? Let’s see it.” “Oh, I just lost it.” The lies, wild schemes and silly attempts to convince others are better than any television show.
Tom has blundered into one of my favorite topics. Confirmation Bias is a part of our mind that refuses to accept a certain fact. An honest logical person will lie, destroy evidence, become hostile, make unsubstantiated arguments and refuse to acknowledge what is directly in front of them. For certain topics, Confirmation Bias overrides our morals, logic, common sense, judgement and manors. My wife calls Confirmation Bias “the science of being stubborn.”
Often the source of a Confirmation Bias comes out of a topic related to the bias. The reason that Tom didn’t correctly recall Alan Alda’s roll actually came from an article in a magazine where Anan made a remark about Tom’s favorite musician. Tom cannot confront this unrelated fact directly and instead clings to an incorrect belief.
We can see clear cases of Confirmation Bias in controversial topics such as religion, climate change, politics and alternative medicine. All humans have issues and we all have topics we feel strongly about. The difference is how we react. For example, I appreciate the band Rush for many reasons. However, I do acknowledge their lyrics are preachy and the lead singer has a squeaky voice. I also acknowledge their music is not for everybody and I respect those people who care not to listen to their music. Do I feel pain when somebody criticizes Rush? Of course. Do I lash out at them and lie? I choose not to.
On the same topic, I don’t appreciate Jazz and I prefer not to listen to it. Is this bad? Perhaps. One must pick their media battles in life. I admit that I do have a bias (or strong passion) toward Rush and a bias against Jazz. The difference is that in an argument, I can fully admit that Rush has flaws and the musical genre of Jazz has very impressive musicians. In my mind, I have a bias but not a full-blown Confirmation Bias.
What is the difference between Confirmation Bias and a passion towards a topic? A long time ago, scientists proved that the earth to be round. At the time, these scientists were ridiculed for their mistaken beliefs. These scientists passionately believed in their cause and eventually their beliefs were accepted as fact.
Did those scientists have a Confirmation Bias? Or does being correct negate the concept of a Confirmation Bias? The difference is that if the scientists used dishonorable means to prove their point, their actions certainly would fit the Confirmation Bias definition. Otherwise, these scientists simply were passionate for their cause.
Now, on to the topic of writing. It is difficult for a character to have a Confirmation Bias. Readers generally like to know the motives behind their character. “Tom refused to believe that that Alan Alda joined MASH in the first season.” Why did he feel this way? Why is he now making silly arguments? Readers get upset when they are forced fill in the blanks. In general, characters are stubborn for specific well-explained reasons or they have a well-defined backstory. In this area, books/media differ a lot from real life.
What happens when we find a Confirmation Bias in our own lives? This takes a lot of personal effort to identify, understand and confront. It takes even more effort to overcome. Tom would have to understand his deep passion against Alan Alda. Eventually, he might answer, “I used to think Alan Alda didn’t join the show until the second season.”
As for me, I am going to continue to listen to Rush and write about characters with crazy well-defined motives. Or do I have Confirmation Bias against characters that don’t have clear motives? I’ll never know.
Character Flaws
In real life, people have many flaws. Some we can correct; some we can mask and others we cannot correct. A big part of our personality involves overcoming, putting up with, and dealing with our own flaws. A big part of our lives involves dealing with and attempting to correct other people’s faults.
For example, I hate cars with loud exhausts. Should I recognize that I have a flaw and ignore the noise? Live and let live. Mmm, no. I despise people who intentionally change their cars/motorcycles to be louder. What do I do about it? Well…not that much. Is this a personal flaw? It certainly is.
When developing a character, it is essential to focus on their flaws. Readers need to know the reasons behind a character’s motivation and character flaws are the key to explaining decisions. Jane steals a car. Why did she turn to the life of crime? Has she stolen vehicles before? A writer must explain Jane’s ethics in advance so that her actions make sense.
Readers dislike actions without foundation. If Jane had a normal day and randomly stole a car, it would confuse the reader. What about a logical explanation? Jane needed money and stole a car. While logical, this explanation does not help. Lots of people need money, and they do not steal. Something inside Jane must allow her to be a criminal.
When I create a character, I think a lot about their flaws, and I like to point them out as early as possible. I also like to limit the number of characters flaws. For example, the principal character in a recent book lacks confidence, is a know-it-all, and has difficulty around women. His appearance, actions, and background are otherwise normal.
When he makes a mistake, we can directly trace it to the above flaws. Of course, in real life, people are more complicated with backstories that begin before birth. However, taking 100 pages to describe a character’s nuances would bore a reader.
I like flaws that people can relate to. For example, arrogance, low morals, lack of confidence, greed, perfectionist, workaholic, bad finances, gambling, and addiction. I stay away from complex flaws: mental problems, complex childhoods, evil influence, altered physics (non-human flaws), heavy religion and bullying. I also avoid controversial flaws: racism, sadistic abuse, and mental/physical disabilities. This can lead to hurt feelings and bad reviews.
In my experience, the flaws are the most important part of a character’s background. Picking the exact flaws takes a light touch and the mark of an excellent writer. Too many, few, heavy, light, complex, or basic will confuse the reader. Yet, not enough flaws lead to a bland character or a character that readers dislike.
For example, Superman. He has good looks, a superb job, a girlfriend, a friendly attitude and his only weakness is Kryptonite. John McClain in the movie Die Hard was an arrogant drunk with a terrible temper. When John wins, we can all get behind the fact that he overcame his issues. We expect Superman to win because he has nothing preventing him.
A character that overcomes many flaws seems unrealistic like they were cheating or got outside help. A character with silly flaws is also difficult to relate to. My good looks intimidate people. I have too much money.
In real life, flaws are a hindrance, and we spend a lot of time dealing with them, yet in a book, they are a fun part of the plot. Is that life imitating art? Or something else?
For example, I hate cars with loud exhausts. Should I recognize that I have a flaw and ignore the noise? Live and let live. Mmm, no. I despise people who intentionally change their cars/motorcycles to be louder. What do I do about it? Well…not that much. Is this a personal flaw? It certainly is.
When developing a character, it is essential to focus on their flaws. Readers need to know the reasons behind a character’s motivation and character flaws are the key to explaining decisions. Jane steals a car. Why did she turn to the life of crime? Has she stolen vehicles before? A writer must explain Jane’s ethics in advance so that her actions make sense.
Readers dislike actions without foundation. If Jane had a normal day and randomly stole a car, it would confuse the reader. What about a logical explanation? Jane needed money and stole a car. While logical, this explanation does not help. Lots of people need money, and they do not steal. Something inside Jane must allow her to be a criminal.
When I create a character, I think a lot about their flaws, and I like to point them out as early as possible. I also like to limit the number of characters flaws. For example, the principal character in a recent book lacks confidence, is a know-it-all, and has difficulty around women. His appearance, actions, and background are otherwise normal.
When he makes a mistake, we can directly trace it to the above flaws. Of course, in real life, people are more complicated with backstories that begin before birth. However, taking 100 pages to describe a character’s nuances would bore a reader.
I like flaws that people can relate to. For example, arrogance, low morals, lack of confidence, greed, perfectionist, workaholic, bad finances, gambling, and addiction. I stay away from complex flaws: mental problems, complex childhoods, evil influence, altered physics (non-human flaws), heavy religion and bullying. I also avoid controversial flaws: racism, sadistic abuse, and mental/physical disabilities. This can lead to hurt feelings and bad reviews.
In my experience, the flaws are the most important part of a character’s background. Picking the exact flaws takes a light touch and the mark of an excellent writer. Too many, few, heavy, light, complex, or basic will confuse the reader. Yet, not enough flaws lead to a bland character or a character that readers dislike.
For example, Superman. He has good looks, a superb job, a girlfriend, a friendly attitude and his only weakness is Kryptonite. John McClain in the movie Die Hard was an arrogant drunk with a terrible temper. When John wins, we can all get behind the fact that he overcame his issues. We expect Superman to win because he has nothing preventing him.
A character that overcomes many flaws seems unrealistic like they were cheating or got outside help. A character with silly flaws is also difficult to relate to. My good looks intimidate people. I have too much money.
In real life, flaws are a hindrance, and we spend a lot of time dealing with them, yet in a book, they are a fun part of the plot. Is that life imitating art? Or something else?
