Very moving! I would definitely say it's worth polishing up - a quick pass by another set of eyes to remove distracting inconsistencies (like "the other seven days of the week") would go a long way!
Wonderful story. I did find the idea of people missing details a bit jarring. If they were so distracted as to forget chairs, I highly doubt they could have successfully built an advanced robot or a house that wouldn't fall apart at the first stiff breeze.
Actually, I found this part very believable. Houses are built to order all the time--just tell the contractor the specs (and don't tell them who it's for). Interior decorating, on the other hand... ask any recent college student about furnishing their dorm and you'll get a different story from every one about forgetting something. (Personally, I forgot the towels and potholders and so I had a hard time baking anything or washing dishes until I could make a department store run).
I do agree about the chairs being a bit too big of a detail to miss though--I think it'd be more realistic if there was an argument about chairs vs. couches or something and actually placing the product order fell through the cracks.
Now I'm very curious: Does that sentence mean that you didn't edit that text AT ALL? Did you write your draft the way people had to write drafts before the era of computers?
People like you are totally fascinating to people like me. Many people, myself included, "can write" in the sense that we know what a good text looks like and, with a lot of editing, can imitate that ourselves. But a few people just have texts inside of them: You just need to start writing and the words come in the right order. Not completely perfect, but definitely highly readable. More research studies should be done in order to understand this rare phenomenon. From the way they write, I assume Scott Alexander and Freddie deBoer have this gift too. But otherwise it seems very rare.
I think some of it is a frequency thing - I probably write more than you (Edit: this is a stock thing I say when people ask about this that I've just realized might not be true in your case), in the sense that I write several thousand words of some style or another. That helps with the "automatic" part of it.
One thing I will say is if you consider a "developed" intuitive writer vs. a developed "has to think about it" writer, I think the latter is probably more versatile. I can write in the way I write, and not really in any other way - I really just have one tone I can do. I can turn the volume of that tone up and down (essentially moving towards and away from academic/dry tone) but I can't really, say, imitate other styles. I know people who can, and they are usually the "has to think about it" types.
No, that generic stock thing doesn't apply in my case. I write a lot and have always done but I need to throw away at least four out of five sentences I write. There seems to be no cure!
I rather suspect that it has to do with inner monologue. Most people say they have an inner monologue, like 80 percent I read somewhere. Maybe those rare people who can write instantly have a text-like inner monologue? How does that hypothesis fit with your case?
I talked to my wife about this a little, and about how hard it is to be sure you are representing your inner self well on this topic. I'm not sure I *can* be honest about this in the sense where you will walk away understanding what it's like in my head, partially because it's hard to explain and partially because so much of my self-worth is tied up in my own mentality.
All that to say: Big grain of salt here. Huge.
So when you asked me what my internal dialogue is like, my immediate thought was "I don't have that". But that's not so - I do. It's just compressed. When something happens to me, or when I need to respond to something, I get a basic momentary flash of something, and then I know what I'm going to do or say in a lot of detail. The short story you just read existed as one of those flashes, basically.
Relevant mental images: How you experience smells. Algorithmic patterns for dealing with things. Zip files.
I think if I was a hippier type of person I'd say I think in colors. But it's not really any of those things - it's just sort of having a "feel" for what I'm going to do/say/think about something that isn't really consciously expressed as a voice or words. I can do both those things - hear a voice in my head or a stream of words in my head - but it's a conscious thing I'm doing as a result of the other thing.
I have no idea if any of this is translating well. It's something close to "I think in impulses, but I think those impulses are probably trained from previous experience and I can pretty reliably communicate a lot of information to myself in an instant and then rely on muscle memory/reflex to carry it out".
Note again that all of this might be complete bullshit - it's certainly not as magic as I'm making it sound, for instance. But this is how I honestly/dishonestly perceive it and about the best way I can explain it.
This makes a lot of sense. My husband, who is a better writer than me, says that the zip-file analogy is a great description of the way he thinks. When I have asked whether he has an inner monologue, he has always claimed that he doesn't think in words, but in concepts. I guess "concepts" is the dry version of "impulses".
By contrast, I have very much of a noisy, always there, inner monologue, which is always in a specific language. So I can only remember a few sentences at a time. All coherent texts need to be created on the screen before me.
It would be very interesting to know whether it is a general phenomenon that people who write more easily have zip-file shaped inner monologues. Where are all psychology researchers when I need them?
I like your story; especially the sci-fi twist that lets the robot 'read' Bob's mind. It is essentially an exploration of loneliness, yes? Very common in modern societies, but not much talked about. Also characters like Bob (older men) aren't interesting to anyone around them most of the time.
That being said, I found it a bit unbelievable that governments would put up so much effort and money for a singular case out of guilt. In fact, they did not in the past; see, for example, typhoid Mary. Maybe a rich benefactor feeling particularly philanthropic would make more sense?
I think if I was going to do this again I'd probably go the route of emphasizing that one government had decided not to kill him, and that other governments thus chipped in on containing him better. Which makes more sense in sort of a crazy way.
I really enjoyed that. Thanks.
Possible edit: was a clause left out of this sentence?
<With execution off the table because (as even Bob had to acknowledge), work had begun on a containment facility. >
I have edited this! It was supposed to have some variation of ""the world was a kind place" in there.
Very moving! I would definitely say it's worth polishing up - a quick pass by another set of eyes to remove distracting inconsistencies (like "the other seven days of the week") would go a long way!
Thank you! I fixed the part you mentioned.
Wonderful story. I did find the idea of people missing details a bit jarring. If they were so distracted as to forget chairs, I highly doubt they could have successfully built an advanced robot or a house that wouldn't fall apart at the first stiff breeze.
Agreed, I think. If I ever rewrite it I think I'm going to take a different route around that problem.
Actually, I found this part very believable. Houses are built to order all the time--just tell the contractor the specs (and don't tell them who it's for). Interior decorating, on the other hand... ask any recent college student about furnishing their dorm and you'll get a different story from every one about forgetting something. (Personally, I forgot the towels and potholders and so I had a hard time baking anything or washing dishes until I could make a department store run).
I do agree about the chairs being a bit too big of a detail to miss though--I think it'd be more realistic if there was an argument about chairs vs. couches or something and actually placing the product order fell through the cracks.
> "I’m sending this out unedited"
Now I'm very curious: Does that sentence mean that you didn't edit that text AT ALL? Did you write your draft the way people had to write drafts before the era of computers?
I did a pass for spelling and like "the the" errors, but I didn't change any of the organization/story/names or anything like that.
People like you are totally fascinating to people like me. Many people, myself included, "can write" in the sense that we know what a good text looks like and, with a lot of editing, can imitate that ourselves. But a few people just have texts inside of them: You just need to start writing and the words come in the right order. Not completely perfect, but definitely highly readable. More research studies should be done in order to understand this rare phenomenon. From the way they write, I assume Scott Alexander and Freddie deBoer have this gift too. But otherwise it seems very rare.
I think some of it is a frequency thing - I probably write more than you (Edit: this is a stock thing I say when people ask about this that I've just realized might not be true in your case), in the sense that I write several thousand words of some style or another. That helps with the "automatic" part of it.
One thing I will say is if you consider a "developed" intuitive writer vs. a developed "has to think about it" writer, I think the latter is probably more versatile. I can write in the way I write, and not really in any other way - I really just have one tone I can do. I can turn the volume of that tone up and down (essentially moving towards and away from academic/dry tone) but I can't really, say, imitate other styles. I know people who can, and they are usually the "has to think about it" types.
No, that generic stock thing doesn't apply in my case. I write a lot and have always done but I need to throw away at least four out of five sentences I write. There seems to be no cure!
I rather suspect that it has to do with inner monologue. Most people say they have an inner monologue, like 80 percent I read somewhere. Maybe those rare people who can write instantly have a text-like inner monologue? How does that hypothesis fit with your case?
I talked to my wife about this a little, and about how hard it is to be sure you are representing your inner self well on this topic. I'm not sure I *can* be honest about this in the sense where you will walk away understanding what it's like in my head, partially because it's hard to explain and partially because so much of my self-worth is tied up in my own mentality.
All that to say: Big grain of salt here. Huge.
So when you asked me what my internal dialogue is like, my immediate thought was "I don't have that". But that's not so - I do. It's just compressed. When something happens to me, or when I need to respond to something, I get a basic momentary flash of something, and then I know what I'm going to do or say in a lot of detail. The short story you just read existed as one of those flashes, basically.
Relevant mental images: How you experience smells. Algorithmic patterns for dealing with things. Zip files.
I think if I was a hippier type of person I'd say I think in colors. But it's not really any of those things - it's just sort of having a "feel" for what I'm going to do/say/think about something that isn't really consciously expressed as a voice or words. I can do both those things - hear a voice in my head or a stream of words in my head - but it's a conscious thing I'm doing as a result of the other thing.
I have no idea if any of this is translating well. It's something close to "I think in impulses, but I think those impulses are probably trained from previous experience and I can pretty reliably communicate a lot of information to myself in an instant and then rely on muscle memory/reflex to carry it out".
Note again that all of this might be complete bullshit - it's certainly not as magic as I'm making it sound, for instance. But this is how I honestly/dishonestly perceive it and about the best way I can explain it.
This makes a lot of sense. My husband, who is a better writer than me, says that the zip-file analogy is a great description of the way he thinks. When I have asked whether he has an inner monologue, he has always claimed that he doesn't think in words, but in concepts. I guess "concepts" is the dry version of "impulses".
By contrast, I have very much of a noisy, always there, inner monologue, which is always in a specific language. So I can only remember a few sentences at a time. All coherent texts need to be created on the screen before me.
It would be very interesting to know whether it is a general phenomenon that people who write more easily have zip-file shaped inner monologues. Where are all psychology researchers when I need them?
Congratulations. It's got emotion. That's such a terribly hard thing to do.
Thank you! I appreciate that; I'm glad it came out.
I like your story; especially the sci-fi twist that lets the robot 'read' Bob's mind. It is essentially an exploration of loneliness, yes? Very common in modern societies, but not much talked about. Also characters like Bob (older men) aren't interesting to anyone around them most of the time.
I really enjoyed this story, too.
That being said, I found it a bit unbelievable that governments would put up so much effort and money for a singular case out of guilt. In fact, they did not in the past; see, for example, typhoid Mary. Maybe a rich benefactor feeling particularly philanthropic would make more sense?
I think if I was going to do this again I'd probably go the route of emphasizing that one government had decided not to kill him, and that other governments thus chipped in on containing him better. Which makes more sense in sort of a crazy way.
That would be a fun twist, too. Or maybe one government tried to weaponize him, so the other governments want his goodwill for cooperation?
Anyway, I really enjoyed it, so I'd be happy if you continue writing :)