Narrativism Benchmarks

These are my personal benchmarks for identifying what I label Narrativists. None of these is individually enough, and a given group or individual does not need to possess every single one of these attributes. There are also plenty of examples of one or more of these attributes applying to some non-Narrative individuals or groups. That said, a Narrative individual or group will possess most, if not all, of these traits.

• Binary Thinking: Everything either is, or it isn't. A thing is either good or evil. Black or white. Zero or one. Shades of grey do not exist.
  
  
• Differential Cognition: Any given thing (a person, an object, an idea) can only be understood in opposition to another thing. The entire world is only understood through the filter of how things are different from one another. In addition, these differences must be understood as making one thing better than another.
  
  A Narrativist only understands the world by how this thing is different from that thing. They cannot perceive similarities to anywhere near the extent that they can perceive dissimilarities. Rather than "compare and contrast", Narrativists can only "compare by contrast".
  
  
• Rejection of Introspection: Narrativists do not possess introspection, do not develop introspection, and become highly agitated if they are put into a situation where introspection is called for. Inner Narratives often serve to deflect any potentially painful introspection. If, say, a fundamentalist Christian is feeling guilty over wronging someone, they simply confess their sin, in their heads, to God, and then they experience genuine relief from the guilt, avoiding introspection. Alternatively, the victim of a Narrativist's misdeed could simply be dismissed by employing a just-world fallacy.
  
  
• Victory by Destruction of the Enemy: All Narrativist models for changing society involve destruction of an identified "other", and nothing else. "If we just got rid of X, everything would be fine." When I was a conspiracy theorist, I believed that simply eliminating the globalists and getting out of humanity's way would basically fix everything. When I was a David Icke-loving UFO nut, merely destroying the Reptilians and their agents would have resulted in humanity raising its vibration to a heavenly level and fix everything. When I was a fundamentalist, I believed that converting (or destroying) all the unbelievers would fix every problem on Earth. Objectivists believe that getting rid of all regulations would result in the emergence of a new golden age of prosperity for all. For racists, crime and social ills would disappear if we just stopped coddling blacks or illegal immigrants (or killed them all).
  
  No thought is given to actual policy or the reality of a given situation. Much like all Narrativist battle plans boil down to "fight big, fight hard", all Narrativist strategies for fixing society's ills boil down to "destroy the other". Nothing is planned beyond that. There is no "what do we do when we win?" because that question is pointless. If they win, they have already won, you see? They believe that the simple non-existence of whoever or whatever they chose as their enemy would result in a natural order emerging or reasserting itself and harmony would ensue.
  
  In short, the one weird trick that will give them everything they want is always "destroy the enemy". And the way to destroy the enemy is always in a big battle.
  
  
• A deliberately misleading Outer Narrative: Not merely the existence of a more socially acceptable Outer Narrative, but an Outer Narrative that has been designed to shield the Inner Narrative from exposure and criticism. Outer Narratives are often designed to attract new converts by getting them to accept "simpler" forms of what the Inner Narrative actually is.
  
  
• Absence of Nuance: Narrativists do not understand nuance, or even the concept of nuance. As a result, they never develop sophisticated thinking.
  
  
• Belief in innate superiority: Pretty straightforward. A Narrativist group always believes it is somehow innately superior to all (or virtually all) other groups. White supremacists, fundamentalist Christians, objectivist "captains of industry", Scientologists, etc etc.
  
  
• Unchageable God: Whatever the concept of "God" is for a Narrativist group, God cannot change; you can only change yourself to be more aligned with God. While personal communication with God may or may not be possible, God will never change, God will only change you to be more like him.
  
  
• The Authoritarian Prime Directive: All beings must earn their right to continued existence.
  
  The most primal, important, and deepest assumption about the world underpinning the Narrativist worldview is this idea that living must be "earned" on a recurrent basis. They apply this standard to all beings (themselves included) except their designated God. So, in order to feel secure, a Narrativist must have "earned" his right to exist, and this right is earned primarily by adherence to the Narrative. Whatever the Narrative says a Narrativist should be feeling or doing is what a Narrativist will be do to relieve the endless stress of having to constantly prove oneself worthy before God.
  
  Conversely, providing sustenance to beings not following the Narrative (food stamps for the unemployed, for example) is seen as a personal attack. A taking of their just rewards earned through their merit (the reward provides proof of adherence to Narrative, which brings a genuine sense of relief and accomplishment to the Narrativist) and giving it to people that do not deserve it (nonadherence to the Narrative). This is experienced emotionally by the authoritarian as theft, and the thieves are hated for it. "Why should they get to live easy while I have to work (adhere to Narrative) for everything I have?" is a common refrain from Narrativists.
  
  Social programs are thus viewed with suspicion by default, and very stringent requirements for charity must be met before a Narrativist considers someone truly deserving of assistance. (Basically, you damn near need to be a quadruple amputee at this point to be viewed as deserving not to work.)
  
  
• The Natural Order: "Adherence to Narrative brings reward, disobedience to Narrative brings punishment." Narrativists believe that simply following the Narrative is the prime purpose in life; the true, sole meaning behind the existence of everything. That goes for everyone and everything. Obeying the Narrative brings reward; disobeying the Narrative brings punishment. The only way the natural order can be disrupted is if the actions of the enemy interfere somehow. Thus, if someone is disobeying the Narrative but still being rewarded (wealth, happiness, etc) then they MUST be cheating, somehow. That is the only way to receive reward without adhering to Narrative.
  
  
• There is Always an Enemy: One curious factor in Authoritarian behaviour is that Narrativist groups generally only align against a non-Narrativist threat. So long as the perceived threat is Narrativist in nature, there will be plenty of opposition, but various Authoritarian groups will generally squabble rather than form alliances. However, in the presence of a non-Narrativist threat, narrative convergence will begin and compaction cycles will increase in frequency. In the presence of a Narrativist threat, narrative convergence will not occur, and compaction cycles will be generally slower (although still ongoing).
  
  
• Negative Introjection: All negative aspects of self that the Narrativist experiences are projected onto their chosen enemy. Because of the need for self-purity as justification for continued existence, all aspects of the Narrativist that are considered taboo by the standards of their Narrative are projected outwards, upon the world generally and upon their chosen enemies specifically. Whatever part of themselves that they are ashamed of, that they refuse to acknowledge (for failing to live up to the standards of the Narrative), they project onto their opponents. Thus, by listening to what an Narrativist is declaring about their enemy, you can determine exactly what their own darkest impulses and weaknesses are.
  
  
• Bypasses: Rather than being subtle and difficult to describe, the effects of Narrativism are very pronounced and, once identified, fairly easy to describe. This ultimately comes down to the underlying cause of Narrativism: the specific way that it impacts the brain is what causes Narrativism to be such a pronounced self-replicating behavior pattern. Narrativism is the result of the brain being very "lazy" and evaluating the accuracy of information by using a simplified binary formula instead of the normal, energy-intensive critical evaluation process. As a result of using this simplified process, the brain begins to consistently mis-evaluate the world and perceive threats and chaos where none actually exist. The constant stress of living is in turn what makes Narrativist behavior so distinct.
  
  The brain in a normal person has learned to evaluate new information before either accepting or rejecting it. This process of evaluation consumes electrical energy. The three bypasses represent areas of the human psyche where the brain can be influenced to "bypass" this expensive process of critical thought and simply accept or reject the new information based on its adherence to a simple formula. The brain then favors processing information in this way over time because, from the brain's perspective, it is simply a more energy-efficient way to accomplish a task. (The brain is being "lazy".)
  
  Keep in mind that each of these bypasses functions as a way to replace energy-intensive critical analysis with a simple binary question and accepting/rejecting information based on that. Once a brain has been conditioned to use bypasses, it becomes more energy efficient by switching from evaluating each piece of information on its own merit to evaluating whether or not the information adheres to the proper format. If the information adheres to the format, it is accepted; if not, it is rejected. There is no inherent political bias in these, but rather the political bias of people can be manipulated (or created out of whole cloth) using these bypasses. A bypass will always eliminate the more complicated or nuanced response to a problem, so by framing a topic such that your opponent's ideas seem complicated or dangerous while your ideas seem straightforwards or logical, you can manipulate the way a bypass-reliant brain will perceive the topic.