Home
Yesterday I asked you to read an unusual paragraph and tell me how it made you feel. If you haven't already done so, please read yesterday's post before continuing.

Waiting...okay.

The unusual paragraph was neither hypnosis nor random. I wrote it, and the wording is engineered for a specific purpose. It's designed to activate different areas of your brain all at once.

The paragraph starts by activating the language part of your brain, obviously. Then it made you curious. Then your analytical side kicked in, trying to discern its meaning. Your left and right hemispheres were engaged, and they stayed that way throughout. So far, that's like any good mystery story, and not yet special.

The next level of the design is what inspired me to try the experiment: The words are meant to activate the areas in your brain responsible for your five senses, which means five different physical parts of the brain, pretty much all at once. Notice that all five senses are mentioned: touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.

The nonsense part of the construction, where I mix up the normal descriptors of your senses, is intended to keep the writing complex, so you can't instinctively simplify anything in your mind. For example, if I had told a complicated story about a cat being on the roof, your mind could have summarized and stored it as "cat on roof." My paragraph was designed to be impossible to summarize. (Although many of you apparently shuffled it off to the "He's screwing with us" bin and moved on.)

My hypothesis before reading your comments is that by activating multiple parts of your brain at once you would feel energized. And I knew from blogging experience that this sort of thing would make some of you feel annoyed and some of you feel delighted. The difference is probably a function of your ability or willingness to suspend reason and just feel it. Or it might have something to do with your expectations of this blog, or your view of me. You're all different.

At a writer's level, the words are carefully chosen to work together independent of meaning. They simply "sound" good together, and they have a similar vibe. Call it word art.

The commenter from the UK who wrote that he thought of Lady GaGa when reading my post might be the only one who actually solved the puzzle, as far as I can tell. I blogged recently that Lady GaGa's lyrics seem designed to activate multiple brain areas at once. My paragraph was inspired by exactly that.

All good fiction writers create in book form what I did in my experimental paragraph. It's no accident when a Harry Potter book goes off on a tangent about food, which has nothing to do with moving the story forward. Descriptions of taste and texture and smell engage new parts of your brain. And it's no accident that most Harry Potter chapters end with a point of curiosity. The author is making sure to stimulate as much of your brain's real estate as possible. That's why you can sometimes enjoy a movie or a book while knowing that the story itself is lame and predictable. What matters to entertainment is how many parts of your brain get pleasantly stimulated at once.

If you felt annoyed and manipulated by my experiment, I apologize. Now that you know the intent of the paragraph, try reading it again. I promise that you won't be hypnotized.

 
 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +21
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Sep 26, 2010
After taking inspiration from this article : I wrote my own piece of gibberish .. :) To create that i used a table map , where I had put all the 5 senses on one side & the words that cab be used on the other side.. thus came up a nice piece ... thank you Scott for sharing such an amazing insight with us :)

link 2 my piece : http://puneetg.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/the-emblematic-the-art/
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Sep 4, 2010
I never knew thats how you activate the five sences!
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Sep 4, 2010
I never knew thats how you activate the five sences!
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Sep 4, 2010
I never knew thats how you activate the five sences!
 
 
Aug 31, 2010
Why do colorless green ideas sleep furiously? My first thoughts, upon reading that paragraph, were of Noam Chomsky and forming a grammatically correct but semantically vague sentence. Along with everyone else I also thought about synesthesia. Then I thought about Pablo Naruda and his similar use of language in poetry (...O magnolia radiance breaking in spume, magnetic voyager whose death flowers...).

But you asked how we felt, not what we thought, didn't you. Unsurprisingly, many of us find our thoughts more accessible than our feelings. However, I will try to relate them. I felt, I suppose, curious and intrigued above all. I did not feel happiness or sadness, anger or euphoria. Perhaps I felt a bit of my creative side waking from the dormant state typical at my day job. Defrosting. Feeling my spine go fresh, almost.
 
 
Aug 30, 2010
I just finished listening to the "Words" episode of Radiolab (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/). The whole episode was great but at one point (about 22.5 minutes in) they started reading Shakespeare and it really reminded me of this. In fact they said that Shakespeare was more of a word chemist than a normal writer. Shakespeare is famous for making up words and combining existing words to make new ones, essentially he was as concerned about the sound and cadence and image as he was about the writing. Really interesting...
 
 
Aug 30, 2010
My reaction, after reading both, is slightly bothersome.

I like to read, and enjoy works, fiction or non-fiction, which take me through unpredictable corridors of someone else's thinking. A bothersome thing happened to me back in college. I am sitting in class and I mention the pleasure I experienced as I read through Plato's Euthyphro.

To my own embarrassment, I saw several students turn toward me and everything went silent. One young man asked me, "...are you saying that you read Plato just for fun?"

I realize this is off course, but many of my friends are either agnostic or atheist. Once I got together with a local atheist "meet-up" group, and Socrates came up in our discussion. Everyone there swore to me that Socrates was a certain "theist." I argued to the contrary, and sited Euthyphro. I went to class and asked my friends what they thought, and by and large everyone agreed that Socrates was certainly a "theist," or believer in gods.

After having read Euthyphro, and now having listened to it on audio, I am not so prone to agree with the rest of my society on this matter.

What bothers me about today's literature, is that it seems we have turned toward entertainment to the exclusion of making a reader own what they are reading by forcing them to have to go back and read and re-read, think and re-think through what has been said.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not downing Harry Potter and the likes, but I miss the old school of writing.

Back to Euthyphro...what makes this such a good read to me is the ownership each individual reader shares in the work after having read through it.

Euthyphro [or Symposium or The Republic] seems to entertain a part of our brains which carries on beyond the reading of the book itself, instilling into us ideas which we wish to argue with and [to quote c s lewis] which lend themselves well to the baptizing of one's imagination! These works do not do all the imagining for us, but initiate in us such a process.

Why my classmates were so offended by Plato is beyond me? I find that, in the long run, books which take the reader on board are quite less offensive than those which assign him a place in the audience.

Nowadays, we are left to figure out the plot, but I would prefer reading God's Debris any day to reading Harry Potter. And with Harry Potter, I'll read a book, sell it and I'm through. Whereas, with something like Plato and the like, I will save these and refer back and back to them, almost as a reference to site as I construct my own meaning of reality and my place within it.

Am I just too old, or what?? But anyway, I felt more offended by the Twilight series than I ever did by your book [God's Debris]!

I guess we are into escaping reality, more than constructing it these days?? What do you think?

Kate.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Aug 30, 2010
I read it, but it was just a bunch of nonsensical gibberish to me. I wasn't energized, unless irritation ("wtf is he talking about? This makes NO sense") qualifies.

Of course, I'm an INTJ, and we can really throw off the results of these sorts of things. :)
 
 
Aug 30, 2010
I still feel like I have been here before.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Aug 30, 2010
This was my emotional and cognitive response:

??? WTF ???

I did not feel energetic or stimulated, sorry. Only after your explanation did it dawn on me that every sentence described one or more senses. The illogic of it all was too distracting.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Aug 29, 2010
First time I read it i thought you had either;
a) been attacked by the shop vac and were suffering a concussion;
b) tried some random experiment;
c) been on the crack pipe;
d) all of the above.

I didn't "feel" energised reading it, it did nothing for me. It was an illogical paragraph that I knew had some logic to but wasn't sufficiently intrigued to try to work it out. It had zero emotional impact other than fleeting confusion.

If anything, it vaguely reminded me of part of Alice in Wonderland (the book, not the Johnny Depp movie) where I'm pretty sure one of the characters talked to Alice in the same non-sensical way.

Hmmmmmmm, Lewis Carrol............maybe it wasn't a crack pipe.
 
 
Aug 29, 2010
It felt gooood. Great creativity. I feel like I now understand why so many read fiction.
 
 
Aug 29, 2010
I wasn't able to read that paragraph (even though it's short): pressure of time nothing catching the eye.
So my feeling: uninteresting/boredom.
 
 
Aug 28, 2010
The second time around it came off more like poetry. But maybe thats because I read it out loud, giving it pulse and rythim? Evan
 
 
Aug 28, 2010
My first thought was you're going to conclude this with "therefore evolution is untrue".
 
 
Aug 28, 2010
my bad,,,P*O*R*N
 
 
Aug 28, 2010
I did feel an overpowering urge to go view subliminal online !$%* after reading that. I wonder why that keeps reoccurring.
 
 
Aug 28, 2010
I am a Finn from Finland. I did not read the originaltext until I red your todays blog (27.08) Yes the text you wrote iwas totally puling ones leg, very like a translation of poems Finnish poets / and other Nordic poets write all the time. , free assositions ? My reaction was-is it time for me to quit Scott- but no. Thank You
Viledil ( 65 years of age)
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Aug 28, 2010
While studying film in university, my interest was piqued by film trailers. I'd often heard people say that they hate trailers that give the entire film away, yet the films that do the best at the box office tend to be the ones that give it all away in the trailer. I was confused.

I hypothesized that it was a fulfillment of expectations (the trailer tells us what to expect, and the film delivers exactly that) that drives entertainment. Years later, when reading about cognitive bias, I received confirmation of this hypothesis. Met expectations are pleasurable, unmet expectations are unpleasurable, and contradicted expectations are down-right painful.

This explains to a large degree why genre films and books are so enjoyable: they're all the same; we know exactly what to expect; when they deliver, we enjoy it. It also explains why we often dislike film adaptations: hearing that a book we read will be adapted, we each create our own expectations; ones that can rarely be fulfilled—not because of a deficit in the medium of cinema, but because there is only one film delivered compared to the millions of different expectations.

As such, though it us curious, I find your argument that enjoyment is driven by stimulating different parts of the brain to be weak.

In response to how the original post made me feel: disquieted. Given your analysis, I wonder if that it might be related to the fact that both halves of my brain were going at the same time, something that male brains (due to the much smaller corpus collosum) don't do so well. It would be interesting to see response statistics broken down by sex.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Aug 27, 2010
I got sort of excited and nervous-feeling at the same time. I liked it so much I went back and read it again to elicit that feeling today. Knowing the background made it a little less effective (the "cat on roof" effect kicking in I guess) but it was still cool. I felt a little like my head was detaching from my body.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog