Is there something fiction can give that non-fiction can't give, or alternately, can't do better/more quickly? That is...

Is there something fiction can give that non-fiction can't give, or alternately, can't do better/more quickly? That is, a work of fiction might discuss X & Y, but a work of non-fiction could just state X & Y directly + maybe give some examples... It seems like the answer is no... Excluding pure entertainment.

Opinions?

Bump.

I find fiction useful for aesthetics and with that inspiration. And I'm trying to write a novel and it allows me more freedom, more speculation, and I don't have to necessarily agree with my characters.

Just stating things aren't very effective in making the reader "feel" it. I think fiction is very good at communicating emotions and ideas because it lets the reader experience something.

>useful for aesthetics and with that inspiration
So you would say that fiction is useful (besides entertainment) because it has a psychological effect that can motivate you to do X or make you find that you want to do Y or...? If it's the latter: how do you know it's a good process of getting to wanting to do Y? It seems emotional - is that a good way of making decisions?

Why do you write the novel? What do you want to tell? Isn't there a more direct/faster way of telling what you want to say than through a work of fiction?

>Just stating things aren't very effective in making the reader "feel" it
Wait are you talking about non-fiction here?

>I think fiction is very good at communicating emotions and ideas because it lets the reader experience something.
But doesn't that make you "one step removed" from whatever ideas you want to convey? Is that good? And is it good to make people emotional when we think about ideas? Do you want to involve that part of our brain?

>i'm gonna post pictures of beautiful women while i argue that affect and desire is separate to my personal decision making

>>Just stating things aren't very effective in making the reader "feel" it
>Wait are you talking about non-fiction here?
Quite obvious that you were. Let me ask this question: does fiction have a good(!) use other than conveying emotion? And. Is that very valuable in a real world practical sense? That is, not just for entertainment.

You can't make decisions without emotions, that's what neuroscience claims - unless that's wrong by now.
I don't use aesthetics or inspiration in such a specific, concrete and practical way. I think it could inform (inspire) me how to behave but non-fiction does that largely too.

Ultimately I'm doing most of what I do for biological reasons, so that applies to writing. My rationalization is that:
) I wanted to do something with my encyclopedic knowledge and I'm not making it in academia
) For fun and to get creative
) To piss off people

I also read fiction as inspiration for how to write.

>while i argue that affect and desire is separate to my personal decision making
No I don't. I just question if it's a good influence in making decisions. That is... more emotions might not be very good if you want to make good decisions...

But good that you made that post anyways. Don't take pic the wrong way.

>Wait are you talking about non-fiction here?
Yeah, I was referring to
>a work of non-fiction could just state X & Y directly

>But doesn't that make you "one step removed" from whatever ideas you want to convey
>And is it good to make people emotional when we think about ideas
It depends on what sort of idea I guess. More factual ones, sure. But let's say you want to convey what powerful force love is, or our fear of death, or whatever. A story where the reader gets to follow and relate to a bunch of characters can be very good at that.

>Is that very valuable in a real world practical sense
There are people who have refrained from killing themselves because they found a book that they could relate to. That's nice.

>You can't make decisions without emotions, that's what neuroscience claims - unless that's wrong by now.
Sure I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that it probably isn't good to involve MORE emotions.

>I don't use aesthetics or inspiration in such a specific, concrete and practical way. I think it could inform (inspire) me how to behave but non-fiction does that largely too.
Yes.

>Ultimately I'm doing most of what I do for biological reasons
What exactly do you mean with this?

>My rationalization is that...
That seems perfectly fine to me. That being said I have personally experienced fiction as a bit of a trap from the real world. I see the real world and it's very bad in many ways... so I escape into fiction - a good book for example. I do however realize that that's a very unhealthy thing to do, in the long run at least, and it doesn't lead me to maximize my real impact on the world. Something that I feel a deep need for - and something that I think is what will make me satisfied with my life looking back at it.

I'm almost inclined to see fiction as a bad thing. I realize that it has functions and can have a positive real world impact in many ways. But to me it seems that non-fiction can have the same effect in a more direct way and it doesn't distract you from the real world in the same way.

Do you disagree?

A lot of examples or anecdote to prove or hypothesize on a point in non fiction is usually fictional in nature. Depending upon the complexity with which the the non fiction integrates these examples to elaborate upon the point, you could make an argument that it could easily be done better in fiction.
I think 1984 is a good example of this.

>It depends on what sort of idea I guess. More factual ones, sure. But let's say you want to convey what powerful force love is, or our fear of death, or whatever. A story where the reader gets to follow and relate to a bunch of characters can be very good at that.
>There are people who have refrained from killing themselves because they found a book that they could relate to. That's nice.
I can see that. Could you come up with more reasons why you would what to convey those feelings? That is real world effects. To me it seems like therapy would be as useful, or even more so, in preventing someone from killing themselves.

>What exactly do you mean with this?
Nerd shit. I'm an animal and most of my behaviour is driven by biology. I'm not talking of biological determinism but rather that biology acts to limit and shape our behaviour. I might say I write for those reasons I wrote, but the underlying mechanism is probably - not always - biological.
>Do you disagree?
Not necessarily, and I feel different people can work better with different life strategies.
But when you say non-fiction what kind of non-fiction do you read? I read a lot of biology and psychology and some of it is better to not know. Even if some of it is rather - or potentially - useful.

>- not always - biological.
This should be always.
I meant to say that not all behaviour makes sense in a biological light. We have underlying mechanisms and those are limiting and guiding but it allows us a full range of behaviour.

>A lot of examples or anecdote to prove or hypothesize on a point in non fiction is usually fictional in nature.
Sure.

>Depending upon the complexity with which the the non fiction integrates these examples to elaborate upon the point, you could make an argument that it could easily be done better in fiction.
Excluding making the ideas more digestible (for the average person)? That is "propaganda purposes".

>But when you say non-fiction what kind of non-fiction do you read?
All sorts of stuff. STEM books for uni etc., and a bit of everything t b h. Including some self help books even.

>I read a lot of biology and psychology and some of it is better to not know
I disagree. I have found it to be quite useful, especially psychology. Thinking, Fast and Slow for example is a very good book.

>Nerd shit. I'm an animal and most of my behaviour is driven by biology. I'm not talking of biological determinism but rather that biology acts to limit and shape our behaviour. I might say I write for those reasons I wrote, but the underlying mechanism is probably - not always - biological.
That's fine but you know behavior can be changed to a large degree. I recommend reading The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg.

*
>some of it
Well that's probably true.

>That's fine but you know behavior can be changed to a large degree.
Depends on what.
Yeah we can change habits, up to a point. An addict has a harder time, say one hooked on sugar and junkfood with bad gutflora, and maybe some unfortunate genes, is going to have a harder time changing the habit. But I'm not arguing that kind of behaviour.
Maybe you believe it, this is Veeky Forums after all, but I don't think our will is fully free. But notice my words, I say shaped and limited, not determined.
>Thinking, Fast and Slow for example is a very good book.
Yep. Outdated already though. Bought it but still need to reread.
Cognitive biases are highly interesting, so are heuristics. But I'm not convinced that knowing them would make you make them less: that should be a cognitive bias on its own.

>Could you come up with more reasons why you would what to convey those feelings
It could change the way a person thinks about those things and affect their actions. For better or worse.
Speaking for myself I think reading has made me more empathetic, and hopefully that reflects in my behaviour. You're right in that interacting with real life humans is probably as effective, but for very shy people like me, reading is a good alternative.

>Excluding making the ideas more digestible (for the average person)?
You assume that keeping complexities of an idea is somehow exclusive to making it more accessible, I don't consider that to be the case.
>That is "propaganda purposes".
Fiction is definitely much more of a propaganda in nature but non fiction is also indoctrinating in nature.
I'd say though that if a nonfiction is operating with only researched substance as their basis, than I don't think it can work as a fiction. That's probably the reverse of what op was looking for.

This fucking board...

Do you think a painting has a leg up on a description of what the artist was shooting for?

>But I'm not convinced that knowing them would make you make them less: that should be a cognitive bias on its own.
Very very interesting point. I don't know if you're familiar with the The Good Judgment Project, but they were able to improve people's projections by making them read a short document going through some cognitive biases. I recommend reading Superforecasting by Tetlock. So I think you can to some degree. I think Kahneman changed his position a bit after seeing Tetlock's work (he also made your point - at least in the past).

>Maybe you believe it, this is Veeky Forums after all, but I don't think our will is fully free. But notice my words, I say shaped and limited, not determined.
No I agree with your larger point.

>For better or worse.
The thing I wonder about is this. I suspect that, at least in many situations, it's detrimental to involve more emotions.

>Speaking for myself I think reading has made me more empathetic, and hopefully that reflects in my behaviour. You're right in that interacting with real life humans is probably as effective, but for very shy people like me, reading is a good alternative.
I see, that makes sense. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that fiction doesn't have any good uses.

>You assume that keeping complexities of an idea is somehow exclusive to making it more accessible
What do you mean?

>Fiction is definitely much more of a propaganda in nature but non fiction is also indoctrinating in nature
Yes non-fiction can be that too. But it's not "emotional" to the same degree at least so I would say it's very different. Wouldn't you agree?

>I'd say though that if a nonfiction is operating with only researched substance as their basis, than I don't think it can work as a fiction.
What do you mean more exactly? Especially with "work as a fiction".

>Do you think a painting has a leg up on a description of what the artist was shooting for?
I would say that getting a description of the ideas would be better in many cases - a lot faster... I'm not talking about entertainment here btw.

Aesthetic pleasure, a rich source of colorful interpretations and a taste of an specific kind of zeitgeist. Usually is in fiction where ideas are better presented because fiction writers are usually more talented at expressing ideas with words than philosophers/thinkers
Life is images, fiction is images of images, a whole kind of life which you can analyse, explore, excercise empathy or just disregard

That part of the brain is always involved

>Yes non-fiction can be that too. But it's not "emotional" to the same degree at least so I would say it's very different. Wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, fiction does try to emotionally manipulate us but so does nonfiction, but the ability of nonfiction to do so is very constrained.
>What do you mean more exactly? Especially with "work as a fiction".
Like you are writing a thesis or an essay or a book based on a research paper. Say I'm writing a paper about rise of China as the new economic global center and my topic is how China might or might not dethrone USA as the supreme global power. I can either hypothesize based on my assumptions or research about various including factors and then write about implications based on solid reasoning. Only the former scenario can work as a fiction, since in latter scenario, if I'm writing it as fiction I won't really be able to cite sources and show the raw map behind my assumptions. That's what I meant. There is lots of non fiction work which is entirely based upon the researched material, that I don't think works as fiction.

For obvious reasons, nonfiction excellently details the complex minutiae of reality. All the impartial engines of cause and effect operate perfectly in nonfiction. I enjoy fiction more, and I think fiction works better as a vehicle for meaning and artistic/philosophical thought, but reading and writing nonfiction every so often helps you to read and write fiction. Seeing real life structures in action helps me to appreciate works that properly reflect that reality (or purposefully oppose it) in fiction.

I see. Do you think there're any big real life benefits from reading fiction and if so what are some examples? Except your enjoyment of it.

This. I don't even know how to respond to these newfags in a way that will facilitate real discussion anymore.

What exactly do you object to?

>I would say that getting a description of the ideas would be better in many cases - a lot faster...
Not the guy you're responding to but what do you think is the point of getting the idea?

Learning something, say how a certain aspect of the world works.

And why do you want to learn stuff?

To better know how to interact with the world to get what I want and because I find it to be interesting.

So to make your interaction with the world more enjoyable, and because you find learning enjoyable.

What I'm getting at is that you seem to value learning more than emotion/aesthetics/art/whatever, but really only because you yourself enjoy learning more than those things.
Some people get the same satisfaction from looking at a beautiful painting as you get from learning about and utilizing the ideas presented in that painting. You're both just looking for a good time but find it in different ways.

>So to make your interaction with the world more enjoyable
I wouldn't say that.

>and because you find learning enjoyable
Sure.

>What I'm getting at is that you seem to value learning more than emotion/aesthetics/art/whatever, but really only because you yourself enjoy learning more than those things.
>Some people get the same satisfaction from looking at a beautiful painting as you get from learning about and utilizing the ideas presented in that painting. You're both just looking for a good time but find it in different ways.
No. The difference is that learning about the world is useful for getting what you want. Looking at a painting just gives you an emotion or emotions. I don't think the latter is as healthy.

>I wouldn't say that.
Why not? What does better interaction with the world lead to, if not enjoyment?

>The difference is that learning about the world is useful for getting what you want
I want to feel good. Looking at that painting makes me feel good. I don't think you'll consider that a valid goal, but I also don't see why it wouldn't be.

>enjoyment
It's more about setting goals and achieving them. Goals that aren't exactly always enjoyable to get to... It's more a deep need to do something.

>I want to feel good. Looking at that painting makes me feel good. I don't think you'll consider that a valid goal, but I also don't see why it wouldn't be.
But how will you feel about your life in 50 years? Will you look back at your life being satisfied?

Can't believe how often retards ask this question, the absolute state of Veeky Forums

Explain why it's retarded.

>It's more about setting goals and achieving them. Goals that aren't exactly always enjoyable to get to... It's more a deep need to do something.
I'd say that's still about getting satisfaction in the end, but even if it wasn't - why do you value this deep need more than entertainment when you can't even name what good it does? It's just about how you feel, but didn't you say we should keep our emotions out of decision-making?

>But how will you feel about your life in 50 years? Will you look back at your life being satisfied?
A life well-enjoyed seems like a pretty good life to me. If reading non-fiction leads to that for you, go for it, but not everyone is like you.

If the value of Veeky Forums needs to be explained to you, you will never get the full experience out of Veeky Forums because you're missing a chunk of human soul soul. Common among non-white races