Tyler Cowen: Be Suspicious of Stories

In this insightful Ted Talk , Tyler Cowen, an economist and author of the New York column's Economic Scene, discusses how we, humans,  should treat stories with more caution. Specifically, he believes that humans are biologically wired to transmit stories with utmost ease, and not question the specifics. This leads to how stories with the most irate plots are the most dangerous to us, and how humans rationalize stories into a broader concept when really, they can be stripped down into seven major themes.

Cowen is credible, despite the lack of information given through his introduction.  And though it was hardly mentioned, he is an economist. This mean that he deals with social sciences, and studies humans; he looks at patterns, numerical data, and studies that indicate relations between economy and the lives of humans. This is reflected throughout various points in his speech where he uses a variety of examples to enhance his topic.

He introduces his topic with a quote ("A stranger came to town"), and moves into Christopher Booker's   book that splits stories into seven themes. In his next several statements, he tries to evoke emotion by surprising his audience by arguing how we tell ourselves the same thing everyday. Cowen then follows with a set of data collected about how people feel about their lives, and to his bewilderment, nobody said their life was a "mess".  He makes an assertive statement, practically accusing everybody by saying, "You view your life like "this" [ a story]  instead of the mess that it is or it ought to be". 


The purpose of this was for Cowen to illustrate how people view their lives as a story, because stories don't incorporate "messes'.  Making it personal also enhances his argument, because it insinuates that the people need to think about themselves and about what they do and how they do it.

 "I used to think I was within the camp of economists," Cowen says. " I was one of the good guys, and I was allied with other good guys, and we were fighting the ideas of the bad guys. I used to think that! And probably, I was wrong! Maybe sometimes, I'm one of the good guys, but on some issues, I finally realized, "Hey, I wasn't one of the good guys." I'm not sure I was the bad guys in the sense of having evil intent, but it was very hard for me to get away with that story." 

Here, Cowen describes his job as one of the typical stories that humans are endowed  with- the concept of good versus evil. He makes his job into a "story" and shows how easily it is for him to do so. And then at the end of his Ted Talk, he says an array of mind blowing sentences all about his own Ted Talk.

"One story you might take away is the story of the quest. "Tyler came here, and he told us not to think so much in terms of stories..... Another possibility is you might tell a story of rebirth.  You might say, "I used to think too much in terms of stories, but then I heard Tyler Cowen, and now I think less in terms of stories!..... You also could tell a story of deep tragedy. "This guy Tyler Cowen came and he told us not to think in terms of stories, but all he could do was tell us stories about how other people think too much in terms of stories." 

In this excerpt, Cowen takes his Ted Talk and turns it into a quest; he turns it into a story of rebirth; he turns it into a tragedy. He takes one story and manipulates it to fit the needs of one particular theme of stories. 

So, why did I chose a Ted Talk that refutes the idea of a "story"? As I was browsing the Ted Talks, I found myself thinking about how- all throughout my life- I have been taught how storytelling is creative and innovative; it creates or dilutes reality, or it embellishes a life lesson, and makes it more appealing. And throughout all my life, I haven't ever once questioned a "story".  I chose it because I wanted to have a different perspective on what I never thought about, so if you're looking for something like this, this is the Ted Talk for you!

As Selena Gomez Sings, "The Heart Wants What It Wants"

 3.   Double Indemnity has been called “a film without a single trace of pity or love.” Do you agree with this statement? Think about the motivations that lie behind the actions of Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson when you consider your response.

This statement is an inverted statement. Pity or love may not exist between the characters, but it does exist internally. 


 In the beginning when Walter Neff goes to Phyllis Dietrichson's house to see her husband, his reasoning for going there was just to go for the "insurance" policy. When he goes inside the house, however, and saw Dietrichson; he wasn't "love-strucked", he was "stricken by an opportunity". Neff saw Dietrichson as this point of access to money, concerning himself, and only himself. Immediately after seeing this scene, I thought of Macbeth. Macbeth didn't plan on seeing the witches on his journey- in fact, that wasn't a part of his plan. But when he did, the witches presented him this opportunity of glory to which he took. There is also this ironic play on Neff's job. In the film, he is a business man- specifically, an insurance investor. Walter Neff could have been given any other job 
[cashier, tailor, a bar tender] but he was given the job of an insurance investor. The small blurb in the beginning of the movie (when Neff actually begins speaking about what happened) foreshadows that Neff is going to insure that he is going to make money- and not the money from his salary, but by bringing to life one of the probable causes to 
which the insurance policy applies to.... like accidental death.

This inverted statement also illuminates itself in the end of the film when Neff shoots Dietrichson. At first when Dietrichson had the gun and shot Neff, she shot to save herself.  When Neff told Dietrichson to shoot him more, she didn't do it, and claimed that she "loved" him which is why she couldn't pull the trigger.Phyllis Dietrichson doesn't actually love though, she loves herself; she takes pity upon herself; she became so caught up in the whole scheme of things that she suddenly became aware of her surroundings.  Neff had a similar realization, which sparked his shots at Dietrichson, killing her. He seemed 
internally upset that nothing worked out, which is why he pitied himself. 

Adding to that, the "love" that Neff and Dietrichson "had" in the film never existed. They abruptly met and seemed awkward with each other. When Neff kissed Dietrichson, there was no passion; it seemed as if he forced himself to embrace upon her. When Neff looked at Dietrichson, he saw his future, and never did it incorporate Dietrichson. All he saw was money and an easy target to get the money. 

Therefore, I would argue that Double Indemnity is a film "with pity and love" written all over it, only through a different perspective. 

As Selena GOmez sings, "The heart wants what it wants", and apparently neither Neff nor Dietrichson wanted each other.... they were in it for the money and personal gain.