thread: 2006-02-12 : Brain Damage

On 2006-02-14, Vincent wrote:

I've been doing pretty serious RPG-as-fiction theory outreach for a couple years now, right?

Brain-damaged-as-such or not, some people have a really, really, really hard time understanding. I say, "look, here's a conflict" and they just can't read it.

It's not - I'm pretty sure - it's not because they can read it but they disagree. When that happens, they say "that's not a conflict, because blah blah." And I say "oh, you're right, how about this conflict instead?" And they say "cool, go on." Or else I say "it IS a conflict, because blah blah." And they say "oh, yeah, cool, go on." Or else they say "conflict, getcha, but I really don't care about conflicts" and I say "cool, to each her own."

No, as far as I can tell, it's because they just can't read it. They can read the words, but at a certain level they're functionally illiterate.

I'm not thinking of anyone in particular here. Just reflecting on my experience overall.

Is "functionally illiterate," I wonder, more offensive or less than "brain damaged"?


This makes PB go "If you want to be offensive..."
I prefer 'sub-literate'--somehow it seems to sting more than illiterate. Sometimes exageration is more offensive, and sometimes something they can almost admit as true. Really depends. But it sure won't make any friends.

This makes Chris go "The least offensive"
"A reduction in cognitive recognition of narrative structure." Of course, then no one listens.

This makes Colin go ""It trains a broken mental model...""
"that is hard to unlearn." If you want people to listen to you, you have to give them a way to separate themselves from the problem.

This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":