The question I seek to answer is the following: What can stories offer that research cannot? And more specifically, what do they offer that psychological theories cannot?
This was a great discussion and really well-balanced! I especially like your inclusion of the author's perspective in terms of needing to become keen observers of human nature and social phenomena (psychologists-in-training). And it's interesting to consider estimation for predicting real-world stuff vis-a-vis estimation about what will happen next in the story. Jurassic Park is a neat example of fiction systematically modeling the breakdown of another, flawed scientific model.
Really, this topic gets quite complicated once you consider all the reference points involved. On the one hand there's the reader's sensemaking, and on the other hand the writer's sensemaking. Then you have the writer's private model of the world (only bits of which actually make it into the writing), and the reader's own pre-existing mental model they come to the story with. And then there's the real world (what is being modeled) and the world imagined in the story (alternative model constructed by author). The writer may even anticipate the reader's working model in writing to their audience. I would add that a good story doesn't just enhance our understanding of the world; it helps us realize things about *ourselves* (internal world) from reading about other characters or picturing certain scenarios. This includes the implicit theories and values you speak of.
You characterize stories as models fully incorporating context where scientific research cannot - clearly there's a way in which this is true. But I have some caveats and questions, and I wonder if "context" is necessarily the best frame for understanding their power. But your piece jogged too many thoughts so I won't say anymore here. Maybe later!
This was a great discussion and really well-balanced! I especially like your inclusion of the author's perspective in terms of needing to become keen observers of human nature and social phenomena (psychologists-in-training). And it's interesting to consider estimation for predicting real-world stuff vis-a-vis estimation about what will happen next in the story. Jurassic Park is a neat example of fiction systematically modeling the breakdown of another, flawed scientific model.
Really, this topic gets quite complicated once you consider all the reference points involved. On the one hand there's the reader's sensemaking, and on the other hand the writer's sensemaking. Then you have the writer's private model of the world (only bits of which actually make it into the writing), and the reader's own pre-existing mental model they come to the story with. And then there's the real world (what is being modeled) and the world imagined in the story (alternative model constructed by author). The writer may even anticipate the reader's working model in writing to their audience. I would add that a good story doesn't just enhance our understanding of the world; it helps us realize things about *ourselves* (internal world) from reading about other characters or picturing certain scenarios. This includes the implicit theories and values you speak of.
You characterize stories as models fully incorporating context where scientific research cannot - clearly there's a way in which this is true. But I have some caveats and questions, and I wonder if "context" is necessarily the best frame for understanding their power. But your piece jogged too many thoughts so I won't say anymore here. Maybe later!