background preloader

Karpman drama triangle

Karpman drama triangle
Classic drama triangle[1] The drama triangle is a psychological and social model of human interaction in transactional analysis (TA) first described by Stephen Karpman, M.D., in his 1968 article "Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis".[3] The drama triangle model is used in psychology and psychotherapy.[4][5] The three roles[edit] The model posits three habitual psychological roles (or roleplays) which people often take in a situation: Of these, the rescuer is the least obvious role. In the terms of the drama triangle, the rescuer is not a person helping someone in an emergency. ... the Victim is not really as helpless as he feels, the Rescuer is not really helping, and the Persecutor does not really have a valid complaint.[6] The situation plays out when a situation arises and a person takes a role as victim or persecutor. Melodrama often features a central, triangle cast. Rescuer[edit] Overview and theory[edit] Three quantitative variables are often useful to consider for games: Related:  Stories StructureStructure

hero's journey "A Practical Guide to Joseph Cambell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Christopher Vogler © 1985 “There are only two or three human stories, and they go on repeating themselves as fiercely as if they had never happened before.” In the long run, one of the most influential books of the 20th century may turn out to be Joseph Campbell’s THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES. The book and the ideas in it are having a major impact on writing and story-telling, but above all on movie-making. Filmmakers like John Boorman, George Miller, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Francis Coppola owe their successes in part to the ageless patterns that Joseph Campbell identifies in the book. The ideas Campbell presents in this and other books are an excellent set of analytical tools. With them you can almost always determine what’s wrong with a story that’s floundering; and you can find a better solution almost any story problem by examining the pattern laid out in the book. There’s nothing new in the book.

Three-act structure Three- act structure Plot Line Graph by Wendell Wellman The three-act structure is a model used in writing, including screenwriting, and in evaluating modern storytelling that divides a fictional narrative into three parts, often called the Setup, the Confrontation and the Resolution. Structure[edit] The second act, also referred to as "rising action", typically depicts the protagonist's attempt to resolve the problem initiated by the first turning point, only to find him- or herself in ever worsening situations. Interpretations[edit] In Writing Drama, French writer and director Yves Lavandier shows a slightly different approach.[2] He maintains that every human action, whether fictitious or real, contains three logical parts: before the action, during the action, and after the action. SJ Murray, a documentary film maker, feature film writer, and professor at Baylor University, explores why the three act structure matters in her book, Three Act What? See also[edit] References[edit]

Sleep Paralysis: page 2 Sleep Paralysis as an Anomalous REM and Dreaming: A major distinction of sleep states, for close to a half century, has been accepted between REM and NREM sleep (Aserinsky & Kleitman, 1953; Jouvet, 1967). REM periods are characterized by desynchronized cortical characterized by low-voltage fast EEG patterns with synchronized hippocampal activity characterized by slow (4-8 Hz) theta activity (e.g., Culebras, 1994). It is also widely accepted that dreaming is more common and more vivid during REM than during NREM sleep (Dement & Kleitman, 1957). In addition to the characteristic desynchronized cortical low-voltage fast EEG activity, there are numerous physiological, behavioral, and sensory features associated with REM such as muscle atonia, gating of sensory input, rapid eye and middle ear movements, as well as heart rate and respiration changes (Carskadon & Dement, 1989; Symons, 1993). Back to Table of Contents

Schéma narratif Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Le schéma narratif d'un récit est un concept issu de la linguistique structurale, née dans les années 1960. Selon cette théorie, il constitue le déroulement d'un récit (conte). Dans certains cas, nous pouvons avoir affaire à des retours en arrière (analepse), c'est-à-dire que l'auteur raconte des événements passés et comment ceux-ci ont changé sa vie. De plus, certaines informations supplémentaires peuvent être données en réalisant un schéma narratif de type II appelé Schéma actantiel, plus simple, dans lequel on reprend les principaux personnages ou forces agissantes, ainsi que les piliers qui permettront la rédaction du récit : Ce type de schéma peut se représenter plusieurs fois dans un même récit. Le passage de la situation initiale à l'élément perturbateur se signale souvent par un changement de temps des verbes.On peut faire aussi le schéma narratif d'une nouvelle (fantastique, ...).

Monomyth Joseph Campbell's monomyth, or the hero's journey, is a basic pattern that its proponents argue is found in many narratives from around the world. This widely distributed pattern was described by Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949).[1] Campbell, an enthusiast of novelist James Joyce, borrowed the term monomyth from Joyce's Finnegans Wake.[2] Campbell held that numerous myths from disparate times and regions share fundamental structures and stages, which he summarized in The Hero with a Thousand Faces: A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.[3] A chart outlining the Hero's Journey. Summary[edit] In a monomyth, the hero begins in the ordinary world, and receives a call to enter an unknown world of strange powers and events. The 17 Stages of the Monomyth[edit]

Consistently Inconsistent Robert Kurzban's Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind is a book about how our brains are composed of a variety of different, interacting systems. While that premise is hardly new, many of our intuitions are still grounded in the idea of a unified, non-compartmental self. Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite takes the modular view and systematically attacks a number of ideas based on the unified view, replacing them with a theory based on the modular view. It clarifies a number of issues previously discussed on Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong, and even debunks some outright fallacious theories that we on Less Wrong have implicitly accepted. It is quite possibly the best single book on psychology that I've read. In this posts and posts that follow, I will be summarizing some of its most important contributions. Chapter 1: Consistently Inconsistent (available for free here) presents evidence of our brains being modular, and points out some implications of this.

Jo-ha-kyū Jo-ha-kyū (序破急?) is a concept of modulation and movement applied in a wide variety of traditional Japanese arts. Roughly translated to "beginning, break, rapid", it essentially means that all actions or efforts should begin slowly, speed up, and then end swiftly. This concept is applied to elements of the Japanese tea ceremony, to kendō and other martial arts, to dramatic structure in the traditional theatre, and to the traditional collaborative linked verse forms renga and renku (haikai no renga). The concept originated in gagaku court music, specifically in the ways in which elements of the music could be distinguished and described. Though eventually incorporated into a number of disciplines, it was most famously adapted, and thoroughly analysed and discussed by the great Noh playwright Zeami,[1] who viewed it as a universal concept applying to the patterns of movement of all things. Theatre[edit] Poetry[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] Jump up ^ Zeami.

When to Discard the Three-Act Story Structure There are times to follow the rules of story, and there are times to break the rules. When should you use the three-act story structure, and when should you discard it entirely? Story Structure in Ken Follett’s Century Trilogy I’ve finally gotten around to finishing Ken Follett’s Century Trilogy with Edge of Eternity, and hoo boy, there is a lot that happens in that book. One could argue that there’s a lot that happens in all three books, given that they cover a one-hundred-year timespan, but the final installment felt much fuller than the other two. For some reason, it felt like the third book had more climactic peaks than the previous two, even though history has always been a series of events happening simultaneously in multiple locations. What made the book feel so different might have had something to do with its rejection of the classic literary structure, the three-act story structure. Can You Really Discard the Three-Act Structure? Sure, why not? Have fun!

Exploding head syndrome Exploding head syndrome (EHS) is a form of hypnagogic auditory hallucination and is a rare and relatively undocumented parasomnia event in which the subject experiences a loud bang in their head similar to a bomb exploding, a gun going off, a clash of cymbals, ringing, an earthquake, or any other form of loud, indecipherable noise that seems to originate from inside the head. This noise usually happens at the onset of sleep or within an hour or two of falling asleep, but is not necessarily the result of a dream.[1] Although the sound is perceived as extremely loud, it is usually not accompanied by pain. Attacks appear to change in number over time, with several attacks happening in a space of days or weeks, followed by months of remission. Causes[edit] Related phenomena[edit] These loud noises are a common feature of out-of-body experiences. Symptoms[edit] The exploding head syndrome was first described in 1920 by the Welsh physician and psychiatrist Robert Armstrong-Jones. See also[edit]

Related: