The creativity of youth - my thoughts on a sub-genre of science fiction

What's up, diggity dogs? (that's from Mung from 'Chowder'). I had many plans for this post, ranging from IMO problem 1, solving the Gompertz equation, solving some problems from the IMC, proving a result in Thermodynamics, you name it. However, ever since my national exam, the Romanian 'Bacalaureat' exam, I developed an interest in Literature. You see, my parents encouraged me to read when I was younger, but, being the stubborn guy that I am, I decided I wouldn't read. I can only do things that I come up with. After studying Literature intensively for some time before the exam, I found out that it's not that bad, and I started reading more. This morning, I bought a sci-fi book written by a Romanian sci-fi writer, and now that I finished it, I came up with the idea to talk a bit about what is called 'mundane science fiction', and why it might appeal to people.

First of all, let's make a distinction between 'soft' sci-fi and 'hard' sci-fi. The hard science fiction focuses on scientific accuracy. While, of course, things aren't entirely accurate (because if they were, the book would be considered a doctorate thesis, not a work of fiction), the science introduced is made somewhat plausible. In soft sci-fi, all bets are off. Soft science fiction also might concern itself with more societal problems, such as George Orwell's '1984', Turtledove's 'In the presence of mine enemies' and so forth. Basically, soft sci-fi encompasses everything from 'Star Trek', 'Star Wars' and the 'Warhammer 40K' universe to alternate history, while hard sci-fi talks about more plausible advances, such as Isaac Asimov's work, or, in movies, 'Project Almanac', perhaps even 'Donnie Darko', or 'Stranger Things'. I'm still meditating over the MCU, yet it might be somewhere in the middle, leaning towards soft sci-fi (I know how to find eigenvalues too, yet I don't know how to time travel, speaking of 'Endgame').

'Mundane sci-fi' (which is quite an ugly term for a nice genre if you ask me) is a sub-genre of hard sci-fi which deals with 'down to Earth' situations. Literally. Fast travel between planets, stars, whatever is not invented in these worlds, with the situations being as realistic as possible, while still containing lots of fiction. I'd say that the most well known book belonging to this genre is Carl Sagan's 'Contact'. I'm not hesitant to admit, but what really got me in this genre was the anime 'Steins; Gate'. I'd call this genre 'realistic sci-fi' rather than 'mundane sci-fi'. The book I read was 'The Ribbon of Time', by George Lazar, in which a group of students discover a means of predicting the future. The lecture was really great, especially since it included lots of technical hardware details that actually made sense. As I said, I liked it so much, that I finished it in a few hours. I myself have been juggling with writing a book belonging to this genre since 2016-2017, I even posted a bit of it on Wattpad (here it is if you want to check it out: https://www.wattpad.com/446606017-red-horizon-foreword). My attraction to this genre made me try to analyse it literally.

Like most modern works of literature, the accent falls on defining the characters. From what I've observed, character dialogue dominates the book, with narration falling on the second place. The narration is mostly used to introduce character interaction and inventions, though this isn't necessarily the norm. The dialogue not only makes the story seem more dynamic, but it also makes the reading more dynamic. It won't make the reading faster, but it will make the reader lose track of time. In this aspect, modern books are made for people who live more hurried lives, who can read only in their rare free time. While classical books are still necessary, they are no longer fit for the society: ordinary readers don't have time to understand slow paced action, which revolves mostly around artistic methods that are hard to follow. Among the characters of the mundane sci-fi genre are necessarily STEM educated academics, and the main characters may be STEM educated, too. Either way, the plot revolves around a scientific discovery that is somehow meant to change the world. The narrative usually follows a pre-determined path: a group of people discovers something, which leads to perfecting, testing and studying the discovery, which eventually leads to a climax point in which the characters use their invention in a way that may involve global actions. The ending is, usually, thought provoking, and, due to the lecture's proximity to the real world, the message is contemporary with the modern world. This genre also permits intersection with all other sorts of modern genres, such as horror, comedy, romance, etc.

As I promised earlier, I'd try to psychologically analyze how this genre works. Remember my post about cognitive functions in Jungian typology? Well, let's apply them here. I'd postulate that this genre attracts anyone with Ti and Ne as the two most powerful functions in the function stack. Ne would desire creative ideas and an escape from a boring world (or perhaps the world is only boring for me, who knows), while the more rationally inclined Ti would want scientific accuracy. In this case, this sci-fi genre is the best for ENTPs and INTPs that are more scientifically inclined. I'd assume that dominant Si users would be interested in this type of genre, too, due to its realism. Ni users would be more interested in the far future rather than a fiction based on the present, while the lack of suspense and physical action in the genre wouldn't interest the Se user. Over all, I think that this realistic sci-fi mostly attracts ENTPs (like me), INTPs, ISTJs and ISFJs. It is quite curious how the types attracted by this genre are somewhat opposite. That is not to say that other types can't be attracted to the genre: indeed, I believe that most STEM focused individual might be somewhat intrigued by the idea of this genre. However, I believe that the types I mentioned would be definite fans. During the 21st century, when people's lives are becoming more and more streamlined, I'd expect most of the audience to turn to a sci-fi or fantasy setting while reading. I also believe that, somehow, these genres might also reflect ideas from childhood, dreams of a paradise where everything is possible. The fantasy world of youth changes from games to books, and, by studying this kind of literature, readers might be able to live a more interesting life and even re-live dreams of childhood adventures.

Well, I guess that was all for today. Apologies for any grammatical errors: my laptop is broken, and I sent it to a service, so I'm writing this from my tablet. The keyboard of the tablet is rather small, so I might have miss-clicked a few letters. Tune in next time for probably an Applied Mathematics/Physics post, or something completely random!

Cris.

A Cheerful Introduction to Jungian Functions

I haven't released an article in about a week... oh boy. I've been advertising this article for a while now, so I'll do all my best to make it count. Next article might be about an inequality, but, until then, the number of Maths posts on this blog remains the same.

In this article, I will introduce you (if you weren't already introduced) to Jungian Psychology and its successor, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI for short. Perhaps I will discuss Socionics in a sequel to this article (if there will be a sequel to this article). It isn't a pleasant thought to think that I am writing an article on personality types when I can't even decide what my type is...

Carl Jung, in his book 'Psychologial Types', discussed the problem of types in different contexts and observed several patterns. Other than historical contexts, Carl Jung observed these patterns in his work as a psychiatrist. Other than the classical 'Extrovert' vs 'Introvert' options, he also discovered something he called 'cognitive functions', which are basically ways of perceiving/judging the world. Each person has a personality formed by a permutation of the 8 possible cognitive functions, which I'll discuss shortly.

Each function is composed of two letters: the first letter is the preferred type of perceiving/judging, while the second letter explains how the user of the function uses it, whether he uses it in an introverted manner or an extroverted manner.

The perceiving functions do literally what the name says: they perceive information. A person can perceive information either by sensing or by intuition: the intuitive person will read between the lines, they process information through possibilities, hidden meanings and impressions, while the sensing person will perceive information through the body senses. The perceiving functions are:

• Ne: Extroverted intuition. This one is the impersonation of every mad scientist in movies. People with Ne as one of their first two functions are highly creative individuals. They are characterized by their need for debate and meaningful discussion, and also by their hatred for rigid environments. They are free-spirited individuals who enjoy life. 
• Ni: Introverted intuition. This one is the deepest of the cognitive functions, as it is intimately linked with the subconscious. Individuals with this cognitive function as one of their first two functions in the stack can use most of the brain in order to predict how events turn out, it basically works as a glimpse into the future, making these people look like prophets. People with this personality function are also the main antagonists in movies. Such humans have incredible mental landscapes, making Ni one of the most creative functions.
• Se: Extroverted Sensation. This one is the most adventure-seeking function. These people thrive on intense experiences, and people with this function as one of their first two functions in the stack are some of the most thrill-seeking people. This function basically lives in the present, and can notice details about recent events quite nicely.
• Si: Introverted Sensation. This one is the most calm of them all. People like this perceive new information through a prism of old experiences and sensations. This function is the most melancholic of them all, and also the most common one, as about 30-40% of the population has this function as either their primary or secondary function. This function is also correlated with good memory.

The judging functions, just like the perceiving ones, do literally what their name says. A person can judge given information through the lens of either feelings and values or logical reasoning. The judging functions are:

• Fe: Extroverted Feeling. This is widely considered as the most extroverted function, as it involves connecting on a personal level with most of the people a person knows. People with Fe among their first two cognitive functions are very popular and great talkers, they are empaths with a great desire to help people. However, people like this may be also manipulative, as they have an intuitive knowledge of what other people want. This function usually involves sync-ing in with other people's feelings and with the social norms, and it requires a great deal of socializing for it to flourish.
• Fi: Introverted Feeling. While the Fe function adheres to the social norms, this function draws values from within. People with Fi as the first are very idealistic and romantic, they are easily influenced by people, but they are mostly trying to do good.
• Te: Extroverted Thinking. This function is the one most concerned with efficiency. People with this function among their first 2 functions are obsessed by the efficiency of their actions, and all of their judgements are objective and impersonal.
• Ti: Introverted Thinking. This function is the one obsessed with problem solving (aka the part of me making this blog). It is derived from an internal logical system and thrives on solving problems from all possible subjects. 

These are, more or less, the cognitive functions. Each individual possesses, in some measure, all of the cognitive functions above. Jung believed that each individual has a primary and auxiliary function (hence why I talked about the first two functions), and these functions reflect the individual's attitude the most. In the next psychology article, I will discuss about the MBTI model of describing a personality, which is basically a consequence of the Jungian model. Keep in mind that, while there isn't much evidence to back up this theory, it resembles reality the most, which is why I decided to write about it. Another thing to mention is that no two individuals who have the same cognitive functions are the same. I've heard many arguments that categorizing people is wrong, which, in some cases, is true. However, in the case of psychological types, it's not wrong to categorize people, and it's a fairly logical thing to do. The cognitive functions don't describe WHAT a person thinks, but rather HOW a person thinks, which, in my opinion at least, makes the cognitive functions model almost foolproof to such arguments.

Cris.