Re:Thinking with Adam GrantThe psychology of fiction with Jennifer Lynn Barnes | Re:Thinking with Adam Grant
CHAPTERS
- 0:06 – 2:17
How Barnes fell in love with stories: daydreams, fairy-tale remixes, and becoming a voracious reader
Barnes traces her earliest relationship with fiction—from twisting fairy tales with soap-opera plot DNA to writing her first story in first grade. She describes the moment reading “clicked” and how books became her refuge and happy place.
- •Early exposure to stories and imaginative play as a foundation for lifelong fiction love
- •Rewriting familiar tales (fairy tales) as an early form of creative agency
- •First-grade writing as a discovery that “anything you want can happen” in fiction
- •Rapid shift from late reader to consuming chapter books intensely
- •Reading as emotional regulation and comfort during rough days
- 2:17 – 4:12
Why psychology appealed: fiction and science as two paths into other minds
Grant asks why Barnes pursued psychology alongside writing. Barnes argues both fiction and psychology are driven by the same obsession: gaining access to other people’s minds, and using questions and evidence to challenge intuition.
- •Core motivation: curiosity about how other people think and feel
- •Fiction as uniquely intimate access to inner experience
- •Psychological science as a way to test questions about the mind in the real world
- •The addictive cycle of inquiry: questions → data → surprising answers → more questions
- 4:12 – 6:41
Why we’re hooked on make-believe: competing theories and the ‘gossip theory’ of fiction
Barnes lays out the puzzle of why humans spend massive time and resources on stories we know are fictional. She highlights Paul Bloom’s idea that fiction hijacks evolved tastes for socially relevant ‘gossip’ information.
- •Cross-disciplinary debate: evolutionary, philosophical, and media explanations for fiction’s appeal
- •The brain’s weak boundary between real and make-believe as a mechanism
- •Paul Bloom’s ‘fiction as gossip’ framework (hierarchies, alliances, sex, conflict)
- •Implication: stories succeed when they press high-relevance social buttons
- 6:41 – 8:31
Turning theory into a writing engine: the prompt that became *The Inheritance Games*
Barnes explains how she uses psychological theories as writing prompts to generate story premises. Using gossip theory, she sought an event that would make the entire world talk about an ordinary teen—leading to Avery’s billionaire-inheritance setup.
- •Using theory-derived predictions to design story premises readers will care about
- •‘Big-time gossip’ prompt: what makes an unknown teen globally discussed overnight?
- •Solution premise: a billionaire leaves everything to a stranger who doesn’t know why
- •How the premise “passes the gossip test” and signals broader story potential
- 8:31 – 11:59
A ‘cheesecake’ approach to craft: engineering pleasure without losing creativity
Barnes describes a systematic process—workbooks, checklists, and revisions—where she deliberately “jams” stories with elements humans are wired to enjoy, alongside other mechanisms like theory-of-mind exercise. She emphasizes this is often a revision tool rather than a creativity killer.
- •A personal workbook synthesizing multiple theories of story enjoyment
- •Steven Pinker’s ‘cheesecake’ idea: creators combine hardwired pleasures
- •Design choices: wealth, beauty, competition mapped onto character and plot structure
- •Scene-by-scene revision: ensuring theory-of-mind challenges and reader engagement
- •Balancing intentional craft with the immersive joy of drafting
- 11:59 – 16:38
Mystery as co-authoring: imaginative engagement, fandom behaviors, and leaving gaps
Grant highlights puzzle-solving and surprise-reward dynamics; Barnes connects this to her lab’s Imaginative Engagement Scale. She explains how readers actively co-author, fill gaps, mentalize characters, and reflect—mirroring what fandoms do beyond the text.
- •Imaginative Engagement Scale: different active modes of reading
- •Fandom as ‘extreme’ engagement: fanfic, art, cosplay, theorizing communities
- •Four components: co-authoring, gap-filling, theory of mind, reflection
- •How ambiguity and deliberate gaps invite readers to solve and speculate
- •Example gap: Jameson’s scar as an intentional long-running puzzle hook
- 16:38 – 17:55
Lightning-round detour: favorite brother, author recs, and the truth about capuchins
A brief, playful interlude reveals Barnes’s personal preferences and influences. It also nods to her research background with an unexpectedly vivid takeaway from primate study.
- •Barnes’s favorite Hawthorne brothers: Nash (and Xander)
- •Reader recommendation: Ally Carter and ‘unrealistic realistic’ fiction
- •Capuchin monkeys: cute appearance masking aggression (“balls of death and destruction”)
- 17:55 – 19:30
Do stories shape culture—or reflect it? Correlation, causation, and skepticism
Grant raises research suggesting achievement themes in children’s stories might predict later innovation. Barnes bets on stories mirroring cultural trajectories more than causing them, leaning toward correlational and even spurious explanations without stronger evidence.
- •The ‘map vs. mirror’ question about fiction’s societal impact
- •Barnes’s default stance: correlation and reverse causality are more plausible than direct causation
- •Grant’s counterexamples (e.g., *Star Trek* inspiring inventors) acknowledged as possible but limited
- •Call for replication and stronger causal designs
- 19:30 – 22:08
Nonfiction as narrative craft: surprise, evidence, and planting seeds
Barnes asks how Grant ‘makes a story’ in nonfiction. Grant explains that strong nonfiction uses narrative structure—counterintuitive insights, illustrative characters, and carefully placed seeds—while still anchored in rigorous evidence.
- •Nonfiction starts with a surprising insight, then builds a persuasive narrative
- •Using people and cases to animate data without sacrificing rigor
- •Shared craft with fiction: foreshadowing, head fakes, controlled revelation
- •Discovery during drafting: realizing what’s missing and restructuring (e.g., *Think Again*)
- 22:08 – 23:15
Rethinking midpoints and series length: when the ‘middle’ becomes the ending
Barnes shares a recent creative rethink: a planned midpoint twist turned out to be an ending, expanding the project from two books to likely three. Grant reacts with enthusiasm about worlds that demand more story.
- •Creative planning vs. discovery: structural realizations mid-draft
- •A midpoint reveal reframed as a book-ending climax
- •Implication: a longer arc than originally intended (series expansion)
- •Grant’s view: continuing a story can feel like an ethical obligation to characters/readers
- 23:15 – 27:21
Does fiction exposure change us? Theory of mind findings and the self-selection problem
Barnes reviews evidence linking lifetime fiction exposure with better performance on emotion-reading and mentalizing tasks, especially the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. She stresses the evidence is largely correlational and experimental results are mixed, with motivation likely crucial.
- •Lifetime fiction exposure measured via Author Recognition Tests
- •Robust correlation with Reading the Mind in the Eyes test performance
- •Key caveat: cannot claim fiction ‘alters’ people based on correlational data alone
- •Mixed experimental findings, including in Barnes’s own lab
- •Hypothesis: intrinsic motivation drives deeper cognitive work during reading, producing benefits
- 27:21 – 31:33
What kids want from stories: surprising preferences for ‘real’ and for relatable fantasy
Drawing from her dissertation, Barnes explains children’s story preferences across ages. Young kids often prefer ‘real’ stories over make-believe, show weak early preference for fantasy vs. mundane realism, and tend to like ordinary characters in extraordinary worlds.
- •Two tested dimensions: social content (people) and real vs. make-believe status
- •Unexpected result: youngest kids preferred real stories; adults didn’t care as much
- •Fantasy vs. mundane realism: young children near chance; preference strengthens with age
- •Relatability effect: stronger liking for regular people in magical worlds than the reverse
- •Unpublished character-preference pattern: ‘like me’ + ‘incredibly awesome’
- 31:33 – 35:44
Fiction as a human and collective superpower: daydreaming, identity stories, and shared fandom
Grant asks about Harari’s argument that fiction underpins human success. Barnes connects fiction to future simulation (even anxious scenarios), while Grant expands to collective fictions—nations, missions, values—and Barnes emphasizes the social nature of shared media experiences and fandom bonds.
- •Fiction as imagining alternative futures and counterfactual lives
- •Daydreaming includes negative simulations, not just pleasurable fantasies
- •Collective fictions: groups and nations built on shared imagined constructs
- •Social consumption changes experience (e.g., comedy in theaters vs. alone)
- •Fandom as community formation around shared stories
- 35:44 – 39:08
Is ‘engineering’ a story manipulative? Gift-giving, character integrity, and fandom in real life
Grant reframes Barnes’s psychology-informed craft as generous gift-making rather than Machiavellian manipulation. Barnes agrees but adds a tension: writers also owe authenticity to characters, deepening them through developmental backstories; she then reflects on the joy of witnessing fan communities form around her work.
- •Grant’s argument: using reader psychology can be prosocial—designing a better gift
- •Barnes’s concern: avoiding puppet-like plotting; respecting characters as ‘people’
- •Using a developmental-psych lens to build character histories beyond the page
- •Experiencing fandom firsthand: communities, Etsy merch, readers living in her world
- •Transition to a guest co-host: Grant’s daughter joins the conversation
- 39:08 – 44:18
Joanna’s fan Q&A: Nash vs. Xander, building the brothers, and advice to teen writers
Grant’s daughter Joanna asks Barnes about her favorite brother, character creation, and advice for her younger self. Barnes explains her character ‘vibe’ method (tropes + developmental origins), dubs Nash the ‘motorcycle cowboy,’ and encourages teen writers not to overvalue originality.
- •Why Nash: protective big-brother energy; why Xander: most fun to write
- •Personality construction method: start with a trope/vibe, then build developmental causes
- •Specific inspirations: Grayson (Elijah Mikaelson vibes), Jameson (sensation-seeker), Nash (motorcycle cowboy), Xander (Rube Goldberg mind)
- •Advice: originality is overrated; perspective and voice create freshness
- •Embrace influences—readers often want “more like what they loved,” not novelty for its own sake
