E. Garrett Ennis

People have said for generations that money is based on "trust," or "shared fiction." But that doesn't explain why cultures all eventually come to value the same metals or items as money. Others have said that the value of money depends on the way it facilitates trade, but even that doesn't explain where the value emerges before people agree to use money to trade. In actuality, there's a real value to gold, silver, and other forms of money that makes them reliably gain worth to people, and will emerge eventually even if everyone in a society does not like or believe in those precious metals or possessions. This is because possessing scarce objects has real reputational value among people, since having those objects indicates that we can go outside the known territory, and we instinctively collect and want things that have known scarcity. When that scarcity combines with other traits like transferability, durability and so on, we can see that money naturally emerges in society. We can use this idea to also see the real value and desire that people have for new forms of money like cryptocurrencies, and to know what will or won't emerge and last as a form of money in the future.

Scientists have complained about the inconsistency and politics of academic publishing for hundreds of years. Among the explanations offered are that evaluators lack time and use shortcuts, that they lack the expertise to judge things properly, that they can't put aside personal biases and we must hide the names of authors, and that they are conscientious instead of creative and cannot judge new ideas. All of these are actually wrong. As a literary analyst, I spent the last ten years independently studying this same problem in book and movie production. I've found that the human decision-making apparatus doesn't work the way we think, and the solutions based on this misunderstanding could never have solved the problem. In this paper, we present the first method that actually can, which is a technique adapted from computer hacking, as well as a new view of how our brains make choices.

Aristotle's Poetics has been the basis for theories of entertainment for over 2,000 years. But the general approach it uses has led to a number of gaps, contradictions, and difficulties in predicting the success of books, plays, movies, and entertainment as a whole, so much so that sayings like "there are no rules, but you break them at your peril," and "in Hollywood, nobody knows anything" have become widespread and accepted. However, it turns out that a model of entertainment that defines literary conventions by the pleasurable feelings they release in the brain, and then equates them with outside experiences that people subconsciously attach to the literary work, in the same way that we can be conditioned to feel love when we view our wedding rings, can actually resolve almost every seeming contradiction in Aristotle's ideas and traditional theories of storytelling when compared to real-world results. Furthermore, this approach can be extended to the other major forms of art, including painting, music and even video games, leading to a "Non-Aristotelian" theory that modifies the fundamental aspects of each of these fields, but in a natural and necessary way, which strengthens both our understanding and our ability to predict the success or failure of art in the future. My work as a vlogger and writer, mostly done via my Youtube channel "StoryBrain," has been viewed over 6 million times, and written about in MovieMaker magazine, Creative Screenwriting magazine, on the front page of major sites like Reddit, Roger Ebert online, and in international newspapers like the Sydney Morning-Herald in Australia and Fotogramas in Spain. My work is also the subject of a chapter of the currently-in-release book "Neuro-Design," by Kogan Page publishing, called "The Neuro Movie Analyst." This paper is a detailed introduction to the theory of Emotional Indiscretion which I have talked about in my work.