Screenwriting : Would You Kill Hitler if You Could? Men Say Yes. Women Say No. Why? by Jim Fisher

It explains one more difference between men and women, something important to know when crafting character. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, and I paraphrase, "The nice thing about science is whether you agree with it or not, it's true." Thanks for the comments

I must agree with Sam Boseley on this. I inner-act with many folks and a wide variety of types of humans. When going beyond the obvious "stereotype" you quickly find each human is an exquisitely unique person developed by each ones own personal life experiences. While there are of course many traits that are similar, it is the uniqueness's that fascinate me, and motivate me to write characters that take us by surprise and challenge these exact stereotypes. I'm actually sick of stereotypes in real life, and fight my own personal prejudices, or preconceived notions with every new person I meet. This is what makes life interesting ... :)

This article takes an exaggerated, grandiose, hypothetical situation with layers and layers of complexities, and whittles it all down into a simplistic "yes" or "no" assessment, which seems to further support typical, historical gender biases. Exactly what were the 20 questions asked of 6,100 participants in this research to prove this stereotypical result? What were the 6,100 participants various ages, nationalities, religious backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, ideologies and/or political views? The sense of the "individual" seems completely lost here, or perhaps hindered by the researchers' selection of participants to come to such a generalized conclusion. I agree -- this does seem like bad science! :/ I know plenty of women who would answer this question with a "yes." And, if you have studied about Hitler you would know there was much more to him in those early years than just being a rejected art student.

If I could kill him in, say, 1925, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I could kill him in 1940, I wouldn't. There was a reason the German generals plotted to kill him -- he was batshit crazy and screwing up their war effort. Kill him early in World War II, and it would have been a lot harder to win that war. So does that make me male or female? :-)

If I was gay I'd ask him to let me fondle his one and only testicle.

Jeez, sorry about the testicle answer. I thought I was answering the question about whether people would kill Hitler if he was alive.

Ugh, enough. Vulgarity is not appreciated. Thanks.

Sam, this study was vetted by other professionals in the field, and the methods used to come to their conclusion found to be valid. You have to understand the difference between your personal opinion or bias and high quality research out of established research facilities published in a vetted publication. It's true, and while you may not agree, and I do respect your opinion, you appear to be suffering from optharectitis.

Beth - your evaluation of the base article and how the results are simplified are spot on. Thanks.

I appreciate that, Jim. Thanks. I've always had an interest in personality and social psychology as well as behavioral science. However, I was rather challenging the science in this particular article. ...So, do I still get the "Jim Fisher spot on" gold star? I certainly hope so! ;)

Maybe Jim - the problem with the American screen writing industry is that at the moment it seems enthralled to prescriptive story and character development based on ersatz science and psycho babble. The opening of a better story would be a Russian Po-2 biplane circling over the forests of East Prussia - and a female sniper/agent launches herself out into the night. Not something science for writers would encourage.

Sam, respectfully, I agree with your skepticism. Jim, respectfully, while I understand that statistically speaking expected gender behavior can be generally assumed based on various known and often tested norms, it's when the parameters of HOW the data for forming results are gathered and not fully disclosed causes such intense skepticism. The end results may have been evident for the 6,100 people who participated in this particular behavioral survey, but certainly not for the billions of individuals that inhabit the earth -- logically speaking. I tend to regard these statistical psychological surveys with respectful skepticism. I recognize a base truth, but I'm always skeptical of the people selected to be surveyed -- they tend to not be a diverse sampling; various in age, culture, region, et cetera. As Sam said, these things can be steered to give a desired result simply by those chosen to be surveyed, which is usually white, middle-class America. Perhaps where this article goes astray is by using such a grandiose, hypothetical, and emotionally charged scenario, such as killing Hitler, and then making such a bold statement that implies that ALL women and ALL men would behave in a certain way based solely on their gender; ignoring personal experience and other factors that would indeed effect an individual's choice when confronted with such a scenario. A statement like that will always be challenged. Perhaps the data would have been better received if it wasn't presented in a presumed, all-encompassing manner. :)

Sorry, this may skew the discussion... Andrew, while I totally agree that breaking away from stereotypes and gender norms does indeed create better stories, it's when authentic female behavior is NOT present in an action film that I find, and please forgive me, boring and a bit insulting as a woman. I'm not saying a woman couldn't be a spy or a soldier or anything for that matter -- of course a woman could!!!!!!!!! It's when that character truly is "male" but put in a female suit -- meaning she thinks, reacts and behaves like a man. So, I believe "psycho babble" certainly can help with developing authentic characters. For me, in film, the only female action hero that truly fits the bill is Ripley in ALIENS -- ALIENS is even on Oprah's list of favorite films! That says a lot as far as female audiences! The only action spy character that "felt" more female authentic, from my point of view, is Evelyn Salt in SALT. :)

Beth it's intriguing how differently - we want to write for women. I go along regularly to a local London screenwriters group. In truth - it's nothing like the American groups I read about - more a creative writing support group. Month after month male students from the local college read their beats or screens and inevitably they are about serial killers and the victims are inevitably screaming women - chop - chop - chop. Horror or detective - they all fit into that category. The women present sitcom - pseudo office stories and they are just as dire. Only once has somebody presented a story that had me sit up - and think that's interesting. The screenplays are usually formatted on final draft and layout wise are far superior to the stuff me and my mates used to hammer out on our portables. But the stories are join the dots and writing by numbers. They all have read Save The Cat - but none of them are writing original stories. Lets go back to that lone Russian Po-2 biplane flying above that East Prussian Forest. The pilot would have probably been a Night Witch - female Soviet pilots who flew night after night on dangerous operations. Our female agent - an earlier version of the KGB. How are you going to portray them? I would probably write them up - as I would a male. My emphasis would be on the story and you would hate my woman in a male suit. But in turn - you can easily end up with a bunch of modern women in flying suits. My father was one of the troopers who liberated Belsen. They drove for a mile in their armored cars - staring at human skeletons staring at them through the wire. On entering they found typhoid and death. Emergency supplies were ordered - and medical teams moved in as did the bulldozers to bury the corpses and my father told how he came across a doctor railing at the supply officer who had inadvertently ordered a case of lipsticks. Right Royal Cockup - my old man would have said. Yet next day most women had red lips - even the dying ones who they were about to bulldoze into the mass graves. So Beth - maybe you're right and I'm wrong. In the end the only thing that is going to save me are conceits - tricks of the trade - naughty little flashbacks and grandma with her dumplings before the arrival Germans.

Sam - I apologize for the snarky comment - I am most sorry. The thread is opening up an important topic. Writing character that is consistent with gender or orientation, and I like that. That is something I've written a bit about, the real differences between men and women, some of which appear to be genetic but mostly seem acculturated. If story supported by solid consistent character is the base of any good script or novel, I hope I can add a little to a writer's understanding of the differences. Andrew - it must have been a horrible experience for you father - or anyone who saw or experienced the death camps. One of my favorite scenes in any movie is when Harold notices the numbers tattooed on the inside of Maude's arm. That brief flash of information told so much about why Maude was the was she was. Was she acting the way she did to hide from this experience? Or was it a personal reaction? I've never figured that out. That two or three seconds is one of the most impactful snippets in all of film. Anyway, I think all the commenters have opened up an important topic for any writer in any genre, so thanks all for the insights and comments. Sam, I owe you at least a beer or cup of coffee next time I'm down there. Best wishes.

Andrew - I don't remember the name of the movie, but it was the film about the Russian snipers during WWII - both male and female - who were hunting the German master sniper in Stalingrad (I think). I thought that script did a good job of keeping female characters female and male characters male. Another area that could provide a good story are the British women who flew Lysander STOL aircraft in and out of Europe as well as ferrying them around. The courage it took to fly a clunky, slow aircraft into to a such a hornet's next is beyond me. There is a story there that needs to be told.

Beth - I've been thinking of writing a column about how to read scientific reports. Probably is a good idea. If I do, may I float it past you (or Sam, if you're willing) before I publish it?

Andrew, what a horrifying experience your father must have had. I truly cannot even imagine. I'm sure from your own family's experience you must have much material and knowledge to draw upon. :) And, just to further clarify, I certainly do not think that I am "right" or that anyone else is "wrong." I believe men and women are more similar than we are different. I prefer to think of us as emotional human beings and approach character development with that in mind. What I was trying to discern earlier, is that often in action films female characters usually behave, react or problem solve in ways that do not ring true. They think and act just like their male counterparts or have to be even more obnoxious, more violent, more overtly "sexualized" just to be their equals on screen. ...I could go on about my thoughts on the phrase "strong female character," which I totally despise, but I'll refrain. Your historical female Soviet characters do not need to be "modernized" to act, think or behave more like women. In those days, women could have easily used men's own perceptions of women against them -- certainly as spies. "A women would never do that!" The fact that they were pilots is incredibly interesting! Anyway, your example from your father's experience; "most women had red lips - even the dying ones who they were about to bulldoze into the mass graves;" I found that detail to be incredibly touching. The red lipstick represented "normality" to those women; perhaps a sense of who they once were, a sense of pride, a sense of hope. It's a quiet act of defiance in their last moments. Something they could do for themselves in a situation when everything has been taken from them. Please DO include that detail in a story. It is quite beautiful and genuine. Powerful.

Sure, Jim. I'm always happy to be of service. I too enjoy your articles and writing. :)

Actually, the real number of deaths is closer to 80 million, not 40 as stated in the article but either way, there's no way to predict the actual outcome when it comes to time travel-science fiction.

I've read numbers as high as 140 million in all theaters of WWII.

I've mentioned 200 Million in one of the scripts, I really can't remember where have I read it or maybe it was mentioned in some documentary.

The number is large to the point of being unimaginable. It's like light speed. I know the number but can't wrap my mind around it.

Well, I think all deaths are placed in this 200 Million, disease related deaths and such, not just soldiers but it was big. Nowadays, we see a car accident where 6 people have died and we feel bad. How did they feel back then. I can't imagine, no matter how hard I try.

Which is why that little red jacket in Schindler's List is so powerful. In Fury - you see in the background a bulldozer pushing corpses into a mass grave - but it's simply in the background. If the camera has suddenly caught a flash of color or something personal - the image comes to the forefront. Maybe one day - I will use the image of red lips amongst amongst a churning sea of horror.

I've read, I hope, the general sense of the argument about whether the research is valid. As it stands, I'd have failed the PhD candidate who came up with this at the orals. It misses an essential point: the form of the question asks a gender loaded question. I suspect that if you asked a hundred women if they would kill someone, anyone, to save others, you'd get a major sex difference right there. Now, if the question were worded more like "Do you agree with the statement: Adolf Hitler should have been killed if the opportunity arose." T/F. Now try it. As it stands, the question would be thrown out by any hard data psychologist. (Yes, I'm one of them). Peer reviewed or not, it's all in the form of the question and the matching of the population samples. For anyone caring, there is no way to do that for this study. Bottom line: be real careful when you report research reports. Much of it is not generalizable, even if it's well one. Look at the mess surrounding educational testing and comparing teacher quality in schools across the US. The kids aren't "matched" (I'll catch heat for that one...yes I know match is the wrong term) and so parents are encouraged by teachers who should know better to opt out of the testing. And that's why a good data analyst psychologist is worth their weight in (check commodity prices then insert). I couldn't let it pass, sorry.

ONE MORE THING! I am getting a little fatigued around the edges about pejoratives flung regarding psychobabble. I speak fluent psychobabble. I can converse on the fly in at least five or six dozen psychological theories. There's a reason for their proliferation. They're all looking at people through different philosophy of science eyes. You have the sloppy research types like Freud, Jung, Adler, and Carl Rogers who have a language unrelated to science and the hard liners like Wundt, Skinner, Pavlov, and the cognitive people like Ellis. That doesn't even touch the number of general categories. I'm just pleased there are so many lenses available in psychology permitting us to write a plethora of stories. Just be careful about misidentifying the theory. Don't, for example, even think about presenting the psychodynamic schools (think Freud et al) as hard science. BF Skinner is purported to not even HAVE a theory. Just have fun, but if you take some psychological position for a story, run it past a professor who teaches personality theory. There's a bunch of us around. And yes, I'm writing a script about a psychologist working in a psychiatric hospital now.

I'm told the secret to writing a screenplay that not only sells but becomes a film with long term impact is the depth of character and how they act within the confines of story. So many movies and novels seem to depend on caricature and not character, which is sad because we are learning so much about how people tick. All to often clever lines are put into the mouth of a character who would never say such a thing. i.e., the screenwriter is showing off, not developing that character. This is especially true in comedy. So many of these films just lack the sound track of forced laughter to be a B grade sitcom that runs less that a season. Look at the movies that last beyond first release, and you're looking at well-defined people behaving consistently within the personality established for them. Consulting with a personality theorist is not a bad idea at all - just don't rely on them to do your basic research for you.

Jim, thanks for the vote...or is it? Actually, the psych prof might tell you if the psychologist or psychiatrist in your story is coming from a realistic perspective and using language consistent with it. A major error, from my perspective, occurred in an episode of Scorpion where their "genius" psychiatrist said that no psychologists were likely to be six sigmas (that means their IQ is out in never never land of probability.). First, my experience of psychiatrists is a genuine mixed bag. Second, an IQ only predicts performance in a "white, middle class, elementary school." Third, they misuse the term "genius" regularly. While there appears to be a minimum IQ to provide a basis for genius, what they are really describing are what we (and I mean psychologists who invented the damned tools...IQ tests that is) call 2nd order gifted. They do their learning more in their head than by practicing in real life. they "see" answers to things. Psychiatrists, like most MDs, are very good at memorizing things...especially lists. They can be very impressive because of their fund of information. Psychologists are required to demonstrate the ability to think on a theoretical level, not necessarily limited to lists or structures. We all have to communicate in this Tower of Babel of theories. Just be careful who you discuss your concepts with. If they disdain other theories ( a more common characteristic of psychiatrists...make no mistake, many re brilliant), move on and get another opinion.. By the way, psychologists can be verbose.

Then there's the MMPI, a test I have taken. I'm the only person ever to have flunked it.

Good joke, Jim... for the uninitiated, there is no passing or failing. There ARE, however, scores that reach up into the clinical ranges. Then you get these two or three point "codes" that are consistent with this or that description. If you read a report based on one, and you NEVER do just that one test to render an opinion, it will read something like "people who endorsed responses in a similar way have been described as..." Like that. Of course different scoring programs and books, as well as various psychologists depending on their educational and training background, might use other phrases. You don't much see it on screen. More likely to see the Rorschach Inkblot test and the Thematic Apperception Test, both of which have lousy reliability and validity. FYI, the MMPI is the most used personality test in the world...or was, anyway. Most likely to be seen in courts of law, too. Why do I always feel like I"m back in the classroom speaking to psych students and interns?

My MMPI was administered by a psychiatrist who offered me a personality transplant at a cut rate. Told him I didn't like Scientology.

Jim, this is a stitch. Thanks for the chuckle. I apologize to the thread for being so damned pedantic.