Friday, December 7, 2018

STARBREAKER Synopsis, Book 1 FREE for 2 Days

For those of you who have been waiting with extreme patience, PIMPERNEL: STARBREAKER is finally up on Amazon.

Release Date: January 20, 2019

It was going to be the 22nd, but then I saw there was a total lunar eclipse on the 20th and I had to go with that day.

Are you ready for the synopsis? (Of course, you are!)



Vic Davalos is one of the most successful models of her generation. She's also scheduled to be taken out by a hitman by the next new moon. 

Jack Cavanaugh, also known as the Pimpernel, has less than a week to change the woman's fate. The Cupid who brings Jack this news insists he must save Vic so true love can succeed in bringing two soulmates together who will change the world for the better. 

While Jack is always happy to stop a murder, his personal motive is to catch the Starbreaker that's been hired to make sure Vic Davalos doesn't survive past the new moon. Statistically speaking, saving Vic and catching the Starbreaker is an impossible feat. If historic lore is to be believed, no one has caught a Starbreaker since the 1700s. They are notorious for never leaving fingerprints on their handiwork and, therefore, leave no trail to follow.

A Starbreaker has to be caught in the act, or not at all.

The chances of Jack succeeding with an extemporaneous plan and only the assistance of his new Shade, Kali, are so close to zero they aren't even worth calculating.

But he has to try.

--

Can't wait to get this book into your hands!

To celebrate the release date, Book 1 is FREE on Amazon today (Friday) and tomorrow. If someone you know has yet to pick up a copy, now is the perfect time to get it in their hands, so feel free to share!

Get Pimpernel FREE for the next 2 days here.

Pre-order Starbreaker here.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Cover Reveal: Pimpernel Book 3

Are you ready for a new Pimpernel book this fall?

Because it's coming!

Get ready for Pimpernel: Starbreaker



Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The Preacher and The Pundit

One of the most viral news interviews of this year was the interview between Jordan B. Peterson and Cathy Newman. (I'd like to thanks Chris for asking me to analyze it because this is a fun one.)


If you missed this interview somehow, or need a refresher, you can check the video out above.

Jordan B. Peterson is a Canadian professor who gained fame for opposing Canada's new laws of compelled speech. The law in question deals with issues like mandating transgender individuals be referred to by their chosen pronouns.

But Peterson claims he doesn't care what the intent of a compelled-speech law is. His stance is that a government that seeks to control the words its citizens must speak, with legal recourse, should be opposed.

Taking this stance destabilized his job security and made Peterson a figure of controversy both in Canada and abroad.

This interview with English reporter Cathy Newman took place expanded his exposure immensely.

The consensus of many is that Peterson not only held his own in the interview but emerged victor in the interview-turned-debate.

To see if there is some science behind the general impression, let's take a look at how their conversation plots out in my system.


In this conversation, Jordan B. Peterson scores as a Pundit (this type presents insight on a specific topic with the inherent bias of presenting themselves as accurate and contenders as less informed.)



and Cathy Newman scores as a Preacher (this type places all information into an ongoing narrative they maintain we collectively share, whether we know it or not.)



So what do all those colors mean?

Think of them this way:

  • Green invites a response from the other person
  • Purple shows collaboration of ideas
  • Red indicates asserting ideas
  • Yellow shows where objective information is introduced
  • Orange reveals where information is being framed within the discussion
  • Grey squares indicate prompted responses that are discounted in scoring

You can see that Newman asks more questions than Peterson does, which is appropriate since she is the one conducting the interview.

In an ideal world, Newman would score as the polar opposite of her current score by providing the information and research she wants to discuss with Peterson and walking through/challenging his responses.

No interviewer can go wrong scoring as an Explorer

The path she took instead was to make assertions and frame her conclusions as definitive while speaking with a subject matter expert.

This led to a conversation where Newman sought to assert her thoughts as a framework of facts, to which Peterson responded with actual facts/statistics and reframes of her assertions. His reframes and statistics came across as well-informed enough to make Newman's assertions seem wobbly to anyone who wasn't in Preacher mode with her.

Throughout the entire discussion, Newman fights to frame her claims as both accurate and aspirational, but Peterson doesn't let her walk away with either trophy. In American-speak, there is "reasonable doubt" as to whether or not she is correct in her assertions when faced with Peterson's counter-claims.

Newman goes all-in putting Peterson on trial for his stances, and not only does she not get him to move, she often proves his points in her eagerness to gain traction.

Peterson's main weapon in making Newman's claims slippery is all the yellow you see on his chart. Peterson walked into the interview with facts he could frame, and Newman walked into the interview with frames she presented like strung-together, cherry-picked correlations.

The result was that Newman likely converted no one in this interview while Peterson demonstrably gained more followers and attention in the aftermath.

Why?

To get a better idea as to why his approach to hot-button topic resonated with so many, look at the flow of conversation one more time and let the colors do the talking.

Green and Yellow open up the conversation.
Purple shows attempt at collaboration
Red and Orange narrow and direct the conversation

Looking at the graphs alone, can you see why most people come out of the interview viewing Peterson as the victor?


Have any questions or angles you'd like me to address?

Thoughts welcome!

Feel free to tweet me ideas and requests @SheralynPratt.

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Why 3 Preachers Don't Make a Choir

A tweet popped through my feed that looked like a good lead to a video to show you how my system works.

The tweet looked a little something like this:


A search for the video in question led me to this interview:


In one aspect, this is a terrible example to show a diversity of types within a conversation. It doesn't take a system like mine to reveal this is in an abrasive and aggressive interview openly leaning one direction.

But let's look at a map of each individual's participation in the exchange anyway:


* Grey squares indicate non-scored, prompted interactions that score the same across all types.


The color-coding of my system is designed to reveal the icon using color association.

The colors that appear the most reveal the communication style used in this video.




As you can see, all three men score as Preachers, although you can see Paris Dennard's possible tendency to have more of an Influencer or Entrepreneur style if placed in a less defensive position. (This is why 7 proofs are required to prove a type in my system and this conversation in its entirety only counts as one.)



What is a Preacher? Preachers are assertive framers who place all information into an ongoing narrative they claim impacts everyone--whether they know it or not. One of their more common fallacies is the belief that A = Z, therefore A cannot happen.

This conversation is a chorus of preaching--the host included. The host's score is may be one of the most noteworthy aspects of this exchange, considering the role of his occupation lies on the opposite end of the spectrum. An excellent interviewer will often score as an Explorer.

Why?

Because Explorers create space in a conversation by infusing information and asking questions that mediate extremes. This skill has the ability to expand a conversation while simultaneously retaining enough objectivity to keep it from going off the rails.

In this instance, you can see that the host is aligned with Philip Mudd, along with all the consequences that brings. Mainly, enablement of over-aggression. It may seem like a favor in the short-term but, when enabled to escalate too much, can ultimately be a disservice.

So let's bring this back to Trump's tweet.


Did Mudd make his case, or did he leave the door open for Trump to make his?

I'll give you a hint: Trump is the only one who ended his argument with a question. And a question makes space for conversation.

This is what Trump's tweet looks like mapped:


What do you want to bet that a choir will show up to fill that space he just opened for them to respond to his assertion?

Time will tell. This is all happening real-time, but I would expect this to become a talking point among Trump supporters.

Have a video you want me to analyze? Tweet me a link @SheralynPratt.

Learn more about Pirate Lenses on the PIRATE LENS page.

Monday, August 20, 2018

BETA TESTING: Pirate Lenses

This past year, I did a thing.

I didn’t mean to do it. In fact, I meant to do the exact opposite of what I ended up doing.

Funny how life works out that way sometimes, isn’t it? But the good news is that terrible ideas can lead to great ideas … even if it takes longer than your pride would like to get you there. That's pretty much what happened to me.

So what’s this thing I’ve done?


What if I told you I had developed a system that helped you identify rhetorical bias in your news sources? What if I told you this system works on other information sources as well? Topic doesn't matter. Neither does charisma or background. The math treats everyone equally and the scores reveal the rhetoric style.

Would you be interested in tweeting me links to interviews with public figures who interest you in exchange for finding out where they land on my scale?


I hope so, because I now that I have my system, I’d really love to build a library while showing you how it can help you.

So what do I need?

This system is most accurate in analyzing dialog between equals. So I need LINKS to interviews and conversations.

Peer-to-peer conversations are best, and I would love links to clips or transcripts of interviews between people in the public eye.

Learn more about Pirate Lenses here.

Tweet LINKS to videos or transcripts of dialog @SheralynPratt and classify individuals of interest.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

First Paperback of 2018

Every so often people email me asking me when I'm going to start putting my books out in paperback. I've put it off for a number of reasons, but this year I decided to put all those reasons aside and put some books out.

The first offering?



The last book in the Rhea Jensen series, Walk of Infamy.

Now available at Amazon.

I intentionally wrote this book both as a conclusion to the series and a standalone for anyone who wants to read it as a supplement to the Pimpernel series, without having to read the whole series.

Hope you enjoy!!!

Synopsis:

Rhea always knew she worked for powerful men, but she didn’t understand the full scope of their influence until she quit her job—or tried to. 

The clandestine group that calls themselves The Fours doesn’t accept two-week’s notice from employees. Instead, they’re demanding Rhea perform a final task of their choosing to earn a life free from their demands. 

Rhea knows whatever The Fours ask of her will be unlike any challenge she’s ever faced. She’s prepared for the worst, but what she’s about to learn is that groups like The Fours are a secret for a reason. 

Because no one gets to walk away from them. Not even Rhea.


Thursday, December 14, 2017

Chapter 18

I don't think this counts as a spoiler because I'm not telling you anything that happens, other than confessing that there's some sleight of hand in the book.

To better visualize it, either before or after reading the book, I present you with two magicians: