????我們正在穩步地從一個質的世界走向一個量的世界，不僅僅是在科學領域，甚至在政治、運動、大眾娛樂和其它創造性領域也是一樣。

????面對這股潮流，很多抵御派感到消極失望，甚至是惱怒。這些抵御派大多年紀在45歲以上（但并不是說每個45歲以上的人都是抵御派），他們中的許多人認為數字失于精致，標準缺乏感情，數據沒有戲劇性，而且數字化的視角不易于人類理解。他們這么想有充分的理由，而原因就存在于人類的DNA里。

????人類早就進化成為一種愛講故事、愛讀故事、愛聽故事的生物。早在公元前2000年左右，美索不達米亞平原上就誕生了史詩《吉爾伽美什》（Gilgamesh），它也是現存最早的文學作品。從那時起，人類就開始用故事的形式解釋我們的生活和我們的世界。故事不僅僅是我們探討世界的方式，也代表了我們對世界的解讀，如何把我們神經的沖動和反應結合起來，以理解我們當下所處的環境。而環境中有太多太多的數據點，不可能全部單純地靠數字的方式來解決。

????對我們大多數人來說，我們熟悉的敘事習慣已經被數據顛覆了，尤其是自從2005年左右以來。現在，我們不必在一串打包整合的故事中聽我們想聽的內容，而是可以直接選擇我們想要聽到、觀看到的那一部分內容。

????觀看體育節目的時候，與其看完整場比賽，人們更愛看精彩時刻。以至于美國國家美式橄欖球大聯盟（NFL）的一支橄欖球隊甚至考慮在比賽的過程中，在球館的記分板上播放NFL的RedZone頻道。音樂方面，人們更喜歡聽某幾首歌曲，而不是聽完整個專輯。甚至人們對圖片和視頻中的影像的喜愛超過了真實的生活體驗。比如你到任何體育比賽或音樂會去轉轉，你就會發現，我們大多數人更感興趣的是捕捉下這一刻的鏡頭，而不是真實感受它。也就是說重要的不是參加這個活動，重要的是告訴全世界我參加了這個活動。現在很多人覺得，我們通過一塊高清屏幕就可以體驗整個世界。事實也的確如此，從今年夏天開始，我們只要戴上一個能上網的現實增強技術的眼鏡，就可以把我們自己和屏幕融為一體，用數字化的手段解讀世界。

????這一切意味著，如果你的年齡在25歲以下，那么你很有可能將成為繼《吉爾伽美什》敘事時代之后，一個新時代的主動參與者。

????但是數字化的生活并不是生活的本質。

????要想深刻地傳達信息——不論是因果論、原理、洞見、喜劇或是戲劇，要想真正感動觀眾——不論他們是一個人還是一百萬人，數據仍然需要會講故事，因為人們生來就是感情動物。

????對于在數碼時代仍然關心怎樣講故事的人來說，問題是我們怎樣能同時取二者的長處？如何建立一種新的敘事方式，讓它既涵蓋了量化的需求，也照顧了質的需求？

????坦率地說，電視在這方面做得很差，而體育節目尤其不擅長把數據統計創造性地融入到節目里，最多只不過是把比賽的分數和時間顯示在電視上。體育節目很擅長為我們帶來多個實時信息流，但是非常不擅長利用數據給我們觀看的內容帶來任何新的維度。

????We are steadily moving from a qualitative to a quantitative world, not just in the sciences but also in politics, sports, mass entertainment and many other creative endeavors.

????The old guard—mostly over 45 (but not everybody over 45!)—is somewhere between despondent and angry over this state of affairs. Many of these people feel that numbers lack nuance, that measurements lack emotions, that data lack drama, and most of all that numerical insight lacks human understanding. And they've got good reason to feel this way, because it's in their DNA.

????Human beings have evolved as storytellers, readers and listeners. Dating back to at least 2000 BC and the writing of the Gilgamesh—the epic poem from Mesopotamia, regarded as the first surviving piece of literature—we have explained our lives and the world around us in story. Narrative is not just how we discuss the world, it's how we interpret it, how we bundle our neurological impulses and responses to make sense of our immediate environment, which has far too many data points for us to ever live solely by the numbers.

????But narrative has been digitally disrupted for most of us, since the mid-aughts. Now, instead of experiencing a packaged story we're able to simply choose the bits and pieces we want to read, listen to, or watch.

????In sports, watching highlights has trumped the experience of the game, so much so that one NFL team is considering showing the RedZone channel on their stadium scoreboard during games. In music, songs have trumped albums. Images captured as pictures and video now trump the experience of life—go to any sporting event or rock concert and it's clear that most of us are far more interested in capturing the moment than truly experiencing it. It's no longer about being at the event, as much as it's about showing the world that you were at the event. Many of us now feel we can experience the world through an HD screen. Indeed, as of this summer we can merge ourselves with the screen by putting on a pair of internet enabled glasses that provide us with a steady stream of augmented reality and digitally annotates our life.

????All of which means that if you are under 25 there's a good chance you are an active participant of the first generation since the Gilgamesh not compelled to put life into a narrative, if for no other reason than you're too distracted.

????But the bits of life are not the guts of life.

????In order to communicate causality, theory, insight, comedy or drama in depth—in order to truly move audiences, whether they be one person or millions—data still need narrative, because people are hardwired to be moved by emotion.

????For those of us who care about storytelling in the digital age, the question has become how do we get the best of both? How do we create new forms of storytelling that incorporate the quantitative into the qualitative?

????Television, frankly, has been awful at this. And sports television in particular has been surprisingly awful at creatively integrating statistics into its coverage. For the most part it has simply littered the screen with scores and tickers—it's done a great job of bringing us multiple streams of real-time information, but it's done a lousy job of using data to bring any new dimension to what we're watching.