Question: Technology, Technobabble, Handwaving, Disbelief.

[Michael Colton]

I searched the forums for a post on this topic and did not quite find one, though I am sure various comments have touched on it at some point. I have a general question for readers of science fiction regarding the believability of technology.

In what ways do authors manage the concept of technology in their fiction that bothers you? I have heard people disparage meaningless technobabble and I have heard people state they prefer meaningless terms over an author attempting to extrapolate new technologies from actual scientific principles. The argument for the latter being that suspension of disbelief is easier to maintain if real concepts and terms you are familiar with are left out entirely. A recent example of the shattering of disbelief that can happen by including recognizable terms in futuristic settings occurred on the television show Almost Human - in that show, they used bitcoins in their world building. The writers apparently had included this before bitcoins had become an international punchline. This is obviously not a scientific term, but the principle is the same.

Some authors inject technology into their fiction without even attempting to ground it in science - extrapolated or meaningless. The ship simply does travel faster than the speed of light and the reader is expected to accept this. A different author might invent scientific terms or technobabble to 'explain' this feat, but not attempt to ground it in actual science besides throwing in real terms from time to time. And still other authors, such as Schroeder, completely avoid concepts like 'faster than light' travel due to the sheer implausibility of it.

I am not asking whether you prefer hard science fiction or soft science fiction, but rather what ways of handling technology in either category irritates you? It seems to me that this sort of question is much more important for written science fiction than television or film. In science fiction television shows, they can throw technobabble at the viewer at a speed not possible in the written word so that the viewer may not really follow it unless they are actively trying to. Technology is purely a plot mechanic in that case - a sort of filler intended to keep the viewer onboard until the next event occurs. An obvious example of this would be Star Trek - the writers obviously did not care all that much how believable their technobabble was. They simply presumed the audience also did not care (and apparently were right). Whereas a reader experiences the text at their own pace, rereads certain sentences, and thus seems more likely to notice technobabble or take it 'seriously.'

tl;dr version - second paragraph, first sentence; last paragraph, first sentence.

 

[J-Sun]

I'm not sure if this is what you wanted to talk about but the thing that most bothers me is - in stories like, e.g., Aliette de Bodard's "The Waiting Stars", George R.R. Martin's "The Second Kind of Loneliness", Joe Pitkin's "Full Fathom Five" or James K. Isaac's "Valued Employee" or hosts of others - when the story's foreground or face-value structure makes little sense because the foreground is sacrificed to thematic purposes. Ideally, the writer picks a technological element that they are intrinsically interested in which also happens to have thematic resonance they can exploit. I hate SF that doesn't care about what it's actually talking about. And there are two ways to go about it. Some people are really freakin' into it like Chiang trying to speculate on AI in "The Lifecycle of Software Objects" (not his best, which still means it's twice as good as most others can do) and some people aren't really into the precise details, like Isaac Asimov's "positronic robots", but he was absolutely interested in the parameters of the things - logic constraints and so on - and in the actual sociological implications of the things. And, of course, even there, you can make thematic points regarding human illogic and emotion and so on. But then there are those who write stories where the robots aren't metal at all but are symbolic tissue paper for slavery or whatever.

Otherwise, I dunno - it depends on very precise feelings from each individual story. Sometimes convincing bad science is worse than technobabble. Technobabble is innocent and, if well done, can be okay. On the other hand, it can be literally babble. And "near-science" can evoke the dynamics of actual science but it can also be sneakily misleading and damaging to conceptual clarity.

Probably the best way to do it is the either get it right or to step around it and just deal with what the black box does rather than what it is.

tl;dr: metal, not metaphors!

 

[Michael Colton]

I'm not sure if this is what you wanted to talk about but the thing that most bothers me is - in stories like, e.g., Aliette de Bodard's "The Waiting Stars", George R.R. Martin's "The Second Kind of Loneliness", Joe Pitkin's "Full Fathom Five" or James K. Isaac's "Valued Employee" or hosts of others - when the story's foreground or face-value structure makes little sense because the foreground is sacrificed to thematic purposes. Ideally, the writer picks a technological element that they are intrinsically interested in which also happens to have thematic resonance they can exploit. I hate SF that doesn't care about what it's actually talking about. And there are two ways to go about it. Some people are really freakin' into it like Chiang trying to speculate on AI in "The Lifecycle of Software Objects" (not his best, which still means it's twice as good as most others can do) and some people aren't really into the precise details, like Isaac Asimov's "positronic robots", but he was absolutely interested in the parameters of the things - logic constraints and so on - and in the actual sociological implications of the things. And, of course, even there, you can make thematic points regarding human illogic and emotion and so on. But then there are those who write stories where the robots aren't metal at all but are symbolic tissue paper for slavery or whatever.

Otherwise, I dunno - it depends on very precise feelings from each individual story. Sometimes convincing bad science is worse than technobabble. Technobabble is innocent and, if well done, can be okay. On the other hand, it can be literally babble. And "near-science" can evoke the dynamics of actual science but it can also be sneakily misleading and damaging to conceptual clarity.

Probably the best way to do it is the either get it right or to step around it and just deal with what the black box does rather than what it is.

tl;dr: metal, not metaphors!

Interesting that you ended with that sentence after your first point. From my initial perspective, working for the purpose of theme through the use of metaphor would be a form of dealing with one black box through the metaphor of another black box while ignoring the 'essence' or internal functioning of the second one.

That being said, I am not advocating that. I agree that it can muddle things when something as distinctive as robots are used entirely as metaphor, but I also think there are moments when that muddling is precisely what the author is aiming for. I also think that sort of approach is easier to pull off when the metaphorical tool is not as developed in its own right. Using something like nanotechnology at this point in time as pure metaphor would most likely end up falling flat because nanotechnology is so fully matured as its own sphere now.

 

[J Riff]

It's only irritating if there's too much of it. If you can't back up and write tech well, then get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible. Many great authors have done exactly this. Invent a few terms and leave it at that.
Time travel? A staple of SF, and not something you can prove the math for. So make it entertaining if nothing else.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Just something you might want to keep in mind, Sodice: A fair number of our active members are getting on in years, and our eyes aren't what they used to be. If you use a small font when you post a message, some people who might have responded may not, because they won't be able to read what you've written.

I gave up halfway through trying to read your post at the beginning of this thread, because it was a strain on my eyes even after I zoomed in.

 

[Michael Colton]

Just something you might want to keep in mind, Sodice: A fair number of our active members are getting on in years, and our eyes aren't what they used to be. If you use a small font when you post a message, some people who might have responded may not, because they won't be able to read what you've written.

I gave up halfway through trying to read your post at the beginning of this thread, because it was a strain on my eyes even after I zoomed in.

Oh, okay. Maybe the font I picked does not work with your browser or something so it picked a small one, because I did not change the size on my end (unless by 'small' you mean a font with thinner lines and not literally smaller in height, in which case yes I did pick a lighter font). I would change it now, but it has been too long since the post so edit is not allowed anymore.

Here is a direct copy paste with the default font:

I searched the forums for a post on this topic and did not quite find one, though I am sure various comments have touched on it at some point. I have a general question for readers of science fiction regarding the believability of technology.

In what ways do authors manage the concept of technology in their fiction that bothers you? I have heard people disparage meaningless technobabble and I have heard people state they prefer meaningless terms over an author attempting to extrapolate new technologies from actual scientific principles. The argument for the latter being that suspension of disbelief is easier to maintain if real concepts and terms you are familiar with are left out entirely. A recent example of the shattering of disbelief that can happen by including recognizable terms in futuristic settings occurred on the television show Almost Human - in that show, they used bitcoins in their world building. The writers apparently had included this before bitcoins had become an international punchline. This is obviously not a scientific term, but the principle is the same.

Some authors inject technology into their fiction without even attempting to ground it in science - extrapolated or meaningless. The ship simply does travel faster than the speed of light and the reader is expected to accept this. A different author might invent scientific terms or technobabble to 'explain' this feat, but not attempt to ground it in actual science besides throwing in real terms from time to time. And still other authors, such as Schroeder, completely avoid concepts like 'faster than light' travel due to the sheer implausibility of it.

I am not asking whether you prefer hard science fiction or soft science fiction, but rather what ways of handling technology in either category irritates you? It seems to me that this sort of question is much more important for written science fiction than television or film. In science fiction television shows, they can throw technobabble at the viewer at a speed not possible in the written word so that the viewer may not really follow it unless they are actively trying to. Technology is purely a plot mechanic in that case - a sort of filler intended to keep the viewer onboard until the next event occurs. An obvious example of this would be Star Trek - the writers obviously did not care all that much how believable their technobabble was. They simply presumed the audience also did not care (and apparently were right). Whereas a reader experiences the text at their own pace, rereads certain sentences, and thus seems more likely to notice technobabble or take it 'seriously.'

tl;dr version - second paragraph, first sentence; last paragraph, first sentence.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If it's meaningless technobabble for me then it has to be totally unimportant to the story and best if you don't try and explain anything, even if it is "real". Star Trek gets bad when they try and explain anything. Almost every tech featured in Star Trek is probably impossible (But I enjoy some of it esp novelizations of original series). Better SF where the SF is more important has very little technobabble and explains little (Asimov).

Maybe have one or two unlikely inventions (but don't try and explain them then!) unless the SF is really just a fairy story fantasy given an SF appearance (this can work, i.e. Star Wars vs Willow are actually both Fantasy with Magic. Lucas makes a mistake later trying to explain stuff. The 1st film released was good because nothing was explained!).

Anne McCaffery and Urusla LeGuin both have SF as well as Fantasy, but it doesn't have much Technobabble. It's very good

Ian Macleod has Tecnobabble and it distracts from story because he tries to relate it to existing jargon and gets it wrong. So if you do have "technical stuff" either get it 100% correct or else made up technobabble that can't be confused with real mathematics, electronics, biology, computers and physics.

Unless it's important to the plot then don't explain, or else put it in the Appendix like Tolkien.

 

[Ursa major]

If the way the technology works is the point of the story, then it can be hard to avoid going into its details. Then the author should make those details plausible.

But if the point is that the technology does something useful, or if the technology is just part of the setting, then the details can be avoided. After all, one rarely sees the intricacies of petrol or diesel engines being mentioned in non-SF stories where the characters have to make use of cars, buses, lorries (trucks) or trains. (One has to wonder why authors leave out such essential details.... )

 

[Michael Colton]

{snipped for quote size}

Unless it's important to the plot then don't explain, or else put it in the Appendix like Tolkien.

What about explaining function rather than cause? An example I recall from a short story (sadly, I do not remember the author - shame on me) was a rather extensive explanation of how a communication technology functioned but no explanation as to why it functioned that way. The author just let the reader know that long distance communication functioned in a certain way in their world, but never explained how that technology worked or how it had developed that way rather than in other ways.

I could imagine engineers of some sort thinking to themselves, "that is not how communication is progressing," or some such response. But from my perspective, I rather liked that approach because it let me know how a technology was integrated into the world setting in a fairly detailed way without trying to explain to me how it scientifically worked. But then again, I am no communications engineer so I would have no idea how plausible it was.

If the way the technology works is the point of the story, then it can be hard to avoid going into its details. Then the author should make those details plausible.

But if the point is that the technology does something useful, or if the technology is just part of the setting, then the details can be avoided. After all, one rarely sees the intricacies of petrol or diesel engines being mentioned in non-SF stories where the characters have to make use of cars, buses, lorries (trucks) or trains. (One has to wonder why authors leave out such essential details.... )

I am curious as to your response to my above comment, given your initial reply. Detailed explanation of function and operation without giving any scientific basis for it? So in your car example, it would be much like describing the changes in refueling stations, average use of cars, types of cars, functioning of road systems, but without ever explaining why those changes took place.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I don't know the story. But communications is totally constrained by physics (Einstein and many others also Heavyside etc.) and mathematics (Maxwell, Shannon, Nyquist).

You can change the implementation, but not what it really does, unless it's imaginary like the Ansible or Telepathy.

So ...
Normally you'd never explain a diesel engine unless this was germane to the plot. But if you do need it, then you better research diesel engines. With Internet & Wikipedia there is no excuse compared to 20 years ago about getting technical details 'right'.

But usually best to not have them. I know how a smart phone works and even designed one. But even in Star Trek Original they just have the little flip up communicator and thankfully don't explain it. Before launching in to technobabble
Does plot need it?
Do most people know or care how a Microwave Oven, Flatscreen TV, Satellite RX box, Smart phone, Car Engine management, jet engine etc works?
(I know the theory of a Jet engine BTW, but it's the only one on the list I can't design!)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think it depends on your audience, too. A military sci fi book will need some detail about the weaponry and what not - that's what the readers are looking for. A space opera might get away with a bit of handwavium (I use at least a canister-worth per chapter.) For me, I glaze over at technical detail - it might not stop me reading on, though, I'll probably just skip those bits, others drink it in.

As ever, it's the old answer of whatever's right for your story.

 

[Ursa major]

I am curious as to your response to my above comment, given your initial reply. Detailed explanation of function and operation without giving any scientific basis for it? So in your car example, it would be much like describing the changes in refueling stations, average use of cars, types of cars, functioning of road systems, but without ever explaining why those changes took place.

If it wasn't clear, I was suggesting that none of the above need be mentioned if they weren't in some way pertinent to the story (in terms of plot, characters' relevant experiences, etc.). I don't think I've ever read a book which mentioned changes in refuelling stations and the average use of cars. I'm pretty sure I've read stories where makes and models of cars are mentioned; sometimes these are plot-related, e.g. the protagonist keeps spotting a car, so they know they're being followed, or the protagonist worries that the car chasing them is a faster model than their own. I've read stories, I'm sure, where traffic jams, or long open stretches of road, are mention, and some of them may even have given an explanation of why this might be (which may be wrong: the PoV character may have no real idea). I'm not sure much detail was included in any of these cases, and generally nothing at all about the technology, not even mentioning whether the vehicles concerned have petrol or diesel engines.


Having said that.... My WiP1 has: 1) a scene set at an abandoned fuel stop; 2) a scene where the general absence of cars is mentioned, and an explanation given; 3) scenes in which the models and makes of car are mentioned; 4) a scene where there's a sudden disappearance of most of the cars from the traffic after a particular junction. In (1), the state of the fuel stop is a bit of colour and something that drives (no pun intended) the decision making of a character who never visits it. In (2), the PoV character uses it as a hook on which to say something about the way the society is currently organised. In (3), the cars' make and model are simply local colour. In (4), the change in traffic mix allows a mention of a part of the setting that is otherwise never visited, so again its for (non) local colour. Note, however, that I never mention what the engines are and what fuel they use, and I don't say why one vehicle may be faster than another. (The reader may make a stab at this -- the model number may be larger on the faster car -- but it would be no more than a guess: I've never said if the numbers indicate engine "size".)


Oh, and as it happens, I was chatting to a friend of mine yesterday evening -- talk about coincidences! -- and he mentioned that a close relative of his worked for an oil company helping to decide where its petrol stations ought to be sited, and what facilities they should have, based on the social and economic conditions of the surrounding areas, not just the traffic patterns on the roads there. I found it interesting, but I'm not a character in an adventure whose mind might be focusing on more important, more deadly, things.

 

[Michael Colton]

I don't know the story. But communications is totally constrained by physics (Einstein and many others also Heavyside etc.) and mathematics (Maxwell, Shannon, Nyquist).

You can change the implementation, but not what it really does, unless it's imaginary like the Ansible or Telepathy.

So ...
Normally you'd never explain a diesel engine unless this was germane to the plot. But if you do need it, then you better research diesel engines. With Internet & Wikipedia there is no excuse compared to 20 years ago about getting technical details 'right'.

But usually best to not have them. I know how a smart phone works and even designed one. But even in Star Trek Original they just have the little flip up communicator and thankfully don't explain it. Before launching in to technobabble
Does plot need it?
Do most people know or care how a Microwave Oven, Flatscreen TV, Satellite RX box, Smart phone, Car Engine management, jet engine etc works?
(I know the theory of a Jet engine BTW, but it's the only one on the list I can't design!)

Ah, I see I was asking people to read my mind a bit here. The technology I was referring to was a cybernetic implant form of communication - so the author certainly did invent an aspect of it, but never tried to explain how exactly cybernetics happened to develop to that point or the science behind it. It simply just did develop to that point and a large part of the story revolved around it. I wish I could remember the author, but it was not a well-known story. Just something someone sent me a link to.

So in your ST:TOS flip communicator example, it would be like having a story largely revolving around the ramifications of those flip communicators without ever explaining their scientific grounding.

This is part of my perpetual frustration with the subgenres I enjoy most such as postcyberpunk, bioengineering, that sort of thing - the very subgenre relies very heavily on the dramatic consequences of technology but also tends to rely on expressing that without explaining the technology. Because, well, it is not real. Science fiction cybernetics or nanotech extrapolate some pretty drastic leaps away from real life cybernetics or nano.

Oh, and as it happens, I was chatting to a friend of mine yesterday evening -- talk about coincidences! -- and he mentioned that a close relative of his worked for an oil company helping to decide where its petrol stations ought to be sited, and what facilities they should have, based on the social and economic conditions of the surrounding areas, not just the traffic patterns on the roads there. I found it interesting, but I'm not a character in an adventure whose mind might be focusing on more important, more deadly, things.

Your explanation makes sense. I am just trying to figure out whether other readers are quite as forgiving as me when it comes to use of technology. This last paragraph of yours indicates the themes that I personally find the most interesting in quite a bit of fiction: the social and cultural aspects. So because of that, when authors utilize technology to explore those it does not bother me all that much unless it is blatantly implausible or poorly handled.

And as I said to someone above, I think I was asking folks to read my mind a bit too much. Your point about whether or not the explanation is needed makes sense - but where that dividing line between necessary and unnecessary is located varies between readers. For me as a reader, it is often unnecessary. But I have met other readers who apparently find it much more needed than I do. When I ask people why they dislike certain subgenres of science fiction, the lack of explaining the technological development the story relies upon is one of the first things I hear. People seem to forgive space opera quite a bit more than other subgenres because they enter into it fully aware that the technology is a low priority compared to the adventures of the protagonist.

I think it depends on your audience, too.

Yes, precisely. And I am trying to avoid that age-old trap of assuming I am the standard audience.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Thanks for changing the font. Since I don't have Century Gothic, my computer did indeed turn it into something else. That's the problem with the software here: it offers options that don't work for everybody.

But to address your question. I'd take Ursa's example of the automobile. It seems to me that it would make no sense to describe how the internal combustion engine works until and unless something goes wrong and someone is obliged to look under the hood and try to figure out the problem and get things going again.

So with the technology in a science fiction story: my belief is that the author should explain the principles involved if, for instance, something goes wrong and someone has to fix it. If there is tension there as the main character runs the science behind the FTL drive or the cybernetics (or whatever it is) through his mind, in a race to find the flaw and do something about it before things get any worse, then I'll be interested in a detailed explanation whether it is real science or just something the writer made up that sounds like it could be real. Or, another example, if the main character were trying to get funding, and had to argue their case before some governmental body that challenged him to prove his case. Anything like this where explaining the science involved is vital to understanding the plot and the challenges faced by the main characters.

But if there is a scene where characters are taken on a tour of the ship just so that readers will understand the author's nifty theory of how the FTL drive works, or if there is a similar sort of scene in the factory where the implants are made so the writer can explain about those, or anything shoe-horned into the story (infodump/technobabble thinly disguised) so the author can describe the scientific principles at great length, then I'll be bored and start skipping ahead. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that many other readers would do the same.

 

[Michael Colton]

But if there is a scene where characters are taken on a tour of the ship just so that readers will understand the author's nifty theory of how the FTL drive works, or if there is a similar sort of scene in the factory where the implants are made so the writer can explain about those, or anything shoe-horned into the story (infodump/technobabble thinly disguised) so the author can describe the scientific principles at great length, then I'll be bored and start skipping ahead. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that many other readers would do the same.

That makes sense. I think finding that balance between 'under the hood' and just using a car is pretty vital (in other technologies primarily, but I am sticking with the car example). I can see the downside of boring the reader like you mentioned and also risking issues with disbelief if one ignores the details of a technology too much if it is a central aspect of the story. Perhaps part of my inordinate concern with this issue is due to knowing many computer scientists that get frustrated very easily by how an author handles technology. I myself am not in that profession, but many of the people I spend my time with are - and they seem particularly sensitive to it.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Also, if you slip in the information during a scene of gripping action, conflict, or danger, they're less likely to stop and ask themselves questions about whether the whatever-it-is would work or not. They'll be too interested in finding out what will happen next to pick apart your science.

They may go back and do that after they've finished the story, of course, but they are more likely to be tolerant about it if you've just given them a great reading experience.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Action Sequence:
Surely last place you want to put any explanation? Detracts from Action?

Cyber-implant communications:
1) If it's radio based, it can't do anything you can't do today.
2) If it enables telepathy then it can do anything you like.

Anything that doesn't use Electromagnetic waves (Radio) is basically 'Magic' or Telepathy, but of course you can call it anything you like.

Quantum Entanglement can't ever be used for communication. Analogy:
you have two shuffled packs of cards that are identical order, but you don't know the order (quantum entanglement). Doing any operation that doesn't collapse the entanglement affects both equally. Examining the cards to see the sequence destroys the entanglement. So you can never ever use this property to send a signal, not even once, like a hill top bonfire. So Quantum Entanglement can't be used to make an Ansible. It can be used in a complex way to tell if ordinary laser (fibre or air) communication has been eavesdropped on. So for anything other than Electromagnetic waves you have only "magic/telepathy". Semaphore is Electromagnetic wave based as light is carrying the "clacks" arms position.

For point to point links (only) you maybe could use Neutrinos in SF. Still limited to speed of light, but will go through a planet. This is the problem, very problematic to detect as they can go through a planet. Generally inferior to laser or Microwaves for point to point communication unless you need to communicate through a Planet, but fibre or satellites round the outside will work better.

 

[Michael Colton]

For point to point links (only) you maybe could use Neutrinos in SF. Still limited to speed of light, but will go through a planet. This is the problem, very problematic to detect as they can go through a planet. Generally inferior to laser or Microwaves for point to point communication unless you need to communicate through a Planet, but fibre or satellites round the outside will work better.

I actually seem to remember some short stories that threw in neutrino communications - especially after it was pulled off in real life (at a non-useful level, but it meant it was doable). If I remember correctly, there are some researchers theorizing axion-based communications now as well.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Neutrinos are unlikely to be ever used by anyone anywhere except as a demo. See Shannon Limit on my blog. They are so hard to detect (inherently) that signal to noise is very poor. Any Radio or Laser Technology is inherently better.
Again if Axions exist (they may not), they would be even more disadvantageous than Neutrinos.
Absolutely anything that can be varied and then the variation detected at a distance can be be used to create a "Channel". But at the minute nothing known appears to have any advantage over Electromagnetic waves (light, Radio, Infrared, UV, X-rays), nor does anything allow lower latency (The time taken for a change in the channel information initiated at A to be detected at B) than light.

Sad but true.

Some things are poor or can't be done because we don't know how yet (but nothing in Communications sadly). Other stuff is understood fairly well and so we know it can never be any better.
There are also Unknown Unknowns. Stuff we might communicate with that we don't know about. But Shannon will still apply, even if it's something that can beat the speed of light. Current physics suggests you can't signal faster than speed of light (lower latency) unless you "cheat".

What sorts of cheats?

1. Instantaneous micro wormholes. Blast a very high bandwidth message in a femto second before it collapses again.
2. Somehow "fold space"
3. Discover some sort of Hyper or Infra space outside of normal space time.
4. Put the message inside a hypothetical Warp bubble (related to 2). Unless the bubble is self collapsing it destroys your destination.

In my SF I use two methods for Faster than Light Messages:
1) Imaginary Telepaths.
2) A pair of modified space ship Jump drives at A and B in deep space that exchange micro-miniature physical messages (crystals, micro SD cards whatever). c.f. Babylon 5, Stargate and C J Cherryth's Gates.


There are no currently known real methods. Warp bubbles, folding space, jump gates and even instantaneous micro worm holes may all be impossible, though there are mathematics and physics that's suggestive. Usually trying to solve the equations results in needing negative mass (this is not Antimatter, it has positive mass) or more energy than exists in visible universe or both. Of course Hawking Radiation suggests a possible solution if the worm hole is open only for an extremely short period of time. But then then this may be too short to actually signal!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Action Sequence:
Surely last place you want to put any explanation? Detracts from Action?

It depends on how you do it, and of course on the plot. For instance, if the action in question is a character dealing with the technology gone wrong, it only makes sense that person would be thinking about what he/she is doing and why and it could enhance the action by allowing the readers inside that character's mind. Without context (and a chance to identify with any of the persons involved) action may come across as little more than running around and making noise.

Although action doesn't always involve intense activity.