From 2d7b826139b20184dc6a5a7c21e506b89e8c3e6d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:29:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] check in --- the_relationship_between_social_punishment_and_shared_maps.md | 2 +- yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/the_relationship_between_social_punishment_and_shared_maps.md b/the_relationship_between_social_punishment_and_shared_maps.md index 581517a..da0cb9b 100644 --- a/the_relationship_between_social_punishment_and_shared_maps.md +++ b/the_relationship_between_social_punishment_and_shared_maps.md @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ We notice a critical difference between social punishments and physical punishme The linkage between collective beliefs and social punishment creates distortions that are important to track. People have an incentive to lie to prevent negative-valence beliefs about themselves from appearing on shared maps (even if the beliefs are true). People who have enemies whom they hate have an incentive to lie to insert negative-valence beliefs about their enemies onto the shared map (even if the beliefs are false). The stakes are high: an erroneously thrown rock only affects its target, but an erroneous map affects everyone using that map to make decisions about the world (including decisions about throwing rocks). -Intimidated by the stakes, some actors in Society who understand the similarity between social and physical punishment, but don't understand the relationship between social punishment and shared maps, might try to take steps to limit social punishment. It would be bad, they reason, if people were trapped in a cycle of mutual recrimination of physical punishments. Nobody wins if I throw a rock through your window to retaliate for you throwing a rock through my window, _&c._ Better to foresee that and make sure no one throws any rocks at all. They imagine that they can apply the same reasoning to social punishments without paying any costs to the accuracy of shared maps, that we can account for social standing and status in our communication without sacrificing any truth-seeking. +Intimidated by the stakes, some actors in Society who understand the similarity between social and physical punishment, but don't understand the relationship between social punishment and shared maps, might try to take steps to limit social punishment. It would be bad, they reason, if people were trapped in a cycle of mutual recrimination of physical punishments. Nobody wins if I throw a rock through your window to retaliate for you throwing a rock through my window, _&c._ Better to foresee that and make sure no one throws any rocks at all, or at least not big ones. They imagine that they can apply the same reasoning to social punishments without paying any costs to the accuracy of shared maps, that we can account for social standing and status in our communication without sacrificing any truthseeking. It's mostly an illusion. If Alice possesses evidence that Mallory is stupid, dishonest, cruel, ugly, _&c_., she might want to publish that evidence in order to improve the accuracy of shared maps of Mallory's character and capabilities. If the evidence is real and [its recipients understand the filters through which it reached them](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DoPo4PDjgSySquHX8/heads-i-win-tails-never-heard-of-her-or-selective-reporting), publishing the evidence is prosocial, because it helps people make higher-quality decisions regarding friendship and trade opportunities with Mallory. diff --git a/yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md b/yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md index 7310f7f..bb569e3 100644 --- a/yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md +++ b/yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ In the art of [improvisational theater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvisat [A key principle of improv is often known as "Yes, and"](https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/yes-and-improv-rule-77269/) after [an exercise](https://www.dramanotebook.com/drama-games/yes-and/) [that involves](https://www.hooplaimpro.com/yes-and-new-ways-to-play-exercise/.html) starting replies with those words verbatim, but the principle is broader and doesn't depend on the particular words used: actors should ["accept" offers](https://willhines.substack.com/p/accepting-offers) ("Yes"), and respond with their own complementary offers ("and"). The practice of "Yes, and" is important for maintaining momentum while building out a semi-coherent reality for the audience. -Rejecting an offer is called [_blocking_](https://www.thewayofimprovisation.com/posts/2013/06/a-bit-about-blocking.php), and is frowned upon. If one actor opens the scene with, "Surrender, Agent Stone, or I'll shoot these hostages!"—establishing a scene in which they're playing an armed villain being confronted by an Agent Stone—it wouldn't do for their partner to block by replying, "That's not my name, you don't have a gun, and there are no hostages." That would halt the momentum and confuse the audience. Better for the second actor to say, "Go ahead and shoot, Dr. Skull! You'll find that my double agent on your team has stolen your bullets"—accepting the premise ("Yes"), and adding new elements to the scene ("and", the villain's name and the double agent). +Rejecting an offer is called [_blocking_](https://www.thewayofimprovisation.com/posts/2013/06/a-bit-about-blocking.php), and is frowned upon. If one actor opens the scene with, "Surrender, Agent Stone, or I'll shoot these hostages!"—establishing a scene in which they're playing an armed villain being confronted by an Agent Stone—it wouldn't do for their partner to block by replying, "That's not my name, you don't have a gun, and there are no hostages." That would halt the momentum and confuse the audience. Better for the second actor to say, "Go ahead and shoot, Dr. Skull! You'll find that my double agent on your team has stolen your bullets"—accepting the premise ("Yes"), then adding new elements to the scene ("and", the villain's name and the double agent). Notice a subtlety: the Agent Stone _character_ isn't "Yes, and"-ing the Dr. Skull _character's_ demand to surrender. Rather, the second actor is "Yes, and"-ing the first actor's worldbuilding offers (where the offer happens to involve their characters being in conflict). Novice improvisers are sometimes tempted to block when they don't like their partner's offers, but it's almost always a mistake. Persistently blocking your partner's offers kills the vibe, and with it, the scene. No one wants to watch two people [arguing back-and-forth about what reality is](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yr4pSJweTnF6QDHHC/comment-on-four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation). -- 2.53.0