From 8f17eaf556e41b112eb93283988003bbc999211c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:21:22 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] edit pass to "'Yes, and' Requires the Possibility ..." I'm not totally satisfied, but this version is significantly better. --- ..._requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md | 22 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md b/yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md index cc201a1..bc95df3 100644 --- a/yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md +++ b/yes_and_requires_the_possibility_of_no_because.md @@ -6,24 +6,28 @@ Scott Garrabrant [gives a number of examples to illustrate a principle that "Yes ---- -Practioners of [improvisational theater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvisational_theatre) have a principle of "Yes, and": when an actor [offers](https://improwiki.com/en/wiki/improv/offer) an element of the scene being portrayed, their fellow actors are supposed to accept the proposal as the reality of the scene ("Yes"), and respond with their own complementary proposal ("and"). +In the art of [improvisational theater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvisational_theatre) ("improv" for short), actors perform scenes that they make up as they go along. Without a script, each actor's choices of what to say and do amount to implied assertions about the fictional reality being portrayed, which have implications for how the other actors should behave. A choice that establishes facts or gives direction to the scene is called an [_offer_](https://improwiki.com/en/wiki/improv/offer). If an actor opens a scene by asking their partner, "Is it serious, Doc?", that's an offer that the first actor is playing a patient awaiting diagnosis, and the second actor is playing a doctor. -The practice of "Yes, and" is important for maintaining momentum while building out a coherent reality for the audience. 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 reply, "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, and adding new elements to the scene (the villain's name and the double agent). +[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 coherent reality for the audience. -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 efforts. The actors must collaborate in building a shared reality, even if their characters are in conflict. Persistently ["blocking"](https://improwiki.com/en/wiki/improv/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). +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). + +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). ---- -Proponents of [collaborative truthseeking](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ckwzjbfHTCdPs2Y4J/collaborative-truth-seeking) think that many discussions benefit from a more "open" or "interpretive" mode in which participants are expected to be curious about each other's models and to prioritize constructive contributions in which participants build on each other's work rather than tearing each other down. +Proponents of [collaborative truthseeking](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ckwzjbfHTCdPs2Y4J/collaborative-truth-seeking) think that many discussions benefit from a more "open" or "interpretive" mode in which participants prioritize constructive contributions that build on each other's work rather than tearing each other down. + +The analogy to improv's "Yes, and" doctrine writes itself, right down to the subtlety that collaborative truthseeking does not discourage disagreement as such—any more than the characters in an improv sketch aren't allowed to be in conflict. What's discouraged is the persistent blocking of offers, refusing to cooperate with the "scene" of discourse your partner is trying to build in order to illuminate what they're trying to communicate. Partial disagreement with polite elaboration ("I see what you're trying to get at, but you seem to be missing that ...") is typically part of the offer—that we're "playing" reasonable people having a cooperative intellectual discussion. Only wholesale rejection ("That's not a thing") is blocking—by rejecting the offer that we're both playing reasonable people. -The analogy to improv's "Yes, and" doctrine writes itself, right down to the subtlety that collaborative truthseeking does not discourage disagreement as such—any more than the characters in an improv sketch aren't allowed to be in conflict. What's discouraged is the persistent blocking of offers, refusing to cooperate with the "scene" of discourse your partner is trying to build in order to illuminate what they're trying to communicate. Whatever you might think of your interlocutor's contribution, it's not hard to respond in a constructive manner [without lying](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MN4NRkMw7ggt9587K/firming-up-not-lying-around-its-edge-cases-is-less-broadly). Like a good improv actor, you can accept their contribution to the scene/discourse ("Yes"), then add your own contribution ("and"). If nothing else, you can write about how their comment reminded you of something else you've read, and your thoughts about that. +Whatever you might privately think of your interlocutor's contribution, it's not hard to respond in a constructive manner [without lying](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MN4NRkMw7ggt9587K/firming-up-not-lying-around-its-edge-cases-is-less-broadly). Like a good improv actor, you can accept their contribution to the scene/discourse ("Yes"), then add your own contribution ("and"). If nothing else, you can write about how their comment reminded you of something else you've read, and your thoughts about that. -Reading over a discussion conducted under such norms, it's easy to not see a problem. The author said a thing, a commenter said something about how that thing reminded them of another thing, the author replied that that reminds them of a third thing. Information is being exchanged, right? That's good, right? +Reading over a discussion conducted under such norms, it's easy to not see a problem. People are building on each other's contributions; information is being exchanged. That's good, right? -The problem is that while the individual comments might (or might not) make sense when read individually, this kind of social exchange, however pleasantly harmonious, isn't really a conversation unless the replies connect to each other in a less superficial way that risks blocking. +The problem is that while the individual comments might (or might not) make sense when read individually, the harmonious social exchange of mutually building on each other's contributions isn't really a conversation unless the replies connect to each other in a less superficial way that risks blocking. -When something says something wrong or confusing or unclear, their partner's options are either to block by forcing them to address it, or cover it up to keep the scene going—the latter having the result that falsehood, confusion, and unclarity accumulate as the interaction goes on. +What happens when someone says something wrong or confusing or unclear? Their partner's options are either to block by forcing them to address it ("No, that's wrong, because ...", "No, I didn't understand that"), or let it pass in order to keep the scene going—the latter having the result that falsehood, confusion, and unclarity accumulate as the interaction goes on. There's a reason improv is almost synonymous with improv _comedy_. Comedy thrives on absurdity: much of the thrill and joy of improv comedy is in appreciating what lengths and cleverness the actors will go to maintain the energy of a scene that has long since lost any semblance of coherence or plausibility. The rules that work for improv comedy don't even work for (non-improvised, dramatic) fiction; it certainly won't work for philosophy. -The only way an author could reliably expect discussion of their work to illuminate what they're trying to communicate is if they knew they were saying something the audence already believed. If you're thinking carefully about what the other person said, you're often going to end up saying "No" or "I don't understand", not just "Yes, and": if you're committed to unconditionally validating your interlocutor's contribution to the scene before providing your own, you're not really talking to _each other_. +The only way an author could reliably expect discussion of their work to illuminate what they're trying to communicate is if they knew they were saying something the audence already believed. If you're thinking carefully about what the other person said, you're often going to end up saying "No" or "I don't understand", not just "Yes, and": if you're committed to validating your interlocutor's contribution to the scene before providing your own, you're not really talking to _each other_. -- 2.53.0