Navigating conversations can often be a bit of a tightrope walk for me. Sometimes, despite my best efforts, they don’t always go as smoothly as I’d like. Like a few weeks ago, I found myself deep in a chat with a new acquittance over lunch. We how public schools to tailor their teaching to individual students. It’s a topic I’m quite passionate about. Yet, somehow, right in the midst of this important discussion, things took an unexpected turn.
Me: Public schools really need support the different learning styles of our kids more.
ChatGPT Plus (GPT-4 December 23, 2023). I told it to read the Transcript of Taylor Tomlinson’s floaties bit and show how talking about mental health could get us off course. Then I edited it.
Friend: Absolutely. I don’t understand why they think all kids learn the same.
Me: I know, it should be more like ChatGPT, adapting to each individual student.
Friend: Exactly! Why can’t we use tools like that in the classroom.
Me: Right, and speaking of supports, I saw a great Netflix special by Taylor Tomlinson. She talks about how having a mental illness is like not knowing how to swim. If you don’t know how to swim there are certain things you can’t do. But there’s a secret. You can get floaties. And once you have your floaties, you can do anything. People may judge you for using your floaties, but you can lead a much happier life if you ignore the criticism and just wear them.
Friend: You’re right. Mental health is a complicated thing that needs more support…
And there, the conversation ends up being about mental health, a topic I didn’t mean to discuss, and it was my fault! The background about the Taylor Tomlinson bit on floaties wasn’t the point. I wanted to get across the idea that “Taylor Tomlinson had a funny thing on Netflix. She said that some people need supports like in swimming. If you don’t swim there’s certain things you can’t do. But if you have floaties you can go anywhere. Sometimes people make fun of your floaties but you have to ignore them.”
I had some ideas about why this happened but wanted to dig deeper. Conversations, much like rivers, ebb and flow based on the contributions of those involved. I couldn’t restrain myself from telling the whole story about the floaties because it was really interesting. But such a long tangent placed the conversation squarely in the realm of mental health.
I figured a good way to learn more about conversations was to examine two different types of conversations—conversations with ChatGPT and conversations that happen in improv comedy. I figured I’d start with thinking about how ChatGPT worked. Watching a conversation between two people is a little difficult. It’s unclear how it evolves because both participants play off of each other. But with ChatGPT, one of the parties is always serving the other.
With ChatGPT the software listens (figuratively speaking) to what the user says, acknowledges the input, and then builds upon it with relevant responses. This mirrors a productive human conversation where each person’s input is recognized and expanded upon, creating a flow of ideas. The beauty lies in how each response is tailored, keeping the dialogue engaging and relevant, much like a game of catch where each player not only catches the ball but also adds a new, creative throw.
The “Yes, And” Principle in Conversations
Another way of looking at conversations is through improv games. During improv games, the two players are given a topic and they work together to build out a skit (really a conversation) about that topic. Often the premise they are given is absurd and part of the fun is figuring out how they will get out of it. But by working together they end up with an awesome and humorous result.
With ChatGPT, the system is the servant of the user. With Improv, the players serve each other. This idea of serving each other is formalized in the foundational Improv rule of “Yes and.” Each player accepts what the pervious person has done (“yes”) and then builds on it (“and”). It’s like they are making a salad together with each person adding another ingredient to the result. Just to be clear, it’s not about literal agreement with the statement but more of an “I heard what you said, and now I’m going to respond.” This rule prevents one player from blocking or shutting down the ideas of someone else. “Yes, and” provides the lubricant for a more open and rich conversation.
Derailing a Conversation
Looking at Improv as our laboratory we can see how subscribing to “Yes, and” can lead to a successful conversation while ignoring it can cause serious issues. If you’re trying to make a salad and you add lettuce, tomato, onions, and dressing, you have a tasty salad. But if you have lettuce, tomato, turkey drippings, and vodka you have something very different.
Let’s start with the successful conversation. It’s fun to start with an absurd premise, like “Our cat is funning for mayor!”
Mayor Cat Scene (Using Yes, And)
Player 1: “Our cat has decided to run for mayor.”
Player 2: “That’s brilliant! Our city could use a leader with cat-like reflexes.”
Player 1: “Exactly, she’s already planning her first speech.”
Player 2: “I bet it’s about increasing the city’s mouse-catching efficiency.”
Player 1: “And don’t forget her plans for mandatory nap times.”
Player 2: “A well-rested city is a happy city! She must have a great campaign team.”
Player 1: “Absolutely, her running mate is a goldfish who’s an expert in aquatic affairs.”
Player 2: “Perfect duo! I can see the campaign slogan now: ‘Paws and Fins for a Better Tomorrow.'”
But when one person doesn’t abide by “Yes, and” things go awry. This is true even when the person disagreeing is “right.” Take a look at this example.
Mayor Cat Scene (Without Using Yes, And)
Player 1: Our cat has decided to run for mayor.
Prompt: “Give an example of how not subscribing to “yes and” can ruin an improv skit, then show how a performer can get it back on track.
Player 2: Cats can’t be politicians.
Player 1: That’s why it’s a groundbreaking campaign!
Player 2: Cats can’t speak to the public.
Player 1 : She communicates through impactful actions.
Player 2: Animals can’t be on the ballot.
Player 1: She’s running as a write-in candidate.
Player 2: No one will vote for a cat.
Player 1: Her charm is winning hearts and minds.
Player 2: A cat can’t hold office.
Player 1: She’ll be a symbol of progress and change.
You might ask what happens when there’s a real disagreement. Can you still use “Yes, and.” The answer is Yes! and here’s an example.
Person A: I think we should start our project with thorough research. Jumping into action without enough data is risky.
Prompt: You How can you use “Yes, and” when two people disagree?
Person B: Yes, having solid research is crucial for the project’s success. I’m, also think we should consider the deadline for this project. Maybe we can start with some preliminary action that isn’t dependent on the research. This way, we keep moving forward and gather data.
“Yes, and” is even more important when people disagree. Here’s why:
- Acknowledgment: By saying “Yes,” Person B shows that they are listening and respecting Person A’s point of view.
- Adding New Perspective: The “And” part isn’t a direct contradiction but an addition to the conversation. It’s like saying, “Your point is valid, and here’s another angle to consider.”
- Avoiding Confrontation: This approach sidesteps direct confrontation. The goal is to expand the conversation, not to win an argument.
- Opening Doors for Further Discussion: By introducing a new perspective, you’re inviting the other person to explore the topic further, which can lead to a more rounded and productive discussion.
Remember, “Yes, and” is not about pushing an agenda or agreeing to something you don’t believe in. It’s about creating an environment where people can collaborate and build something together. When people disagree, “Yes, and” can create an environment where different perspectives can coexist and be explored.
Living the Improv Game of Great Conversations
A great conversation mirrors a great improv game. Great conversations are about two people building on each other’s ideas, with the unpredictability and potential for discovery making them fun and interesting. Engaging in conversations with this mindset is not just talking; it’s co-creating, exploring, and playing in the grand improv game of human interaction.
This is part of a series of posts I’m co-writing with GPT-4 using ChatGPT Plus. Here’s the first chat.