I think there is a tradeoff being elided here between exploring and exploiting. I don’t think it works well in the improv case just because comedy is supposed to be absurd or whatever.
If there’s lots of “low-hanging fruit” spread throughout the search space (as in comedy), then a pure “yes and” strategy can be effective and efficient. But if the proverbial fruit is very rare and hard to reach, it make sense to more strictly prune certain pathways according to validated principles and heuristics. The cost of such validation is a key factor in which approach is optimal.
When it comes to collaborative truthseeking, I don’t think there’s always a specific side of the explore-exploit tradeoff that makes sense. Even with something like math, it often makes sense to start by “brainstorming” (i.e. use a “yes and” strategy), which gives everyone a better sense of the space. This can be followed up with by pointing out the potential problems with each idea (often cheaper to batch this kind of processing), at which point maybe a more focused brainstorming finds the key insight, and then the solution is written up rigorously (i.e. with a “no because” strategy).
(None of which is to say I don’t think it’s usually a good idea to clear up confusions or misconceptions during this sort of activity.)
I think there is a tradeoff being elided here between exploring and exploiting. I don’t think it works well in the improv case just because comedy is supposed to be absurd or whatever.
If there’s lots of “low-hanging fruit” spread throughout the search space (as in comedy), then a pure “yes and” strategy can be effective and efficient. But if the proverbial fruit is very rare and hard to reach, it make sense to more strictly prune certain pathways according to validated principles and heuristics. The cost of such validation is a key factor in which approach is optimal.
When it comes to collaborative truthseeking, I don’t think there’s always a specific side of the explore-exploit tradeoff that makes sense. Even with something like math, it often makes sense to start by “brainstorming” (i.e. use a “yes and” strategy), which gives everyone a better sense of the space. This can be followed up with by pointing out the potential problems with each idea (often cheaper to batch this kind of processing), at which point maybe a more focused brainstorming finds the key insight, and then the solution is written up rigorously (i.e. with a “no because” strategy).
(None of which is to say I don’t think it’s usually a good idea to clear up confusions or misconceptions during this sort of activity.)