asakiyume | "No, but" versus "yes, and"

I was listening to a talk the other day, and the speaker was talking about how she preferred "yes, and" phrases to "no, but" phrases when talking about someone's ideas.

In general I favor this approach too. Conversation that builds up rather than breaking down is energizing and encouraging. But you can't only use "yes, and." Sometimes you want to disagree or criticize. The speaker seemed to think that even in those situation you could/should cast what you're saying as a "yes, and." The example that came up was the speaker's criticism of the Black Panther movie. She was saying that she loves it, that it's great, but that it has problems--among them, it holds up a model of a single important person, a king, who makes all decisions. But unlike me in the previous sentence, she didn't phrase this using "but." She used "and." ("It's a great movie...and it has this problem")

You can do that, but changing the conjunction doesn't really change the valence of what you're saying. Why not just acknowledge the criticism by starting what you say next with a "but"? Sometimes it's fine to criticize! Furthermore, criticism doesn't have to be destructive--as the speaker herself was showing. She clearly did like the movie.

Maybe what would satisfy both her desire to stay positive and my desire to own the criticism is "yes, but." Yes, I agree/like this, but I have a refinement or criticism to add.

Hey, and then there's also "No, and," which is even more negative than "No, but," right? Like with "No, but," you're saying no, but you're also saying "but," which means there's some point of commonality, whereas with "No, and," you're going to town with your criticisms--you've got more than one!

Wohoo, I think we can do a business-article-style four-quadrant graph:

OMG my dayjob is invading my journaling...

Crossposts: https://asakiyume.livejournal.com/917041.html

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

sovay

Wohoo, I think we can do a business-article-style four-quadrant graph

I like the implications of "No, but" as a form of criticism: there are problems here, but here's the good stuff.

From:

asakiyume

Yeah, I do too; in fact, I feel like it's almost as positive as "yes, and," maybe more so in some cases, because it shows a willingness to reach beyond difference, whereas "yes, and" implies unity of thinking.

From:

sovay

it's almost as positive as "yes, and," maybe more so in some cases, because it shows a willingness to reach beyond difference, whereas "yes, and" implies unity of thinking.

I like that a lot.

From:

st_martin_a

I'm with you on using 'but'.
I like being positive too but 'and' doesn't always work.
:/

From:

asakiyume

And I really think being honest with both yourself and the person you're talking to about the nature of what you're saying is important. You can't hide a criticism behind an "and"

From:

sartorias

Interesting discussion, though I find that tone of voice supersedes conjunctions. Maybe even yes or no.

From:

asakiyume

Absolutely true, both about the conjunctions and the yes and no. And people will perceive the true message regardless of the words.

Somehow in my mind this is linked up with what I call false Socratic method. This is when a teacher has been told that they should get students thinking by asking questions, but really they want to impart a particular piece of information or outlook--so they ask questions, but they're not sincere in wanting to hear the students' thoughts; they want to cajole or joggle or lead them to the conclusion they have in mind. I guess what I see as similar is a reliance on form over content: it's not the form of a "yes, and" that shows encouragement--it's what else you're saying, and beyond that, your evincing of enthusiasm, your openness, etc. And similarly, you're not doing Socratic questioning in good faith if you're pushing students to a conclusion--that's merely the form of questioning but not the spirit.

From:

sartorias

Yes! That is especially true in sales scams and the like. No matter what you say, they'll smile and burble something cheerful then blow over your words entirely "Yes, my heart's desire is to ride a bicycle to the moon!") and tell you what they want you to hear.

From:

randomdreams

I don't even know if that's a false socratic method. He pretty definitely used it to convince people, not to just show them how to analyze.

From:

asakiyume

OMG NOW I HATE SOCRATES!

From:

randomdreams

The best propaganda is disguised as self-help, right?

From:

asakiyume

Yes! Ditto the best brainwashing, the best reeducation....

From:

amaebi

He may be a Mensch, but he's not the kind of Mensch he's typically sold as.

From:

amaebi

I was so disappointed when I first read some of the dialogues and found out how he cheats.

From:

ladyherenya

The "false Socratic method" sounds like what I've heard referred to as "guess what's in my head" questions. (This came up in the context of things teachers shouldn't do.)

From:

asakiyume

Based on what

randomdreams says about genuine for-real Socratic method, sounds like this is what I ought to use as my name for the phenomenon rather than "false Socratic method."

From:

amaebi

So yes this.

From:

minoanmiss

*reads and contemplates*

(I think that's kind of a specious criticism of Black Panther -- why is it worse/suddenly notable that BP has a monarchy than Wonder Woman or Aquaman or The Inhumans or every Disney movie or any other fictional property based around a monarchal society?)

From:

asakiyume

Believe me, this woman was full of big love for BP--she challenged anyone to appear in her social media saying she didn't love it. I think she'd agree with you 100 percent that it's a problem in any traditional tale/comic etc. and not a special problem in BP. I don't want to argue her argument for her because I'm sure she could do it better than I can, but possibly she was so jazzed by BP that it made her wish for even more.

But yeah, if she--or anyone--were to single out BP for special criticism on that front, that would be hypocritical and well deserving of a sideye.

From:

minoanmiss

Oh, good. :)

From:

amaebi

Or for that matter: why in the name of heaven should every literary/filmic work depict Someone's Ideal Society?

From:

asakiyume

I agree with you that there's no reason that every work should depict someone's ideal society, and I'm pretty sure this woman would agree. If I had to make a guess, I would say that BP made her so happy in so many particulars that she just wished it could make her happy in all particulars. More broadly, and not speaking about BP in particular, I think she might say that the pattern in stories of having kings and powerful figures who get to make all the choices is one we're used to but it's not one we have to accede to--we can have other types of stories if we want. Not that we're obliged to! Not that we can't enjoy the king ones! But that we can have other types too.

.... but she might say something completely different. I'm arguing based on my imagination of her, which arises from listening to just one recording of her speaking.

Anyway, I want to say again that agree with your point here--I just didn't want to leave you with the impression that this woman did think every work should depict her ideal society.

From:

amaebi

Ah, thanks. No, I wouldn't imagine that. :D

From:

ladyherenya

I can see how "Yes, and" would be helpful during brainstorming-type discussions, when you're just throwing ideas out there and being too critical too early can hinder creativity and participation. ("Yes, or" would be another option).

But lots of discussions are robust enough to deal with criticism! Especially if people don't need to reach any sort of consensus, if you're discussing opinions of a story rather than trying to make progress on a team project, for example.

From:

asakiyume

Absolutely! And especially if it's a free-wheeling sort of conversation, ideas can spring up without even needing to be directly related to earlier ones. I like your "yes, or" because the "yes" part acknowledges what came before," but you can also have simply "How about..." or "I know!" and then whole new directions.

The speaker's emphasis on building up reminded me of Peter Elbow's theory of how to talk about writing, which stressed playing the believing game, where instead of focusing on everything that's wrong with what someone's written, you try really hard to see the thing the writer wants you to see and you work from there. That can be a very supportive way to interact around a piece of writing, especially if a person is feeling very vulnerable and tentative--but people aren't always feeling vulnerable and tentative; sometimes they are plenty robust.