Improvising plot-driven sets might not come quite as naturally to bottom-up thinkers. How do you figure out the type of thinker you are, and how does it affect different parts of your improv practice?
There are many different types of thinkers and neurotypes. Every thinker can think in different ways, but will be wired in a specific way that can be detected in brain scans.
There will be overlaps in the ways people think, and there are variables that affect your process. For example, even the term “neurodivergent” is loaded and sometimes controversial. It started off as a way to make autism become more accepted and understood by society, but the term has of course evolved and caused a lot of discussion and debate and disagreement.
But neurodivergent and neurotype are often used to refer to the different ways a person processes information, different thinking styles. And they’re related to todays topic: top-down and bottom-up thinking.
The way we think affects the way we learn, do, and perform improv. And different ways of thinking can complement your scene partner(s) and balance out a team and/or show.
It helps to have a detailed (or at least thoughtful) understanding of what each person brings to a team in terms of their strengths. And this strength can include the way we think or process information.
And it also helps to understand this for YOURSELF. You can focus on getting really, extra, bonus-level good at what YOU do good. Do all the things, learn all the things, and play to your natural strengths most often.
The podcast episode for this article
This article was originally a podcast episode, in this case episode 3. This article has a number of differences from the podcast episode, so even if you listened to it you might gain some additional insight from this article.
I also tend to remove some content that I spoke about (or never made notes for it, maybe…). So there will likely be some additional content in the pod ep, and additional stuff here.
I tend to add and revise, and especially now since quite some time has passed since I recorded this one. Anyway.
You can find the podcast ep here if you want it:
Listen
Embed of episode audio TBD! For now find it on http://jendehaan.substack.com
Using details to build concepts
This article will cover one of those types – bottom up thinking. I’ll explore how this form of cognitive processing affects a specific thing in improv: narrative plot lines (including unintentional forays into plot-driven sets).
Note: Bottom-up thinking affects a lot in improv, much more than just plots. I will cover bottom-up thinking in several different contexts in other articles and episodes.
Autism, as its own neurotype, has several different ways of thinking or processing. Bottom-up thinking (or bottom-up processing) is common amongst autistic people.
And the relationship with plots or plot lines might also be affected by ADHD and auditory processing mixed in. Probably other things too. It’s often hard to know where one thing begins and another ends. But the main point here is to figure out how it all works for you in your own brain.
What is bottom up thinking or processing
So what is bottom-up thinking and top-down thinking?
Top-down thinking takes prior experiences into account to sort of form a concept, hypothesis, a general idea — then clarify data through learning details.
Top-down will take one piece of new info and map it to a generalized idea they already know. You deduce things.
Bottom-up thinking operates in the other direction. You take in the details, all the small details from any source, in a rather thorough manner. Then you put those details together in order to form some kind of theory, concept, or understanding.
Bottom-up thinkers are not used to making generalizations or hypotheses until after the details are sussed out. In fact, making assumptions (or… hypotheses) prior to information gathering can aggravate me! Despite it being a very standard way of doing science – nothing wrong with it.
However, I will say things like “why are we even talking about this when we’re just making assumptions or guesses. Let’s get all the details first.” Or I’ll have to think about something before discussing further.
I’ve said these sorts of phrases a lot to people. I’m that person (well, at least when I’m not masking I guess). And if I don’t say this, and I’m put on the spot to try and top-down process a high-stakes issue, I might sweat and act bonus-level weird.
But: it’s the default wiring I acquired, maybe it’s yours too.
An inductive approach to information
So bottom up processing of information is an inductive approach. You get all the details before forming a concept, an overview, an opinion, or make a decision. It’s the way I put these articles/episodes together (or anything else): I barf everything out while researching or brainstorming more, then categorize, then summarize, then refine (though will often continue to add more detail… still).
I guess I should add all the while I will think and monologue in my head about all of the data on loop while refining my eventual summary/hypothesis/opinion. Fun? Exhausting? It’s fun! It’s exhausting! Especially if I’m really into the topic.
So bottom-up thinking can be slower than top-down! Both ways have advantages. So you might want to approach thinking differently to do certain things. I can remember very distinctly needing to do that big leap for a gut-feeling top-down walk-on. Scary as hell when you start out doing your first walk ons, for example.
But today one of my very favorite things to do is a “leap before you look” kind of move or initiation. It’s all a process.
How does this connect to improv, anyway
Bottom-up thinkers want all of the information. At least I do. You absorb every detail, take in the sensory information, look for patterns or repetitions, look for connections, and then make decisions based on that collective as opposed to one of those pieces of data.
I do not assume. I don’t like to guess. Aside: Any other bottom-up thinkers in the house willing to add a comment about your feelings on short form guessing games? Oof.
But of course bottom up thinking is GREAT for connections, callbacks, edit moves.
Note: You might be the improviser who gets VERY annoyed when details in a set or scene don’t line up. And letting go, rolling with the gist, and leaving those things unchecked might be hard. You connect or fix when you should for the audience and let go when you must… but letting go might be with gritted teeth. Feel me?
There are pros and cons to everything. Neither of these types of thinking are better. Top-down can be efficient. Bottom-up can be innovative.
The mode you think in affects what you are looking at and watching for in a scene. Because you are processing all of those ideas and concepts in the moment in your own way. So you just end up seeing different things than your scene partner(s).
Both types of thinking are good for different things in a long form set.
Supported with brain scans of THE BRAIN
And the way you process information is a measurable thing in EEG studies, for example. This isn’t pseudoscience or memes. There are measurable pictures of the wiring regarding how signalling in autistic brains and allistic brains are different.
You can think in different ways to your neurological wiring, however. The bottom up thinker can do top-down thinking, for example, but you can’t change your built-in wiring.
So if you do happen to be operating against your default wiring, it can be uncomfortable. You notice it. You might expend more energy, or not be as efficient in the way you perform a task. But it’s possible.
So: Both types of thinking or processing are fundamental ways of learning that cannot be changed. Top-down or bottom-up is not a preference or a style, it’s hard wiring and you have a default.
But as such, allistic and autistic brains together make a powerhouse of an improv team when we play to each of our strengths.
How does processing affect improv sets
Bottom-up thinking affects the way you do improv, and it can therefore affect plot-driven sets. Now, as always, this is only my individual improv preference and experience and there’s no right or wrong here.
Other people with the same neurotype as I do can experience this a bit differently or even quite differently. The style of improv you practice and how long you’ve been doing it, for example, will cause a difference. Other variables, like ADHD and auditory processing disorder, can affect things too.
So the main idea here is to take in all those details and figure out where you’re personally at. Most of this is about noticing, assessing, and moving forward with that new data.
Plots, long form, narrative, and you (or… me)
I do love watching long-form narrative that has a single plot-line. I love watching sets with those long plot lines following a traditional story arc.
But doing it? l reckon I’ll mostly leave this style of improv to the pros at narrative probably and stick with the style that seems to be a better fit for me. Because so far all my attempts have made my brain go “uh, nope. Not yet, anyway.”
And of course it does NOT mean bottom-up thinkers can’t do or succeed at plot-based sets. I’m sure many of you reading this can and do. Maybe it’s easy for some of this neurotype. Also: many of us love challenges. Maybe this is one of them, and that makes it attractive for some even if it’s not natural to their wiring.
But: I am primarily a game-of-the-scene style improviser. I love patterns. I love literal. I love repetition. I love game. And I also love bringing back a callback from half an hour ago.
So, for me, story arc plot lines just aren’t my thing and I think you need that context for what I’ll explain here. So if I end up in something plotty… as we ALL probably do at some point (or can)… what then for someone whose brain is of the “uh, nope” variety. Let’s talk about that.
What I do, on a high level, I think
Sets that turn plot-centered can still have some of game-like elements in them, and that’s what I’m here to add if I can. For example, I might try to notice details and connections first, before wrapping them into the big picture other players build.
I still keep it honest and try to play to my strengths. It’s better for the team, the set, and my brain. So it’s kinda a win-win even if we end up doing plot.
So if things end up very plot or story-arc driven and I start sweating, I might take a backseat role… if it works out. I might focus more on:
Bringing character game (mine or frame others’)
Walk-ons (supporting/bit characters)
Moves that don’t drive the narrative but might add to or accentuate it
Connections and callbacks to specifics/details from anywhere
I let the people who enjoy the plot and enjoy driving things that way to do it. If someone is driving plot, even outside of narrative improv, they probably enjoy it.
I’ll try to support the best I can by bringing in those patterns, connections, and character game into supporting characters. I’ll try to stay out of the plot the best I can. I’ll do support moves that try to add and not drive story/plot so I don’t mess it up.
And if you can’t do those things? Roll with it and commit hard.
Either option is fun.
Are there risks?
Will disaster ensue in your make-em-ups? Uh oh!
Sure, I suppose. There’s a risk if you’re bringing plot in to, say, a game-based set with game-based players (if that’s the case). The risks might include dropping high-level gist, or missing subtext, or screwing up the story arc type.
But also: it’s improv. It’s art. Creativity. And usually low-stakes. So, I think we can relax beating ourselves up for something like this. Never beat up yourself for supporting other improvisers when things just happen to go a certain way.
You support and commit and try and learn and… that’s enough. Maybe you decide to avoid that in the future. Maybe you learn it’s some cool new thing to explore if whatever happened worked for your team.
I can sometimes do top-down thinking, which I tend to think is better suited for MY brain and these larger arcs and subtext. I don’t doubt I could get used to plot and story and thinking this way in improv too if I practiced it regularly and… enjoyed it.
But, for now, it’s just forcing me to go against my natural inclinations/wiring and preferences. More spoons, more effort (which IS okay). So if I set out to do narrative, to “do plot”, I might be fine — but even then it might not be my go-to or a notable strength.
And I think that’s okay.
Note: Captions are also available in zoom, so if you’re doing online improv, try using them and see if it makes a difference in following plot. Anecdotally it can be very helpful for bottom-up processors following plot and storyline in movies.
Understanding what you bring to the table (not an excuse)
Give it some consideration if you haven’t already, and see what works well for you and what feels to go against your thinking type or preferences. Is there a way for you to modify your practice so you can find your focus for these kinds of scenarios?
These episodes and articles are to explain, not make excuses. I don’t think we need excuses. And this won’t stop me from doing plot-based improv, either, despite it not being my strength or what I find particularly fun (I guess, or yet).
Of course this doesn’t mean this type of improv is bad in any way. But we may fit into various styles in different ways, MAYBE somewhat informed by neurotype. We all have our individual strengths on a team and in whatever style we’re doing at the time.
I use these kinds of considerations to try and make me fit best with whoever I’m playing with in the moment doing whatever the heck we happen to be doing.
If I’m aware of my natural or learned strengths it just helps me perform better with whatever I’m placed in. I might notice or understand my teammates better too.
Test and optimize your play
You can do test your neurotype against improv styles too, if you want. It might help you optimize how you play. You recognize what is harder for you, and also what’s easier or a strength. Make decisions based on that knowledge. Strategize. Empower yourself through this kind of understanding.
But to do this, you have to test things out. You have to try what goes against your natural ways of thinking.
So I invite you to try it all, and get coached by as many different people as you have access to (remember online classes exist and is perfect for cognitive learning and testing due to variety and access). Never stop learning!
So teammates, realize: some improvisers might be bottom up processors and are playing to best suit their neurotype. And I think that this kind of understanding can potentially make our teams tighter and stronger as a result.
It’s not what I’m missing, it’s about what I’m bringing to the table. A TEAM is a collection of strengths. And my weakness is something you do, and vice versa. We all need each other for balance.
That’s a kinda cool thing — represented by improv — in life too.
Thanks for stopping by, improv friend!
Thanks for reading! This article and the podcast episode it was based on was written/hosted/produced/whatever by me, Jen deHaan. You can blame me for the whole thing, it’s my fault. Who the hell am I? Here.
Contact: Find the contact form for this podcast at my site FlatImprov.com/substack. See the FlatImprov site and its separate newsletter for other shows, jams, classes, and podcasts.
Next improv class: I have another character class on April 13th at WGIS. It’s a one-day workshop and it will be fun and you will learn new things about bringing YOU into your characters so they are relatable, interesting, and easier to create on the fly. Start with grounded and heighten from there.
And improv, you’ll learn stuff about that too.
REMINDER: I am alternating weeks of content. Podcast episode one week, written article the next.
If you think you might want more content (extra podcast or article(s) per month) on this stuff, and/or for me to keep writing this ‘cause you find it useful or whatever (??), let me know by making sign up to this site.