# LMD Async Tutoring
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933
**Category:** Tutoring
**Created:** [April 23, 2024, 12:05am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933 "2024-04-23T00:05:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 26
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2024, 3:02am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/502 "2024-08-03T03:02:59Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> I think both your options for what’s being restated are incorrect and there’s a major textual clue (using a standard pattern) which helps guide the reader to know what’s being restated.
Is the pattern you’re talking about the fact that it’s a prepositional phrase of the form: ‘from x’?
I briefly considered that the restatement be a child of the first ‘from’ but I decided against it. I can’t exactly remember why. I think it had something to do with thinking of a preposition’s inputs when thinking of it as a function. Also I think to do with an analogy to the last restatement I did where the restatement was a child of the infinitives, and not the ‘to’ infinitive marker. I think I drew the analogy to prepositions that they’d work like that. It seems plausible that that is what I was thinking
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2024, 3:19am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/503 "2024-08-03T03:19:55Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> If you’re resisting it pretty strongly you could drop it and focus elsewhere but otherwise I’d suggest using it for problem solving practice.
Yeah I agree. I’m not resisting it strongly, and I’d like to figure it out.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> So, one thing is having a positive attitude: not thinking you “should” be doing better, succeeding faster.
Yeah and I think I have been doing this (thinking I “should” be doing better). And I think I have trouble with being impatient on some tasks that I’m not good at, or some task once I get stuck, or once I start making errors. I feel averse to slowing down or doubling back, focusing in, or repeating something a number of times in different ways. I kind of always feel like I want to move on to the next thing, or at least to not change too much what I am doing.
It’s funny I seem to worry a lot about how much time some things take up in my life, but I’m not very organised with my time that I do have. And when I’m practising stuff I might be averse to slowing down or just focusing patiently on some detail because I feel like it is now going to take more time than I thought. It scares me sometimes how little time I might actually have to get really good at something, and it’s ironic that that could make me misuse the time and ensure I don’t get really good at it. Hmm.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2024, 3:50pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/504 "2024-08-03T15:50:53Z")
I think
> from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds
is restated as
> from the intransigent innovators
Repeating a word is a hint that there’s a restatement and helps you know what text the restatement matches (line up the matching parts when you see some sort of parallelism, with exact matches being the simplest and clearest).
Also, “from X” doesn’t work grammatically as a restatement of something with no preposition.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2024, 2:23am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/505 "2024-08-04T02:23:17Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> I think
>
> > from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds
>
> is restated as
>
> > from the intransigent innovators
Yeah, this is what I meant by ‘from x’. I meant those two prepositional phrases that start with the word ‘from’.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Also, “from X” doesn’t work grammatically as a restatement of something with no preposition.
I’m a little confused about this. I think I know what this means, but I’m not sure why it’s being said. I think there’s been a misunderstanding somewhere.
Oh is it that I said that the pattern is that there is a prepositional phrase in the form ‘from x’? I meant that there are _two_ preposition phrases that repeat the same starting preposition ‘from’. Like that there are two of them with the same form: ‘from x’. I didn’t mean to say that any phrase of the form ‘from x’ suggests that it’s a restatement.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2024, 2:47am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/506 "2024-08-04T02:47:42Z")
> [@LMD](#):
>
> > [@Elliot](#):
> >
> > Also, “from X” doesn’t work grammatically as a restatement of something with no preposition.
>
> I’m a little confused about this. I think I know what this means, but I’m not sure why it’s being said. I think there’s been a misunderstanding somewhere.
>
> Oh is it that I said that the pattern is that there is a prepositional phrase in the form ‘from x’? I meant that there are _two_ preposition phrases that repeat the same starting preposition ‘from’. Like that there are two of them with the same form: ‘from x’. I didn’t mean to say that any phrase of the form ‘from x’ suggests that it’s a restatement.
This is a way of ruling out it restating something else such as “work and integrity”.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2024, 3:00am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/507 "2024-08-04T03:00:59Z")
Oh I see. yes, that makes sense. So, given the restatement is of the form ‘from x’, it should be modifying something grammatically like it. And “work and integrity” is not like it so we could rule it out.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2024, 3:15am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/508 "2024-08-04T03:15:38Z")
Here is my updated tree:
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2024, 3:27am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/509 "2024-08-04T03:27:49Z")
> [@LMD](#):
>
> So, given the restatement is of the form ‘from x’, it should be modifying something grammatically like it.
Restatements always modify what they restate.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2024, 3:59am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/510 "2024-08-05T03:59:09Z")
While practising some sentences that include restatements, I’ve encountered some problems with the new concept of the finite and non-finite verbs. I’ve made some smaller practise trees to check my understanding. Do the following trees appear correct?
> [1] The funds were held without permission
> [2] The held funds were released
> [3] Some laws ought to be revoked
I got a bit confused by ‘held’ and ‘revoked’ and thought they were finite verbs too, but (I think?) there is just one finite-verb per clause, and therefore they’re non-finite verbs (participles in this case.) I think these make sense if so.
edit:typo
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2024, 3:19pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/511 "2024-08-05T15:19:01Z")
> [@LMD](#):
>
> Do the following trees appear correct?
yes
> [@LMD](#):
>
> but (I think?) there is just one finite-verb per clause
yes usually. you can have a compound verb like “sang and danced”.
finite and nonfinite verbs can have the same spelling. sometimes you have to look at their role in the sentence and meaning.
when you see a chain of verby things in a row like “will have been eaten”, the finite verb is normally the first one.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 6, 2024, 5:38am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/512 "2024-08-06T05:38:51Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> yes usually. you can have a compound verb like “sang and danced”.
>
> finite and nonfinite verbs can have the same spelling. sometimes you have to look at their role in the sentence and meaning
great. thought so.
This sentence by Rand contains two restatements and has some finite verb stuff too:
Ayn Rand in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
> In law and in principle, all property belonged to the head of the tribe, the king, and was held only by his permission, which could be revoked at any time, at his pleasure.
So two restatements:
> the king
is a restatement of the noun phrase:
> the head of the tribe
and then:
> at his pleasure
is a restatement of the prepositional phrase:
> at any time
The tree for this sentence is:
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 6, 2024, 6:43am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/513 "2024-08-06T06:43:39Z")
That tree is missing the word ‘only’. I forgot it when I made the tree. I’m not sure whether it modifies ‘was’ or ‘held’. It seems like it modifies ‘was’.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 6, 2024, 7:40am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/514 "2024-08-06T07:40:21Z")
Here is some writing I did this morning. Sharing because its relevant to my problem with daily scheduling.
> I’ve started to take more seriously how I schedule my day.
>
> The problem I was having was that some assignments I had were not being done, even when I had a lot of time. I have broadly, three or four assignments: typing practise, daily writing practise, baba is you, and general tutoring (whatever specific topic we are working on in the thread). On days where I had a lot of free time, I would generally just do general tutoring, and neglect all the other assignments, with some exceptions. I would consistently start tutoring at about 10am. Earlier if I woke up a lot earlier, later if some things came up that I thought were more urgent.
>
> So, what i have tried now, is having a few of these other assignments first in the day. I started having my morning look like this for the first 1/2 an hour:
>
> 10:00: 15 minutes typing
> 10:15: 15 minutes writing
> 10:30: breakfast
>
> This has so far worked well broadly. I have been doing this routine for 3 days now. A problem I noticed is that I don’t have enough time between typing and writing to think about something to write about. Today I have inserted a 5 min block between typing and writing to solve that. It seemed to work okay, and I’m going to try that out for a little while and see if I get any problems.
>
> Another problem I noticed today, is that there are things that come up in the morning that need organising before I do tutoring. Like, I might have an email I need to reply to, or you know, general daily/life organisation stuff. I could put a 15 minute block before 10am where I organise my day. But it has been hard to get up before 9am for the past few days because I’ve quit caffeine cold turkey and it’s caused me to get some bad sleep (very mild insomnia, but mainly it’s the muscle pains in the night. I wasn’t expecting the withdrawals to be so physical. But I can see after looking it up after the fact that that’s typical of caffeine withdrawal.) I think the 10am start is working well and if I try to push it earlier before the withdrawals lessen, then it might mess with the routine. So tomorrow, I’m going to try to start at 10am with a 15 minute block of doing small urgent tasks for the day, and some planning, before I start with those blocks of typing/writing.
>
> I’m enjoying having breakfast after I do these two activities. I never actually ate breakfast before usually. But now that I’ve stopped drinking caffeine I notice that I kind of crave it, and it feels like I have something to look forward to after 30 mins of practising. I worry that this is evidence that I am coercing myself into doing these things first thing in the morning, by like giving myself a reward. I feel good having done the daily writing, but it’s harder to start and it’s hard always to think of something to write about. I think that is my main problem with it? I don’t like feeling stuck just talking to myself and kind of listing things that I’m doing today or whatever. Today has felt good, like I have a problem that I’m working on that I’m writing about, but initially the writing task made me feel a bit anxious and avoidant. I want to be able to solve problems like this without coercing myself, but I wonder if that’s actually quite hard and I need more philosophy skills first.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [August 6, 2024, 4:58pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/515 "2024-08-06T16:58:05Z")
I don’t think “at his pleasure” is a restatement. I think it’s just another modifier for “revoked”.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2024, 12:59am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/516 "2024-08-07T00:59:51Z")
Oh okay. I hadn’t considered that.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2024, 1:10am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/517 "2024-08-07T01:10:54Z")
With multiple potential modifiers, check if they make sense with “and”. Like with “big red car”, “big and red car” works. But with “very hot water”, it doesn’t make any sense to say the water is both “very and hot”.
“revoked at any time and at his pleasure” works. “I like my dog and Lassie” doesn’t work if it was a restatement and Lassie is your dog’s name. “the head of the tribe and the king” would mean they are separate people (though it depends on the surrounding words); it doesn’t work for a restatement.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2024, 1:33am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/518 "2024-08-07T01:33:05Z")
That’s a great tip, thanks!
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2024, 2:28am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/519 "2024-08-07T02:28:38Z")
Okay, another two Rand sentences with restatements.
(these and previous Rand quotes have all been from the one essay titled _What is Capitalism?_ in her book _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_)
* * *
> . . . material production was regarded as a demeaning task of a lower order, unrelated to the concerns of man’s intellect, a task assigned to slaves or serfs since the beginning of recorded history.
(I believe I’m using ellipses correctly. afaik I’ve never used them before)
I think that
> a task assigned to slaves or serfs since the beginning of recorded history.
is a restatement of
> a demeaning task of a lower order, unrelated to the concerns of man’s intellect
Tree (with restatement subtree in blue):
* * *
> The social recognition of man’s rational nature—of the connection between his survival and his use of reason—is the concept of individual rights.
I think that
> of the connection between his survival and his use of reason
is a restatement of
> of man’s rational nature
Tree:
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2024, 2:38am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/520 "2024-08-07T02:38:37Z")
Was production _regarded as_ “a task assigned to slaves or serfs” or was it “a task assigned to slaves or serfs”?
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2024, 2:53am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/521 "2024-08-07T02:53:49Z")
Oh yeah, it _was_ a task assigned to slaves or serfs. It wasn’t simply _regarded_ as a task assigned to slaves or serfs.
So “a task assigned to slaves or serfs” is not a restatement.
Material production was “regarded as a demeaning task” _and was_ “a task assigned to slaves or serfs”.
So “a task assigned to slaves or serfs” is a child of “was”.
[Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933.md?page=25)
[Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933.md?page=27)