LMD Async Tutoring

[LMD]

From your article Intuition and Rationality

People trying to be “rational” often suppress their intuitions, emotions, hunches, gut feelings, and other ideas that they can’t articulate in words. They strongly favor explicit ideas, clear sentences and arguments. They favor the ideas of the conscious mind over the ideas of the subconscious mind. This is a kind of incorrect or fake rationality.

A lot of what follows is just a log entry of my thoughts as they came btw.

I first split the paragraph up into sentences. Then I number each sentence.

[1] People trying to be “rational” often suppress their intuitions, emotions, hunches, gut feelings, and other ideas that they can’t articulate in words.

[2] They strongly favor explicit ideas, clear sentences and arguments.

[3] They favor the ideas of the conscious mind over the ideas of the subconscious mind.

[4] This is a kind of incorrect or fake rationality.

(This makes it easier to refer to later, and also it helps you to keep track of the original order of the sentences. In the past, I’ve made paragraph trees that did strange things with regards to the original order of the sentences, and this measure is intended to acknowledge that original order. Like, they were put in that consecutive order for a reason, and while it doesn’t tell you everything, it should be kept in mind.)

I think [1] is the main paragraph. [2] feels like a corollary of [1], but not like a logical corollary? I’m not really sure how ‘corollary’ should be used properly actually. The dictionary definitions are a big logic-y so might avoid it.

Its like they favour [2] instead of favouring [1]. [2] as an alternative to [1]. Hmm no, I think I’m looking at the meaning of e.g ‘X’ rather than the full meaning which is “People trying to be rational do X”

[2] does seem like a part of [1] in the sense that, someone trying to be rational and suppress inexplicit ideas, is suppressing them for the sake of explicit ideas. Part of strongly favouring explicit ideas, is favouring inexplicit ideas less. But that would make [1] a part of [2]. Ahh.

Okay I’ll come back to it.

I think [3] is a kind of summary or restatement of what the first two sentences mean together, and it connects inexplicit/explicit ideas to the subconscious/conscious minds.

And I think [4] is a judgment about that summary idea.

Maybe just ‘instead’ between [1] and [2] is okay for now.

Tree:

Time ~31mins.

[Elliot]

@LMD

Then I number each sentence.

Good idea.

@LMD

Tree:

The tree is structured incorrectly. Let’s revisit it later and try this:

Make a paragraph tree for fiction. Use an easy text.

[LMD]

Okay, from The Goal by Eli Goldratt:

I go in and take a seat. Peach is standing at the far end of the table. A slide projector sits in front of him. He’s starting to talk. A clock on the wall indicates it’s exactly eight o’clock.

so:

[1] I go in and take a seat.

[2] Peach is standing at the far end of the table.

[3] A slide projector sits in front of him.

[4] He’s starting to talk.

[5] A clock on the wall indicates it’s exactly eight o’clock.

Okay. It seems to me there is a main thing happening in the paragraph, and then there are details that describe the scene. I’ve never done a fiction paragraph before, so I’m not sure what the main node could be.

[1] I think is the main thing happening. He is going into a room and taking a seat. The rest describes the room/scene he is entereing.

So it seems like a lot of the sentences are answering questions that better paint the picture of the scene?

time ~10mins

[Elliot]

The first sentence of a paragraph is most often the root node for both fiction and non-fiction. Having an earlier sentence as a child of a later sentence is somewhat uncommon and if the first sentence wasn’t the root you would have that. It’s similar to how individual sentences work where there is a standard order that stuff goes in but English allows some options for putting things out of order but that’s less common than having it in the regular order.

Your tree structure is good. The relationships are reasonable and valid. They’re kinda focused on content/meaning. There’s another way to do them which uses more generic terms so they’ll vary less from paragraph to paragraph. It’s more focused on grammar and structure. This is fine for now but we’ll want to learn the other way too.

Do 3-5 more paragraph trees from The Goal. Pick paragraphs like this one where you think the tree isn’t one straight line in order.

[Elliot]

Any problems or just a bit busy?

[LMD]

@Elliot

Any problems or just a bit busy?

Both actually, I’m moving soon and the process is disturbing my schedule a lot. I think soon I will have more of a handle on it.

I went through 3-4 paragraphs yesterday but I ended up with ones that, only after further analysis, turned out to be pretty linear. I was going to post them, but decided not because I felt rushed and a bit frustrated. I think a problem is selecting paragraphs myself and then questioning whether I’ve picked one that’s too hard, or too easy, or something. I got a bit frustrated by having to second guess that part when I just wanted to focus on the relationships between sentences.

Should I just post some I did anyway?

[LMD]

Did some typing retesting this morning:

monkeytype english 1k 60 seconds:

58/100
55/100
56/100

quotes

60.59/100
50/100
56/98.81

key.br 60 seonds:

52.88/98.5
55.55/98.92
56.9/100

I think I’m definitely seeing accuracy improvement.

[LMD]

Here are a few. I did the first one today; the rest are from yesterday. All from The Goal:

---

I walk down to a door into the plant and go inside. From my briefcase, I get the safety glasses I always carry. There is a rack of hard hats by one of the desks over by the wall. I steal one from there, put it on, and walk inside.

[1] I walk down to a door into the plant and go inside.

[2] From my briefcase, I get the safety glasses I always carry.

[3] There is a rack of hard hats by one of the desks over by the wall.

[4] I steal one from there, put it on, and walk inside.

He is going into the plant, and putting on safety gear.

[1], [2], and [4] are actions that he takes. [3] is a description of where the hard hats are.

---

The news this morning befits the messenger. The first quarter has just ended, and it’s been a terrible one everywhere. The division is now in real danger of a shortfall in cash. All belts must be tightened.

[1] The news this morning befits the messenger.

[2] The first quarter has just ended, and it’s been a terrible one everywhere.

[3] The division is now in real danger of a shortfall in cash.

[4] All belts must be tightened.

So I think the main idea is that there is bad news being delivered, and there are details about the news and what it means.

It’s hard to tell whether [4] is part of the news given, or if [4] is a consequence that the narrator understands upon hearing the news.

Actually, also, it’s hard to tell if [3] is part of the news too. It kinda seems like [2] is a summary of the news, and that [3] is a consequence, and [4] is a kind of solution to [3].

---

The plant has the look of a landmark. It’s as if it has always been there, as if it will always be there. I happen to know the plant is only about fifteen years old. And it may not be here as many years from now.

He is describing the plant.

[1] The plant has the look of a landmark.

[2] It’s as if it has always been there, as if it will always be there.

[3] I happen to know the plant is only about fifteen years old.

[4] And it may not be here as many years from now.

[LMD]

I just did this one too:

As I round a corner and enter one of the work areas, I happen to surprise three guys sitting on a bench in one of the open bays. They’re sharing a newspaper, reading and talking with each other. One of them sees me. He nudges the others. The newspaper is folded away with the grace of a snake disappearing in the grass. All three of them nonchalantly become purposeful and go off in three separate directions.

[1a] As I round a corner and enter one of the work areas,

[1b] I happen to surprise three guys sitting on a bench in one of the open bays.

[2] They’re sharing a newspaper, reading and talking with each other.

[3] One of them sees me.

[4] He nudges the others.

[5] The newspaper is folded away with the grace of a snake disappearing in the grass.

[6] All three of them nonchalantly become purposeful and go off in three separate directions.

I split sentence [1] up into two clauses labeled [1a] and [1b].

[Elliot]

@LMD

I went through 3-4 paragraphs yesterday but I ended up with ones that, only after further analysis, turned out to be pretty linear.

That’s OK. If you do more, you’ll get experience with what to look for to indicate non-linearity.

@LMD

I think a problem is selecting paragraphs myself and then questioning whether I’ve picked one that’s too hard, or too easy, or something.

If it’s from The Goal and it doesn’t take you a long time, then it’s probably OK on difficulty. Some other books have much harder passages.

@LMD

[1] I walk down to a door into the plant and go inside.

[2] From my briefcase, I get the safety glasses I always carry.

[3] There is a rack of hard hats by one of the desks over by the wall.

[4] I steal one from there, put it on, and walk inside.

He is going into the plant, and putting on safety gear.

[1], [2], and [4] are actions that he takes. [3] is a description of where the hard hats are.

I wouldn’t make a linear tree for this.

I see walking as topic. The paragraph is about his walk.

Then I see two sub-plots. While walking, two things come up: safety glasses and hard hats.

I don’t think the hard hats should be a child of the safety glasses. I don’t think they directly have anything to do with the glasses. Instead, I think they’re more information about the walk.

Then the metaphorical stealing is directly related to hard hats, not another separate part of the walk.

Does that make sense? If so, try to explain what new thing you figured out that you could use in the future, and try that tree again. I think you have (or had) either a misconception or are missing a piece of knowledge that’s pretty important to doing these trees.

I also disagree about the relationships but I want to focus on structure first.

[LMD]

I think the thing I thought that [3] had to do with [2] was that [3] was next in a sequence of getting safety gear on, so it should be after [2].

But thinking of them as sub-plots means that, they can be parallel to each other. Actually they’re kind of parallel in time anyway. Looking at the paragraph if you made sentence [2] the last sentence of the paragraph, the meaning basically doesn’t change (the ‘and walk inside’ bit in [4] might be a problem with that though?) Otherwise, there isn’t actually any crucial, sequential information there. So them being separate and parallel makes sense.

@Elliot

Does that make sense? If so, try to explain what new thing you figured out that you could use in the future, and try that tree again. I think you have (or had) either a misconception or are missing a piece of knowledge that’s pretty important to doing these trees.

It does make sense. I can see that hard hats and glasses are things that happen on the walk. And I think if i was trying to use my intuition more, I could’ve picked those three things as the main things in the paragraph. I think I wasn’t looking out for something like sub-plots. I was looking for actions and non-actions (like descriptions), and the sequence they were in.

I’ll try think about sub-plots, or sub-topics, more in the future. And try to find the main things e.g hard hats and glasses.

Here is a new tree. I changed the sub-plot nodes to ‘meanwhile’, because they’re happening during the walking.

[Elliot]

@LMD

I think the thing I thought that [3] had to do with [2] was that [3] was next in a sequence of getting safety gear on, so it should be after [2].

Here’s how a sequences of steps works as a tree:

A sequence is a whole which is divided into parts. The parts should be its children.

Does this make sense?

The tree structure would also be the same if the steps can be done in any order, so it’s not a sequence, just a multi-part project:

Clear?

If things are grouped together – if they are different parts of the same group or whole – then they should be siblings.

Note that it works the same with bullet point outlines but looks different because those are made horizontally (this would be more obvious if you used more whitespace to indent each level so the levels don’t overlap). If you make horizontal trees with the root on the left they’ll look more similar to outlines. In that case, you will get a vertical list of steps in a sequence which will be siblings.

• sequence
  • step 1
  • step 2
  • step 3

Here you can see a vertical list but the steps are siblings. It’s just oriented differently with nesting going to the right whereas you usually make trees with nesting going down.

Does this help?

@Eternity

[Elliot]

Maybe this will help too. Here’s a sample plot outline:

• fantasy book
  • chapter 1
    • get sword
    • train
  • chapter 2
    • travel to dragon
    • fight dragon
  • chapter 3
    • rescue prince
    • happily ever after

Look at how sequential stuff like the chapters are done. (It looks normal to you, right?) Then make two trees of this: one with root on top and one with root on left (in mind node i think you can just copy/paste one tree and change the orientation).

Also try making an (incorrect) bullet point outline of this fantasy book using the same approach you were using for the paragraph tree. (If you have trouble finishing it because you can’t recapture your old mindset, that’s fine, just stop. The assignment is just to give it a try and see how it goes.)

[LMD]

@Elliot

A sequence is a whole which is divided into parts. The parts should be its children.

Does this make sense?

@Elliot

Clear?

If things are grouped together – if they are different parts of the same group or whole – then they should be siblings.

@Elliot

Does this help?

Great, yes! This totally makes sense. A tree is not a flowchart (which is kind of how I was previously doing it.)

@Elliot

Look at how sequential stuff like the chapters are done. (It looks normal to you, right?) Then make two trees of this: one with root on top and one with root on left (in mind node i think you can just copy/paste one tree and change the orientation).

Also try making an (incorrect) bullet point outline of this fantasy book using the same approach you were using for the paragraph tree. (If you have trouble finishing it because you can’t recapture your old mindset, that’s fine, just stop. The assignment is just to give it a try and see how it goes.)

Yes, an outline like that looks normal. Cool yup I can see the relationship between the two trees.

Here is an incorrect bullet point outline:

• fantasy book
  • chapter 1
    • get sword
      • train
        • chapter 2
          • travel to dragon
            • fight dragon

Yeah I can already see this is bad. One thing is that if everything is in a sequence like this, then the chapter headings are kind of out of place, cos they aren’t part of the sequence of the plot, they just help group the parts of the plot; so you need like, two sequences. A chapter sequence and a plot sequence. But then you can’t see how the plot parts are grouped into chapters. So you need an outline to show the grouping of plot parts into chapters.

Cool, I think this has been helpful.

So sequential events in a paragraph tree are going to be siblings, that are parts/children of a main thing?

[LMD]

Will a paragraph tree always have a root node? Is it possible that all sentences are siblings whose root is elsewhere? Perhaps in a previous paragraph?

[Elliot]

All trees unavoidable have a root node. If there’s no topic sentence, then maybe you’d have an implied clause as the root. Or a paragraph could also be written/structured badly so the nodes don’t fit together well.

You may also find informal stuff, mostly in fiction, that’s non-standard in some way without being bad, like fiction authors write a lot more sentence fragments (on purpose) than non-fiction authors. It’s stylistic. They also write more poetic stuff. I’m sure they also take liberties with paragraph structure. You may also run into issues with dialog.

I think it’s hard to discuss this much without examples but feel free to bring it up again if you find some.

[Elliot]

@LMD

Here is a new tree. I changed the sub-plot nodes to ‘meanwhile’, because they’re happening during the walking.

Can you describe what you think “meanwhile” means and how it’s normally used?

[Elliot]

@LMD

The news this morning befits the messenger. The first quarter has just ended, and it’s been a terrible one everywhere. The division is now in real danger of a shortfall in cash. All belts must be tightened.

Review this tree and see if you still agree with it or want to remake it.

[LMD]

@Elliot

@LMD

Here is a new tree. I changed the sub-plot nodes to ‘meanwhile’, because they’re happening during the walking.

Can you describe what you think “meanwhile” means and how it’s normally used?

I haven’t looked it up, and my idea is something like: while that is happening. Coincident. Happening at the same time.

I guess it intuitively seems to be used more to break away to another separate scene, and less within the same scene? I don’t know.

[LMD]

@Elliot

Review this tree and see if you still agree with it or want to remake it.

Okay. Main ideas: news and… belts?

• news
  • bad quarter
  • division in danger
• belts
  • must be tightened

I’m not sure. I didn’t initially feel that great about it. And I suspect it’s wrong because you’ve drawn attention to it. I can feel myself guessing different ways it could be, but I think there’s something here I don’t understand.

What’s the root node? Is it really the first sentence? Maybe [2] is the root node, in which case the news is the root node. But I’m not sure if all 2, 3, and 4 are the news, or just some of them.
if 2, 3, and 4 are the news, then maybe they are all siblings and a child of 1, the ‘bad news’ node.

I guess it just seems like [4] is a child of [3] because ‘all belts must be tightened’ kind of follows from ‘danger of shortfall in cash’. and [3] a child of [2] because ‘division is in danger of shortfall in cash’ is a detail about the ‘terrible quarter’.

I’m really not sure what I think the tree should be.