LMD Async Tutoring

[Elliot]

@LMD

I guess it intuitively seems to be used more to break away to another separate scene, and less within the same scene?

Yeah meanwhile is for separate stuff. So “while walking” would be better.

@LMD

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.

I think it’s possible to do it both ways. It also helps a lot to have context so we know what sort of messenger it’s talking about:

When I’m finally able to tune into what Peach is saying, I find he’s turning the discussion over to the division controller, Ethan Frost, a thin and wrinkled old guy who, with a little makeup, could double for the Grim Reaper.

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.

So, taking into account the previous paragraph, first we’re told it’s bad news. Then we’re told what the news is, which can be seen as an additional detail. That’s reasonable.

Rearranging works OK too: there was a bad quarter and, as an additional detail, the badness of the quarter matches Frost’s appearance.

In terms of standard content/meaning, the bad quarter is the main information. It seems more important than the remark about Frost’s appearance. However, the author presents it second. This is a stylistic choice. In this case it’s a very small one: the information is maybe a sentence late, not delayed significantly.

You can make trees that are more focused on modeling what an author wrote, in which case don’t reorder this. You can also make trees that are trying to organize ideas as best you can, in which case this should be rearranged. Both are valid, useful, different types of trees.

For now, I want you to lean towards modeling what the author wrote. Organizing information yourself is more advanced.

If sentence 1 is the root, should 3 go under 1 or 2? The way to decide is by considering whether 3 provides additional details (sub-points or sub-parts) about 2, or if it’s a second part of 1 (like if 1 was broken into multiple parts, or if 1 and 2 go in sequence). Does that make sense?

The answer is: both interpretations are reasonable. Paragraph trees have more good answers than sentence trees do. The rules are less exacting.

Revisit your other trees and see if you want to make any changes.

[LMD]

I wrote this today as part of my daily writing assignment. I went over the scheduled time, which is unusual. I usually am ready to stop after 15 mins or so:

People take for granted that the government should be involved in lots of things. They think it’s good when the government gets involved in things. They think that, in general, the government is good and should be doing more things. They think that one of the main things in the political life of a citizen is finding things for the government to do. Politicians run campaigns saying that they will do certain things. A problem comes up, and some party will be like “hey notice this problem? We care about it, we’ll do something about it.” Many people don’t see any problems associated with government.

But I think the question of what a government should and should not be used for is a very good question; the government is a very specific type of organisation with a specific set of means available to it. It differs in important respects from all other forms of organisation. Whatever the tasks assigned to the government, its means for achieving them are through the threat of force. It uses laws to enforce things. These laws are either already respected by virtue of people agreeing with them, or they’re respected only because the government actually intends to use force against people who don’t comply. On the other hand, a organisation like a business has no recourse to something like laws, because it does not have recourse to the legal use force. Businesses do have policies, but people are under no obligation to do business with them. A business can only function by virtue of serving customers, i.e, by virtue of persuading people.

This force by the government can come in different intensities, but ultimately, continued non-compliance with the government results in more and more explicit force, escalating to the point where they will escort you from your property with armed men to a prison cell. If you resist this successfully enough, they might threaten to use the armed men to kill you. The promise of escalating threats of violence is the foundation of the all of the governments ability to operate as an organisation. Where a business or other organisation must use persuasion, and voluntary consent in its dealings with other men, a government need not.

So, the problem becomes, given an understanding that laws and government policies constitute the threat of force and violence, what purposes, if any, require such a means? Like we mentioned before, force is required to get people to obey laws they disagree with. What is to be done about such a disagreement? Should violence and the threat of force be used against people who disagree? And if so, under what circumstances should force be used, and what circumstances not? What kinds of disagreements make force necessary? So, what should and should not the government be used for?

[LMD]

@Elliot

The way to decide is by considering whether 3 provides additional details (sub-points or sub-parts) about 2, or if it’s a second part of 1 (like if 1 was broken into multiple parts, or if 1 and 2 go in sequence).

Hmm, I think there is something I don’t get. Don’t I consider whether 3 provides additional detail or is a second part of both 2 and 1? It seems like you’re saying I consider just whether it’s a detail about 2, or a part of 1, but not a detail of 1, in principle? Or is the distinction between a detail and part kind of not super clear. Idk this seems like a stupid question but I’m trying to pay more attention to problems I’m having.

[LMD]

@Elliot

The answer is: both interpretations are reasonable. Paragraph trees have more good answers than sentence trees do. The rules are less exacting.

Does my original tree (excluding relationships) looks reasonable to you then? Based on what you’ve said, it looks reasonable to me. (I’ve removed relationship nodes):

[Elliot]

@LMD

Does my original tree (excluding relationships) looks reasonable to you then? Based on what you’ve said, it looks reasonable to me. (I’ve removed relationship nodes):

yes

@LMD

@Elliot

The way to decide is by considering whether 3 provides additional details (sub-points or sub-parts) about 2, or if it’s a second part of 1 (like if 1 was broken into multiple parts, or if 1 and 2 go in sequence).

Hmm, I think there is something I don’t get. Don’t I consider whether 3 provides additional detail or is a second part of both 2 and 1? It seems like you’re saying I consider just whether it’s a detail about 2, or a part of 1, but not a detail of 1, in principle? Or is the distinction between a detail and part kind of not super clear. Idk this seems like a stupid question but I’m trying to pay more attention to problems I’m having.

That’s a good question. Yes you can consider more options. When I wrote that, I was focusing on the two that looked potentially correct to me, not on all possibilities. If you don’t already have it narrowed down yet, then you should consider more options.

[Elliot]

@LMD

I wrote this today as part of my daily writing assignment. I went over the scheduled time, which is unusual. I usually am ready to stop after 15 mins or so:

10 minutes would be an OK amount of time to schedule if you prefer. It’s probably long enough to work OK and it could reduce the frequency that you want to stop early.

@LMD

On the other hand, a organisation like a business has no recourse to something like laws, because it does not have recourse to the legal use force.

Businesses routinely use laws to get what they want (e.g. suppressing competition, getting money from people who aren’t customers, preventing people from destroying their property), enforced by police and other government enforcers. Businesses can’t make laws themselves but they can and do go ask politcians to make laws for them.

If the government didn’t exist, they couldn’t do that. But the government also restrains businesses.

If the government were better, it’d help make businesses better. But that works the other way too: if businesses were better, it’d help make the government better.

I think the problem is the vast majority of people having incorrect ideas, not which part(s) of the system they participate in. I also think the people who don’t have important roles in business or government, who don’t participate in causing major societal problems, mostly have similar ideas and wouldn’t do better if they were in charge.

@LMD

Businesses do have policies, but people are under no obligation to do business with them. A business can only function by virtue of serving customers, i.e, by virtue of persuading people.

People often have no realistic choice. Some businesses have monopolies or close enough. But even when they don’t, it may not do much good. There are many grocery stores but all the large ones and most of the small ones are similar. There are many fast food restaurant chains that compete with each other, but as far as I know, at least in the U.S., they all serve unhealthy ultra-processed food similar to a lot of what you find in grocery stores.

---

I think you have typical libertarian or Objectivist biases about government. I think you’re mistaken. I’ve been trying to push back on those ideas at Capitalism Means Policing Big Companies · Elliot Temple and elsewhere.

[Elliot]

Note: This is not a main tutoring topic and you can believe what you want. I wanted to let you know that I disagree but we don’t have to agree.

[LMD]

Okay for this one:

@LMD

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.

The original structure I had seems okay to me. I think [2] is a detail of [1]; it’s about how or why the plant looks like a landmark. [3] and [4] both seem like rejoinders, or replies to the ideas in [2], i.e that it seems as if its always been there (3) , and will always be there (4).

[4] also seems like it could be a child of [3], because it could be seen as a part of [3]. It uses the phrase ‘as many’ which refers to the amount of years mentioned in sentence [3].

I made another tree for it with different relationship nodes:

[LMD]

@LMD

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.

Okay so my previous tree had the sequence of events structured wrong. They should be siblings, not children of each preceding event, not sure what yet though.

So what is my root node? I think 1b is still the root node. 1a is a subordinate clause to 1b, it tells us what he was doing when he surprised the three guys. The surprise I think is the important idea.

2 is a detail about what they were doing on the bench. so I think it’s a child of 1b.

the next four sentences are a sequence of events that follow after the surprise. I know that it doesn’t make sense to have them all nested inside each other. So I think they are all a children of 1b.

@Elliot

Revisit your other trees and see if you want to make any changes.

Okay that’s all of them revised I think.

[Elliot]

@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.

OK revisit this one.

[LMD]

@Elliot

@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.

OK revisit this one.

Okay. The thought I had last time when you pointed out it was wrong, was that [4] is a kind of conclusion. It’s a judgment

The pronouns ‘they’ and ‘this’ in sentences [2], [3], and [4] make me feel like they can’t be closer to the root of the tree than what they refer to. I’m not sure if that is in general right, so I tried rewriting the sentences and substituting the things referred to.

Of the sentences, I think [4] is the conclusion; it’s a judgement about the idea in [3]. It’s the main idea and the other sentences are playing supporting roles. So that could be the root? But It also seems like [3] could be the main node too. The paragraph is about the idea that people favour conscious over subconscious ideas. The first two sentences kind of lead up to that, and the fourth sentence makes a judgment about that. Hmm.

[1] and [2] definitely seem like children of [3]. [1] tells us about suppressing intuitive ideas, and [2] tells us about favouring explicit ideas, and [3] brings them together and connects the two kinds of ideas to the two kinds of minds.

So I’m undecided about whether [3] or [4] is the root node. I’m happy with the structure of 1, 2, and 3, though. Here is one with [4] at the root node:

[Elliot]

@LMD

The pronouns ‘they’ and ‘this’ in sentences [2], [3], and [4] make me feel like they can’t be closer to the root of the tree than what they refer to. I’m not sure if that is in general right, so I tried rewriting the sentences and substituting the things referred to.

It’s usually right but it’s also possible to write things out of order.

@LMD

So I’m undecided about whether [3] or [4] is the root node.

In general, if there is something like a reasonable topic sentence at the beginning, make that the root. We’re trying to model the paragraph that was written (paragraph tree), not organize the ideas in the best way (idea tree).

FYI: A topic sentence can also say the conclusion. You can open a paragraph with “I think mocking people with different political ideas is overrated.” which is both a topic (mocking people with different political ideas) and a conclusion (overrated). You can also open with “I often see people mock…” and just bring up the topic without saying any conclusion yet. The conclusion could go later in the paragraph (often the last sentence), go in a later paragraph, or never be stated.

---

What do you think about this tree?

[LMD]

@Elliot

We’re trying to model the paragraph that was written (paragraph tree), not organize the ideas in the best way (idea tree).

Ah yes. Okay. I have been getting confused about that.

@Elliot

What do you think about this tree?

Yeah, I think it feels like the paragraph reads. I think a big part of that is because of the pronouns that each sentence starts with.

I thought though that [4] was was referring to [3]. That it was a conclusion about [3]. I didn’t choose to have it as a child of [1] for that reason. It feels strange to me that in this tree it is a child of [1]. Is that just me blurring the line the between idea and paragraph trees? Or, am I just wrong about what ‘this’ in [4] refers to, and you intended it to refer to the idea in [1]?

[Elliot]

@LMD

I thought though that [4] was was referring to [3]. That it was a conclusion about [3]. I didn’t choose to have it as a child of [1] for that reason. It feels strange to me that in this tree it is a child of [1]. Is that just me blurring the line the between idea and paragraph trees? Or, am I just wrong about what ‘this’ in [4] refers to, and you intended it to refer to the idea in [1]?

What specific text do you think 4’s “This” refers to and why?

Also, here’s a method to help determine if C is a child of P: Delete P from the paragraph and reread. Does it still make sense?

You can delete more sentences too. You can try all versions of the paragraph with only the root plus one other sentence and see if they work.

[LMD]

@Elliot

What specific text do you think 4’s “This” refers to and why?

I thought that ‘this’ referred to ‘they favor the ideas of the conscious mind over the ideas of the subconscious mind’. I saw sentence 1 and 2 as being like, half the story each (1 is about people suppressing inexplicit ideas, and 2 about people favouring explicit ideas) and then sentence 3 brings those two together as a summary. And then it’s sentence 3 that ‘this’ referred to.

I just noticed though that it might be relevant that sentence 1 and 4 both mention rationality. So it could make sense that 4 is a child of 1.

Looking at it in the light of that method, a paragraph with just 1 and 4 makes sense. That being said though, I do think if you deleted 1 and just had a paragraph with 2, 3, 4, (and you replaced the pronoun in 2 with ‘people’) that would also make sense to me.

[Elliot]

@LMD

I just noticed though that it might be relevant that sentence 1 and 4 both mention rationality. So it could make sense that 4 is a child of 1.

Yes, that’s a significant hint.

So another thing you can check is which sentences, (1, 2 and/or 3) could 4 be talking about and make sense?

[LMD]

Did some typing retesting this morning:

monkeytype 2 english 1k 60 seconds:

62/98
60/97
54/100

quotes

64.58/99.80
65/100
60.57/100

key.br 1 60 seonds:

60.86/99.2
60/99.6
60.1/98.67

Worse than last week. Looking at my tests i did early on in tutoring, I have basically not improved at all in months, despite many hours typing. (I have consistently been doing typing practise for at least 15 mins a day and usually more, for months now.) So I think I must be doing something really wrong.

[Elliot]

Do you want to try to change your approach and keep working on it or just stop and call your typing good enough for now?

[Elliot]

What instruments do you play well? Does music work better for you? Typing is kinda similar to playing some instruments – using multiple fingers quickly in specific places.

[LMD]

I want to try to change my approach. It’s not causing me significant frustration or distress, and I don’t want to give up. I felt a bit sad or disappointed when I realised that I hadn’t really made progress since April, but I don’t feel discouraged. It’s made me think I should have paid more attention to my approach far sooner, and that there is something important I could learn about learning here.

@Elliot

What instruments do you play well? Does music work better for you?

I play the guitar well. I can’t play fast stuff but none of the music I’ve played or been interested in playing has really required it, so I don’t encounter being unable to play something often. I’m not sure if music does work better for me, maybe? I have never had an organised, progressing practise schedule for the guitar, with clear goals/problems I wanted to solve, so it’s hard to say. (I have been kind of trying to develop something like this recently.)