Meta Discussion Analysis and Practice[AM and Dface]

[Dface]

Continuing the discussion from Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice[Dface]:

@Dface

@ActiveMind

I would be interested in analyzing myself and discussing it with you. If you’re interested would you like to go first?

Yeah, I’ll post something later tonight. I think I’ll try to start small in a way like something that satisfies the criteria of a meta discussion

In this thread, @ActiveMind and I are going to analyze, practice, and discuss the meta-discussion from our previous conversation(start of convo here).

[Dface]

I’m gonna try going over certain quotes and see if I can say yes, no, or idk that something counts as meta discussion:

Quote #1:

@Dface

@ActiveMind

Were you uncertain because “Hank Rearden” is two words?

Yeah, I grouped them when I was writing the tree, but then I was just like why? Why am I treating the two words as one?

The quote by me: idk. It sounds meta, like the quote is a conversation that is not a grammar tree itself, but is talking about the tree. I think maybe learning what meta means may help.

Quote #2(my bolds are the part I’m going to refer to):

@Dface

@ActiveMind

Whenever only “Hank” or “Rearden” is used in AS it’s actually a shorthand for “Hank Rearden”, they’re always referring to the specific person which is Hank Rearden.

I think the author made it easy to see she’s referring to Hank Rearden when one of the names are brought up. I don’t remember seeing the name Rearden and being confused if it’s referring to his wife Lillian, his brother Phillip, or his mom.

I don’t know. The bolded part just sounds like me not remembering if the author referred to another character as “Rearden” besdies Hank Rearden. I don’t see if it’s meta-discussion or not.

[ActiveMind]

@ActiveMind

Silly mistake by me.

Is this meta? I’m talking about a mistake I supposedly made. A mistake I made in discussion. But it too loose of a connection to the discussion to be called meta? I’m not sure. I think talking about the truth of a statement isn’t meta.

@ActiveMind

What I wrote is still objectively wrong even if readers can understand what I meant or fix my mistake.

“What I wrote” can be sign it’s meta discussion. This one is hard. It could be still on the subject on whether it was a mistake or not, but it’s also talking about readers in the subordinate clause.
Does talking about the experience of readers count as meta? I think yes, because readers includes the other discussion partner, so it’s talking about how he reads my comment.

@ActiveMind

We should minimize how much readers have to guess and rely on social interpretation of our text. We should make our meaning clear through an objective reading of text.

I think this is meta because it’s talking about how to write in discussions. You could say it’s talking about writing for an audience in general, but it was written to apply to this discussion. It’s talking about discussion methodology: how precise should we be in discussion?

I want to partly take that statement back. I think it’s okay to rely on implications based on common knowledge in order to write quicker.

@ActiveMind

That may be what I thought when I wrote it originally as well. When I reread it I thought that what I had in mind was that “Hank” or “Rearden” in general meant “Hank Rearden.” I thought I confused/mixed up the specific case and the general case.

Is talking about my thought at a particular part of the discussion meta? I would say yes.

Thinking about it:
Strictly, meta discussion is discussion about discussion. But you might categorize discussion about the participant psychology also as meta. It’s not about a topic that’s independent of the participants.

What I wrote above isn’t entirely accurate. If we were to discuss my psychology in general, or relating to another topic like playing sports, then that would not be meta. That’s talking about a topic dependent on one of the participants but it doesn’t relate to the discussion itself.

Conclusion:
So the psychology of a discussion participant about what he wrote is meta because it’s connected to the discussion.

@Dface

Really, on the subject we’re on right now though(meta discussion?), I think it’s hard. I feel like I might be very wrong with what im saying

Meta. Saying “on the subject we’re on right now” is talking about the subject of the discussion.

@ActiveMind

I’m a bit confused about what you’re talking about here. “Had to clarify to me this” has grammar/typo error. Also, I think you meant “seem” instead of “seen.”

Talking about my confusion of the discussion is meta. Talking about spelling/grammar mistakes in the discussion is meta.

@ActiveMind

Is previous statement referring to this?

(I should’ve put quotation marks around “previous statement”.)

I think asking about what some part of the text refers to is meta (although I’m a bit more uncertain.) It’s different from asking what some terminology means, like:

What’s the meaning of “analytic proposition”?

I think asking to clarify the discussion is meta and different from asking to clarify some terminology. Asking to clarify terminology seems more like staying on the topic.

@ActiveMind

I thought there was a mistake in “previous statement.” Now, without checking AS I think it’s likely true.

Talking about thoughts at different parts of the discussion is meta.

@ActiveMind

When I was talking about whether I made an error it wasn’t meta discussion. But In these two posts we’re doing meta discussion.

This is definitely meta. It’s talking about which parts of the discussion were meta or not.

@Dface

I think I disagree but I dont know how to discuss this point further.

This discusses how Dface is not sure about discussing, so that’s meta.

@Dface

Sorry im having trouble with using “this” in the quote above. It’s really difficult sorry.

Talking about how Dface has trouble with specific part of discussion. Meta.

@Dface

In the quote above, when you say:

@ActiveMind

in general

do you mean any “Hank” or “Rearden”? Like one of names could be someone’s irl name or it could be the name of a landmark or even the name of an entirely different character in a different novel?

Asking to clarify discussion.

@ActiveMind

But now I think that quote wasn’t what I thought when I reread it either. I think what I thought when I reread was that “Rearden” could be used for his family members in AS.

Talking about what I thought at differents parts of discussion again.

@ActiveMind

Now I’m trying to talk about what I thought at different times, which is getting complicated to follow and hard for me to remember.

Definitely meta. It’s talking about what I’m talking about.

@ActiveMind

This isn’t an important tangent, not for me at least and I guess not for you either. You don’t have to reply. I’m happy to chat though.

Meta. It’s talking about the importance of current discussion and what to do next in the discussion.

@Dface

I know this is kind of different but for me it’s kind of hard to remember and look back for one our quotes and continue the convo. I think this is related to trees and how when one of us brings up a point, it makes a new child node. The child node could be the child of a leaf node or maybe even the root node?

This is talking about discussion methodology. Meta.

Then we discuss what to discuss/practice next so that’s meta.

[ActiveMind]

@Dface

@Dface

I don’t remember seeing the name Rearden and being confused if it’s referring to his wife Lillian, his brother Phillip, or his mom.

I don’t know

I think it’s not meta. It’s talking about your experience reading AS, not something about this discussion itself.

[ActiveMind]

Thoughts about what meta discussion is.

If I started a topic on discussion methodology would that be meta? It would fit the definition of “discussion about discussion.” So I would say yes. It’s also meta when I start talking about the discussion I’m having. Those are two different kinds of meta discussion and both fit the definition of “discussion about discussion.”

When you started out discussing discussion methodology you were already doing meta discussion. But if you start discussing how that discussion is going then you go into another meta level. That meta discussion is going off-topic. Going back to the original topic would still be meta discussion, but it’s also on-topic.

Here’s a tree about what counts as meta discussion:

It’s not complete, but I think I got the main categories.

[Dface]

If meta discussion is discussion about discussion then that means there is still a discussion going on and there is still a subject. Maybe if I work on identifying the subject in each quote it will help to know if a quote counts as meta discussion.

Quote #1:

@Dface

Yeah that one sorry

Im talking about a previous statement that I meant to refer to. Hmm me talking about something from the discussion sounds like meta discussion.

Quote #2:

@Dface

Yeah thats what i meant.

Im talking about a correction in my grammar/spelling. The mistake made is part of the discussion where I think it already is a meta discussion. Here(the bold is the spelling/grammar mistake):

@Dface

Oh ok, I think since you had clarify to me this:

@ActiveMind

Oh, obviously “Rearden” could refer to his family members.

it mightve seen like something from your previous statement was wrong, but i dont think so.

Quote #3:

@Dface

I think I disagree but I dont know how to discuss this point further.

The subject is whether something from the grammar discussion counts as meta discussion or not. Something from the discussion is being discussed. That literally sounds like meta discussion.

Quote #4

@Dface

I don’t know if the last two posts before this one were the only meta discussion posts.

I’m talking about how I don’t know if more parts of the discussion are actually meta discussion. That again sounds like discussing about the discussion.

Im gonna try what I did in this reply for earlier parts of the discussion.

[ActiveMind]

@Dface

@Dface

I think I disagree but I dont know how to discuss this point further.

The subject is whether something from the grammar discussion counts as meta discussion or not.

(I think you should’ve included my quote that you responded to, otherwise I couldn’t see that this was meta.)
You got the subject right. And I would say that is meta because it discusses the nature of the discussion, the category of discussion. Was the discussion meta or not? That’s a meta discussion question.

I think this reason is wrong or is problematic wording:

@Dface

Something from the discussion is being discussed.

Because that could mean that the discussion was about X and Y, and now we started discussion Y. Y was from the discussion, but it isn’t necessarily meta discussion. If you changed “from” to “about” then that would make sense as a reason for being meta.

[Dface]

@ActiveMind

I think you should’ve included my quote that you responded to, otherwise I couldn’t see that this was meta.

Yeah, I think now I shouldve included your quote. Looks like information is missing without it.

@ActiveMind

Because that could mean that the discussion was about X and Y, and now we started discussion Y. Y was from the discussion, but it isn’t necessarily meta discussion.

Oh ok I see what youre saying and I agree

@ActiveMind

If you changed “from” to “about” then that would make sense as a reason for being meta.

I think I see. "About "sounds correct to me intuitively cuz the discussion sounds like it’s already done and now we’re meta discussing it.

[ActiveMind]

@Dface

the discussion sounds like it’s already done

Or put on pause.