# Meta Discussion Analysis and Practice\[AM and Dface\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Other\ **Tags:** learning\ **Created:** [March 10, 2025, 9:48pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/meta-discussion-analysis-and-practice-am-and-dface/2012 "2025-03-10T21:48:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 10:04am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/meta-discussion-analysis-and-practice-am-and-dface/2012/3 "2025-03-11T10:04:35Z")
> [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/22): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/24): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/24): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/26): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/27): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/28): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/28): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/28): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/28): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/29): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/30): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/33): > > In the quote above, when you say: > > > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/26): > > > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/34): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/34): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/34): > > 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. > [@Atlas Shrugged Reading and Practice\[Dface\]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/atlas-shrugged-reading-and-practice-dface/2001/35): > > 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. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/meta-discussion-analysis-and-practice-am-and-dface/2012)._