Meta Discussion Analysis and Practice[AM and Dface]

Other
21

I don’t think you need to care what is and isn’t meta discussion. And no one, including me, can define and classify meta discussion in a precise, consistent, useful, detailed way.

David Deutsch spent years telling me he would answer questions about meta discussion later, but never did. His position was less intelligent than ChatGPT’s:

Me:

Is meta discussion good?

ChatGPT:

It depends on the context. Meta discussion refers to conversations about the conversation itself — for example, discussing how a debate is structured rather than the debate’s content. It can be helpful for:

:white_check_mark: Clarifying misunderstandings

:white_check_mark: Improving communication strategies

:white_check_mark: Enhancing mutual understanding

However, it can also derail the original conversation if overused, leading to:

:x: Losing focus on the main topic

:x: Overcomplicating simple issues

In moderation, meta discussion can improve communication; too much can be distracting.

Me:

Are quote attributions meta discussion?

ChatGPT:

Yes, quote attributions can be considered a form of meta discussion. When you attribute a quote, you’re not engaging with the content of the quote itself — you’re discussing its source or authorship. This shifts the focus from the actual message to the context or credibility of the statement, which is a classic example of meta-level conversation.

Of course, Deutsch never opposed quote attributions despite TCS list having a:

“no meta-discussion” rule

One thing they got right was saying that rule was “unusual”. It’s their weird idiosyncrasy that they used to try to justify biased moderation actions.

I was wondering why you guys were concerned with meta discussion because I opposed the no meta discussion rule early on, I repeatedly had my TCS list posts blocked with the no meta discussion rule as the alleged reason, I argued with Deutsch about it, and he and anti-meta policies have been gone for over a decade.

22

Did you think we thought meta discussion wasn’t good and that we should learn to identify it in order to avoid it?

23

I think I see what you’re saying in a few ways. Like rn I’m asking why focus on recognizing what meta discussion is? Why not other things about meta discussion? Why meta discussion? I think I could still interact with what youre(or anyone is)saying without sweating over what meta discussion is or isnt.

When you say

Is that like a ‘so what? Who cares?’ kind of meaning? Like someone can recognize probably what a meta discussion is, so what? What does it really help with?

When you say this:

it makes me think when @anonymous100 said

I don’t know if they’re the same thing, but they sound very similar, like there are no defined rules of doing a thing. I didn’t know there were many things that didnt have defined rules like that.

1 Like
24

I think the activity I did here wasn’t very useful. However I can learn something from it. It shows how it’s useful to write down what your goals are and how practicing a skill is helpful for the goals. If I had thought about that and tried to write something down I probably wouldn’t have been able to like I’m not able to right now, or I could have written something bad and someone could criticize the reasons and thus save me from doing a useless activity. In general I should come up with more of a reason than “it seems interesting.”

I wrote this right after I said I didn’t want to distract Dface from his practice activity and then I distracted him with some even less useful discussion. I should think more about why it would be a good activity if I’m dragging someone into it with me. I was just trying to suggest an activity but I could’ve come across as presenting as an expert/authority for knowing what would be useful for Dface to learn. If so that’s a mistake. Did you get that impression, @Dface?

25

Me too I think. I gotta admit when ET asked why we wanted to recgonize meta discussion, I thought we were in trouble like how an adult scolds their kids. I’m just so used to that irl. I think it was nice to get practice handling literally getting questioned about something.

I’m glad in a way that we did this activity cuz I wouldn’t have known how good or not it is. I would’ve just kept trying for a bit longer and see if something sticks.

I think for now I don’t know how beneficial this thread is for me. I think I rather learn more CF oriented things like grammar, discussion trees or yes, no approach or error correction. I think since I use that stuff in meta discussion then I’m ok more with learning those first.

Kind of like it seemed to me you were an authority on meta discussion. However, I was ok with going ahead with the activity cuz I wanted to see what really counted as meta discussion or not. I wanted more practice with that and things in general like taking criticisms and doing discussion.

26

Haha, me too. I did think right away after feeling that that’s not how it is around here though.

Yeah, but for future stuff it’s better that I don’t do activities like these. Lesson learned, at lest somewhat.

Good to know, I’ll be more careful to represent what I actually know.

27

Thanks for sharing this. People often don’t say their reactions, which makes it hard to understand what’s going on in discussions and to avoid problems like this.