MetaCommunication

Talking about Talking.

a map of different kinds of talk:

(Suggestions for a better name ?)


"The Art of Second Language Conversation" http://www.mirabilis.ca/archives/001630.html http://dominionpaper.ca/arts/2004/04/06/the_art_of.html uses the term "metatalking". Perhaps it's relevant to some of our discussion on translation between various languages.

discussion

A concern for MetaCommunication in a social context might be motivated by a desire for an OpenDialogue -


"… a map of all the different kinds of talk. I'd be interested in seeing such a map, but, it's not my life's work at the moment."LionKimbro


Please use PlainTalk rather than BrainDump?. Or in other words, "Accept that you can't tell the audience everything you know … and settle for telling them at least one new thing." – http://sl4.org/bin/wiki.pl?SingularityWritingAdvice

I don't know. Sometimes I want to know everything about some subject, and it's tedious to just learn 1 thing per conversation about it. If the subjects is too large to learn in a single sitting, BrainDump? is inappropriate for a conversation. But it might be useful for a book or a WikiPedia.

BrainDump?: I find it interesting to speculate about documenting everything someone knows, period. I've seen a few mentions in various SF stories, but LionKimbro is the first person I know of that tried to do it. There's also the Cyc project ( http://cyc.com/ ), which is trying to document all the "common-sense" stuff that everyone knows. – DavidCary

I've heard about "tailoring the message to the audience". I sort of imagined a "complete" report about some artifact, detailing everything I know about it. I thought this "tailoring" was limited to leaving out sections of this "complete" brain dump – (a) leaving out stuff that I'm sure they already know (definitions of Jargon), and (b) leaving out the details, and perhaps even the summary, of sections they won't be interested in.

I just read Wiki:TemporalLogic which claims that sometimes a particular sentence may be true when you say it to one audience, but not true if you were to say it to a difference audience.

Hm, I don't know about that … It's easy to come up with such sentences that include some sort of reference to the audience – "When Lincoln was your age …". But otherwise, how often do false sentences become true just because they're presented to a different audience ?

Do such sentences invalidate the entire idea of a "complete" report about some artifact (brain dump), since those sentences would be false if that "complete" report were presented to (some) audiences ?

The Effect of the Summary Line

The "summary" bar on some wiki motivates me write a summary even when I do go into detail. I'm starting to copy-and-paste that summary into the start of the text I just wrote – the "complete" report includes both the summary and the details – the summary doesn't replace the details. This habit I've started – write a few paragraphs, then insert a summary at the beginning – has started to leak into my non-wiki writing. Is this a good thing ?

I've noticed that I started to write stuff, and then pick one or two key sentences to paste into the summary buffer. This in turn has motivated me to formulate contributions using a style comprising simpler sentence structure and less fluff. In my head, it sounds pretty robotic. But then I add a smiley at the end. :)

To reformulate that in a positive way: I'm trying to write "quotable" text. Every sentence should count, every sentence is a potential quote. This goal requires a certain lack of humility. ;)

There seem to be 2 very different kinds of "talking about talking". Many places on CommunityWiki point to other people talking, and discuss it. (For example, TheMedium, SmallGroupDiscussionSizeLimit, WhatCommunicationSoftwareToUse, etc.). Another kind of "talking about talking" is when a person talks about the particular conversation he is having right then – "Louder, please"; "Can you hear me now ?" (see SpaceForMetaDiscussion).


"Pared Down Language" moved to http://SymbolWiki.org/index.php/Symbolwiki_talk:Wordlist

Alas, SymbolWiki? has gone offline. "SymbolWiki?.org not found". The stuff we sent over there – should we try to bring that stuff back?

Hm, how can this happen without us knowing about it – did we move stuff to a wiki none of us reads?

What is symbolwiki?

The wiki that Visual:StevenCooney started. I remember seeing it at http://SymbolWiki.org/ , but I see it is still offline today.

I find it so annoying when a wiki and all its content mysteriously disappears forever. Rather than whining about it, I suppose I should do something about it.

Like maybe take LionKimbro seriously :-).

Ok, off to install Python and the other thinks Lion Kimbro suggested at Wiki.Taoriver: how to backup and Visual:TalkStevenCooney .

Also install some of the things mentioned on WikiFeatures:FailSafeWiki .

My cell phone number is (206) 427.2545, call me if you run into a problem installing Python, or downloading the content. :)

Or, just call me to say "hi." Whatever. :)


CategoryDiscussion

Define external redirect: BrainDump BrainStorm SymbolWiki

Languages: