The benefits of metathinking

[grey_wolf_c]

No: HPFGUIDX 42427

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote:
> At the risk of sounding terribly naive and ignorant, I wonder if 
> someone would just define the word "metathinking" again for those of 
> us for whom it is not part of our everyday vocabulary and whose 
> dictionaries don't contain it?
> 
> I would ask off-list, but I suspect I'm not the only one who's a 
> little uncertain.
> 
> Eloise
> (Deeply flattered that Pip liked her development of the 'It Wuz 
> Snape' theory.)
> 
> "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain and long words Bother Me."

Don't worry. I coined the term "metathinking" for the sort of defense 
of an argument based on literary thinking. For example, that JKR 
wouldn't make Dumbledore bad because he is just not the sort. It just 
means that you're basing the answer on something outside the books 
internal logic, which is not *good* or *bad* as such.

I generally dislike metathinking arguments, but sometimes there are the 
only valod ones, since there is suimply not enough canon to make the 
argument water-tight just by the books internal logic. I try to keep my 
posts free of them, but there is no need to do so, and in fact, as was 
stated in the post "the benefits of metathinking", they can be quite 
useful. I've said that metathinking is not "fair play" at times past, 
which is were this discussion probably originated, but that's because 
most of my post are based on internal evidence, and I find it difficult 
to answer metathinking points. But that's just me (and I won't lie, 
I've used them myself on occasions when there isn't anymore to work 
with).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who knows what he means with metathinking, but isn't sure 
he's managing to get it across.