Meta-Thinking and Magic Dishwasher (TBAY references)

[Cindy C. <cindysphynx@comcast.net>]

No: HPFGUIDX 47877

Eileen wrote:

>No one on the list engages in
> as much metathinking as Captain Cindy. The Big Bang theory is
> metathinking taken to the extremes. And you know how often she's
> accused of humpty-dumptying the Bangs. Metathinking is a lot less
> precise that speculation within canon. However, that doesn't make 
>it less valuable as a tool of critique. 

Me?

<blink>

I'm -- I'm -- I'm a *meta-thinker?*

Wow!  That is so *cool!*

See, I only learned what meta-thinking was this morning.  Oh, many 
have tried to explain it to me.  But someone really sat me down 
today and explained it today, very slowly in words I can understand. 
I now know that all that time I was going around Banging, I was 
really meta-thinking, which is much classier!  ;-)

Eileen (on whether using meta-thinking on Magic Dishwasher is fair 
play):

> Now this is where I've never been able to follow the MD-ers. It 
>never occured to me that criticism of a theory is limited to the 
>theory's viewpoints. 

But think how easy it would be for us all if everyone were straight-
jacketed into the viewpoint of a theory they were trying to 
analyze.  ;-)

Man, I wish I had understood this meta-thinking thing for Assassin!
Snape.  I was trying to convince everyone that it was consistent 
with Dumbledore's characterization to posit that he might order the 
assassination of Karkaroff at Snape's hand.  Lots of people opposed 
Assassin!Snape on meta-thinking grounds -- JKR would never have 
Dumbledore, Harry's father figure, do something so cruel and 
immoral, for instance.  

All I had to do was say that characterization is irrelevant and not 
a valid criticism of the theory, then.  'Cause characterization is 
meta-thinking, isn't it?  For Assassin!Snape, no one can question 
the theory on grounds such as characterization; instead, they must 
start off accepting the assumptions of the theory itself, and if it 
leads to a conclusion they find implausible on characterization 
grounds, then the problem is with their own approach rather than my 
theory?  Is that how it works?

 
Eileen:

> It makes sense to reject a theory on grounds of metathinking. In 
>fact, I suspect that's why we, in the end, reject and accept the 
>theories we do.

Well, we have to meta-think, don't we?  If we didn't, this list 
would only have about 5,000 messages.  And most of them would deal 
with the most pedestrian canon questions, I suppose.  Because the 
books only contain a certain number of ideas, and there are lots of 
gaps that are fun to theorize about.  But if you can't evaluate any 
theory using criteria outside the theory itself, you won't come up 
with plausible answers for very many canon mysteries, I suppose.  
And you will have a hard time debating these theories in a way that 
is enjoyable or interesting for our present purposes, IMHO.

And you might even find it next to impossible to Bang.  ;-)

Eileen:
 
> So, while good discussion can be had within canon, (And PRESSURE
> COOKER tried to do this, I think,) metathinking must be recognized 
>as crucial to any discussion of any theory, whether you care to 
>indulge in it or not.

What I have found interesting about MD and the meta-thinking debate 
is that the MD debate sometimes seems centered on whether folks do 
or do not bow down to the MD theory itself.  Either you confess that 
MD adds up and is a viable theory based on the principles of the 
theory itself, or you are not playing fair because you are meta-
thinking.  That seems strange to me. 

But then again, it is quite possible that I need another tutorial on 
meta-thinking.  ;-)

Meta-Thinking!Cindy -- who's not sure she is even making sense