The interpretive analysis in this essay looks closely at an excerpt of a videotape I had made several years earlier when working on the Essence (see chapter 2) system in a middle-school classroom. With the help of train= ed communication analysts, I conducted the kind of analysis called for in the preceding two chapters. It was here that I found clear evidence of group cognition.

In this chapter, a detailed conversation analys= is of a half-minute of collaborative interaction starts to display the complexity= of communication that takes place among five middle school students working wi= th SimRocket<= /span>, a rocket simulation software artifact. In particular, confusion about references to comparable rockets is repaired through a rapid sequence of elliptical utterances, which convey meaning only through the indexing of th= eir interaction context. A group understanding emerges that exceeds the prior understanding of the individual participants, and that allows them to derive scientific conclusions together.

Analyzing Collaborative Learning

Quantitative studies of collaboration are indispe= nsable for uncovering, exploring and documenting communication structures. However, they cannot tell the whole story. Although measures of utterances and their sequences—such as frequency graphs of notes and thread lengths in discussion forums—do study the processes in which collaborative learn= ing is constructed and displayed, they sacrifice the meaningful content of the discussion in favor of its objective form (see chapter 10). This not only reifies and reduces the complex interactions to one or two of their simplest dimensions, but it even eliminates most of the evidence for the studied structural relationships among the utterances. For instance, the content mi= ght indicate that two formally distinct threads are actually closely related in terms of their ideas, actors or approach. Coding utterances along these characteristics can help in a limited way, but is still reductive of the richness of the data. Similarly, social network analysis (Scott, 1991; Wass= erman & Faust, 1992) can indicate who is talking to whom and who is interacting in a central or a peripheral way within a network of subgroups, but it also necessarily ignor= es much of the available data—namely the meaningful content—that m= ay be relevant to the very issues that the analysis explores. We will look at a set of utterances that would be impossible to code or to analyze statistica= lly; the structural roles of the individual utterances and even the way they cre= ate subgroup allegiances only become clear after considerable interpretive effo= rt.

The other way in which both traditional experimental m= ethod and narrow discourse analysis tend to underestimate their subject matter is= to exclude consideration of the social and material context. Some approaches methodically remove such factors by conducting controlled experiments in the laboratory (as though this were not in itself a social setting) or basing t= heir findings strictly on a delimited verbal transcript. Fortunately, countervai= ling trends are emphasizing the importance of in situ studies and the roles of physical factors, including both particip= ant bodily gestures and mediating artifacts. Increasingly, the field is recogni= zing the importance of looking at knowledge distributed among people and artifac= ts, of studying the group or social unit of analysis and of taking into account historical and cultural influences. In our data it is impossible to separate the words from the artifact that they reference and interpret; we will see = that artifacts are just as much in need of interpretation (by the participants a= nd by the researchers) as are the utterances, which cannot be understood in isolation from physical and verbal artifacts.

The study of collaborative learning must be a highly interdisciplinary business. It involves issues of pedagogy, software design, technical implementation, cognitive theories, social theories, experimental method, working with teachers and students, and the practicalities of recor= ding and analyzing classroom data. Methodologically, it at least needs its own unique intertwining of quantitative and qualitative methods. For instance, = the results of a thread frequency study or a social network analysis might sugg= est a mini-analysis of the discourse during a certain interaction or among cert= ain actors. Interpretive themes from this might in turn call for a controlled experiment with statistical analysis to explore alternative causal explanat= ions or generalizations. In this chapter we present an attempt to uncover, in empirical data, the sort of meaning-relationships that other methods ignore, but that might enrich their analysis.

What’s in a Sentence Fragment?

We naively assume that to say something is to exp= ress a complete thought. However, if we look closely at what passes for normal spe= ech we see that what is said is never the complete thing. Conversation analysts= are well aware of this, and that is a major reason why they insist on carefully transcribing what is said, not forcing it into whole sentences that look li= ke written language. The transcript analyzed in this chapter is striking in th= at most of the utterances (or conversational turns) consist of only one to four words.

Utterances are radically situated. In our analysis we = will characterize spoken utterances as indexical, elliptical and projective. As = we will see, they rely for their meaning on the context in which they are said, for they make implicit reference to elements of the present situation. We w= ill refer to this as indexicality. = In addition, an individual utterance rarely stands on its own; it is part of an on-going history. The current utterance does not repeat references that were already expressed in the past, for that would be unnecessarily redundant, and spoken language is highly efficient. We say that the utterance is elliptical because it seems to be missing pieces that are, howe= ver, given by its past. In addition, what is said is motivated by an orientation toward a desired future state. We say that it is projective because it orients the discussion in the direction of some future, which it thereby projects for the participants in the discussi= on. Thus, an utterance is never complete in isolation. This is true in principl= e. To utter a single word is to imply a whole language—and a whole histo= ry of lived experience on which it is grounded (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2002). The meaning of the word depends on its relationships to all the words (in t= he current context and in the lived language) with which it has co-occurred—including, recursively, the relationships of those words = to all the words with which they co-occurred. We will see the importance of co-occurrences for determining meaning within a discourse later.

In analyzing the episode that we refer to as “a collaborative moment” in this chapter, we make no distinction between “conversation analysis,” “discourse analysis” or “micro-ethnography” as distinct research traditions, but adopt = what might best be called “human interaction analysis” (Jordan & Hend= erson, 1995). This methodology builds on a convergence of conversation analysis (Sacks, 1992), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967)<= !--[if supportFields]>, nonverbal communicatio= n (Birdwhistell, 197= 0), and context analysis <= !--[if supportFields]> ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Kendon</Author><Year>1= 990</Year><RecNum>247</RecNum><MDL><REFERENCE_TY= PE>1</REFERENCE_TYPE><REFNUM>247</REFNUM><AUTHORS&g= t;<AUTHOR>Kendon, A.</AUTHOR></AUTHORS><YEAR>1990</YEAR><TITLE>= Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters</TITLE><PL= ACE_PUBLISHED>Cambridge, UK</PLACE_PUBLISHED><PUBLISHER>Cambridge University Press</PUBLISHER></MDL></Cite></EndNote>(Kendon, 1990). An integration of these methods has only recently become feasible with the availability of videotap= ing and digitization that records human interactions and facilitates their deta= iled analysis. It involves close attention to the role that various micro-behaviors—such as turn-taking, participation structures, gaze, posture, gestures and manipulation of artifacts—play in the tacit organization of interpersonal interactions. Utterances made in interaction = are analyzed as to how they shape and are shaped by the mutually intelligible encounter itself—rather than being taken as expressions of individuals’ psychological intentions or of external social rules ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Streeck</Author><Year>= 1983</Year><RecNum>263</RecNum><MDL><REFERENCE_T= YPE>1</REFERENCE_TYPE><REFNUM>263</REFNUM><AUTHORS&= gt;<AUTHOR>Streeck, J.</AUTHOR></AUTHORS><YEAR>1983</YEAR><TITLE>= Social Order in Child Communication: A Study in Microethnography</TITLE><PLACE_PUBLISHED>Amsterdam, NL</PLACE_PUBLISHED><PUBLISHER>Benjamins</PUBLISHER></= MDL></Cite></EndNote>(Streeck, 1983). In particular, many of= the utterances we analyze are little more than verbal gestures on their way to becoming symbolic action; they are understood as not only representing or expressing, but as constituting socially shared knowledge (LeBaron & Str= eeck, 2000).

We worked for over a year (2000/2001) to analyze a vid= eotape of students learning to use a computer simulation (on March 10, 1988). I say “we” because I could never have interpreted this on my own, eve= n if I had already known all that I learned from my collaborators in this proces= s. The effort involved faculty and graduate students in computer science, communication, education, philosophy and cognitive science as well as vario= us audiences to which we presented our data and thoughts at the University of Colorado at Boulder. It included a collaborative seminar on digital cogniti= ve artifacts; we hypothesized that this video might show a group learning the meaning of a computer-based artifact collaboratively, and hence, potentially visibly.[1]

We logged the three hours of video, digitized interest= ing passages, conducted several data sessions with diverse audiences and strugg= led to understand what the participants were up to. Despite much progress with = the rest of the learning session, one brief moment stubbornly resisted explanat= ion. The closer we looked, the more questions loomed. In the following sections,= we pursue a limited inquiry into the structure of that single moment and try to understand what was meant by individual words and sentence fragments.

The Complexity of Small Group Collaboration

Conversation analysis has largely focused on dyad= s of people talking (Sacks, 1992). It has found that peop= le tend to take turns speaking, although they overlap each other in significant ways. Turn-taking is a well-practiced art; it provides the major structure = of a conversation. The talk is often best analyzed in conversation pairs, such as question/answer, where one person says the initial part of a pair and the o= ther responds with the standard complement to that kind of speech act. These pai= rs can be interrupted (recursively) with other “genres” (Bakhtin, 1986a) of speech, including ot= her conversation pairs that play a role within the primary pair (Duranti, 1998).

In much of the three-hour SimRocket tape from which our moment is excerpted, talk takes place between the teacher posing questions = and one of the students proposing a response. The teacher indicates satisfactio= n or dissatisfaction with the response and then proceeds to another conversation pair. This is, of course, a typical classroom pattern (Lemke, 1990).

In the specific collaborative moment, something very different from the teacher-centered interaction takes place. In this tape segment, a many-to-many interaction is displayed in which meaning occurs at= the group level. The structure of interaction departs from the teacher-centric dialog and teacher-interpreted meanings. It somehow overcomes the rigid sequentiality of directed turn-taking, where one person at a time seems to present their own thinking.

Let us first take a look at this special segment. The group of 11-year-old= boys is discussing a list describing eight different rockets that can be used in= a rocket launch simulation (see figure 12-1). They are trying to come up with= a pair of rockets that can be used experimentally to determine whether a roun= ded or a pointed nose cone will perform better. The moment is concerned with the students noticing that rockets 1 and 2 have the identical engine, fins and body, but different nose cones, while rockets 3 and 4 differ only in their number of fins.

Figure 12-1 goes approximately here

This interaction takes place about an hour and a half = into the classroom session. It is initiated by the teacher posing a question. For the few minutes prior, the teacher had been speaking primarily with Chuck, = who had been describing some imaginary rockets he would like to design for the simulation in order to solve the problem of the nose cone. The teacher̵= 7;s question, accompanied by his emphatic gesture at the computer, succeeded in re-orienting the group to the list on the screen. After a significant pause, during which Chuck did not respond to this question that interrupted his tr= ain of thought, Steven and Jamie uttered responses as though talking to themsel= ves and then simultaneously repeated them, as if to emphasize that they had tak= en the floor. But their response was to disagree with the teacher, something n= ot so common in a classroom. So, the teacher restated his question, clarifying what it would take to justify an answer. Chuck responded in a confusing way, not directly answering the question, but attempting to apply the criteria t= he teacher put forward. [2]

1:21:53	Teacher	And (0.1) you don’t have anything like that t= here?
1:21:54		(2.0)
1:21:56	Steven	I don’t think so
1:21:57	Jamie	Not with the same engine
1:21:58	Steven	┌ No
	Jamie	└ Not with the same
1:21:59	Teacher	With the same engine … but with a different (= 0.1) … nose cone?=3D
1:22:01	Chuck	┌ =3Dthe same=3D
	Jamie	└ =3DYeah,
1:22:02	Chuck	These are both (0.8) the same thing
1:22:03		(1.0)
1:22:04	Teacher	Aw┌ right
1:22:05	Brent	= └ This one&#= 8217;s different

The teacher paused at 1:22:03, encouraging student discussion, and Brent jumped in, cut the teacher off, and lurched forward a= nd pointed at a specific part of the list artifact (see figure 11-1 in chapter 11), while responding to the teacher’s quest for something “different.” For the next 16 turns, the teacher was silent and = the students rapidly interacted, interjecting very short, excited utterances in= a complex pattern of agreements and disagreements. From the conversational structure, one sees that the standard, highly controlled and teacher-centric dialog had been momentarily broken and a more complex, collaborative interaction had sprung forth. Normally reticent, Brent excitedly rocked for= ward off his chair, pushed through a line of students, filled a void left by the teacher, and directed attention pointedly at the artifact.

Dramatically transforming the stage within which talk = takes place, Brent had signaled an urgent need to resolve some disturbing confusi= on. The importance of this move was evidenced in the bodily behavior of Kelly, a student who said nothing during the entire episode. Kelly was slouched back= in his seat, with his head rolling around distractedly, up to this point in the transcript. As Brent leaned forward, Kelly suddenly perked up and also lean= ed forward to pay attention to what was transpiring.

At 1:21:53 the teacher opened a conversation pair with= a question. It was intended as a rhetorical question, that is, as one that was expected by the asker (the teacher) to make the conversation partner (the group) see that there was something “like that there” and to an= swer in the affirmative, signaling that they had seen what the teacher was indicating. We can see that it was intended as a rhetorical question because the negative answers supplied by the students were not accepted. As the fir= st part of an adjacency pair addressed to the plural “you,” the teacher’s utterance spoke to the students as a group and called for a response from the group. Various students tried repeatedly to produce the projected response on behalf of the group. The three students who tried to answer in the negative—first Steven and Jamie simultaneously, and lat= er Chuck—repeated their answers, as if to re-assert answers which the te= acher’s question was not projecting. Rather than accepting these answers, the teach= er rephrased the question and paused again for the projected affirmative answe= r.

Brent responded to the conflict between the expectation given by the rhetorical question and the attempts by the other students to = give a negative answer. The section of transcript discussed next can be seen as = an attempt by the group to resolve this conflict and provide the affirmative answer that the teacher’s question sought, finally completing the interrupted conversational pair of (rhetorical) question and (affirmative) answer.

The Problem

Brent interrupted the teacher with, “This one’s different.” T= he word “different” re= ferred back to the teacher’s last statement. The teacher’s full questi= on, elaborated in response to Steven and Jamie’s disagreement was: “= ;And (0.1) you don’t have anything like that there? . . . With the same engine but with a different (0.= 1) nose cone?” In the meantime, Steven and Jamie had both picked up on t= he teacher’s term “same,” as had Brent.

1:22:05

Brent

└ This one’s different ((gestures = with pen at computer 1 screen))

The teacher had used the terms, “same” and “different” to clarify what he meant by “like.” In rhetorically asking, “Don’t you have anything like that there?” The teacher was suggesting that the lis= t of rockets (“there,” where he was directing their attention) inclu= ded a rocket whose description was “like” the rocket they needed, namely one that had the same engine but a different nose cone from the one = with which they would compare it.

The teacher’s original statement at 1:21:53 was = elliptical in its use of the term “like.” It assumed that the audience could infer from the conte= xt of the discussion in what ways something (“anything” “there”) would have to be in order for it to be like the thing under discussion (“that”). After two students responded that th= ey could not see anything like that there, the teacher tried to explicate what= he meant by “like.” He did this by picking up on Jamie’s “Not with the same engine” and defining “like” to m= ean “with the same engine, but with a different nose cone.” Scienti= fic talk tries to avoid the elliptical ways of normal conversation. Throughout = the session, the teacher modeled for the students this explicit way of talking, often taking what a student had stated elliptically and repeating it in a m= ore fully stated way. In this instance, the teacher is doing just that. Sometim= es one of the students would pick up on this and start to talk more explicitly. Here, Brent picked up on the term “different” as a key criterion for determining likeness.

Of course, the problem for us as researchers is that Brent’s exclamation, “This one’s different,” is its= elf elliptical. In what way is “this one” different?

The Confusion

In analyzing this passage, there is also the interpretive problem of reference or indexicality. Brent has just pointed at the list of rocket descriptions, but it is imposs= ible to tell from the video data which description he indicated. Even if we knew= which one Brent pointed to, his utterance does not make clear which other rocket = he was comparing with the one to which he pointed. We have to deduce the answe= rs to both these questions from the ensuing discussion, to see how the participants themselves took the references.

Jamie’s immediate follow-on utterance began with “Yeah, but,” indicating a response that was partially supportiv= e. Because we know that Jamie was responding to Brent, we know that Jamie̵= 7;s use of “it” referred to Brent’s “this one.” Chuck, in turn, built on Jamie’s response and reclaimed the floor by interrupting and completing Jamie’s incomplete utterance of the term “nose cone.” So, Chuck’s subsequent utterance—which= he tied to the preceding phrase with “but”—uses the word “it’s” to refer to Brent’s “this one” as well.

1:22:06

Jamie

Yeah, but it has same no…

1:22:07

(1.0)

1:22:08

Chuck

Pointy nose cone=3D

1:22:09

Steven

=3DOh, yeah=3D

1:22:10

Chuck

=3DBut it’s not the same engine

At this point we see the conflict begin to be stated. Chuck’s “but” suggested a disagreement with Brent and possibly with Jamie also. In the next second, both Jamie and Brent came back with “yes it is,” showing that they took Chuck’s comment = to be a clear disagreement with what they were saying.

Kelly’s non-verbal behavior again indicated that something unusual was happening: he rocked forward onto his elbows to follow events more closely. He stayed in this position for the rest of the moment.=

At this point in our interpretation, we see several sh= ifting factions of opinion. At first, all the students seemed to disagree with the teacher. Following Brent’s bold gesture, some of the students seemed = to disagree with other students. In this analysis, we are not yet able to fully work out the basis of this disagreement because of the elliptical and index= ical nature of the utterances that form the data.

We can overcome the problem of the elliptical—bu= t not the indexical—character of the utterances by looking closely at how t= he individual utterances built off of each other, repeated the same words, or = used conjunctions like “but” or “yeah” to signal continu= ity of topic. However, it is harder to know, for instance, which rockets are indexed by pronouns like “it.” It seems likely that Jamie and C= huck were, in fact, indexing different rocket descriptions with their use of the pronoun “it.” This would certainly cause confusion in the discussion because the repeated use of the same word should signify commona= lity of reference. To determine which rockets they were each indexing in their utterances, we will have to continue our interpretive effort.

The Repair

In the seconds that followed the previous transcription, Jamie and Brent stated virtually the same thing simultaneous= ly. This indicates that the state of the group discourse—from the perspec= tive in which Jamie and Brent were viewing it—must have been very clear. T= hat is to say, the network of indexical references, as interpreted from Jamie a= nd Brent’s utterances, is uni-vocal. Within this set of references, Chuc= k’s claim that “it’s not the same engine” is clearly wrong. J= amie and Brent insisted that “it” is the same engine.

1:22:11

Jamie

Yeah, it is, =3D

1:22:12

Brent

=3DYes it is,

1:22:13

Jamie

┌ Compare two n one

Brent

└ Number two

Jamie and Brent supported their counter-claim precisel= y by clarifying the references: they were talking about similarities and differe= nces between rocket number two and rocket number one on the list in the simulati= on artifact.

Jamie’s imperative, “compare two and one,&= #8221; is first of all an instruction to Chuck to look at the descriptions of rock= ets 2 and 1 on the list. At the same time, it is a reminder that the purpose of= the whole discourse was to conduct a comparison of rockets in order to determine the best nose cone shape. Jamie’s utterance served both to propose an explicit set of indexical references for the problematic discussion and to re-orient the discussion to the larger goal of solving a specific scientific task. His utterance thus served to state both the indexical and the projective basis of the discourse.= He was saying that the group should index rockets 1 and 2 in the list comparis= on so that they could then conduct a comparison of rockets 1 and 2 in the datasheet artifact as their projected future task.

Jamie and Brent solved our task of interpreting the indexical references! Of course, we might still want to try to reconstruct = the networks of references that different participants had at different points = in the discourse. We would thereby be retrospectively reconstructing the proce= ss of construction that the discourse originally went through to reach this po= int. We would be “deconstructing” the discourse.

If we go back to the minute of discussion between the teacher and Chuck that preceded our transcript, we indeed find the source of the confusing references. Chuck had switched the discussion from nose cones= to fins and had in fact solved the problem of how to determine the best rocket= fin configuration. He said to compare rockets 3 and 4, which were identical, ex= cept that rocket 3 had three fins and rocket 4 had four fins. Then Chuck wanted = to return to the problem of nose cones. He proposed making the simulation soft= ware modifiable by users so that he could either change the nose cone of rocket = 3 or 4, or else change the engine of rocket 2 to match the engine of rockets 3 a= nd 4. This would have created a pair of rockets with the same engine as his baseline rocket (3 or 4) but with different nose cones. So, Chuck was actua= lly then already following the theoretical principle of only varying one attrib= ute at a time. However, his description of the changes that he would make got q= uite confusing—plus, it made unrealistic assumptions about the software. <= /p>
So, the teacher’s remark at 1:21:53, directing C= huck and the others back to the list on the screen, can be seen as a projective attempt to have Chuck recognize that rockets 1 and 2 could be compared as is, without changing on= e of them to be comparable to 3 or 4. In other words, the list had this built-in structure—that Chuck was not seeing and taking advantage of—tha= t it had been organized to solve the problem of rocket comparisons. Unfortunatel= y, because the discussion had been focused on rockets 3 and 4 as the basis for comparison, none of the students could see at first that 1 and 2 met the criteria. As Jamie said, there was no rocket with a pointed nose cone, “not with the same engine”; we can see now that the word “same” referred to the same engine as in rockets 3 and 4.

When Brent pointed to what must be rocket 2 and said, “This one’s different,” his utterance referred to the fact that rocket 2 had a pointy nose cone, which was different from all the other rockets. At that point in the transcript, Brent’s and Jamie’s utterances must be taken as comparing rocket 2 to rocket 1, because, when C= huck kept insisting that “it’s not the same engine” (meaning t= hat rocket 2’s engine was not the same as the engines in rockets 3 and 4), Brent and Jamie retorted “yes it is” and explicitly referred to rockets 1 and 2. As they repeated that they were looking at descriptions of rocket 2 and another rocket with the “same” engine, even Chuck gradually aligned with the reference to rockets 1 and 2. By looking back at= the situation prior to our moment in this way, we can reconstruct how our moment developed out of its past, and we can determine a consistent and meaningful interpretation of the utterance references, as understood from the perspect= ives of the different participants.

The Resolution

In the final segment of our transcript Chuck resp= onded to Jamie’s clarification. When Jamie said “compare two and one,” Chuck actually turned to the computer screen and studied it. Wi= th gradually increasing alignment to what Jamie was saying, Chuck said tentatively, “I know.” This is the first time during this episo= de that his utterances were agreements. Jamie went on to instruct him on how to make the comparison of rockets 1 and 2 by noting how they “are the same.” Chuck’s “Oh” response indicated a change in interpretation of things. Brent made even more explicit how Jamie’s “are the same” was to be taken, namely that both rockets had the same kind of engine.

1:22:14

Chuck

(0.2) I know.

1:22:15

Jamie

(0.2) Are the same=3D

1:22:16

Chuck

=3DOh

1:22:17

Brent

It= 217;s the same engine.

1:22:18

Jamie

So if you ┌ compare two n one,

1:22:19

Chuck

&nbs= p; └ Oh yeah, I= see, I see, I see

1:22:21

Jamie

(0.8) Yeah. Compare two n one. So that the rounded = n- (0.1) no the rounded one is better. Number one.

Jamie repeated his double-edged imperative to “c= ompare two and one.” But he preceded it with “so if you.” He was= not only telling Chuck to look at the two descriptions and to compare them, but= was also saying that if he did this then he could go on and do something in the= future, namely he could compare the data that the students had collected in the previous hour for these two rockets and determine the best nose cone design. While Chuck was conceding that the descriptions of rockets 1 and 2 met the criteria that the teacher spelled out at the start of the moment, Jamie sta= rted to look over the data sheet that he had been holding ready at hand during t= he whole conversation and had brought up to his line of sight at 1:22:13. (Ste= ven had also gone to retrieve his data sheet at 1:22:15, after Jamie first said, “compare two and one” and then checked the list on the screen f= or a moment.) Then, Jamie announced the findings from the data. In the final utterance at 1:22:21, Jamie compared the data from rockets 2 and 1, but not their descriptions. He announced that the rounded nose cone was better base= d on its performance data. He stopped himself in the middle of this announcement= to check his analysis, which required combining information from the list and = the datasheet. Finally, he linked the conclusion about the rounded nose cone to= the rocket description (“number one”). This not only resolved any possible conflict about the references of the discussion, but showed how th= ey worked to solve the larger task that had been projected for the discourse. =

At the end of our collaborative moment, a quiet consen= sus was reached. Jamie and Steven had moved on to the data sheets and everyone = else was looking intently at the list, having acknowledged the teacher’s rhetorical question, “And you don’t have anything like that (ro= cket 1 and 2 descriptions, with the same engine and different nose cones) there = (in the list)?” At that point, all the references were aligned with those= of the teacher’s original question, which brought an end to the breakdow= n of references and allowed the group to affirm the question and move on to solve their task using the newly comprehended list artifact.

1:22:06	Jamie	Yeah, but it has same no…
1:22:07		(1.0)
1:22:08	Chuck	Pointy nose cone=3D
1:22:09	Steven	=3DOh, yeah=3D
1:22:10	Chuck	=3DBut it’s not the same engine

1:22:11	Jamie	Yeah, it is, =3D
1:22:12	Brent	=3DYes it is,
1:22:13	Jamie	┌ Compare two n one
	Brent	└ Number two

1:22:14	Chuck	(0.2) I know.
1:22:15	Jamie	(0.2) Are the same=3D
1:22:16	Chuck	=3DOh
1:22:17	Brent	It= 217;s the same engine.
1:22:18	Jamie	So if you ┌ compare two n one,
1:22:19	Chuck	&nbs= p; └ Oh yeah, I= see, I see, I see
1:22:21	Jamie	(0.8) Yeah. Compare two n one. So that the rounded = n- (0.1) no the rounded one is better. Number one.