That’s a shame - and a loss for us! - but it’s good you’re still able to spend some time back in Germany. Hopefully there will be an occasion to catch-up in the near future.

That’s often the case with me too! The closer I am to submission, the less I like a paper. For me, I suspect it’s a combination of knowing more about all of the ways one might respond to the claims (and ways it could be developed, without a word limit) and having to face up to the fear of rejection.

Cheers Aidan!

I’m not sure. It may depend on what knowledge is provided by it being ‘out in the open’. I’m not a fan of the recursive “I know that you know that I know…” views of JA, but I’m not confident I have a clear view of what JA being ‘mutually manifest’ entails for knowledge of the episode.

I think that sounds broadly right. The same goes for joint actions, begun and carried out at a distance and yet joint (because of commitment, intentions, etc.). I still wonder if there are some contextual considerations re. how long the activity can continue as robustly joint without check-ins…

I was thinking that there probably has to be some cut off, temporally. ie. JA requires check-ins to be truly triadic, rather than parallel and dyadic experiences, but how frequent that would have to be (which I take to be part of your interest?) seems difficult to say. Plausibly contextual too?

probably depends on the details of the case, no? plausibly you could remain jointly attending (maybe some minimal ‘check-in’s and shared glances throughout), and you could jointly attend for a moment, before not doing so for a while, and then jointly again? (also int. case of ‘joint reminiscing’!)