Maybe to reiterate that something is self-evidently true, when sometimes we're being tricky? I don't get what you're asking.
Of course I don't.

>>38
We say of course to respond to stimulas in such a way that suggests that before the stimulas we were had presupposed the implications made by the stimulas.

For example:
If someone says: I love cows
Someone else responds (stimulas): All cows are blue. Do you like blue?
First person: Of course.

This can be explained through vanity theory for it may be used to save face by not appearing ignorant of a connection not initially made. The connotations of the phrase also suggest the implication was superfluous and thus may be used to denegrade the ability of the second person to silently infer.

I figured it's because a course is something which is set and familiar to us, so when someone answers this way it is because they believe it is the most obvious conclusion to particular logical path.

That didn't make any sense did it?

>>44
Yep you're right.
But that's level 1 thinking.
You can go to 'level 2', a set of reference to the system of metaanalysis whereby you analyse that thinking in itself.
When discussing psychology informally, we tend to do it at level 1. Most people operate at a level 1 basis.
When we abstract things (represent them as numbers or symbols), we can manipulate them in our minds at a higher level much more easily, and can go to level 2.
Really clever people (rarely me, but now I've done it so much it is pretty much natural) and some people who have too much time on their hands work at a level 2 level.
If they do this systematically, they can 'control' level 1 thinkers very easily.
Because this is a formal thought system, it is easy to progress to level 3 and so on and so forth. That is, you analyse the thinking of level 2 thinkers.
Being a level 3 thinker and thinking you are analysing a level 2 thinker who is really level 1 does no help to you.
You can control only when you are only level of 'meta' above the other person.

Why have I explained all this?
Your explanation is true and Trias explanation is true, but Tria explains it at level 2 as her norm.

I try and explain at a base level (0 or 1) or at the highest level I can (but I usually get lost at around 4 or 5).

If you play poker, it is easy to understand the practical applications of this system...