I see a 2x2 in the pattern of questions and responses.
Simple question, simple answer. Only arises to the level of intention if an idiot or a very motivated argumentative person wants to use it for something that isn’t really about the original question.
Complicated question, simple answer. Everyone loves these, they make dumb people feel like they’re smarter than they are.
Complicated question, complicated answer. Self limiting in the effort of the people willing to engage with it.
Simple question, complicated answer. Here is where all the problems are. Even though a satisfactory answer exists the question recurs perennially because the people who ask it haven’t read any of the other long responses. People’s misperceptions about it go in many directions meaning that the path to gaining understanding is idiosyncratic and a person capable of understanding the answer has to hand hold arguers through the inferences necessary. Even if such a person decides to do this, they will eventually get fed up and leave. This will be taken by people as evidence that the question does not have a good answer.
Even if such a person decides to do this, they will eventually get fed up and leave.
Will they, necessarily? The structure of the problem you describe sounds a lot like any sort of teaching, which involves a lot of finding out what a student misunderstands about a particular topic and then fixing that, even if you clear up that same misunderstanding for a different student every week. There are lots of people who do not get fed up with that. What makes this so different?
unpaid internet arguing, without the reward of seeing a change positively impact someone’s life. The selection effect means you wind up interacting mostly with those who want to argue rather than collaborate.
I see a 2x2 in the pattern of questions and responses.
Simple question, simple answer. Only arises to the level of intention if an idiot or a very motivated argumentative person wants to use it for something that isn’t really about the original question.
Complicated question, simple answer. Everyone loves these, they make dumb people feel like they’re smarter than they are.
Complicated question, complicated answer. Self limiting in the effort of the people willing to engage with it.
Simple question, complicated answer. Here is where all the problems are. Even though a satisfactory answer exists the question recurs perennially because the people who ask it haven’t read any of the other long responses. People’s misperceptions about it go in many directions meaning that the path to gaining understanding is idiosyncratic and a person capable of understanding the answer has to hand hold arguers through the inferences necessary. Even if such a person decides to do this, they will eventually get fed up and leave. This will be taken by people as evidence that the question does not have a good answer.
Will they, necessarily? The structure of the problem you describe sounds a lot like any sort of teaching, which involves a lot of finding out what a student misunderstands about a particular topic and then fixing that, even if you clear up that same misunderstanding for a different student every week. There are lots of people who do not get fed up with that. What makes this so different?
unpaid internet arguing, without the reward of seeing a change positively impact someone’s life. The selection effect means you wind up interacting mostly with those who want to argue rather than collaborate.