It seems like you want people to take your question at literal face value, instead of trying to solve the actual problem that caused you to ask the question.
Is that an accurate summary of your stance?
If yes, why do you want that?
If no, what’s a better summary of your reasoning for asking questions?
This is a reasonably good interpretation of the question. Yes.
Assuming a problem Px has happened to generated the question Qx. I have already processed from the problem state Px, to the question state Qx. I have eliminated possible solutions (Sa, Sb, Sc) that I have come up with and why they won’t work alongside the details of my entire situation. Where Px is a big problem space and explaining an entire situation would be to write the universe on paper (pointless and not helpful to anyone).
Or I decided that it is possible to work on a small part of Px with a question Qx. To ask the question Qx is to specify where in the problem space I am trying to work, and starting from there.
If I were to ask the problem question “why don’t people understand me?” I alone can generate hundreds of excuses and reasons for it, that is unhelpful. I have already narrowed Px down to a Qx strategy for solving it. I wanted to ask the specific, “getting people to answer the face-question” the one I chose to ask, not the entire problem set that it comes from.
If I asked the full problem-space at once, no one would read it because it would be too long, and then no one would respond.
At some point the responder should be assuming that the OP actually knows Px that they are asking about and are asking Qx for a good reason (possibly a long one not worth explaining in detail). How can I make that point happen precisely when I ask the question and not 5 interactions later? I would have thought it would involve a caveat of “don’t answer in this way because I considered Sa, Sb, Sc already”. (i.e. my use of the phrase—Assuming X...)
Also important: is the process of “answering the wrong question” (as I am trying to describe it) able to be reasonably defined as responding to a strawman of a question?
Is asking a literal-face-value question a bad idea? If that’s the question I want to be answered?
From my view, it’s absolutely a great idea to ask literal-face-value questions. I think we approach the problem from different angles—you’re looking to fill in specific holes in your knowledge or reasoning, by generating the perfect question to fill in that hole.
I think that’s great when it happens, and I also try to remember that I’m dealing with messy, imperfect, biased, socially evolved humans with HUGE inferential gaps to my understanding of the problem. Given that, my model of getting help with a problem is not Ask great question—get great answer. It usually goes more like this:
-Bring up problem I’m having >they bring up solution I’ve already tried/discarded (or which isn’t actually a solution to my specific problem)> I mention that > they mention some more> this goes back and forth for a while > they mention some new argument or data I hadn’t considered > continue some more > at some point one of us is getting bored or we’ve hashed out everything > move on to another topic.
I find that with this approach, given that I’m asking the right people, I have a high probability of getting new approaches to my problems, altering my existing perspective, and coming closer to a solution. Using this way of approaching advice getting many times gives me a much better understanding of the problem and it’s potential solutions, and allows me to cover the full problem space without overwhellmng people or sounding like a know-it-all.
Coming at it from this angle, I think it’s a great idea to start with a specific question, and still understand that I may move much closer to having my problem solved, without ever coming close to answering the question as I asked it (although oftentimes, we circle back around to the original question to the end, and I hear a novel answer to it).
With that in mind, there are several things I do when asking advice that I think may be helpful to you (or may not be).
I try not to say “I already thought about that and...” too much, as it ends these conversations before we get to the good stuff. Instead, I ask leading questions that bring people to the same conclusion without me sounding like a know it all.
I remain open to the fact that there might be evidence or arguments I’m not aware of in my basic logic, and therefore remain curious even when we’re covering territory that I think I’ve already covered ad nauseum.
I precommit to trying the best specific solution they offer that I haven’t tried, even if I think it has a low probability of success.
I keep them updated on trying their suggested solutions, and express gratitude even if the suggestion doesn’t work.
Over the long term, as these relationships build up more, the people you get advice from will get a better idea of how you think, and you’re more likely to get the “specific answer to specific question” behavior, but even if you don’t, you’ll still get valuable feedback that can help you solve the problem.
Can I give you one for now:
This question in Dagon’s answer below.
Happy to share other examples but I believe that should be clear.
It seems like you want people to take your question at literal face value, instead of trying to solve the actual problem that caused you to ask the question.
Is that an accurate summary of your stance?
If yes, why do you want that? If no, what’s a better summary of your reasoning for asking questions?
This is a reasonably good interpretation of the question. Yes.
Assuming a problem Px has happened to generated the question Qx. I have already processed from the problem state Px, to the question state Qx. I have eliminated possible solutions (Sa, Sb, Sc) that I have come up with and why they won’t work alongside the details of my entire situation. Where Px is a big problem space and explaining an entire situation would be to write the universe on paper (pointless and not helpful to anyone).
Or I decided that it is possible to work on a small part of Px with a question Qx. To ask the question Qx is to specify where in the problem space I am trying to work, and starting from there.
If I were to ask the problem question “why don’t people understand me?” I alone can generate hundreds of excuses and reasons for it, that is unhelpful. I have already narrowed Px down to a Qx strategy for solving it. I wanted to ask the specific, “getting people to answer the face-question” the one I chose to ask, not the entire problem set that it comes from.
If I asked the full problem-space at once, no one would read it because it would be too long, and then no one would respond.
At some point the responder should be assuming that the OP actually knows Px that they are asking about and are asking Qx for a good reason (possibly a long one not worth explaining in detail). How can I make that point happen precisely when I ask the question and not 5 interactions later? I would have thought it would involve a caveat of “don’t answer in this way because I considered Sa, Sb, Sc already”. (i.e. my use of the phrase—Assuming X...)
Also important: is the process of “answering the wrong question” (as I am trying to describe it) able to be reasonably defined as responding to a strawman of a question?
Is asking a literal-face-value question a bad idea? If that’s the question I want to be answered?
From my view, it’s absolutely a great idea to ask literal-face-value questions. I think we approach the problem from different angles—you’re looking to fill in specific holes in your knowledge or reasoning, by generating the perfect question to fill in that hole.
I think that’s great when it happens, and I also try to remember that I’m dealing with messy, imperfect, biased, socially evolved humans with HUGE inferential gaps to my understanding of the problem. Given that, my model of getting help with a problem is not Ask great question—get great answer. It usually goes more like this:
-Bring up problem I’m having >they bring up solution I’ve already tried/discarded (or which isn’t actually a solution to my specific problem)> I mention that > they mention some more> this goes back and forth for a while > they mention some new argument or data I hadn’t considered > continue some more > at some point one of us is getting bored or we’ve hashed out everything > move on to another topic.
I find that with this approach, given that I’m asking the right people, I have a high probability of getting new approaches to my problems, altering my existing perspective, and coming closer to a solution. Using this way of approaching advice getting many times gives me a much better understanding of the problem and it’s potential solutions, and allows me to cover the full problem space without overwhellmng people or sounding like a know-it-all.
Coming at it from this angle, I think it’s a great idea to start with a specific question, and still understand that I may move much closer to having my problem solved, without ever coming close to answering the question as I asked it (although oftentimes, we circle back around to the original question to the end, and I hear a novel answer to it).
With that in mind, there are several things I do when asking advice that I think may be helpful to you (or may not be).
I try not to say “I already thought about that and...” too much, as it ends these conversations before we get to the good stuff. Instead, I ask leading questions that bring people to the same conclusion without me sounding like a know it all.
I remain open to the fact that there might be evidence or arguments I’m not aware of in my basic logic, and therefore remain curious even when we’re covering territory that I think I’ve already covered ad nauseum.
I precommit to trying the best specific solution they offer that I haven’t tried, even if I think it has a low probability of success.
I keep them updated on trying their suggested solutions, and express gratitude even if the suggestion doesn’t work.
Over the long term, as these relationships build up more, the people you get advice from will get a better idea of how you think, and you’re more likely to get the “specific answer to specific question” behavior, but even if you don’t, you’ll still get valuable feedback that can help you solve the problem.