Only this is not an unbelievable X, its an entirely believable X (I wouldn’t have any reason to ask an unbelieveable—as would anyone asking a question—unless they are actually trying to trick you with a question). In fact—assuming that people are asking you to believe an “unbelievable X” is a strawman of the argument in point.
Invalidating someone else’s question (by attacking it or trying to defeat the purpose of the question) for reasons of them not being able to ask the right question or you wanting to answer a different question—is not a reasonable way to win a discussion. I am really not sure how to be more clear about it. Discussions are not about winning. one doesn’t need to kill a question to beat it; one needs to fill it’s idea-space with juicy information-y goodness to satisfy it.
Yes it is possible to resolve a question by cutting it up; {real world example—someone asks you for help. You could defeat the question by figuring out how to stop them from asking for help, or by finding out why they want help and making sure they don’t in the future, or can help themselves. Or you could actually help them.}
Or you could actually respond in a way that helps. There is an argument about giving a man a fish or teaching him to fish; but that’s not applicable because you have to first assume people asking about fishing for sharks already know how to fish for normal fish. Give them the answers—the shark meat, then if that doesn’t help—teach them how to fish for sharks! Don’t tell them they don’t know how to fish for normal fish then try to teach them to fish for normal fish, suggesting they can just eat normal fish.
Assuming there isn’t something wrong with the question I originally ask and how I present it.
More importantly—this is a different (sometimes related) problem that can be answered in a different question at a different time if that’s what I asked about. AND one I will ask later, but of myself. One irrelevant to the main question.
Can you do me a favour and try to steelman the question I asked? And see what the results are, and what answer you might give to it?
conversation and discussion isn’t about what you want. It’s what each of us wants.
Yes this is true, but as the entity who started a thread (of conversation generally) I should have more say about it’s purpose and what is wanted from it. Of course you can choose to not engage, you can derail a thread, and this is not something that you should do. I am trying to outline that the way you chose to engage was not productive (short of accidentally providing the example of failing to answer the question).
Only this is not an unbelievable X, its an entirely believable X (I wouldn’t have any reason to ask an >unbelieveable—as would anyone asking a question—unless they are actually trying to trick you with a >question). In fact—assuming that people are asking you to believe an “unbelievable X” is a strawman of the >argument in point.
Are you sure that’s how you want to defend your question? If you defend the question by saying that the premise is believable, you are implicitly endorsing the standard that questions should only be answered if they are reasonable. However, accepting this standard runs the risk that your conversational partner will judge your question to be unreasonable even if it isn’t and fail to answer your question, in exactly the way you’re complaining about. A better standard for the purpose of getting people to answer the questions you ask literally is that people should answer the questions that you ask literally even if they rely on fantastic premises.
Can you do me a favour and try to steelman the question I asked? And see what the results are, and what answer you might give to it?
A similar concern is applicable here: Recall that steelmanning means, when encountering a argument that seems easily flawed, not to respond to that argument but to strengthen it ways the seem reasonable to you and answer that instead. The sounds like the exact opposite of what you want people to do to your questions.
A lot of those examples aren’t “defeating the question”, they’re an honest attempt to understand the motivation behind the question and help with the underlying problem. In fact, that was my intent when I first responded.
You sound frustrated that people are misunderstanding you and answering questions different than the ones you want answered. I would like to help with this, by pointing out that communication takes work and that often it takes some effort and back and forth to draw out what kind of help you want and what kind your conversational partner(s) can provide.
You can be a lot less frustrated by asking questions better, and being more receptive to responses that don’t magically align with your desires.
Does it matter where the question comes from? Why?
Did you misunderstand my original question? It would seem that you understood the question and then chose a different path to resolving it other than the route I was aiming for the direction of the answer to cover.
Assuming that you now (several posts onwards) understand the question—can you turing-repeat what you think the question is; back to me?
I don’t think I fully understand the question (or rather, the questions—there are always multiple parts to a query, and multiple followup directions based on the path the discussion takes). I don’t think it’s possible, actually—language is pretty limiting, and asynchronous low-bandwidth typed discussion even more so. To claim full understanding of your mind-state and desires when you asked the question would be ludicrous.
I think the gist of your query was around feeling frustrated that you often find yourself asking a question and someone answers in a way that doesn’t satisfy you. I intended to reassure you that this happens to many of us, and that most of the time, they’re just trying to be helpful and you can help them help you by adding further information to their model of you, so they can more closely match their experiences and knowledge to what they think you would benefit from hearing.
And in doing so, I was reminded that this works in reverse, as well—I often find myself trying to help by sharing experiences and information, but in such a way that the connection is not reciprocated or appreciated because my model of my correspondent is insufficient to communicate efficiently. I’ll keep refining and trying, though.
Only this is not an unbelievable X, its an entirely believable X (I wouldn’t have any reason to ask an unbelieveable—as would anyone asking a question—unless they are actually trying to trick you with a question). In fact—assuming that people are asking you to believe an “unbelievable X” is a strawman of the argument in point.
Invalidating someone else’s question (by attacking it or trying to defeat the purpose of the question) for reasons of them not being able to ask the right question or you wanting to answer a different question—is not a reasonable way to win a discussion. I am really not sure how to be more clear about it. Discussions are not about winning. one doesn’t need to kill a question to beat it; one needs to fill it’s idea-space with juicy information-y goodness to satisfy it.
Yes it is possible to resolve a question by cutting it up; {real world example—someone asks you for help. You could defeat the question by figuring out how to stop them from asking for help, or by finding out why they want help and making sure they don’t in the future, or can help themselves. Or you could actually help them.}
Or you could actually respond in a way that helps. There is an argument about giving a man a fish or teaching him to fish; but that’s not applicable because you have to first assume people asking about fishing for sharks already know how to fish for normal fish. Give them the answers—the shark meat, then if that doesn’t help—teach them how to fish for sharks! Don’t tell them they don’t know how to fish for normal fish then try to teach them to fish for normal fish, suggesting they can just eat normal fish.
More importantly—this is a different (sometimes related) problem that can be answered in a different question at a different time if that’s what I asked about. AND one I will ask later, but of myself. One irrelevant to the main question.
Can you do me a favour and try to steelman the question I asked? And see what the results are, and what answer you might give to it?
Yes this is true, but as the entity who started a thread (of conversation generally) I should have more say about it’s purpose and what is wanted from it. Of course you can choose to not engage, you can derail a thread, and this is not something that you should do. I am trying to outline that the way you chose to engage was not productive (short of accidentally providing the example of failing to answer the question).
The original question again -
Are you sure that’s how you want to defend your question? If you defend the question by saying that the premise is believable, you are implicitly endorsing the standard that questions should only be answered if they are reasonable. However, accepting this standard runs the risk that your conversational partner will judge your question to be unreasonable even if it isn’t and fail to answer your question, in exactly the way you’re complaining about. A better standard for the purpose of getting people to answer the questions you ask literally is that people should answer the questions that you ask literally even if they rely on fantastic premises.
A similar concern is applicable here: Recall that steelmanning means, when encountering a argument that seems easily flawed, not to respond to that argument but to strengthen it ways the seem reasonable to you and answer that instead. The sounds like the exact opposite of what you want people to do to your questions.
A lot of those examples aren’t “defeating the question”, they’re an honest attempt to understand the motivation behind the question and help with the underlying problem. In fact, that was my intent when I first responded.
You sound frustrated that people are misunderstanding you and answering questions different than the ones you want answered. I would like to help with this, by pointing out that communication takes work and that often it takes some effort and back and forth to draw out what kind of help you want and what kind your conversational partner(s) can provide.
You can be a lot less frustrated by asking questions better, and being more receptive to responses that don’t magically align with your desires.
Does it matter where the question comes from? Why?
Did you misunderstand my original question? It would seem that you understood the question and then chose a different path to resolving it other than the route I was aiming for the direction of the answer to cover.
Assuming that you now (several posts onwards) understand the question—can you turing-repeat what you think the question is; back to me?
I don’t think I fully understand the question (or rather, the questions—there are always multiple parts to a query, and multiple followup directions based on the path the discussion takes). I don’t think it’s possible, actually—language is pretty limiting, and asynchronous low-bandwidth typed discussion even more so. To claim full understanding of your mind-state and desires when you asked the question would be ludicrous.
I think the gist of your query was around feeling frustrated that you often find yourself asking a question and someone answers in a way that doesn’t satisfy you. I intended to reassure you that this happens to many of us, and that most of the time, they’re just trying to be helpful and you can help them help you by adding further information to their model of you, so they can more closely match their experiences and knowledge to what they think you would benefit from hearing.
And in doing so, I was reminded that this works in reverse, as well—I often find myself trying to help by sharing experiences and information, but in such a way that the connection is not reciprocated or appreciated because my model of my correspondent is insufficient to communicate efficiently. I’ll keep refining and trying, though.