Insights Very Little Excuse To Ask A Question Cold - Comments

[Mark44]

There are almost an infinite number of ways to describe a thing or a concepts.

Consider the concept of a "chair." Certainly we could come up with an infinite number of ways to describe it, with variations on its size, color, material, and so on, but it would take only a relatively few attributes to convey the idea of a chair to someone else.

Now just because someone uses simple terminology in their questions does not mean that they are incapable of understanding the more complex usages of words to describe the things of concepts that they are asking about.

I disagree. If someone uses simple terminology because that's all they know, that's probably a very good indicator that they won't understand a more complex answer. This is precisely the reason that we use B (beginner), I (intermediate), and A (advanced) tag in many of our technical forum sections.

In my experience I have noticed that the people that have gone through more formal education have a tendency to scrutinise terminology more often than others.

In the fields of science and mathematics, we operate using definitions, precise descriptions of the terminology being used. Without a clear understanding of what the words in a description mean, there is a much greater chance for ambiguity, which reduces clarity and leads to understanding. In normal conversation, there is not such a stress on the precise meanings of words, so it's much easier to misunderstand what someone means.

It's almost like since they were taught a certain way that this is the only way to describe things. Without taking into consideration that other might have other ways to learn the same things that maybe better for them.

How is it better to not have clear precise meanings for words?

 

[Drakkith]

In my experience I have noticed that the people that have gone through more formal education have a tendency to scrutinise terminology more often than others. It's almost like since they were taught a certain way that this is the only way to describe things. Without taking into consideration that other might have other ways to learn the same things that maybe better for them.

On the contrary, this is because, as you mentioned in your post, the English language is fickle and all natural languages have many different ways to say the same thing. In science, terminology is often far more precise and less ambiguous than in everyday language. So when that terminology is used in a non-standard way, it often gets picked apart because it's not very precise or because someone is using it as they would use it in everyday conversation when it means something different in science.

Even if it's not "wrong", keep in mind that people in STEM fields are essentially their own little group within the larger population and, like any group of people, they have their own way of communicating thoughts and ideas. Especially when talking about STEM topics.

There has been a lot of times that I have not posted my questions on hear because I didn't want to be accused of being lazy or for a lack of a better word "stupid". This is appalling to me that anyone would discourage anyone else when seeking knowledge in a subject that they are interested in.

As far as I can tell, no one here is "discouraging someone from seeking knowledge in a topic they're interested in". Let's keep in mind that this thread is about the insights article. If you have other concerns beyond what the insights article addresses, please bring them to the attention of myself or another mentor.

Now for the ones that scream to everyone else to take the time to look up their question. Do you ever take the time to look at the profile of the one asking the question, or simply ask what their background understanding of the subject is

99% of the time there is no profile information. That's based off of all the times I do happen to check, and after three or four years of being a mentor I think I can say that I've checked enough profiles for probability to support me.

As for asking about someone's background understanding of the subject, I see that happen all the time. It's often one of the first things asked actually.

 

[Mark44]

Do you ever take the time to look at the profile of the one asking the question, or simply ask what their background understanding of the subject is

99% of the time there is no profile information. That's based off of all the times I do happen to check, and after three or four years of being a mentor I think I can say that I've checked enough profiles for probability to support me.

That's my experience as well. It's very rare that a member puts information into his or her profile concerning the member's background.

 

[anorlunda]

There are limitations inherent to a written non-real-time public forum that are not specific to PF or to science topics.

In face-to-face encounters, the person asking "what is energy" can be probed a little bit to see if that is the real question. The question might be poorly phrased or use entirely wrong words (maybe energy was the wrong word). But probing is hard to do in a public forum because someone else will jump in and start answering the "what is energy" question literally. Each form of communication brings its own strengths and weaknesses.

I also get the impression from some newbie posts that they think that they are in a peer-to-peer chat room typical on the Internet. I recall a reply to a scientifically correct (and complicated) answer that said, "Dude, I'll take the other answer, yours was lame." The poster didn't want an accurate answer, he wanted something cool and PF was simply the wrong place for him.

To compare PF with a student Q&A session ignores the fact that online posters have no idea who they are asking whereas students in a Q&A are informed in advance of the nature of the session.

PF is not typical. We should be proud of that and not annoyed if the newbies don't understand the nature of PF at the start. It goes with the territory of being exceptional.

Sure it would be nice if newbies read a PF user's manual before making their first post. But that will hardly ever happen.

 

[UsableThought]

The question might be poorly phrased or use entirely wrong words (maybe energy was the wrong word). But probing is hard to do in a public forum because someone else will jump in and start answering the "what is energy" question literally. Each form of communication brings its own strengths and weaknesses.

You make a good point - this premature "jumping in" is something that happens all too often with cryptic opening posts. Myself, I find it annoying, because stylistically I am more of a "prober" - I would rather ask & find out what the person really wants before getting too deep into what might not be an appropriate answer. Once "jumping in" happens, the thread often deteriorates into a series of differing views being put forward & arguments about which is correct; and when this happens, it is not unusual for the OP to disappear and never return.

Another thing that bugs me, but that I'd guess doesn't annoy other people in the slightest, is when an OP has asked a question and someone has given a good response; after which a further person jumps in and gives essentially the same answer that was already given - but completely ignores the previous answer, not even "liking" it or otherwise acknowledging it. It's as if the second responder is totally bent on their own answer, not on building a coordinated set of responses that would better serve the OP. You sometimes see very similar behavior in a live classroom.

To me, a thread ideally should resemble a conversation, with the courtesies and acknowledgments typical of conversation, including such gestures as "liking" a comment not only because you like it, but as a social positive stroke, the way you would applaud someone's remark in an actual physical gathering. However that's just my view & obviously not held by everyone. There may be other views that are quite legitimate but result in very different behavior when posting or commenting.

 

[anorlunda]

Another thing that bugs me, but that I'd guess doesn't annoy other people in the slightest, is when an OP has asked a question and someone has given a good response; after which a further person jumps in ...

I think it was @Dale who correctly observed that in many threads, the question is well answered in post #2 and then the thread goes downhill from there. That may be true, but it is fundamental property of public forums that can't be changed. To avoid that problem, you need a site where a newbie is put into a private chat with an expert. That is not a public forum, and not PF.

@UsableThought, you can sidestep the problem and probe the OP by starting a PM conversation with the OP and ignoring the public thread.

I for one, learn much from reading threads that I don't participate in. Sometimes I learn useful stuff from posts that are diversions from the OP's original question. That is the strength of the public forum. I think @Greg Bernhardt once said that the ratio of lurkers to participants is 11:1. That is not readily visible on your screen, but we shouldn't forget it.

I find it amusing to think that today's teens are more experienced and more mature in the art of online text conversations than their elders.

 

[UsableThought]

I for one, learn much from reading threads that I don't participate in. Sometimes I learn useful stuff from posts that are diversions from the OP's original question. That is the strength of the public forum.

Thanks for the suggestion to PM when appropriate.

I agree, many threads (including this one) diverge into interesting related topics. I lurk a lot myself. I think the problem I spoke of is mostly related to either homework questions or the "What is energy??" type of question that ZapperZ addresses in his article.

 

[Mark44]

Another thing that bugs me, but that I'd guess doesn't annoy other people in the slightest, is when an OP has asked a question and someone has given a good response; after which a further person jumps in and gives essentially the same answer that was already given - but completely ignores the previous answer, not even "liking" it or otherwise acknowledging it.

Speaking with my mentor hat on, in threads where this happens (and that we notice), we sometimes let the second person know that he/she is merely repeating what was said earlier. In doing this, we attempt to communicate to this second person that, unless you are adding something new and significant, you probably shouldn't make that post. It's different if two posters are writing within short time of one another.

It's as if the second responder is totally bent on their own answer, not on building a coordinated set of responses that would better serve the OP. You sometimes see very similar behavior in a live classroom.

In my own classroom, I would ask how or whether the new comment is different from the first.

 

[HAYAO]

Just my subjective opinion on this topic.

Physics Forums seems to be more professional and academic compared to other social networks that have to do with discussing physics. As such, many people are required to have adequate level of education with adequate skill set required to do research, understand, and find out exactly what they want to talk about or ask. The insights given by ZapperZ is, I personally think, the consensus that people share on this forum. No offense whatsoever to this forum or anyone on this forum, but I honestly wouldn't recommend trying to participate in a discussion or ask a question if you think you are not smart enough; it is too professional.

This is actually quite rare if we are talking about general public. When we look at the entire population, gifted people like in this forum, is only a minority. (I know some of you are modest and say you aren't the smartest, but believe me you guys are well above average. Even I am above average.) Majority of people don't have such skills, motivation, and the fundamental cognition as required on this forum.

One time I was doing internship in middle school and high school for getting a teacher's license, and I was teaching chemistry. (BTW, this takes place in Japan so I don't know how things are in where you guys live.) One of the important things I realized is that many student will take what teachers say for granted (holds true for all of the classes that I taught or watched other teachers teach). They rarely ask questions. As a matter of fact, those who do ask questions are more often than not the more intelligent ones. I know that because most of those who do ask questions score higher on tests compared to those who didn't. Does this mean all these other students are ignorant about learning chemistry and don't care at all? Not really. Most of them in fact do think they understood the moment they were taught. When they score bad on tests, and I ask what part of it did you not understand, they answer "I don't understand what I don't understand" because the moment they were taught, they "thought I (they) understood, but turned out that I (they) really didn't."

I know this is going to be a subjective speculation because it is based on my personal experience, but it seems like majority of the population will take anything for granted when taught by someone with (seemingly) good knowledge of the subject. Once they are forced in a position to ask a question because they really have to know, they don't know where to start. This is because they don't understand what they don't understand. This is why sometimes on this forum, we see questions that are vague and ambiguous. Wording can be all wrong because they don't have a good background and the fundamental intelligence to understand the precise definition of the word. Sometimes they are talking about completely two different problems but they recognize it as the same.On this forum, people ask you to be clear on what you want to know or what you want to discuss. Sometimes we ask them to do some research on their own before asking anything. I suggest we keep in mind that this is only possible for minority of people who have the cognitive ability to accurately identify the actual problem they want to talk about. I suggest we keep in mind that we are the minorities and those that make up most of the active members.

Okay, that wasn't a very constructive opinion...sorry.

 

[ibkev]

That's my experience as well. It's very rare that a member puts information into his or her profile concerning the member's background.

Has any thought been given to finding a way to automatically require that this information be provided? From my lurking and reading threads on physics forums I notice that many threads begin with several messages back/forth assessing the background of the person asking the question and what their purpose is.

Right now when people post questions they have to choose what they believe the level of their question is.
Perhaps additionally, to post a question they should be required to also describe themselves. They can skip this step if their profile provides the required information.

So perhaps on registration, there could be some required selections:
(1) completed education level, with choices like: high school, college, undergrad, masters, doctoral, post-doc
(2) education major: math, physics, engineering, N/A, etc.
(3) currently doing: working, high school, undergrad, masters, doctoral, post-doc
(4) reason for being here: improving on popular science level understanding, help with school, in depth self-study, technical professional development

 

[fresh_42]

So perhaps on registration, there could be some required selections: ...

I think that would do more damage than good. I still remember my registration, and what I wanted to know the most has been whether there are hidden costs. To reveal all personal information like this, would have certainly led me to leave instantaneously. To give away personal information to the public beforehand would be an invitation to abuse. Let alone legal issues in the various countries. The world out there isn't a scientific one. (Live long and prosper! )

My experience is, that those information weren't even useful, as it tells you nothing about a specific post. The available degrees "B","I" and "A" are much more telling. Why should an astronomer has to be an expert in particle physics, a geologist capable to understand a mathematical question on "A" level or a chemist understand general relativity? I find that the way a question is worded reveals more information than a vita would provide.

 

[Drakkith]

No offense whatsoever to this forum or anyone on this forum, but I honestly wouldn't recommend trying to participate in a discussion or ask a question if you think you are not smart enough; it is too professional.

I would say that if you want to participate in a discussion, you need to have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so. If you don't have these, then you're best bet is to stick to asking basic questions about the topic and not answering them. This isn't really any different than what most people do everyday and could be considered "common sense".

On this forum, people ask you to be clear on what you want to know or what you want to discuss. Sometimes we ask them to do some research on their own before asking anything. I suggest we keep in mind that this is only possible for minority of people who have the cognitive ability to accurately identify the actual problem they want to talk about. I suggest we keep in mind that we are the minorities and those that make up most of the active members.

Respectfully, I don't fully agree with this. I would say that the majority of basic questions we get here at PF are not simply, "What is X?", like the insights article is talking about. Most people asking a question on this level actually take the time to explain that they are novices at science and often give some background as to what made them ask the question in the first place. Some people are so talkative that it takes them 3/4 of a post just to get to the actual question!

Has any thought been given to finding a way to automatically require that this information be provided? From my lurking and reading threads on physics forums I notice that many threads begin with several messages back/forth assessing the background of the person asking the question and what their purpose is.

It's been discussed more than once, but the problem is that the more barriers you put in place, the less likely people are to take the time to get through them and register. We don't want to drive people away before they've even registered. We don't want to drive people away at all!

There's also the issue that this information is personal and there's no real reason to require it. A person's background in a topic is almost always immediately apparent when they post. The issue is that for people who aren't formally educated and trained in an area, we don't know where they stand in their general education and knowledge of science. If someone's asking about what energy is, it's pointless to respond with a long mathematical derivation if that person can't even do algebra. But I don't know how you would figure this out except by directly engaging with the person and asking. The number of things you'd have to put on a questionnaire would be very large if we wanted to cover all the basic areas and it would just make it a huge pain in the butt to register.

 

[symbolipoint]

Has any thought been given to finding a way to automatically require that this information be provided? From my lurking and reading threads on physics forums I notice that many threads begin with several messages back/forth assessing the background of the person asking the question and what their purpose is.

Right now when people post questions they have to choose what they believe the level of their question is.
Perhaps additionally, to post a question they should be required to also describe themselves. They can skip this step if their profile provides the required information.

So perhaps on registration, there could be some required selections:
(1) completed education level, with choices like: high school, college, undergrad, masters, doctoral, post-doc
(2) education major: math, physics, engineering, N/A, etc.
(3) currently doing: working, high school, undergrad, masters, doctoral, post-doc
(4) reason for being here: improving on popular science level understanding, help with school, in depth self-study, technical professional development

Some members and potential members may refuse some of that profile information because they want to protect their identity and avoid reputation destruction.

 

[Drakkith]

Some members and potential members may refuse some of that profile information because they want to protect their identity and avoid reputation destruction.

Indeed. Or just because they don't like to give out personal info to random people on an internet forum.

 

[symbolipoint]

Indeed. Or just because they don't like to give out personal info to random people on an internet forum.

For the reasoning described...

Not every member can afford to be a dedicated specialist in his field. People too often need to diversify or be flexible, and members never know who will read what the member writes on the forum and member never know what unfavorable ways the reader will take and use what the member says/writes.

 

[phinds]

I would say that if you want to participate in a discussion, you need to have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so.

Yeah, but there are always people like me who don't let a little thing like total ignorance get in the way of giving an answer.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Yeah, but there are always people like me who don't let a little thing like total ignorance get in the way of giving an answer.

I should bookmark this and reference it when I get agitated with you.

 

[Nucleus _Basalis]

Author: ZapperZ

Very Little Excuse To Ask A Question Cold
Read: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/little-excuse-ask-question-cold/

I knew what a question was but, could only guess what a "cold one" was after reading your article, perhaps a question is cold when it is without reference or context etc.
I googled cold question as suggested
https://www.google.com/search?q=col...4qfYAhVEU98KHWbjAQQQvwUIJCgA&biw=1396&bih=668

haha, just kidding!

'PF is a great forum' as always