It happens on this board, and in real life. Someone asks a question like “I’m looking for an 6’4’ actor in his 20’s with red hair that appears in a lot of commercials”, and almost immediately people will answer back with “What about Joseph Belough? He’s about 5’9’’, and he may have appeared in commercials(although I don’t recall seeing him in any)…but he does have red hair. I hope that helps you!”
No-that’s about as far from helping me as you could possibly get, because on the off chance you might have got his height wrong I’ve now got to waste my time to go check out his bio. “And” does not mean “Or”, people. Another example-I say I’m looking for a childhood toy that was assembled from 3 or 4 pieces and, when properly assembled, bounced like a rubber ball. Someone will respond “What about a Superball!” :smack:
Why do you think this might be?
Because often, people don’t correctly remember all the details of the thing they’re describing.
That may be, but why not try to give an answer that fits all of the qualifications first? I was in a café one time doing a crossword, and I mentioned out loud that I needed a seven letter word for an alcoholic drink, with the first letter being “m” and the fourth being “t”, and he thinks a bit, smiles and writes down his answer on a napkin: “Manhatten”. When I said that it couldn’t possibly be correct, he got upset, saying “Why the hell not? It’s a drink that has an “m” and a “t” in it, just like you said!”
You’d be surprised how far off people are when they describe something they’re trying to remember. I’ve often suggested things that really only shared one or two elements from the original description and had the questioner look it up and say that was it.
This is why more people need to play Mastermind.
But that is still no excuse for thinking that providing an answer that only partially fits the question is of worth when an answer that fits the whole question hasn’t even been sought out first. If you think that I may be mistaken in what I am looking for because nothing seems to fit, then we can look elsewhere. On the other hand, if(like my crossword example) you provide me with an “answer” that cannot possibly fit the requirements needed, don’t expect me thank you for trying. If I am looking for a specific word, phrase, person etc., an answer that is obviously partially wrong is the same thing as being totally wrong, in my opinion.
It’s a martini, in case you’re still working on that crossword.
Yep. 
Being able to interpret what a person is asking into what they are really asking is a skill.
Working from most obvious/fits most criteria into an outward bubble of similarities and misinterpretations, I’ve never been right on the first try. Throw in probability, too.
Also, people really want to help, and will strain themselves into unreality trying to do so.
I thought this thread was going to be about relationships.
Sometimes you just know. At least I do. Someone will ask about that person in that movie, providing some details, and I’ll realize exactly who they are looking for, even though the answer doesn’t exactly fit the parameters. Often my answer turns out to be correct. The first thing I do when researching a question of this type (particularly with regard to an actor, movie or T.V. show) is to try to figure out which of the parameters is most likely to be accurate, and which was probably a mistake. Here’s a thread where I found the movie someone was looking for: it’s the Miss USA pageant, not Miss America, and she isn’t married, but probably the right answer.
The Kids are feelin’ ya Czarcasm
Ok, not exactly what you’re on about, but close!
You: “I’m trying to remember that cocktail with an Italian name. It starts with a “m” and ends with “ini”. It’s made out of gin and vermouth and there’s an olive in it. Any ideas?”
Me (thinking): “Well, he can’t be talking about a Martini. That’s an American not an Italian name. And I don’t want to waste his time by suggesting an answer that doesn’t match every one of his specifications.”
Me: “Sorry, Czarcasm, I can’t help you.”
Now, compare what you just wrote with what I actually wrote in post #4. :rolleyes:
edited to add: It fits about as well as the hypothetical “Manhatten” suggestion in that post.
Nemo is correct. Given errors in transmission (including both the sending and receiving end), it makes sense to interpret language at less than 100% precision. As an aside, the optimal level of accuracy is typically not 100%, since tradeoffs often exist between accuracy and clarity.
“That may be, but why not try to give an answer that fits all of the qualifications first?”
Well you take it one step at a time. If somebody thought of both Manhattan and Martini, they would probably… mention both (remember: transmission error). But if they only thought about Manhattan, they might say it anyway. One of the principles of brainstorming is that a bad idea unstated will sometimes block the creation of better ideas. So say it and move on.
Also ego. People get a charge when they perceive that they are helping others and some don’t care enough to evaluate whether their contribution is constructive.
Also: with 20-20 hindsight it seems to me that Czar should not have assumed that all 3 pieces of information were digested by his listener. That’s not reasonable, given that he reportedly just shouted this out in a cafe. He might have feigned surprise and disappointment: “Gosh… I see I need 7 letters: so close!”
I think the point is, sometimes when a person is looking for something that fits into very specific parameters, sometimes their parameters are faulty and they don’t know it, so answers that are “partially right” might actually end up actually being right, ergo people offer up answers that may not quite fit into the parameters that were originally given.
I know it’s happened to me where I remember the details of something incorrectly only to have a :smack: moment afterward when it’s pointed out that what I was actually asking for was not quite right.
If I’m looking at the crossword, the clue is “alcoholic drink”, there are 7 letters with the first being “m” and the fourth being “t”, then “Manhatten” couldn’t possibly be the right answer, could it? Little Nemo fuzzed up the scenario I posted to make it fit the answer he already had in mind, the same way my friend fuzzed up the what I said to make his answer fit. I am not talking about cases where the person asking might not be remembering the facts correctly-I’m talking about cases where the person pretty much knows what it is she/he wants, and people respond with answers that just don’t fit.
Life is not a search algorithm. Most of the time, partially right is right enough. We all know that and can giggle at those who don’t and who stamp their feet all mad about it.
I’d say it was a good example then. You apparently failed to frame your question properly and then complained the answer you got was wrong.
You’re the one who said you doesn’t want “an answer that only partially fits the question is of worth” and only wants “an answer that fits all of the qualifications”. I was pointed out how this could cause you to miss the correct answer you wanted because your question might be flawed.
Your basic premise is that you don’t know the information you’re seeking, whether it’s the name of an actor or a cocktail. But you’re apparently assuming you have perfect awareness of the parameters of your ignorance and can describe them precisely. That’s generally unlikely - if you don’t know the information itself, you’re probably also a little fuzzy about the related details. How often are you going to know somebody is exactly 6’4" but not know their name? So it’s fair for a listener to guess somebody who’s 6’2" or 6’6".