This may be a bad habit of mine I am not sure, but, when I pose a question, it is usually about something I know very little about. Along with my question I usually like to post my reasons behind asking the question which usually includes a brief description of my understanding of something. This is where I get in trouble. I don’t think my understanding i is necessarily correct, I put it out there so that can be addressed before my actual question. As far as I know I always add a disclaimer along with my premises, so no one thinks I am trying to state facts. In my thinking it helps to get to the root much quicker and with less bantering. I have worked in problem solving my entire life and the first thing I want to know when addressing a question or problem is what the person is basing his problem on and then we go from there. I am fully aware that correlation is not causation but sometimes it might be a starting point in looking at something. What is the proper way to pose a question? Another issue I am not comfortable with. I have areas that I do spend considerable time on and I also have things that I have a passing interest in that I think others might find interesting as well. I don’t see how that can be interpeted as beig a know it all or stupid ass whatever. Opinions on this please>
If you are genuinely interested in gaining understanding of something, why is it that in every thread I have ever seen from you, you have stubbornly refused to ever provide any cite to explain the basis for any of your (often vaguely stated) underlying factual assumptions? This is not a rhetorical question, please answer it.
If you did provide cites, it would be much easier for other posters with knowledge of the field to discern where the problem lies - is the source you are looking at crank pseudoscience, or is it a good source and you have just misunderstood something.
Given this MO of NEVER providing cites, it is inevitable that other posters will start to question whether your claim to having an open-minded desire to gain understanding is genuine.
The best way to post a question is to post the question.
Nothing else. No premises. No assumptions. Just the plain question you want answered.
If you post anything else, you’re making an argument. There’s a clinic for that, at least there used to be in Britain, but the Dope isn’t it. Asking for opinions isn’t asking a question, it’s starting an argument and signing up for the full course.
This makes little sense to me. Questions don’t usually arise from thin air. Many questions that I have derive from having read something, and it surely often makes sense to provide the context and motivation for the question. Often the reason for asking a question is because some underlying claimed fact was unexpected, and you are exploring the implications. So that claimed fact is likely to be unfamiliar to others too.
It certainly depends on the type of question. Some questions are very straightforward and don’t require additional elaboration. Sometimes the extra context just serves to waste the reader’s time, like those recipe sites that start with “My dear grandma in the old country used to make this dish, and…”
Then, there are the cases that result in an XY Problem. The asker has an end result in mind, but asks a different question–sometimes one that doesn’t make sense or isn’t the right way to solve the problem (they wanted to solve X, but they asked Y instead). Here, extra context can be useful.
And then, there are the totally open-ended questions like the OP tends to post. It’s not always clear what the question even is. But regardless, it is helpful to know not just the context around a question, but the motivation behind it (say, the article containing some ideas that led to the question). Here, maximum context is essential, since a question asked in ignorance of the whole subject isn’t likely to be sensible (Not Even Wrong, as they say). There may be an interesting question in there, somewhere–but it takes effort to tease it out.
Given all that, and since the asker of a question is the least qualified to differentiate between these situations (and more), I’d say it’s best to err on the side of more context.
The most inappropriate kind of question is positing some off-the-deep-end baseless assertion and then structuring questions soliciting support…and then arguing when that support doesn’t surface.
When ignorance appears, we’re happy to fight it. But sometimes ignorance comes around for the sole purpose of picking a fight.
This is where the problem lies, I seldom make assertions, but I can understand how them may be interpreted that way. What comes off as an assertion is when I lay out a problem or potential theory as I see it. I am fully aware that how I see things may be all wrong or partially wrong. For some reason in face to face conversations this is seldom much of an issue. I will give you an example. Without actually rehashing the conversation. I believe I was doing some reading on ejaculation mechanisms. ( ! am 75 years old and my frequency is waining) . I came across something that mentioned the testes were more closely associated with the brain than any of the other systems or organs. I found that interesting. Several hours or possibly even a day or two later I was still pondering this, and this is where the conjecture started. My first thought was, are the sperm exposed to the same neuro chemicals present in our spinal fluid. Do these neuro chemicals make it into the seminal fluids? If so could there be a not so apparent reason for this? So basically while the sperm was swimming in the seminal fluid there was an opportunity for something to happen. I had and still have no idea if something happens during this period or not. And this is where the question started. Any assertions I make are only to establish my logic behind a question, I never attempt to express them as factual.
Why did you have to through that whole thing?
That’s a long way around to get what is ostensibly your real question (“I’m 75 years old and my frequency is waning. Is this natural?”)
It’s even a long way to get around to your secondary question (“What’s the relationship between the brain and testicles, and does it change as we get older?”)
Maybe if you just ask your basic question without so much background, (if you don’t give enough background you can count on us to ask for more) we’ll be able to give better answers. Or if you state upfront, “I have a theory; tell me if I’m on the right track.”
Because frequency had no relation to my question. It was a search I was doing when I stumbled across something that led me to the question.
Do you understand why someone reading your post might think your question was about frequency?
Yes I do because I do it myself more often than I like to admit. The reader glossed over what i had written . I just went back and reread what i wrote and it is more than clear.
To you. Do you think that you knowing what you intended to say might color you’re understanding of what you actually wrote?
Yes, that is very true. But in the particular sentence being referred to I think this is not the case.
I don’t know if anyone will be able to relate to this or not but I will put it out there anyway., just in case. As far back as I can remember probably 4 years old, I had relentless questions and it got on a lot of people nerves. By the time I was 6 I had learned that dumbing things down was an effective strategy in getting along better with people in general as well as teachers. This became even more pronounced as I entered puberty and started hanging out with the " In crowd’. I dropped out of school around the 8th grade. But would occasionally go back for a few weeks here and there… I would go to night school and they would put me in a grade that corresponded with my age when I would go back to regular school. I was eventually diagnosed with Aspergers which I still think is bullshit, but I do have some of those traits. Dumbing things down has crippled my communication skills socially, but for some odd reason it doesn’t manifest itself near as much professionally. It is really hard to explain, I will develop a thought or idea in my head and the minute I start to relay my thoughts I have like a mental collapse. This may explain why I sometimes say inappropriate things. I don’t really expect anyone else to adjust to my idiosyncrasies . I am just throwing this out there.
I have to agree that you throw in too much stuff as context. ‘I read that the testes are the organ most closely associated with the brain. Is this true?’ would have been a much better OP.
Oh, and you don’t need to ‘dumb things down’ we’ve got plenty of PhD’s around on the Dope.
In fact, quite to the contrary. If you’re asking here, you can safely assume the folks you’re asking know more than you about the topic. It’s counterproductive to throw in your own theories and half-formed understanding if your intent is to learn something you don’t already know.
And if you do already know, why are you asking? Especially true in FQ.
I am well aware of that, that is the reason I persist here.
This is true, I run into a slightly different problem here. I am not very articulate, so if I go to deep into a problem, I sound like I am coming off as trying to sound smart! That seems to irritate people. I really don’t know what the answer is. The vast majority of the time I am trying to get a conversation on a topic started that I might not even have much to contribute to. I am sincerely interested on people’s thoughts that might have some experience or particular knowledge on a topic.
I can relate to this. When I’m thinking about a problem, it’s like being in a quantum state where all solutions are possible. All the solutions are all floating around and interacting. When I’m in this “anything is possible” state, I can sort of feel where the perfect solution is and drift my way towards it. But if someone asks me for the solution before I’m ready, it’s like all the possibilities collapse into one so I can verbalize something. But the singular solution may not be the right solution or the solution I was trying to find. And when I try to verbalize it I can’t really put what I was thinking into words, so I stumble when trying to explain what I’m thinking about. And then I can’t really get back to that “anything is possible” state. It’s like this one solution I had to talk about became the only solution I can think about. I know some people like talking through a problem when they’re working towards a solution, but I don’t. It throws me off. If I can wonder about something and ponder a solution for a while on my own, I can eventually get to the solution I need. The longer I can think about it without talking about it, the better for me.
Sometimes I think I can see a bit of this kind of thinking process in your posts. It’s like you have several ideas that are possibly related and you’re trying to see if they are actually relevant to each other.