Very Little Excuse To Ask A Question Cold - Comments

[dlgoff]

... non math majors from using the math forums

I'd be willing to bet that there are countless views by readers that don't post that are getting well educated. I've been around PF for a lot of years and my post count isn't that big and have learned an unbelievable amount of science (and math). Maybe I should just pop in and say thanks even though I'm not contributing to a thread.

 

[UsableThought]

In my opinion the reason the math forums are so poor is that most of the people who ask math questions here are not math students. They are either learning elementary math as part of some general curriculum like high school courses

Personally, I'm glad that the math forum helps people like me learning "elementary math." I am an older adult revisiting high school algebra, since algebra is essential to further topics. I think that reaching out to older people is essential to physics and science education.

I'm enjoying my math studies. Aside from my self-assigned study & homework, I browse the math forum fairly often, looking for topics not too far over my head; and I sometimes comment or ask questions in threads about learning strategies, which is something I'm very interested in. I don't post a lot of homework questions - just one to date - but I appreciate this resource being available. Also one can ask more general questions about textbooks etc.; and this too has been useful for me, as I started a thread asking for recommendations for a good introductory algebra text, and so wound up with a textbook that I am very happy with.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

The truth is people are taking great pains to explain and educate. We are giving our time and knowledge as a gift.

You have also insinuated that the recent quietness of the topology and I assume other math forums is because of bad behavior on the part of science advisors. I take exception to that.

I wasn't implying that the insight was being insulting.

I know the effort that is given in replying to a post- I've never made a post asking for help myself.

The topology and higher mathematics forum reference was intended for those that also very much miss the uplifting presence of a member that posted there frequently...

I have actually also noticed you are posting less frequently, though I don't read everything in those forums. I don't think that you should leave just yet! PF will either improve or it will not, I have a feeling that it could improve if the people that care the most about it stick around! You don't have to put in your effort if you don't believe in what you are doing of course, but please at least stick around and see if things can improve!

You are right, a big problem is bullies and jackasses (Drakkith said I could cuss every now-and-then, I'm going to test that and see if I can get away with it). Even if you do get the serious students that you want posting questions on here, those bullies could be running off potential long-term posters! A priority goal should be to retain the members that can keep posting good questions. That would significantly improve both the quantity and quality of questions/answers that this site holds in the long run.

 

[Bystander]

Just curious, how would you suggest we filter these "non-serious" people out? Are you suggesting we block non math majors from using the math forums? I also strongly share fresh's sentiment of hoping you stay! What would make you feel more appreciated?

"Elephant in the room:" the recent election; need I say more?

 

[Vanadium 50]

"Elephant in the room:" the recent election; need I say more?

I think you should say less. Do we want a forum where conservatives are unwelcome, religious people are unwelcome, etc.?

 

[David Neves]

The moderators are mostly physics professors used to dealing with physics students. The people posting these type of questions are not physics students! These are just members of the public with zero background in science whatsoever! They have no clue what a tensor is or what a differential equation is. They don't realize that you need to know all of this prerequisite material to understand the answer to their question. They don't realize that it takes many years of hard work to get to the point where you can understand the answer. They think that if you have zero background in science, you can ask a one sentence question, get a one sentence answer, and then understand it. If you are stunned that someone could think that, remember that that is the case for subjects other than physics. For instance, if you reading about history, and ran across the name "Thomas Cromwell", and didn't know who it was, you could ask

"Who was Thomas Cromwell?"

and get the answer

"He was a high ranking statesman in the court of King Henry VIII."

and now you have the answer. You can even have satisfactory simple answers like that in natural science other than physics.

"What is meiosis?"

"It's the type of cell division that produces sperm and eggs."

"What is metamorphic rock?"

"It's a type of rock that has been modified by high temperature and pressure."

After reading the simple answer, you still don't know the technical details, but you basically get it. You have the basic gist. You have a basic awareness of what it is. This is not the case in physics. This is not possible in physics. Even a seemingly simple question in physics such as

"What is polarized light?"

gives a complicated answer requiring more mathematics than the average person possesses. Try to remember than the average person who is not scientist, mathematician, or engineer, even if they have currently a college degree in a non-science subject, is sadly at a 4th grade level in their mathematical ability. That's not true for everyone but it's true for most people. Whatever they may have learned when they were kids, they forgot. They teach simple algebra in 7th grade, and maybe they could have done it when they were in the 7th grade, but if later, when they are an adult, you gave them a 7th grade math problem, they would not have the slightest clue how to begin. They don't know what a vector is. They don't know what matrices are. These people are not stupid. They just have a non-scientist's knowledge of science, which is close to nothing. They literally don't realize that physics is fundamentally different than other subjects in that, unlike other subjects, you can never ask a simple question, and get a one sentence answer that will give you any kind of basic understanding, awareness or gist of what the answer is.

The writer of the article was assuming that they did not look it up on the Internet ahead of time. I think most of them probably do try to look it up using a search engine, but they can't understand any of the websites that a search will bring up. After that, they try to post a question on this forum. They don't think they are being lazy. From their point of view, what they think are saying, "I don't need to slog through a long winded answer full of technical jargon. Just tell me what it is!" They are assuming that physics is like every other subject where there is a short answer that could be understood by a non-specialist. It's not that they are lazy, and not willing to do the work. They are looking for a short answer than can be understood without having to do any work, not realizing that in physics, unlike every other subject, no such short answer exists.

The writer of this article also complains about people who post a question, and then disappear, and never post again. I think the real reason for that is because they did not understand any of the answers to their question. I mean they really did not understand a single word. They could never even begin to understand it. From their point of view, the responses might as well have been written in Chinese. Well, at that point, what follow up post could they possibly make? This is different than a physics student who partially understands it, but they are struggling with it, and can ask questions relating to specific points.

So this explains the people that the writer of the Insights article is referring to. There are many other types of people who frequent these forums, including physics undergraduates, physics graduate students, physics professors, scientists in other fields, knowledgeable members of the public, and crackpots peddling their own wrong crank theories. The moderators have to tailor their answers to the type of person asking the question.

 

[UsableThought]

If you are stunned that someone could think that, remember that that is the case for subjects other than physics.

I like a lot of this post, but not this particular assertion; so I want to take a little time to dispute it in hopes this will bring out some real considerations about what ignorance has come to mean in our time. To start with, getting a simplified answer about who Cromwell does not create "basic awareness" if the person asking has no context for the answer, as in the example. A disconnected fragment is a disconnected fragment, whether the subject is history or physics.

I would go further & say that sometimes persons in the hard sciences, proud of the difficulty of what they do, fail to appreciate that the "soft" disciplines of history, economics, sociology, etc. etc., are similarly abstruse and demanding, albeit along different lines. As an example, occasionally arguments develop in the General Discussion forum among members with credentials in physics or math etc., who from their tone seem to believe these credentials qualify them to issue expert opinions on economic or social issues they haven't studied with any more rigor than the average member of the public. This is as opposed to members who have studied or otherwise know a good deal in one or another field outside of hard science, and who are careful to cite sources & evidence, qualify their remarks, etc.

I'm currently reading a 2017 book, http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533524/the-knowledge-illusion-by-steven-sloman-and-philip-fernbach/9780399184352/, by cognitive scientists Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach. The book explores the fact that human knowledge is necessarily communal in nature; for their examples, the authors draw upon engineering, physics, economics, and history among other disciplines. They make the point that outside our own fields, we often know very little; but we think we know a lot because our culture supports this illusion (with Google making things worse). Here is a long excerpt from early in the book that makes the same point I made above about history - i.e. that a one-sentence answer about Cromwell is apt to be meaningless to most of us:

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The world was at war, Japan was an ally of Germany, and while the United States was not yet a participant, it was clear whose side it was on— the heroic Allies and not the evil Axis. These facts surrounding the attack are familiar and give us a sense that we understand the event. But how well do you really understand why Japan attacked, and specifically why they attacked a naval base on the Hawaiian Islands? Can you explain what actually happened and why?

It turns out that the United States and Japan were on the verge of war at the time of the attack. Japan was on the march, having invaded Manchuria in 1931, massacred the population of Nanking, China, in 1937, and invaded French Indochina in 1940. The reason that a naval base even existed in Hawaii was to stop perceived Japanese aggression. U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii from its base in San Diego in 1941.

So an attack by Japan was not a huge surprise. According to a Gallup poll, 52 percent of Americans expected war with Japan a week before the attack occurred. So the attack on Pearl Harbor was more a consequence of a long-standing struggle in Southeast Asia than a result of the European war. It might well have happened even if Hitler had never invented the blitzkrieg and invaded Poland in 1939. The attack on Pearl Harbor certainly influenced the course of events in Europe during World War II, but it was not caused directly by them.

History is full of events like this, events that seem familiar, that elicit a sense of mild to deep understanding, but whose true historical context is different than we imagine. The complex details get lost in the mist of time while myths emerge that simplify and make stories digestible, in part to service one interest group or another.​

Of course, if you have carefully studied the attack on Pearl Harbor, then we’re wrong; you do have a lot to say. But such cases are the exception. They have to be because nobody has time to study very many events. We wager that, except for a few areas that you’ve developed expertise in, your level of knowledge about the causal mechanisms that control not only devices, but the mechanisms that determine how events begin, how they unfold, and how one event leads to another is relatively shallow. But before you stopped to consider what you actually know, you may not have appreciated how shallow it is.​

Similar arguments can be made about economics, sociology, abstract painting, music composition, etc. There are no one-sentence answers to naive questioners in these fields any more than in physics. We could argue about which fields are deepest, or which require longer periods of specialized education; but that is not the point. What matters is that in virtually all human endeavors, including even the crafts and the arts, meaningful inside knowledge can't be gained by a quick Google, a clueless question, or any other "instant" means; education and experience and effort are required.

 

[davenn]

The writer of the article was assuming that they did not look it up on the Internet ahead of time. I think most of them probably do try to look it up using a search engine, but they can't understand any of the websites that a search will bring up. After that, they try to post a question on this forum.

and for a large % age of the time they don't ... and it is obvious by the way they ask their Q
30 sec of googling and they would have got their one sentence answer
There is definitely a lazy streak, I see it in every day life as well as on forums ... so many (not all) of the "younger" generation,
around 30 years old and younger, expect everything just to be handed to them ... apparently they believe ( incorrectly) that that is their right. Anyone my age, give or take 20 years knows what it was like before the internet and search engines. We had to make a concerted effort to go out and find the answers ourselves. I spent countless hours in the high school library and again in the science library at university. If I wanted to make something happen, I had to put in the effort.

Seriously, how difficult is it for some one to say in their OP ... " I have done a bit of I-net searching and I don't really understand what I'm reading" " here is an example ( link) can some one clarify that for me please ? "

At least then, we would be on the same page and can build on the teaching from there

I totally agree with the topic. In these days there really is no excuse for cold questions when there is so much information available with a few words and mouse clicks in your favourite search engineDave

[Edited to tidy up line formatting]

 

[ZapperZ]

The moderators are mostly physics professors used to dealing with physics students.

Er... how do you know this? Did you poll and collect statistics of PF Moderators? I'd like to see it.

The people posting these type of questions are not physics students! These are just members of the public with zero background in science whatsoever! They have no clue what a tensor is or what a differential equation is. They don't realize that you need to know all of this prerequisite material to understand the answer to their question. They don't realize that it takes many years of hard work to get to the point where you can understand the answer. They think that if you have zero background in science, you can ask a one sentence question, get a one sentence answer, and then understand it.

When I was a physicist working at a US Nat'l Lab, part of my job was to participate in outreach programs. What this means is that I frequently dealt with high school/elementary school students, visitors, and general public. I've coordinated open houses, I've conducted tours and seminars, I've even had a Q&A session, all with the public. Not only that, I've also taught physics courses for Arts majors where the students can barely do simple algebra! Try explaining physics in that situation!

Based on this, I would say that I have had quite a good knowledge of dealing with the public in terms of science/physics issues. But even without that, I've been dealing with the "public" on this forum for YEARS, way longer than the time you have spent on here. And this is what every moderator here has in common.

So to claim that the moderators or I have no clue on how to deal with science questions from the public is faulty and has no supporting evidence.
I

The writer of the article was assuming that they did not look it up on the Internet ahead of time. I think most of them probably do try to look it up using a search engine, but they can't understand any of the websites that a search will bring up. After that, they try to post a question on this forum. They don't think they are being lazy. From their point of view, what they think are saying, "I don't need to slog through a long winded answer full of technical jargon. Just tell me what it is!" They are assuming that physics is like every other subject where there is a short answer that could be understood by a non-specialist. It's not that they are lazy, and not willing to do the work. They are looking for a short answer than can be understood without having to do any work, not realizing that in physics, unlike every other subject, no such short answer exists.

Actually, I didn't assume that. This is because I also listed what one should do on PF IF one has tried to look up for an answer and still has questions. If the person has tried to find the answer and still do not understand what he/she has read, then simply asking the question without doing much explaining is NOT sufficient. This is because we do not know what he/she has read and has not understood. There is no point is providing the SAME answer that the person did not understand. So knowing what didn't work is as useful as knowing what might work!

The writer of this article also complains about people who post a question, and then disappear, and never post again. I think the real reason for that is because they did not understand any of the answers to their question. I mean they really did not understand a single word. They could never even begin to understand it. From their point of view, the responses might as well have been written in Chinese. Well, at that point, what follow up post could they possibly make? This is different than a physics student who partially understands it, but they are struggling with it, and can ask questions relating to specific points.

And this is WHY we needed MORE information than simply "What is Energy?". Many people who respond to these types of questions often simply assumed what that person knows. It is the fault of both sides. The person asking the question didn't bother to elaborate not only about what he/she doesn't understand, but also didn't bother to describe his/her capability of understanding. This is a DIRECT result of a very short, terse question.

So this explains the people that the writer of the Insights article is referring to. There are many other types of people who frequent these forums, including physics undergraduates, physics graduate students, physics professors, scientists in other fields, knowledgeable members of the public, and crackpots peddling their own wrong crank theories. The moderators have to tailor their answers to the type of person asking the question.

No, the MAJORITY of "first responders" in this forum are not moderators! Go take a look! The moderators are not the people you should be "schooling" in this (assuming that your guesses of the people who I was referring to in the article is valid, which still has not been established).

Take note that, per the PF Rules, simply asking "What is energy?" and leaving it at that can already be construed as in violation of the posting guidelines, which among others, stated that:

Please clearly state what you wish to discuss. In general, one should attempt to flesh out questions and arguments adequately enough that readers will have a good understanding of the issue.

Simply asking "What is energy?" without (i) explaining what ones has attempted to find out and (ii) describing what one already knows or capable of knowing (i.e. background knowledge) means that one has not given enough information for other readers to have a good understanding of what and at what level the responses should be given.

There are a lot of things one can learn from this forum, beyond just the science or the subject matter. For the public, leaning the question to ask, how to ask, and what needs to accompany that question, is a valuable lesson that no other places on the 'net will spend time and effort to educate. It forces a person asking the question to get into the habit of looking carefully at the question and how to present it. This is what scientists normally do, and it is an invaluable lesson that someone not in science can learn from and appreciate! One has the chance not only to learn the subject matter, but also the PROCESS, which is typically neglected when we talk about science.

The fact that this forum requires and expects a lot more is a virtue, not a weakness.

Zz.

 

[vela]

There is definitely a lazy streak, I see it in every day life as well as on forums ... so many (not all) of the "younger" generation, around 30 years old and younger, expect everything just to be handed to them ... apparently they believe ( incorrectly) that that is their right. Anyone my age, give or take 20 years knows what it was like before the internet and search engines. We had to make a concerted effort to go out and find the answers ourselves. I spent countless hours in the high school library and again in the science library at university. If I wanted to make something happen, I had to put in the effort.

Seriously, how difficult is it for some one to say in their OP ... "I have done a bit of I-net searching and I don't really understand what I'm reading" " here is an example ( link) can some one clarify that for me please?"

I think there's a tendency for older people to look down on the younger generation as being lazy and entitled. I don't think it's really fair to characterize the younger generation as being any more lazy than previous generations. Kids might seem lazy to older people, but remember, part of it is about growing up. When I've had older students in my classes, they generally were more disciplined and would do the work assigned. Over the years they learned that being a flake or just giving up usually doesn't cut it. The younger students simply haven't learned that life lesson yet.

It's a mistake to ascribe blanket motives to the people asking bad questions. Some are indeed lazy, but many others just don't know how to ask a good question. Many have been misled by teachers telling them "there's no such thing as a dumb question." If a question pops into their head, they just blurt it out. They don't consider that perhaps they could figure the answer out on their own. Some people just can't articulate their thoughts. Most of my gen-ed students are absolutely horrible at this, and I'd guess people in general are no better.

Asking good questions and knowing how to learn aren't things that comes naturally to most people. They have to learn how to do it.

The people who are abused are the science advisors. We devote ourselves to this forum and are faced with lazy Ops who do not feel like learning anything on their own, people who take your help for granted and walk away without responding, people who make zero attempt to understand and just want answers, people who completely ignore your efforts, people who disrespect the learning process and just shoot their mouths off, people who refuse to engage with you because they are not really serious.

You don't have to reply to these posters if you don't want to. If you find them exasperating, just ignore them.

 

[David Neves]

Er... how do you know this? Did you poll and collect statistics of PF Moderators? I'd like to see it.

I did not conduct a poll. This is just the impression I got from reading their responses.

When I was a physicist working at a US Nat'l Lab, part of my job was to participate in outreach programs. What this means is that I frequently dealt with high school/elementary school students, visitors, and general public. I've coordinated open houses, I've conducted tours and seminars, I've even had a Q&A session, all with the public. Not only that, I've also taught physics courses for Arts majors where the students can barely do simple algebra! Try explaining physics in that situation!

Based on this, I would say that I have had quite a good knowledge of dealing with the public in terms of science/physics issues. But even without that, I've been dealing with the "public" on this forum for YEARS, way longer than the time you have spent on here. And this is what every moderator here has in common.

So to claim that the moderators or I have no clue on how to deal with science questions from the public is faulty and has no supporting evidence.

I never said that you had no clue that how to deal with science questions from the public. I think it is great that you have participated in public outreach. I think that public outreach is important. However, I have noticed that if the original poster does not state their level of experience, (which they should, but if they don't) the responders including the moderators, assume, without anything else to go on, that the original poster has more knowledge than the general public. It is especially common for members of the public to post in the quantum mechanics section because quantum mechanics is so often misrepresented in the popular media, yet it's captured the public imagination. If you are answering a question posted by a member of the public who only knows the bad pop-sci misrepresentation of quantum mechanics, you will answer in a different way than you would if a physics student asked the same question. However, if the original poster does not state their background, almost all responders will assume they are a physics student, unless otherwise stated.

Actually, I didn't assume that. This is because I also listed what one should do on PF IF one has tried to look up for an answer and still has questions. If the person has tried to find the answer and still do not understand what he/she has read, then simply asking the question without doing much explaining is NOT sufficient. This is because we do not know what he/she has read and has not understood. There is no point is providing the SAME answer that the person did not understand. So knowing what didn't work is as useful as knowing what might work!

I agree they should! Some people here were saying that the posters are lazy, and therefore, they post a question here first before looking it up on the Internet. However, it takes more work to post a question here than to look it up on the Internet. It is a lot of easier to just go to Google, and type in a phrase, then for you go to Physics Forums, log on, start a new topic, post the question, and then wait for responses. It is just takes a lot fewer keystrokes to type it into Google, and I would have thought a lazy person would try the easier thing first. Therefore, I don't think it is common for lazy people to not look it up on the Internet, and instead post a question here as their first course of action, and the reason is because they are supposedly lazy.

And this is WHY we needed MORE information than simply "What is Energy?". Many people who respond to these types of questions often simply assumed what that person knows. It is the fault of both sides. The person asking the question didn't bother to elaborate not only about what he/she doesn't understand, but also didn't bother to describe his/her capability of understanding. This is a DIRECT result of a very short, terse question.
No, the MAJORITY of "first responders" in this forum are not moderators! Go take a look! The moderators are not the people you should be "schooling" in this (assuming that your guesses of the people who I was referring to in the article is valid, which still has not been established).

I agree! The original poster should state what they currently know. I give credit to posters who say, "I am lay person trying to understand physics" or something to that effect. I also think that part of the explanation for the terse nature of some of the questions is because sometimes the posters are non-native English speakers who recently learned English as a second language, and part of that is that they can't write in a flowing casual conversational way.

Take note that, per the PF Rules, simply asking "What is energy?" and leaving it at that can already be construed as in violation of the posting guidelines, which among others, stated that:
Simply asking "What is energy?" without (i) explaining what ones has attempted to find out and (ii) describing what one already knows or capable of knowing (i.e. background knowledge) means that one has not given enough information for other readers to have a good understanding of what and at what level the responses should be given.

There are a lot of things one can learn from this forum, beyond just the science or the subject matter. For the public, leaning the question to ask, how to ask, and what needs to accompany that question, is a valuable lesson that no other places on the 'net will spend time and effort to educate. It forces a person asking the question to get into the habit of looking carefully at the question and how to present it. This is what scientists normally do, and it is an invaluable lesson that someone not in science can learn from and appreciate! One has the chance not only to learn the subject matter, but also the PROCESS, which is typically neglected when we talk about science.

The fact that this forum requires and expects a lot more is a virtue, not a weakness.

Zz.

I agree! I really think that a big part of learning science is learning the scientific method, curiosity, creativity, logical reasoning, problem solving skills, thinking outside the box, being able to reason something out, to ask the right questions, how to properly phrase the question, how to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and if you can't figure it out, how to look up the answer, and what sources you should use. In addition, you need to learn the mathematics that is the foundation, the language of science, how we actually write it down, and also the history of science. Hopefully, we can instill these concepts into children at science museums and elementary schools. A big part of learning science is learning how to learn. There is a whole subject of physics pedagogy or physics education research, where they study the learning process itself, and suggest how we might update our teaching methods.

 

[Drakkith]

It's a mistake to ascribe blanket motives to the people asking bad questions. Some are indeed lazy, but many others just don't know how to ask a good question. Many have been misled by teachers telling them "there's no such thing as a dumb question." If a question pops into their head, they just blurt it out. They don't consider that perhaps they could figure the answer out on their own. Some people just can't articulate their thoughts. Most of my gen-ed students are absolutely horrible at this, and I'd guess people in general are no better.

Indeed. The ability to articulate your thoughts is not something that comes naturally to many people. I'm a prime example. I have a horrible time asking questions because I have a horrible time trying to gather all of my thoughts on something that I'm unfamiliar with and condense it all down to a question that makes sense and isn't a simple "How does X work?" type question.

However, it takes more work to post a question here than to look it up on the Internet.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Looking up information isn't as easy as you make it out to be for many people. It's difficult to read through all of those websites, each one filled with terminology you aren't familiar with and concepts you've never even heard of. It's downright hard for some!

 

[David Neves]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Looking up information isn't as easy as you make it out to be for many people. It's difficult to read through all of those websites, each one filled with terminology you aren't familiar with and concepts you've never even heard of. It's downright hard for some!

Actually, that's what I said. First, they type it into Google, hoping to easily get the answer, but as you point out, "It's difficult to read through all of those websites, each one filled with terminology you aren't familiar with and concepts you've never even heard of", so then, second, they post the question in this forum, hoping to get an easy answer way. Then they are disappointed a second time.

 

[Drakkith]

Actually, that's what I said. First, they type it into Google, hoping to easily get the answer, but as you point out, "It's difficult to read through all of those websites, each one filled with terminology you aren't familiar with and concepts you've never even heard of", so then, second, they post the question in this forum, hoping to get an easy answer way. Then they are disappointed a second time.

My mistake, I didn't read your previous post and the post before that well enough.

I think the issue here is that when Zz suggests looking up an answer online first, he means that they person needs to take more than a cursory glance at a website or two before posting a question. They should take the time and spend the effort needed to be familiar enough with the topic to post a question that follows all of Zz's suggestions (and all of PF's rules too). Questions of the sort like "What is X and how does it work?" indicate that the poster most likely hasn't done so. And that's considered to be "laziness" to most people.

 

[hsdrop]

Hello everyone I believe that this is a matter of perspective and terminology. For my self I am one of the few that have a learning "disability" or at least I learn differently than others. When it comes to reading, spelling, and grammar. I do the best I can with the tools I have to work with like a text to read program. In this first part. I will copy and past the first couple of sentences in the raw form that I type things out in before editing them. Takes me 2-3 times longer than to just type it out in the first place.

hello everone i believe that this is a mater of persptive and termalgy. for my self i am one of the few that have a learning "disablety" or at least i learn differntley than other when it come to reading spelling and grammer. i do the best i can with the tools i have to work with like a text to read program in this frist part i will coppy and past the frist cople of sentencs the raw way that i type thing out befor the eddting that takes me 2-3 times longer than it to just type it out in the frist place
Thank the gods for google.

Now onto my point of perspective and terminology. I have noticed as from the unique perspective that I have and the problems that I deal with. That most of the people that answer my post are genuinely nice and patient. For the most part trying to help me understand the concepts that I'm asking about. Then I have the others. Even though they are a small % of ones that answer my posts. They live a much longer lasting impact on me then the nicer ones. Often time that small % came down on me for not looking up the question myself, (either web or on the P.F.) I slip up on spell and grammar checking in my post, or the way I may have worded the question. Now keep in mind this does not mean that I am stupid in any way at all. I just have more of a problem with my communication skills than most. I feel this falls under terminology. There are almost an infinite number of ways to describe a thing or a concepts. 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. 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. Now I can describe almost all the concepts that I have learned in physics. Using very little to no math. It's not that I do not understand the math or know how to solve the math problems. It just easier for me to understand the concepts without trying to crunch the numbers in my head or on paper all the time.

Patience is a virtue. Also the english language if fickel. There are so many way to describe the same thing.
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.

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
When I first started asking question in the forum. I filled out my profile with the info that I have problems with reading, spelling, and grammar. Then put something at the end of that description that no one has ever asked me about. To me that shows that no one has bother to look at it before reporting me for spelling and grammar.
F.Y.I. it took me almost 2 hours to post this and make sure that everything it was right.

As always to anyone that does has taken the time to answer questions and make sure that I do understand the answer. Thank you so very much.

 

[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