It helps to remember that people are here looking for advice, not orders. Also to remember that what works for you may not work for someone else.

I'd recommend wording your answers along the lines of "Have you considered X?" or "Here's something author X did, you could try that" and less along the lines of "You have to do this" or worse, a rant and "You can't." Even if something seems impossible for the OP's specific case, maybe you have an answer that will work for a more general one.

As GGx says, if you need clarification or more information, you can always ask in the comments section.

As for the scolding...

If something in a post is upsetting you, please, please put down the keyboard and do something else until you're feeling calmer. Take a walk, split some firewood, whatever you need. It can be very satisfying to destroy someone with a well-worded rant, but that's not why people are on here. Sometimes I wonder if our Questions Per Day would be higher if people didn't attack the OP in their "answers".

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Evil Sparrow‭

775 reputation 18 33 102 11

I write some frame challenges; I suppose the technique I'd advocate is "teacher."

Basically a frame challenge is necessary if somebody is asserting something that is false, or too narrow an interpretation of a rule, or a misunderstanding of a rule (such as 'show don't tell').

The point definitely IS to educate the OP, and that demands telling the OP they are wrong about their assertion. But like a good teacher, you can state that simply and without insulting the intelligence or education of the student. Presume they are sensitive, and trying to learn (at least until they prove otherwise).

So I'd start with something simple: "I don't think you understand this rule", or "Typically this rule is not interpreted so literally," or "here is where I think you might have misunderstood this."

We do not educate students by insulting them, but by understanding how they are thinking, where that may have gone wrong, and then by correcting the flaw in their thinking we remove not only their current stumbling block, but all future stumbling blocks that might arise from the same misconception.

When I was in graduate school one of my student jobs was tutoring undergraduate calculus and statistics. I applied this same principle to that kind of tutoring, time and again, resulting in ace students time and again. If they had difficulty with an example problem it was always a result of a misunderstanding, sometimes going back to basic algebra or geometry. Giving them examples of how to solve the problem seldom helped, what "fixed" them was me digging for the fundamental flaw in their thinking, by asking them questions, and correcting that flaw.

That is what we need to do here. The necessity of a frame challenge is born of the OP's fundamental misunderstanding of how a rule works or what writing is about. The social niceties others have written about are fine, but in the end you do have to tell the OP they have misunderstood something, and this is the right way to look at it, and here is how that clears up your issue.

I stick to the facts. Treat their mental model of the writing process as a machine to be fixed. It does no good to insult a machine for not working right, you just need to identify the problem and correct it so it can work properly. Keep your own emotions out of it, and provide the lesson the student needs or failed to get or misinterpreted.

And remember we write to a specific OP but for a general audience; we want others to understand the general lesson; not just one example of a specific fix for a specific problem. It is possible they can generalize from that, but the post will be more effective if you provide the generalization for them.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37

Be Socrates

In my view the champion of frame challenges is Socrates. His famous method always starts with an attempt at a frame challenge.

The success of the Socratic method stands on the basis that it is based on logic, and it leads to check if a frame challenge exists on the basis of logical contradictions. Socrates poses a lot of importance of factual data, and little importance to beliefs. In fact, he often leads the other party to agreeably reconsider their beliefs on the basis of factual evidence.

Also, when arguing a frame challenge, steer clear of first-person POV's recounts of personal experiences.

...meanwhile in the world of SE

To reword it in the world of SE, if the OP sets some assumptions, a general direction and asks a question to achieve a certain goal, we can ask whether there exist a path that links the two and if the path goes along the stated direction.

The obvious case is that there exists such a path, in which case your frame challenge would be out of place.

If the path does not exist, then:

1. show that the path does not exists, i.e. given the assumption and following the desired direction, the outcome is very unlikely (if not outright impossible) to be the requested goal.
2. ask whether the assumption is based on facts, or whether the direction is based on facts. If both are factual, then the goal as such is unattainable: see below frame challenge the goal.
3. if the assumption is based on facts, state an objectively logical sequence that goes from the assumption to the goal, but follows a different direction: see below frame challenge the direction.
4. if the direction is based on facts: see below frame challenge the assumption.
5. if neither assumption nor direction are factual: see below imagination is your limit.

Challenging frames

In general

A rule of thumb of conflict avoidance is to steer clear of adjectives that carry a judgment. It is perhaps the best example of when "show not tell" can make a difference. If you want the reader to conclude that a certain statement is wrong, you need to show it starting from the facts. Telling alone does not prove it. Also, stay clear of faulty generalizations and other types of logical fallacies: in real life, as in fiction, they are great to raise the tension, but detract from the argument you wish to make.

The goal.

This is the hardest to frame. The reason being that the OP is about achieving it, and the author has invested their time and emotions in asking how to reach it. A first person POV with personal experiences is prone to the critique of being anecdotal, no statistical significance, or N=1. On the other hand, a dry third-person POV presenting a series of purely logical steps of the type "if A is true then B is true" makes it easier for the author to follow your reasoning, and to apply it to their question. A successful argument sticks to the author question, free from judgement, and follows it until the contradiction point, where you simply stick to the non contradicting path and reach a different conclusion than the stated goal. There is no need to judge, nor to rub it in the author's face. Perhaps, as Socrates does sometimes, suggest reconsidering, and enjoy your upvotes.

The direction

In general, this follows the same advice as challenging the frame of the goal. It is perhaps easier to discuss as the direction is not in the present (like the assumption) and it is not part of the desired outcome, in which the author is emotionally invested. A trick Socrates does sometimes, if I recall correctly, is to gently steer the direction while the dialogue goes on. He could have steered it from the start, but by doing it gently, he causes less attrition. In SE terms, stick to the assumption, follow the direction and identify the contradiction. Instead of changing direction, correct it slightly so that you get closer and closer to the goal while at each iteration of your logical reasoning you continue steering the direction.

The assumption

Challenging the assumption is equivalent to challenging to ability of the author to understand what they already have at hand, be it their situation, or the hypothesis of their mathematical problem. This is difficult as it may quickly turn into a judgement on the author. Third person POV, avoidance of adjectives are the obvious tools. Also, as in the case of challenging the direction, iterating over the same logical sequence with small changes between iterations, until the goal is reached and the direction is kept unchanged.

Imagination is the limit

When there is no factual evidence, it all becomes simply a writing challenge: write a series of logical events that lead to a given conclusion, following, or not following some initial cue and general plot. The challenge? The style: write it in an iron-clad reasoning, Third-person, impersonal POV, without using any adjectives or adverbs. If you are reading this, you probably are on Writing.SE and you know how to write that.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

_X_‭

420 reputation 20 121 65 1