Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45991
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45991
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.

Original score: 7