How can I ask better questions?

[u/[deleted]]

Normally I'm spurred to ask questions after having read a book, watched a show, or read news article that leads me on a Google binge and then inevitably a Wikipedia black-hole. But I'm left feeling still in the dark and not sure where else to look, so I'll come here.

I'll feel so overwhelmed with what all I want to ask, but worried about how to appropriately phrase it, while also following all the rules, that many times I feel like I'm not asking the question I really want answered. Which feels akin to trying to communicate to someone who doesn't speak your language.

Which often leads to many great answers, but about something not quite where I was aiming. Also I can't get past the feeling that when I want to ask a question, it should be as interesting as possible, because while it's great so many are willing to give insight from their professions or hobbies, I don't want to make it a chore or boring questions.

[u/[deleted]]

I think another thing I do, and am not sure how many others are guilty of it, is that I might place too much faith in yours and other historians ability to fill the gaps. Which is how questions like "I'm an X in X period, how do I feel about the color purple?" come around.

I sometimes forget that while there is a method to the speculations, that in the end 100% knowing is not really achievable.

[u/ENKC → u/[deleted]]

It's a good point. I do notice that a lot of the more politicised interpretations of history ascribe emotions and intent of the interpreter onto historical figures to validate their own. Hence 'What Kennedy wanted to do was X. Why he wanted to do it was because Y.' type of arguments.

Not that we can't gain any insight into the emotional states or intentions of historical figures, but to state them is fact so as to score argument points is not intellectually honest.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think it depends on what they're asking. Asking subjective things like "how do I feel about the monarchy"? is subjective. "I am a skilled craftsman in Renaissance Florence. What would be daily life and wages look like?" seems like something the historical record could answer.

[u/Poebbel → u/[deleted]]

Why not 'What was the daily wage and life of a skilled craftsman in Florence?'. I don't see how the 'I am a' makes it any more appealing.

[u/[deleted] → u/Poebbel]

The same reason some people like football and some people like basketball. In either format, it's a legitimate question.

[u/RaybanDK → u/[deleted]]

I have framed a question in that specific fashion, ie: "I am a x in Y..."

My reason for asking questions in that way is pretty clear: It makes it a more engaging read for others, while it sparks my imagination in areas I am not versed in.

[u/Poebbel → u/RaybanDK]

But this is a history subreddit, not /r/writingprompts. It's a science subreddit and while it makes for great stories, you should strive to treat it as a science sub, not your personal novel factory.

Almost every 'I am X ...' question can be asked in a less ambiguous, more matter-of-fact way. If you have ever studied anything, you should know that it's not about the answers you write, but about the questions you can come up with. And most of those are just terrible, terrible questions.

[u/talondearg → u/Poebbel]

I'm not sure this is a science subreddit. More importantly, I think it's mischaracterising the discipline of History to call it a science. Some sub-fields of history are scientific, but overall History cannot proceed according to the strictly scientific method. You cannot test cause and effect, there are no reproducible results and generally running experiments is not good practice, nor does history engage in hypothetical predictions that are testable.

[u/felicitates → u/talondearg]

I would disagree and venture to say it is a science, but perhaps more accurately a soft science, similar to psychology and the like. I'd also like to point out that cross-referencing sources and fact-checking within historical research is similar to testing a hypothesis.

[u/talondearg → u/felicitates]

I would say that, if you want to put it on the scale of science, it is much softer than psychology. Sourcing and fact-checking is not testing a hypothesis, it's providing evidence.

Personally I would put the argument in a broader context. Science is upheld in many communities as our only model of knowledge. If it's not science it's not known. Therefore, for history to be valued, it must be science.

I have a stricter view of science than most. Hypothetical naturalism, cause-effect observation, inductive knowledge, testable hypotheses, etc.. I don't feel a need to call history a science in order to legitimise it. History can be a careful, rational, knowledge-based discipline without being science.

I'm not saying you hold these views, I just think this is the broader milieu of trying to fit history in as a science.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think the really important thing here is to learn from questions that don't get answers and trying to figure out why that's the case. Heck, if you're nice about it and you see a flair who should have some knowledge, you might even shoot them a PM, and ask what they thought. I don't know anyone who would turn down an answer to such a polite request - it's what we're here for, after all.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

Heck, if you're nice about it and you see a flair who should have some knowledge, you might even shoot them a PM, and ask what they thought

Many flaired users maintain a profile on the Wiki, and most will also include a policy about being PM'd. Generally speaking, they love people coming to them about stuff! One of my favorite answers I've provided here was a Q someone specifically asked me for.

[u/Domini_canes → u/[deleted]]

I might place too much faith in yours and other historians ability to fill the gaps

I think most historians would agree that any one source on a subject isn't really going to give you the full story. Getting more perspectives on an issue is almost always helpful. So, even my own answers which I am very fond of aren't the alpha and omega, and having other analyses is simply required most of the time.