Re: Stupid stumpers and good questions

At work we commonly use a phrase that, in my opinion, is so overworked that it is basically annoying. I hope it doesn't annoy our monks, but it says "There are no stupid questions; just stupid answers."

It seems to always be used to try to get folks to be willing to contribute in meetings, seminars, etc. But, in my opinion, it is tiersome and overused.

Recently, I've been thinking about it...for some reason, whenever ELISHEVA posts it seems to uncannily always be somenthing or other that I've been thinking about. Thinking about the phrase, I realized that I don't agree with it at all. It seems to me that there really can be "stupid questions." I just couldn't put into words what was rambling through my brain. Thanks ELISHEVA for yet again putting into such elegant and wise words what has been on my mind.

As a couple of the other responders noted, I, too, have been trying to figure out how best to respond to what I consider "stupid stumpers." I have been working on several ideas that have helped...at least they have helped at least somewhat.

The most successful so far for me is that I try to make myself get past the "stupid stumper" overtones/content and try to see if there is still some meaningful and useful part(s) of the question that I can help with or gain from. If I can find such, then that becomes the kernel that I'll try to tackle (and I try to ensure that I note in any response that it is the part(s) that I'm responding to.

If I can't find any kernels then I try to just ignore the inquiry without flaming.

As several others have noted, however, I love the /witty/ironic/clever responses that bring a one-up-manship sort of reply to the questions...questions that I can't find kernels of utility to address. I am so impressed with the wit/cleverness of the monestary and it is fun to read those types of responses.

It tends to make me wish I were more witty/clever...but I can at least live vicariously through the plethora of witty/clever monks in our monestary.

ack Albuquerque, NM

Comment on Re: Stupid stumpers and good questions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Stupid stumpers and good questions by Tanktalus (Canon) on Sep 11, 2009 at 18:15 UTC
I've used that phrase many times at work myself. But that fails to give it proper context. For over 12 years now, I've told new hires, students, and others, something along the lines of: "You may have heard that there is no such thing as a stupid question. I don't subscribe to that view. There are stupid questions. Those are the questions that are asked without effort or understanding." This has generally been part of my "don't be afraid to ask questions" speech for new team members. I want to encourage them to ask questions, but mostly as a way to become unstuck in their efforts. If I'm answering all the questions for my subteam, I'll never get any other work done. I want them to find that fine line between pestering me and getting work done (it doesn't do me any good for them to spend 2 hours deciphering something I can answer in 2 minutes, so long as they aren't asking me something every 10 minutes).	[reply]
Re^3: Stupid stumpers and good questions by ack (Deacon) on Sep 11, 2009 at 18:40 UTC
Thanks Tanktalus, I love the context that you subscribe to. Very nicely and succinctly put. I will try adjust my approach to provide that distinction "...to encourage them to ask questions, but mostly as a way to become unstuck in their efforts...to find that fine line between pestering and getting work done...." I love that. Thanks, again. ack Albuquerque, NM	[reply]
Re^2: Stupid stumpers and good questions by Herkum (Parson) on Sep 10, 2009 at 14:51 UTC
Maybe we need a new category of questions "Stupid Stumpers" and move those questions that qualify over there. You know the questions like, "I need to parse XML, please show me your scripts!"	[reply]