Should we close questions where underlying assumptions are not supported by evidence?

Question

Recently, I have seen 2 questions here where the underlying assumptions made the question hard to answer. In both cases, there is no reason given for the assumption(s) that was/were made in the question. The first one was closed, the second is still open.

How can I be safe around drunk people?
This question was closed as 'unclear what you're asking'. Judging from the comment thread, there was some debate on the underlying assumption: That drunk people were dangerous. There were comments stating that this underlying assumption was wrong and that this would make the question less answerable, and there were comments asking for clarification as to how the OP got to his assumption (that were never answered).

How can you answer a question that starts with a wrong assumption?

This question is based on a very skewed opinion of people who drink. This question cannot be answered with a solution to his problem, but with a solution to his assumption that a problem may come up. A question rephrasing is definitely in place. The fact that OP thinks public schools teach you how to do "alcohol things" is proof to this.

But you seem to have a lot of misplaced apprehensions. A work event like that generally doesn't end with people being falling-down drunk... it's usually just people having a couple of beers and socializing. Most people leave buzzed, not even normal "drunk". What have your coworkers done that makes you think this is a "scary" situation?

How do I get a person selling newspapers at a subway station to stop approaching me?
This question seems to suffer from the same problems as the one mentioned above and has sparked a debate on the underlying assumption that the street vendor approaching the OP is dangerous. There have been comments asking for proof that this person is indeed dangerous:

And I have a few questions: What makes this person creepy-looking? How would you know what the cops would say, if you never called the cops on him? How did he get aggressive? Verbally or physically? How does he look like a cunning criminal type? What signs are there on the outside, that are bothering you? What did this person do, after you refused the high-five and said "have a nice day" instead? How are the acid attacks related to your fear of this person?

OP offers as a general answer to all these questions:

Look I have my perceptions, plus there is cultural background too

And some comments to answers (also stated by OP):

Often people are told to follow their gut to avoid being victim of crime (especially told to victim AFTER the crime)

I'm 2nd generation American from India, and I'm constantly seeing what is going on there (and it's not getting better!). And the family I live with are from that environment and have seen things in life no one should ever be exposed to.

OP is not really offering much help on why she feels this particular person is a threat to her, and scares her so much. Just like the question assuming that all drunk people are dangerous, this question is assuming that this street vendor is dangerous, without giving any real evidence to base that assumption on.

As for now (24th of September, 18:48 CET time) this question has only three close votes: 1 for unclear what you're asking and 2 for primarily opinion based.

My question here is:

• Should there be a difference in how we treat these two questions?
• If yes, what makes them different enough from each other to warrant different treatment?
• If we should close questions like this, what is the recommended reason?

Answer 1

I'm going to say this loudly and with emphasis.

NO. These questions should not be closed...

... for being based on an assumption...

If they're lacking detail or off-topic or rants in disguise, close them for that but not for simply being wrong.

Why would we close these questions? If they're sufficiently detailed, on topic and ask a specific question why are they close-worthy?

Someone making a false assumption about another person or people needs help, too. It's within our abilities to tell people that their perceptions may be unfounded. While we should assume the best and try to take people's interpretations of a situation at face value, closing the question does nothing.

If someone is concerned that they will be harassed by drunk people at a work happy hour, closing their question doesn't tell them that their concerns are misplaced and that there's little for them to worry about, it just ends the entire subject. We need to answer the question and explain that their concerns are unlikely to come to pass and encourage them to talk with others at their office to get a better idea of what happens at one of these events. That said, this specific question has other issues... it's not a complete question, is missing details and it's unclear whether the event is even required attendance at all and the OP seems disinclined to answer our requests for detail or clarification.

The same is true of the other post. While we should definitely help them with their immediate question, it's certainly acceptable to let them know that their question makes it seem like they are being overly concerned of being attacked with little reason. This question is otherwise pretty detailed, though we have asked for more information and generally not gotten it.

For more discussion as it relates to this, see the second half of my answer to the related meta question here. The quote from Shog and down supports this interpretation, particularly the statement "First off, let's get one thing out of the way: no one asking questions here is objective." While we can hope that users will explain the reasoning for their assumptions, we can not judge the viability of their questions by these assumptions. We must, instead, accept them and incorporate them into our answers.

---

So, if these questions otherwise meet the quality requirements of the site, they should not be closed just because they're based on a misplaced assumption... instead, we should (if possible) first answer the basic question and then correct or somehow address that assumption or (as Hamlet suggests, perhaps) answer with a frame challenge.

Answer 2

I voted to close How can I be safe around drunk people? because it was unclear and lacked important details, not because of any assumptions made in the question.

If you look at the original question, it says the following:

I have received a required invitation to a work alcohol event next week.

That's very unclear. What is a "required invitation"? Does that mean everyone has to attend? So I voted to close the question. Has the question been edited enough to merit reopening it? I don't know; I haven't thought about it yet.

---

As for whether questions should be closed due to faulty assumptions... I don't think that's a good idea. Questions with faulty assumptions are a problem on a lot of Stack Exchange sites, and as far as I can tell not a single other Stack Exchange site has decided that closing questions is the best solution to this problem. If we decide to implement such a close reason, I would recommend doing a lot of thinking and research before doing so.

One concept that would be worth reading up on is the frame challenge answer:

A frame challenge is where an author answers a question in a wholly different way the querent never asked for, or potentially expressly forbade — but in a way which, the answerer feels, will actually solve their problem (or generally improve their life quality or prevent them from making a terrible mistake).

The “frame” being challenged here is specifically the way the question was framed — the way they put it forward, the parameters they offered, the kinds of answers they're driving for.

This is as opposed to answers which answer the question at face value.

Frame challenges are hard to pull off, but they work successfully on a lot of Stack Exchange sites. It would be worth spending some time to see if frame challenge answers can work here before implementing a close reason that has never been implemented on any other Stack Exchange site.

Answer 3

You can't give objective evidence for gut feelings and personal anxieties.

Simply put, both OP's want to avoid a situation that for their own reasons (which possibly include negative past experiences in similar situations) makes them extremely uncomfortable. Since many members' comments have described both questions as anxious overreaction to regular everyday situations, we are forced to remember that interpersonal issues can carry intensely subjective interpretations depending on the cultural background, personal history and psychological makeup of the individual.

Answers to both questions have sought to reassure the OP's that their fears are probably exaggerated, and proceed to give them some useful practical advice how to handle the situation. Comments on both ask why OP makes such an assumption in the first place. That tells me the two questions are similar enough not to be treated differently from the close-voting perspective.

The main objection in favor of close-voting would be that OP has been asking about essentially hypothetical problems (prediction of bad outcomes with insuffucient cause) in the opinion of many members. That makes it difficult to write good answers that could benefit both OP's and also future readers.

So there is just enough reason to close both questions. Of which one has already been closed and the other has 3 close votes already.

Remember it's Sunday so I expect the other 2 close votes might be slow to arrive but they will appear soon enough, never fear -- especially if certain dedicated close-voters are yet to see the question.

Close reason: too broad/ unclear/ opinion based, take your pick. Any of these 3 reasons would be OK because Stack Exchange users have learned that it's more important to close the Q than to choose the best applicable reason.

And this time it might well be a good decision to close these questions.

Answer 4

Allow me to say I had a hard time taking the first question seriously from the way everything was phrased. I actually felt this person was either trolling or it was a child writing.

I went to a private school, and they didn't teach us how to do alcohol things. When I am at alcohol places, people do bad things to me (e.g. forced kissing, putting bad things in my drink, fighting, humiliation) because I am ugly and weird. I have received a required invitation to a work alcohol event next week. I am very frightened. How do I make drunk people not do bad things to me? I am a very small person.

Let's break it down.

and they didn't teach us how to do alcohol things

What does "alcohol things" even mean?

so if the person had gone to a public school, would they have taught them "how to do alcohol things"? Is "how to do alcohol things" taught in schools?

When I am at alcohol places

(you mean bars?, where?) so that means the person has been at alcohol places before and this isn't their first time

people do bad things to me because I am ugly and weird (and small)

I am sorry but I have a hard time taking this sentence seriously.

Problems

1. people do bad things to him/her NOT only drunk people do bad things to him/her? Which is it?
2. the person has serially had bad things done to him/her (e.g forced kissing, putting "bad" things in my drink..)

Questions

Why has this person not done anything about this after the first time they had this bad experience, how many times has this happened and why not go to the police or seek help? Was the op drunk every time? There are a lot of unknowns and we are forced to make too many assumptions because the op doesn't share specific events.

The person has had "bad things" happened to them because they are small, ugly and weird. Again I have a hard time taking this seriously. I know we should.

Most of the time, except for when a person is an alcoholic and they also engage in domestic abuse, a drunk person has their guard down, is more vulnerable to "bad things" happening to them and not the other way around. Not saying a drunk person couldn't harm someone but the opposite possibility wasn't even considered and addressed.

Even though I voted to close the first question, I mentioned in my comments that I have no problem voting to reopen the question if the question (and title) is rephrased and the answers address the fact that not all drunk people are dangerous.

Now let's compare titles:

"How can I stay safe around drunk people" vs "How do I get a person selling newspapers at a subway station to stop approaching me.

Imagine I asked "How can I stay safe around Muslims?", based on my false assumption that all Muslims are terrorists just because some terrorists are Muslims.

Not only would my question be heavily down voted but it would have been instantly closed. So replace "Muslims" with "drunk people".

In the second case, we have at least the title itself not based on any assumptions. The op in the second question might be irrationally afraid and critical at others for stopping to talk to the vendor, but nowhere in their question does the op indicate that she thinks all vendors are dangerous. The op is talking about a specific person they don't feel comfortable around for whatever reason. The op also mentions specific reasons for being afraid. It seems they have been close to harassed in the same setting in the past and feel uncomfortable being approached and they have information about something that happened to their dad which makes them have a negative opinion about cops (both are specific events)

The other person who I refused was some kid soliciting money and wouldn't leave me alone. Eventually after 30 minutes he left.

As for police, yes I feel they would do that. About 20 yrs ago my Father was assaulted in the same subway and the cop assigned to his case said my Father kept rambling. The cops were acting like doing their job is a big favor and the search was eventually dropped

I answered the question but I also broke it down to help the op understand where they might be making these false assumptions or where they need to provide more information.

Now, I'll be honest. At first I voted to close the second question. I saw people giving the reason "unclear what you are asking". To me the op was clear, they wanted to avoid a specific vendor approaching them. So I retracted my vote.

I also remembered some comments regarding the first question, pointing out to me that a lot of questions start with the wrong assumption and we should still answer and explain why we think that is, so I was also reluctant to close the question for that reason. I tried to keep that in mind.

I really don't know what we should do here. I feel confused.

• Should we ask the op to rephrase a question like the first one for example?
• Should we help them understand why they are asking a question based on false or wrong assumptions? Help them realize they might have an irrational fear and then ask them to reword the question? And then answer it?
• Should we edit their question for them?
• Should we edit out/ omit information that sounds racist, sexist, judgmental or any elements that encourage false assumptions?

I would very much like to know what people think about that.