"Why don't they just...?"

[randomness]

tb recently shared with me a rant about people who start a sentence with "Why don't they just...?" I don't want to misquote her and I very much want to hear her in own words if she's willing to share them here. But I did find a post about this very phrase in a very different context that I thought was worth a repost.

From Why don't they just...?":

It seems every time I come across a story about the Mars Curiosity rover there will be many people commenting on the technology used starting with "Why don't they just..?" and usually pointing out things like: the processor in their smart phone is way faster than the one of Mars, or they have way more memory on their iPad, or their digital camera is way better than the one sending back pictures. These "Why don't they just..?" questions are both annoying and to be expected.

Annoying because the underlying thought is "Those NASA/JPL guys are so dumb LOL" and to be expected and encouraged because we wouldn't make any progress without asking questions and, in particular, asking why.

But it doesn't take much research to find the answer. (Even though I'm tempted to answer: "Because it's on friggin' Mars, doofus!")

Ultimately after listing some of the reasons why the situation isn't as simple as the askers think it is, he adds an excellent suggestion:

But rather than explaining all this stuff, I think there's a better way: build, land and operate a rover here on Earth.

It's too bad that sort of suggestion isn't a possibility in many of the other situations where people ask, "Why don't they just...?"

Comments

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-- H. L. Mencken

First, anyone proposing a "simple" solution to a problem that has remained irritating and unsolved for decades is missing something.
-- radtea

The gist of this is that it can [be] easy to make a simple, intuitive presentation of an argument that is simply wrong. In contrast, reality is often complex and counterintuitive, and providing all the details needed to understand it can be arduous.
-- John Timmer, Ars Technica

[gee-tar.livejournal.com]

I think that's making a rather mean assumption about people who use the phrase presuming those who use the prelude consider themselves superior. I use the phrase as often as anyone else, but I always assume there's something I'm not considering and I honestly want to know what that x factor is, not that I think I'm more clever than the people who put substantial more time and effort thinking about the problem than me.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to speak for tb here, but I think the discussion here is specifically regarding people who say, "Why don't they just...?" in the context of victim-blaming, rather than people who use it as an actual question.

If you honestly want to know what the X factor is, you might well want to phrase it that way so you're not mistaken for someone who's blaming a victim. It works out better if you start the conversation that way.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

I am reminded of a tweet I saw today: "If your answer to every social problem is “teach people to code,” think harder." (From @lauraolin who I do not know)

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

I think the discussion here is specifically regarding people who say, "Why don't they just...?" in the context of victim-blaming

If that is what you think the intention is, it would have been useful to flag that in the original post, as it never occurred to me that is what is being talked about.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Actually, I did flag it in the first sentence, but I had expected tb to come in earlier and provide more context.

Also, I actually have no problem with what you posted without knowing what was being talked about. That was kind of a feature, not a bug.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Actually, I did flag it in the first sentence

Hmmm... I read the first sentence as 'tb recently shared with me a rant about people who start a sentence with "Why don't they just...?"' It doesn't seem to imply that "victim-blaming" is the topic of conversation. Perhaps I'm missing something.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'm missing something.

You are.

My LJ, my thoughts.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

FWIW, the victim-blaming context was abundantly clear to me.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

In fact, now that I'm thinking of it, it can be as easy as asking, "Why don't they...?" instead if you're really looking for an answer. That one word "just" is what really makes the phrase sound like the asker is superior.

But I do think there are even better ways of phrasing the question.

[stolen-tea.livejournal.com]

I personally like prefixing the question with something like "Maybe there's something important here that I don't understand, but...", which tends to self-deprecate enough that it's often OK to keep the "just". Of course, by going to this extreme to avoid the apperance of being condescending, it runs the risk of inviting condescension from the other person, in that sometimes you get "RTFM newb" or "your education is not my responsibility". But in general I find that also to be a feature, in that it helps me avoid those people in the future.

[milktree.livejournal.com]

It's funny how the tone changes if you remove "just"

"Why don't they..." sounds very different from, "why don't they just..."

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Coke! :)

[jtdiii.livejournal.com]

Why don't they just...

Use a mass market device that is not radiation hardened and would soon crash from memory or CPU calculation corruption.
Use a currently produced device instead of a one that was designed, built and then tested for five to ten years before it was launched on a five+ year mission just to get to its destination
Use a device that is know to occasionally need tech support that unfortunately is not available on the planet or moon the hobbled device is on
Use a device that works fine at human habitable temperatures and humidity in an environment that runs from insanely cold to oven warm in extremes of humidity and levels of contamination unlike anywhere on Earth.
Use a device that runs out of power in less than 48 hours in an environment with at best a trickle charge for a quarter of the year

It often sounds so simple, but those people thinking JPL is stupid are usually just exposing their own ignorance.

That so many NASA devices and rovers operate so long under extremely hostile conditions is the amazing thing. That the engineers have built in the redundancy and recovery modes to try to limp along with damaged hardware and software is even more so.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

those people thinking JPL is stupid are usually just exposing their own ignorance.

Definitely. I also think there's a general case in that statement.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

"Why don't you just become and expert in the field and then maybe you'll have the right information?"

This crap is what I hate about tech. You get people who are smart in one area and they think they know everything about everything. Here's a hint: 99.999% of the time when you come up with a solution in 5 seconds, that a team of experts has been thinking about for hours/days/weeks/months/years/decades, that solution doesn't work, and by bringing it up, you're an asshole. (Apparently Elon Musk is the other 0.001% of the time, but I can't believe he shits rainbows all the time).

For those that want to frame it better, how about "I don't understand why X isn't possible? What am I missing?" that puts it squarely on the fact that you don't understand.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

Oh, even Elon Musk has the ability to come up with simple stupid unworkable ideas.

And, yeah. I hate that about people in tech. (It does seem more prevalent in tech)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

even Elon Musk has the ability to come up with simple stupid unworkable ideas.

True, true. If you haven't already read it, I recommend Alon Levy's post about one stupid unworkable idea in particular, and about that aspect of tech in general.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Funny you should mention Elon Musk. Here is a fine bit of writing about the whole "people who are smart in one area and they think they know everything about everything" idea:

There is a belief within American media that a successful person can succeed at anything. He (and it’s invariably he) is omnicompetent, and people who question him and laugh at his outlandish ideas will invariably fail and end up working for him. If he cares about something, it’s important; if he says something can be done, it can. The people who are already doing the same thing are peons and their opinions are to be discounted, since they are biased and he never is. He doesn’t need to provide references or evidence – even supposedly scientific science fiction falls into this trope, in which the hero gets ideas from his gut, is always right, and never needs to do experiments.

...

I write this to point out that, in the US, people will treat any crank seriously if he has enough money or enough prowess in another field. A sufficiently rich person is surrounded by sycophants and stenographers who won’t check his numbers against anything.

...

The thinking is that he’s rich, so he must always have something interesting to say; he can’t be a huckster when venturing outside his field. It would be unthinkable to treat people as professionals in their own fields, who take years to make a successful sideways move and who need to be extremely careful not to make elementary mistakes. The superheros of American media coverage would instantly collapse, relegated to a specialized role while mere mortals take over most functions

The whole post is a takedown in exhaustive detail of Musk's hyperloop idea, which to be fair is really napkinware more than anything else. But the post in particular and the blog in general are both worth reading.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

You get people who are smart in one area and they think they know everything about everything.

It seems to be universal. How many people with no experience in practical politics think they can solve the most vexed problems of the times in a straightforward way?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

It goes the other way, too. Politicians and other sorts of managers sometimes seem to think they can solve tech problems by decree.

[redbird]

The one that really annoys me is "why don't you just..." where often the "just" is some combination of difficult, expensive, or ineffective (such as dubious or impractical but possibly well-meant medical advice), or shows that the person asking "why don't you?" hasn't been listening to the person they are trying to give advice to. For example, if someone says they're looking for a better job because they hate the one they have now, they might welcome the information that "XYZ is hiring" or be open to "the community college offers courses in bookkeeping," but "why don't you just get a different job?" would be infuriating.

The "why don't you just?" people tend not to listen to any answer that actually gives a reason why not: "I tried that and it didn't work" or "because it would cost five thousand dollars I don't have." It's as if they are more concerned with knowing more than you do than with actually helping.

At this point, "Why don't you just..." feels like some weird combination of accusation (as if I should have thought of this on my own, done it six months ago, and not have the problem anymore) and claim of superiority, even when it doesn't come from a position of ignorance. It's possible that at some point this will mean I miss an actual good suggestion that I would consider if it was phrased as "have you tried..." or "I read about something that might work."