I have many more of such kinds of questions written out in MS-Word consisting of at least 2 and up to more than 100 pages. May I post them here too? Is there a character-limit per question?
Many of my much longer, more comprehensive, but also much harder to understand questions, which I'd like to share, can only make sense to anyone, who considers this fundamental question as important enough to think about. Since at least one other person indicated to that he understands, what I am trying to tell, and why I think this issue is very important, I am ready to post the next group of questions, which are build on this most fundamental one.
In some of my own answers to this fundamental question I proposed partial remedies to the problems and challenges, which I have described in my original posting. However, as long as I am the only one, who considers this a big enough problem to be seriously addressed, any of my proposed solutions to it will remain inherently imperatively hidden objects as long as any mutually shared and agreed upon concept about the nature of challenges, which they help to overcome, is still lacking.
I am almost blind and hence; my reading efficiency is that of a 2nd-grade elementary school student, i.e. it is only 1/10th of what is considered to be normal. Therefore, I can only finish my degree, if I can create conditions, in which the answers I need are coming to my questions on their own, i.e. delivered by my readers, instead of me trying in vain to search for them visually online. That is why I have invested so much time and effort in writing such long complex questions, which unfortunately face a much higher risk for getting closed, before anyone had the time and chance to really understand them, than could be expected by random chance alone. My sincere hope is that well-written questions will attract high-quality answers by those, who take the time to read them carefully to understand them well.
Currently, it is still generally expected that everyone must take lots of efforts to search and find the answers to his/her questions on his/her own. But since this option is not available to me, I must find new ways to write my questions in such a manner that they attract their answers to be actively brought to them by other readers, who they got interested.
Almost all people try to find the right answers to their questions based on their own search efforts. But since that does not work for me, I try to write my questions in a manner that they can be actively sought out/found by their answers by getting others interested in bringing the right answers to my questions rather than me trying in vain to take my questions and bring them to their right answers.
Most people tend to believe that each question must find its answer. But I am limited to reverse this commonly accepted approach by trying to rephrase my questions in a manner that allows them to be actively sought out/found by their answers automatically without requiring my efforts. Therefore, instead of me trying in vain to actively take a question and move it to/seek out/match it with its answer, I must experiment with new methods, which allow the right answer to actively move to/seek out/get matched with my question automatically without requiring me to invest my efforts into any - for me visually way too demanding - procedures of actively matching my questions with their answers.
In a nutshell, I must strive to ask questions, which can be actively sought out by their answers, instead of me having to actively seek out the answers to my questions. I apologize that this approach tends to result in much longer and partially repetitive questions. However, according to my experiences, longer and partially repetitive questions, which consist of many analogies, have much better chances to be actively sought out/found by the kind of answers I am looking for as long as interested readers can find them. The partial repetitiveness and information redundancies of my questions seems to be overall beneficial because before any reader can bring the right answers to my question, it must invoke the right shared concept in the minds of my readers.
My readers are vehicles, which my questions must program, to bring the right answers back to me. The more efforts I spend in programming my readers, the higher their chances for being able to bring back the kinds of answers I am looking for. It’s like a novel biological form of fuzzy subconsciously controlled humanoid-based analogy-driven new type of machine learning capable of independently discovering very novel and unexpectedly surprising innovative concepts.
click',��;��^�
Feel free to post questions that will advance your research in some small way here. They may be fundamental questions, questions about techniques or about difficulties in the research process etc. Start a new post for each different question. In your situation, it makes sense to "create conditions, in which the answers I need are coming to my [sub-] questions on their own." The art of creating this situation is hard, but it can be mastered! 1. You have to have an (initial) set of followers. I will recommend your question, and this will alert my followers to your question. 2. You need to ask questions which are all thematic. That is, they are related to your research question. For example, they are sub-questions or sub-sub-questions of your research question. 3. As you have identified, the questions must pique the interest of your new-found followers. This is the tricky part, but I suggest that if you find the research question and sub-questions interesting, then you will over time gather a clan of faithful followers who are interested too. We are all curious people here. 4. You should not ask questions that you could have answered using Google Scholar yourself. 5. You should not regard your followers as your slaves. They are busy people. Nevertheless I love your concept of "programming your readers". Nobody in Google Scholar has used that phrase. Smile, Smile! What you should aim to do is to get your readers addicted to answering your questions! 6. As you have already worked out, "well-written questions will attract high-quality answers". 7. Bear in mind that the quality of posts to your question will be as varied as the people responding. Some will have misspellings that you will have to stumble past. Others will have grammatical errors that you will not get worried about. Others will miss the question entirely, and a few will be what you are really looking for. Meticulously save the best in your research sub-folder, under an appropriate name. 8.It is common courtesy for us to provide a pointer not the source. If this is problematic for you, ask respondents to provide you with the text rather than a link. 9. Start a ResearchGate project. 10. Creativity is displayed in how you select and link together the sub-answers to your sub-questions, to produce a novel work. I like your idea of "letting answers find their question". I notice that Google Scholar reports on no-one using your phrase. Smile, Smile! I teach the following approach (but not by that neat name) to my research students. The students already know the obvious way of typing in their research question to Google Scholar. What they have not learned beforehand is the following process: 1. Take a bit of time to quickly write down everything you think might be in an answer. 2. Then take the keywords from the possible answer and submit THIS to Google Scholar. Since the writer thinking a bit like you and answering the question has to use the keywords to answer your question. So, you are likely to find a site which gives your original question! 3. What is exciting is that you then often pick up new ways of phrasing your original question or your tentative answer, which are fruitful because they use different keyphrases. 4. You then repeat the process with your new keyphrases. Try now, to use the important Research Question "How can blind researchers research?" Smile,Smile! (We already suspect that fishing with sub-answers instead of sub-questions might be useful!) Let me give a simple example, and I will use plain Google to demonstrate. As a control question, type into Google: why is the sky blue. This yields various answers of different suitabilities. Then type into Google my tentative answer: "the sky appears blue to us because all other colours have been taken out of it." This yields a different set of answers, which to me seem more satisfying and authoritative. Anyway, the first Google return uses the key phrase "the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight", which I had not thought of. Submitting this to Google narrows down on the sources that have correctly identified the mechanism. Have fun!
Feel free to post questions that will advance your research in some small way here. They may be fundamental questions, questions about techniques or about difficulties in the research process etc. Start a new post for each different question. In your situation, it makes sense to "create conditions, in which the answers I need are coming to my [sub-] questions on their own." The art of creating this situation is hard, but it can be mastered! 1. You have to have an (initial) set of followers. I will recommend your question, and this will alert my followers to your question. 2. You need to ask questions which are all thematic. That is, they are related to your research question. For example, they are sub-questions or sub-sub-questions of your research question. 3. As you have identified, the questions must pique the interest of your new-found followers. This is the tricky part, but I suggest that if you find the research question and sub-questions interesting, then you will over time gather a clan of faithful followers who are interested too. We are all curious people here. 4. You should not ask questions that you could have answered using Google Scholar yourself. 5. You should not regard your followers as your slaves. They are busy people. Nevertheless I love your concept of "programming your readers". Nobody in Google Scholar has used that phrase. Smile, Smile! What you should aim to do is to get your readers addicted to answering your questions! 6. As you have already worked out, "well-written questions will attract high-quality answers". 7. Bear in mind that the quality of posts to your question will be as varied as the people responding. Some will have misspellings that you will have to stumble past. Others will have grammatical errors that you will not get worried about. Others will miss the question entirely, and a few will be what you are really looking for. Meticulously save the best in your research sub-folder, under an appropriate name. 8.It is common courtesy for us to provide a pointer not the source. If this is problematic for you, ask respondents to provide you with the text rather than a link. 9. Start a ResearchGate project. 10. Creativity is displayed in how you select and link together the sub-answers to your sub-questions, to produce a novel work. I like your idea of "letting answers find their question". I notice that Google Scholar reports on no-one using your phrase. Smile, Smile! I teach the following approach (but not by that neat name) to my research students. The students already know the obvious way of typing in their research question to Google Scholar. What they have not learned beforehand is the following process: 1. Take a bit of time to quickly write down everything you think might be in an answer. 2. Then take the keywords from the possible answer and submit THIS to Google Scholar. Since the writer thinking a bit like you and answering the question has to use the keywords to answer your question. So, you are likely to find a site which gives your original question! 3. What is exciting is that you then often pick up new ways of phrasing your original question or your tentative answer, which are fruitful because they use different keyphrases. 4. You then repeat the process with your new keyphrases. Try now, to use the important Research Question "How can blind researchers research?" Smile,Smile! (We already suspect that fishing with sub-answers instead of sub-questions might be useful!) Let me give a simple example, and I will use plain Google to demonstrate. As a control question, type into Google: why is the sky blue. This yields various answers of different suitabilities. Then type into Google my tentative answer: "the sky appears blue to us because all other colours have been taken out of it." This yields a different set of answers, which to me seem more satisfying and authoritative. Anyway, the first Google return uses the key phrase "the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight", which I had not thought of. Submitting this to Google narrows down on the sources that have correctly identified the mechanism. Have fun!
looks complex but is good experience to exchange knowledge.
Best regards
Aly R Abdel-Moemin
Ok, Here is the short version of the Q&A with Thomas so far:
Thomas is near blind. He is desirous of doing research. His problem is that Research includes scanning many documents for nuggets to mine and refine.
He has finally found ResearchGate, where readers will be kind enough to provide an answer to a question, avoiding him having to scan through long documents or long lists of documents. He uniquely names this concept "programming your readers".
His other unique idea is to "create conditions, in which the answers I need are coming to my questions on their own." I gave him 10 hints on getting ResearchGate to work. I also suggested 4 steps on using answers to generate more questions, e.g., via Google Scholar. I demonstrated this with a simple example using Google, not Google Scholar.
The good news for him is that if he decides to research the question “How can blind researchers research?”, there appears to be no literature, so this is a new field, ready for research.
I did not have time yesterday to remind him that now-a-days, even fully sighted researchers do not read all documents, but instead use the CTRL-F function in the document reader to find the keyphrases in documents. He should do so too.
- Badges
- Science topic