9 replaced http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/ with https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/
source | link

This proposal is incomplete. Please refer to my other proposal asking for context, a combination of initial research AND/OR motivation.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-menhttps://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

This proposal is incomplete. Please refer to my other proposal asking for context, a combination of initial research AND/OR motivation.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

This proposal is incomplete. Please refer to my other proposal asking for context, a combination of initial research AND/OR motivation.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

8 replaced http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/ with https://cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

This proposal is incomplete. Please refer to my other proposal asking for context, a combination of initial research AND/OR motivation.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposalSteven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

This proposal is incomplete. Please refer to my other proposal asking for context, a combination of initial research AND/OR motivation.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

This proposal is incomplete. Please refer to my other proposal asking for context, a combination of initial research AND/OR motivation.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

7 added 144 characters in body
source | link

This proposal is incomplete. Please refer to my other proposal asking for context, a combination of initial research AND/OR motivation.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

This proposal is incomplete. Please refer to my other proposal asking for context, a combination of initial research AND/OR motivation.

I disagree with the proposed new close vote and scope. Instead, I would like to argue that the questions of laymen meet some particular requirements, because some questions are in fact interesting. In other words, with good quality posts, there is no need for excluding people and it will probably not drive away experts. We must accept that psychology is a popular field, for both researchers and laymen, and therefore we will always receive a broad audience.

I would like to argue for Steven Jeuris proposal a new close reason:

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it.

Motivation may be either scientific relevance (and thus initial research), some logical reasoning on how you came up with the question, or just why you are doing the research. There is no reason for not providing a motivation for a question. By adding motivation we get rid of obnoxious one-sentence questions that even high-level user may ask.

The people are not the problem, the questions are.

EDIT:
Here is a perfect example why motivation is necessary: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/are-there-studies-showing-that-women-are-more-selective-than-men The question was:

Does anyone know of any other empirical studies that support or go against the idea that heterosexual women are more selective in who they date, have sex with or have relationships than heterosexual men?

The question was really odd. It seemed as if the person is unable to find a girlfriend or something like that, and wanted to know why women have such high standards. After some comments and an edit, though still phrased a little cumbersome, the question makes a lot more sense.

6 Added now deleted comments on pastebin.
source | link
5 Found a perfect example.
source | link
4 added 19 characters in body
source | link
3 Fine tuned my phrasing.
source | link
2 Expanded my motivation for not focusing on merely on Researchers.
source | link
1
source | link