I wanted to add to the discussion from the point of view of an amateur to psychology.

In some of my questions, I have described a certain logical reasoning, mentioned a hypothesis that I reached, and then asked for a verification (or refutation) of the hypothesis posed.

Now, while answering with research papers and references is great, but in their absence, I have on multiple occasions received the response that "no research exists". I have even been told that "no research exists" is a perfectly valid answer to such questions.

While I agree, that "no research exists" or "this is a paper that tangentially relates to what you are asking" are appropriate responses, they are not helpful responses. They are not helpful either for me or for any future visitors to the question.

The fact that I am new to psychology and that most questions come up while learning/studying, I would find logical or experience based responses from experts/practitioners/users on this site much more useful*. If nothing else, any answers that verify or refute the hypothesis will form interesting analyses of the problem described and will help me as well as others improve their understanding and thinking. These responses will be helpful even if they are later proven to be wrong as they will force me to look at the scenario from an entirely different point of view, which is a very valuable experience for any student.

_{*Of course, this should generally be done only when the OP has done some research and demonstrates a minimal understanding of the topic.}

So, for individuals like me who are just learning how things work in cognitive sciences, a no-reference logical explanation would be more helpful than no answers. It would make this site a much more valuable resource for many of us.

I wanted to add to the discussion from the point of view of an amateur to psychology.

In some of my questions, I have described a certain logical reasoning, mentioned a hypothesis that I reached, and then asked for a verification (or refutation) of the hypothesis posed.

Now, while answering with research papers and references is great, but in their absence, I have on multiple occasions received the response that "no research exists". I have even been told that "no research exists" is a perfectly valid answer to such questions.

While I agree, that "no research exists" or "this is a paper that tangentially relates to what you are asking" are appropriate responses, they are not helpful responses. They are not helpful either for me or for any future visitors to the question.

The fact that I am new to psychology and that most questions come up while learning/studying, I would find logical or experience based responses from experts/practitioners/users on this site much more useful*. If nothing else, any answers that verify or refute the hypothesis will form interesting analyses of the problem described and will help me as well as others improve their understanding and thinking. These responses will be helpful even if they are later proven to be wrong as they will force me to look at the scenario from an entirely different point of view, which is a very valuable experience for any student.

_{*Of course, this should generally be done only when the OP has done some research and demonstrates a minimal understanding of the topic.}

So, for individuals like me who are just learning how things work in cognitive sciences, a no-reference logical explanation would be more helpful than no answers. It would make this site a much more valuable resource for many of us.

I wanted to add to the discussion from the point of view of an amateur to psychology.

In some of my questions, I have described a certain logical reasoning, mentioned a hypothesis that I reached, and then asked for a verification (or refutation) of the hypothesis posed.

Now, while answering with research papers and references is great, but in their absence, I have on multiple occasions received the response that "no research exists". I have even been told that "no research exists" is a perfectly valid answer to such questions.

While I agree, that "no research exists" or "this is a paper that tangentially relates to what you are asking" are appropriate responses, they are not helpful responses. They are not helpful either for me for for any future visitors to the question.

The fact that I am new to psychology and that most questions come up while learning/studying, I would find logical or experience based responses from experts/practitioners/users on this site much more useful*. If nothing else, any answers that verify or refute the hypothesis will form interesting analyses of the problem described and will help me as well as others improve their understanding and thinking. These responses will be helpful even if they are later proven to be wrong as they will force me to look at the scenario from an entirely different point of view, which is a very valuable experience for any student.

_{*Of course, this should be done only when the OP has done some research and demonstrates a minimal understanding of the topic.}

So, for individuals like me who are just learning how things work in cognitive sciences, a no-reference logical explanation would be more helpful than no answers. It would make this site a much more valuable resource for many of us.

Just my 2 cents.

I wanted to add to the discussion from the point of view of an amateur to psychology.

In some of my questions, I have described a certain logical reasoning, mentioned a hypothesis that I reached, and then asked for a verification (or refutation) of the hypothesis posed.

Now, while answering with research papers and references is great, but in their absence, I have on multiple occasions received the response that "no research exists". I have even been told that "no research exists" is a perfectly valid answer to such questions.

While I agree, that "no research exists" or "this is a paper that tangentially relates to what you are asking" are appropriate responses, they are not helpful responses. They are not helpful either for me or for any future visitors to the question.

The fact that I am new to psychology and that most questions come up while learning/studying, I would find logical or experience based responses from experts/practitioners/users on this site much more useful*. If nothing else, any answers that verify or refute the hypothesis will form interesting analyses of the problem described and will help me as well as others improve their understanding and thinking. These responses will be helpful even if they are later proven to be wrong as they will force me to look at the scenario from an entirely different point of view, which is a very valuable experience for any student.

_{*Of course, this should generally be done only when the OP has done some research and demonstrates a minimal understanding of the topic.}

So, for individuals like me who are just learning how things work in cognitive sciences, a no-reference logical explanation would be more helpful than no answers. It would make this site a much more valuable resource for many of us.