7

My question was closed as "not framed in psychology or neuroscience"?

This question is not framed in psychology or neuroscience. It is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within any of the research fields on-topic here.

What does this mean and what can I do to get it re-opened?

Note: Historically, this close reason was phrased slightly different ("not framed in the cognitive sciences") since the site used to be named "Cognitive Sciences SE". Regardless, the same reasoning behind this close reason applies.

  • 1
    Suppose part of the question is: "Is [this idea] held to be true within the cognitive sciences?" Or "where does this fit in on the spectrum of cognitive sciences?" Does that make it a valid, reopenable question? Put another way, what if the OP honestly "doesn't know" beforehand, and has to ask whether cognitive sciences covers [this idea]? – Tom Au Aug 12 '17 at 19:21
  • @TomAu Such questions are welcome, but we expect the OP to show proof that there is a reason for asking the question. This can be done (as in the answer to this post) by linking to "several forum posts or popular sources showing this is a well-known phenomena." Furthermore, these are typically terminology questions, and it is important to keep such questions concise; the 'scientific' terminology should constitute an answer and sets you on the right path to do some subsequent research yourself prior to asking follow-up questions. – Steven Jeuris Aug 14 '17 at 8:09
  • @StevenJeuris: Does this question cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/17913/… ((in its current, edited form) now fit the pattern? I need to know whether or not "technical" and "social" personal styles correspond roughly to "task" and "relational" leadership styles for further research. – Tom Au Aug 14 '17 at 16:32
  • @TomAu I suggest asking a seperate meta question in regards to this specific case – Seanny123 Aug 14 '17 at 19:36
5

Although non-expert questions are welcome, we don't allow questions which aren't founded in any way. Even expert questions shouldn't be hypothetical. Non-expert and expert questions alike should show proof there is reason to ask the question.

Acceptable context/reason for the question includes:

  1. Scientific resources, such as publications or video lectures from scientists.
  2. Several forum posts or popular sources showing this is a well-known phenomena.

Remember that closed questions can be re-opened if they are edited and improved. You can edit your question to frame the question more scientifically, asking about the causes, prognosis, the biopsychosocial basis, or specific details about current research. Then, respond to some of the comments asking for feedback/reopen votes, or use the "flag" link to request moderator feedback.

Flag Screen Capture

  • 6
    I think this close reason should be handled with care, given that our weakest point in area52 is the low number of questions we receive. We should cherish viable questions, even when not fully scientifically sound. High-quality, scientific answers can salvage mediocre questions. – AliceD Aug 1 '17 at 19:35
  • 1
    Do references to scientific theories count as "context?" I'm referring to e.g. a wikipedia link on B.F. Skinner's "operant conditioning," as opposed to an original B.F. Skinner publication. – Tom Au Aug 14 '17 at 16:46
  • @TomAu Definitely. However, if you want a more nuanced answer, I would recommend making a separate meta question. – Seanny123 May 30 '18 at 23:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .