"YX Problem" aka "geeksplaining" originated right here on HN 9 years ago.
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10023951">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10023951</a><p>Also a few other takes based on that comment.<p><a href="https://csf.github.io/blog/2018/05/01/the-yx-problem/" rel="nofollow">https://csf.github.io/blog/2018/05/01/the-yx-problem/</a><p><a href="https://yxproblem.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">https://yxproblem.wordpress.com/</a> (SEO ad farming page?)
I've had this issue a lot, usually secondhand (search for a solution to X, find a bunch of forum posts that scold about X being bad and wrong even though it is absolutely the correct approach in my scenario).<p>But realistically, any kind of programming Q&A forum is absolutely flooded with beginners and dolts and literal children, so if you've somehow decided to be a power user that answers a million questions, it's probably reasonable to assume that they really want Y.
I think a good answer to a question that you think is an XY problem, should answer both X and Y.<p>When there is an XY problem, Y might be the better option, but most of the time understanding the solution for X is still very interesting.<p>Also, if somebody can answer Y, but not X, are they really qualified enough to answer the question?
Both problems come from hiding assumptions in an attempt to focus on a conclusion, which is presumed to be the only relevant information. That's not a bad thing to do in general -- we always have to be selective what we communicate. It's only bad if your hidden assumptions are wrong.
The author laments about the relationship being asymmetric when they think it is symmetric. The fact that someone is teaching someone makes this asymmetric, no? Mentor-Mentee relationship is asymmetric. Giver-receiver relationships are asymmetric. Nothing wrong about that as long as both respect each other.
I see filtering out low-quality answers as the cost of asking for free advice on the internet. As long as the responses aren't abusive or malicious, they represent someone giving their time and effort away for free in an attempt to help a stranger.
I run into "XY Problem" the most when I'm googling X, usually the argument is in the arch linux forum or maybe reddit. It can be infuriating when yes I actually literally have my reasons for doing X, and seeing them dismissed. And then it's extra funny when someone does present the solution (Yes, thank you person!) and then the next response from an admin is something like "Learn not to necrobump. Thread locked". Uhg. Honestly, anytime I see the word necrobump, the info that was shared actually helped me out a lot. Such a dumb rule. I don't care about getting email notifications from 5 year old threads. A better solution for the hard-line no necrobumpers should be a auto-unsubscribe after N days feature. Or since they are such expert authorities I'm sure they could rig up a script or email filter to moderate their own feeds.
Omg. I think this concept kind of explains a phenomenon I’ve noticed on Hacker News.<p>An article gets posted about X. But the top comment is about Y. People pile on to the easy topic of Y.
I'd say this is firmly a less useful formulation than XY. With wise troubleshooting practices and a good back and forth between the learner and the instructor, most of the time when the instructor is worried about a possible XY, they end up being correct in their intuition.
> Frequently the situation is more symmetric<p>Not at all. Usually the person asking has some need and the person answering does not. Seems a bit entitled to complain that the person answering provided the anser they though would best help you instead of the answer you wanted.
All of this isn't a problem any more. Claude/ChatGPT is far more helpful than any human. Except, for some reason, in matters of kernel code where there is no substitute for some god-damned message list somewhere in nowhere.
Does anyone have a concrete example of this to help me understand this better? I found the article a hard to understand because it was abstract with X and Y.<p>Would be nice to see an example with X/Y filled in!
I kind of just YX'd myself in a way. I read all the comments without reading the article first. My brain autocorrected "YX" to "XY" and I kept thinking, "What the heck are all these people on about?? They seem to talking about Y when they mean X(Y)..."
People who descend into this are kind of missing the point of the XY problem in the first place.<p>The XY problem is to get all parties involved in thinking about the actual goal and how to achieve that goal. By presuming you know what the Y is already, you're kinda falling to the XY problem yourself.<p>Very rarely do we need to, for example, draw a square for the sake of drawing a square, there's usually a larger problem we're trying to solve.<p>Using this: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024188">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024188</a> as the example.<p>None of those responses is actually relevant to solving the XY problem (if it exists). The user wants to draw a square with HTML Canvas. Before suggesting any course of action, we need to know why he wants to do that.