Do you believe one cannot/should not describe a problem without also proposing a solution?

[Posteritatis]

"You aren't offering a solution, therefore..."

I've been seeing that and similar lines all over the place in the last month or two - here, my local papers, other discussion boards, and so on and so forth. I'm trying to figure out if I'm just noticing that reaction to criticism of one thing or another, or if people are actually reacting in that way more often. I've seen a number of therefores; therefore the complaint has no merit, therefore we must find a solution, therefore the problem doesn't exist, therefore (insert dramatic non-sequitur), and so on.

So yeah, I'm curious as to what people think. Do you think someone should have to provide a solution to a problem before they can point out the existence of said problem? Does someone need to suggest a solution for there to be a problem in the first place? Is it always unproductive to say something is wrong someplace otherwise, or is "I don't know what to do about it" an acceptable reaction? Does it depend on what the suggested problem is? Should it?

I don't have any particular problem/solution in mind for this thread; I've seen it come up in discussions about politics, education, the economy, art, music, game design, and so on all over the place lately, so I'm curious as to whether I'm the only one noticing it, and if not what other people think about it.

Not sure where I stand on it at times, since I've been trying to work through some issues in my own head and can't calibrate "this is a problem whose solution I cannot identify" versus "I am complaining for its own sake" versus "I just want to cut something down" versus "anything else I'm missing here" as well as I'd like to, so I figured I'd kick off a thread here to see what you guys think.

[ixion]

1. Not necessarily. If they admit openly they have no solution

I'm at least inclined to listen to their description of the problem.

However, they should be able to describe WHY it's a problem.

[Posteritatis]

6. Yeah, understanding a problem's problemness is definitely important

I try to at least get that far along the process, anyway. I know a variety of problems with education in my neck of the woods for instance, and can often describe them at great and terrifying length, but past "stop electing the goddamned conservatives already because they actively and openly hate education" can only go so far towards being a solution. (A very therapeutic only-so-far, to be sure!) Past that I find my thoughts running into either brick walls or sound bites, and end up wondering if that means I have as much to contribute to that particular discussion as I'd like to.

I've wound up with a vague discomfort about a lot of mindsets and attitudes in the last year or two, and have found myself spending more time wondering why I have that discomfort, and where those attitudes are coming from in the first place. My OP here is an attempt to probe at least one of those.

[kick-ass-bob]

2. If you are running for an office and that is one of your issues,

then you better damn well have a solution.

Otherwise, you don't need to have a solution to every problem you discuss. If you didn't discuss, how could you find a suitable solution?

[Posteritatis]

3. Definitely agreed re: electoral candidates

"This sucks! This sucks too! This also sucks! Vote for Joe McSaysnothingelseaboutthese!" type ads have been an epidemic in my neck of the woods with the last few elections. They backfired gloriously at the provincial level, but that's a density of for-its-own-sake, nothing-but negativity that has no place in an election campaign.

[bemildred]

4. No, it's inherently stupid.

A recipe for never discussing problems. One often needs long discussions about how to describe a problem before one even begins to figure out how to address it.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. It is easy to recognize a problem, and point it out. But if you want

my vote, you had better have solutions to these problems you see around every corner. And I think the vague references to problems are a big reason people what to hear what the candidate intends to do about it. "Cut the deficit because it is out of control, reduce taxes because they are too high" is one of those vague comments. Yes, these are problems. But what are you going to do about it? You and I can discuss problems and have no solutions, but candidates are being sent to solve problems. Double standard, you bet, but that is what the job you want in politics is supposed to do.

[bluerum]

7. No. A clear unobstructed view of a problem is where u begin.

[Posteritatis]

8. No, you can't ID a problem, or no, you *can*?

(Sorry, can't figure out which you mean.)

[TheKentuckian]

9. Recognizing and accepting the reality of a problem is a big piece of the battle

Can't solve what you don't understand or refuse to accept.

As a legislator it is different because your job is to at least try to solve the problems you are faced with but even there it is very meaningful for a problem to be defined and have it's seriousness impressed.

So absolutely. I'd guess most problems were expressed, contemplated, and railed against and the solutions came later.

It is a pretty neat little package to only accept problems when a solution comes with them, keeps the hubbub down but is probably evolutionary suicide. Knowing the sabertooth is coming might not save you from becoming dinner but with necessity being the mother of invention, I bet it increases the odds dramatically.

[TBF]

10. Nope, that's just a technique to shut down conversation

before it even starts.

[billlll]

13. no solution needed... cause and cure are nice later on

I always try to jump right quick to my cures... So much to say that I can't spend much time on the problem. But that's just a style idiosyncracy.

My quarrel is different -- I wish the LW would abandon longwindedness. We have to boil our points down to soundbites if we want them remembered by the voters.

The "professor Hamburg lecture, in 1800's terminology" just won't be remembered.

The RW has soundbites from their thinktanks. They use them. Very effective.

[BzaDem]

11. It depends on what their point is. If they are citing a problem and using it to bash Obama/Democrats

without offering a solution, then I'm not going to take them seriously.

But if they are simply citing a problem, I would of course take them seriously.

And if they were citing a problem, using it to bash Obama/Democrats, AND they offered a feasible solution, I would also take them seriously.

[petronius]

12. Not at all - a clear description of problem is a crucial first step. However, it's not really

a new contribution to point out a problem that we all already know about, and if someone claims that a proposed solution "won't work" then they need to be able to explain why if they want to be taken seriously...