Talk:XY problem

Unsourced neologism
Everything about this article screams "delete".

-Neither of the sources, all two of them, call this "the XY problem". One is said to have "implicitly coined" the term (classic SYNTH). If the coin has in fact been minted there should then be other WP:RS that talk about it as a fully minted shiny metal object.

-The lede (entirely unsourced), the body and the sources disagree with each other about what an "XY problem" is. Is it pursuing a solution of the wrong problem, or asking the wrong question during that pursuit, or the difficulty encountered by help desks that receive those unknowingly wrong questions?

-WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:PRIMARY, external links to WP:UGC as pseudo-references

Wikipedia does not need to have an article on every sexy new term that is still crystallizing toward an established usage. It can wait until the terminology has been established. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Need for an illustrative example
Please discuss  your reversion here.

As in the Example Above, the non-expert thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The non-expert want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y... So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".


 * Please sign your posts. See WP:SIGNATURE.
 * Please learn how to indent. See WP:INDENT.
 * Please limit yourself to one section. See WP:SECTIONS
 * Please don't ping me. I am watching this page. Never ping anyone multiple times in a row. That is really annoying.
 * The explanation as to what you did wrong in at WP:OR and WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry Guy Macon my fast and careless edits here... Moving moving all my trash to one isolated place.


 * Guy Macon and others, sorry my English, can you help bellow? Krauss (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Example and relation with working hypothesis
((WE NEED TO ADD SOME EXAMPLES... THIS SECTION IS A SUGGESTION: PLEASE EDIT OR INDICATE HOW TO CORRECT IT)) Krauss (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.



There are a self-evident problem &mdash; the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure &mdash;, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

The Non-expert thinks that "there are two 'equivalent' figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...", following with the bad question about the problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

The clever geometry-expert think something like "oops, they are 'similar', but not 'perfectly equivalent' figures", following with the good question: problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?". The expert thinks in terms of "similar geometries that aren't perfect equivalents".

The non-expert thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill <tt>Y</tt> questions.

The non-expert want to solve the real question-<tt>X</tt>, and you think in terms of an <tt>Y</tt>-context, and try to use question-<tt>Y</tt>. Instead of asking about context <tt>X</tt>, you ask about context <tt>Y</tt>... So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".

Missing (software development related?) example
I am missing a clear example here. Also, in the software develoment field, this term is also widely used. MCEmperor (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This predates Woolsey, too
In order to illustrate that the topic predates Raymond, the article as written currently references Woolsey's 1980 Applied Management Science. Not sure how this made its way into the article, but the way it's currently presented does raise questions about the issue of whether it constitutes WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. We can sidestep that discussion, though, because Quote Investigator has an entire article about the quip (commonly associated with Clayton Christensen) that "people don’t want quarter-inch drill bits; they want quarter-inch holes". <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/03/23/drill/> -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 23:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

X and Y reversed in recent edit
The meanings of X and Y appear to have been reversed in an edit in December last year. This fits the supposed original source better, but seems to contradict all of the other references given. I'd also be tempted say that the current iteration isn't perhaps as logical compared to having 'X' be the root and then 'Y' stemming from that. Being a wiki noob I don't want to go overhauling the article again based purely on my own opinion, so any consensus on this? Do we keep it as it is now, or change it back? -- FrostedCupkate (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)