User:Madkracker6969

AQ (Answer Questioning) Methodology
AQ Introduces a working cycle to the QA methods. This method may be used in conjunction with any of the known or newly founded methods. (A)nswer (Q)uestioning method may be applied to any revealed answer. The means by which it is utilized can be manipulated beyond it's intended purpose; however, the intended usage is taking an answer and questioning it; turning that very answer into a question. Example;

(A)"I like sushi."

(Q)"(Why do) I like sushi(?)"

(A)"The flavor."

(Q)"(What about) the flavor of sushi (do) I like?"

Inadvertently, this may unveil different methods of thinking, Cognitive Perspective, and perception as well.

While most would agree that this seems to be the end-all stratagem], it is only a starting point with endless possibilities. Any number of question methods may be used to derive the number of questions from the [[Five Ws|Five Ws as in,

(Revealed Answer) + (Five Ws) = (at least 5-6 Unasked Questions),

to which the unknown answer may yield any number of potential questions to be inquired upon at a later time; thereby unveiling an ongoing process constantly being reborn into the research being performed perpetuating the learning process from an end-in-itself to a living process performed by a living being.

The QA methodology utilizes just the opposite where, a known question is posited requiring further exploration, experimentation, and discovery, supposedly there is only one true objective answer in reality everything else is perception or plausibility. However, rather than relying on randomly generated questions gleaned through osmosis or left frustrated having hit some invisible impasse, the AQ Method is the key.

Worthy Of Note

The answer of any question will be restrained by the very system by which itself is to be revealed limiting the usefulness of the obtained information to the length of time till more inclusive system(s) is/are established and put into practice. i.e., if a system for deductive discovery is exclusionary, not objectively nor logically inductive in its inclusion beyond one's own limited knowledge at any given point in time nor the limited scope of its intended current application, then it should not be deemed viable in all areas. i.e. this is why opinions should not be made political nor should politics be established via public opinion. Politics, as a general rule of thumb should recognize THEN exclude bias and favoritism if the intended rules and regulations are to be considered all-inclusive, that is, to the inclusion to all which the established rules and regulations are to be applied.

That, in effect, if, by rule or regulation, an entity being rendered by bias to exclusion of favor or inclusion of penalty, and an entity having been rendered by bias to exclusion of penalty and inclusion of favor, then the rule and regulation cannot nor should not be deemed just if justice is goal.

The parable of comparing people with fruit, for example; to think we are all oranges within one basket attempting to competitive seek out unbruised and perfectly shaped, ripe oranges is an invalid comparison. A valid comparison for humans in the parable of fruit would be each fruit in the basket being unique; 1 orange, 1 pair, 1 banana, 1 pineapple, 1 strawberry, 1 peach, etc. Yes, we are all human, but also, all of these are fruit if you are to refer to categorization as a basis of argument.

Utilized alongside other forms of communication; debate may be greatly improved as well.

I would further argue that even this AQ Methodology should be questioned, and improved upon with ever-increasing and inclusive applicable information.