Have people here stopped reading the text of questions before answering them?

If you’re not satisfied with the answers, then I’m having a hard time understanding what more you want out of that question. I looked at it deeper just now, and the best I can think of is that you are asking two discussion two different things in that thread.
Idae 1: What evolutionary function does annoyance serve?
Idea 2: How has the interaction between humans and flies evolved over time? (which is grounded in the assumption you made)

Perhaps you could post in that thread asking for more precise answers. As I said, I’m a bit baffled, too, if those aren’t the answers you’re looking for. The actual question seems pretty self-explanatory and easily addressable unlike this one which I’m assuming you don’t want answered directly.

The question was worded awkwardly, which is one reason I did not answer it when it was posted.

I thought from the title that it was about being annoyed and then read further that it was about being annoying. And even after reading the whole question, it was not easy to answer or even speculate about.

There are some people here that don’t read the whole question, especially if the first part of the text is consistent wit the header. But sometimes the questioner changes direction, and catches many people by surprise. So it is combination of both careless reading before answering, and carelessness in posing a question that is too damn long.

Excuse my ignorance, but what the hell is the Dunning-Kruger Brigade?

@dxs I don’t know how I could have been clearer. It seems to me that for the common housefly, being annoying is detrimental, since it makes it more likely to get swatted. I even gave two examples: we don’t swat ladybugs or fireflies because they aren’t annoying. Given that houseflies are ridiculously prolific, they have the capability to mutate very quickly. Since houseflies have remained more or less unchanged for 65 million years, I have to assume that being annoying gives it some kind of evolutionary benefit to counteract the effect of being much more likely to get swatted. LuckyGuy gave the clearest answer, that from the fly’s perspective “being annoying” could more accurately be expressed as “being persistent,” and that this accounts for housefly behaviour.

Most other people in the thread appear to be answering an entirely different question based solely on the title of the question.

@zenvelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

@SmashTheState I was thinking of annoyance from the human’s standpoint. I thought you were asking if your state of being annoyed by the fly is a result of evolution that has benefited you somehow. I hope you understand that people don’t always see things exactly how you do, so it’s important to try and look at things from all viewpoints. Also, many times Jellies enjoy asking open-ended questions to see where the discussion goes, and due to the question’s vagueness (can we at least admit this?), they might have thought it was more open than you had planned. I’m sorry you feel frustrated about this, but you haven’t even bothered to give an effort at trying to steer the thread into the direction you want it. How about you try that first and then complain about it if it fails?

I don’t like rollercoasters, and generally avoid them.

No. No, my question was not even slightly vague or open-ended. To anyone who actually read the question, it’s very clear what I was asking. Otherwise, how would LuckyGuy have known how to answer? The whole reason I write such long questions is specifically to avoid misunderstanding. I studied journalism in college, I’m a published author, I’ve hosted two radio shows, run for public office, and was the media spokesperson for eight years for an NGO during which time I gave hundreds of interviews. My entire life has been about expressing myself as clearly and purposefully as possible, which is why I’m not going to give ground on this issue. I was exceedingly clear what I was asking in my question for anyone who actually read it.

In any case, this particular question isn’t really about that; I was only using it as an example of something I’ve previously noted here: namely, that not reading the entire question appears to have become common here.

Few people read the details, especially if they are long. This is nothing new and has always irked me.

There have been times in the past when one of us would ask this very question. In the long winded details we would ask another question to see if users were paying attention to the details. When they didn’t include their favorite ice cream flavor in their answer you knew they didn’t read the details.

I usually read the details before responding. I won’t always read other responses before responding, depending on how late I am to the thread and how many responses there are before I am ready to respond myself, and also depending, of course, on how busy I am.

In the thread you referred to, about being annoyed, I read briefly what you wrote but chose to “follow” instead of responding.

When I ask questions, I usually will hope for a certain type of detail or outcome, but as this is Fluther and as this is the internet, I know anything goes.

I prefer asking in Social because I like the conversational tone of the thread, and I don’t like seeing posts deleted that may make the thread confusing.

When I first came to Fluther, I didn’t like that many posts will turn into jokes about frizzers and pancakes and private jokes that I didn’t really follow, but again, it’s Fluther.

I can tell you that when I look for advice on any topic, or bring up any issue, I am flattered and grateful when anybody answers, in any way.

Human communication is difficult – even with all of the fancy experience and life’s dedication to communication you have.

I did read through your question multiple times. And I still don’t think it’s clear. The word “annoying” appears to be used to describe a property of the fly, rather than a reaction you are having to the fly. And this might have thrown some of us off a bit.

It’s nothing new. Ever since I’ve been here, since 2009, this question has been regularly asked. Or, at least, the topic of not reading the details has been regularly discussed. In fact, this is the first time in quite a bit that this issue has been brought up.

I understood the question, but had to read it a couple of times, because the title lead me to expect something different. I hear “annoyance”, and immediately jump to the state of being annoyed. Next, I would assume the term to describe a person or thing – “being an annoyance”. The action of annoying is the last definition which comes to mind.

To prove I’ve read the details: Pointing to this as an example of the Dunning-Kruger-Effect is inaccurate, I believe. The users who answered a question you hadn’t asked might have been confused, but there is no reason to assume they were over-estimating their knowledge. Let’s say I ask a question about a weird rash on my underarms. There is one expert, a doctor, who explains what I might have while allowing that he may be wrong. Then, there’s a crowd who tells me I have cancer, dry skin, chicken pox or the black plague. All of them are convinced of their diagnosis, which makes them convincing. That’s an example of Dunning-Kruger.In addition, though, there is one other guy. He tells me that making rash decisions is never advisable. He’s either nuts, or he has very much misunderstood the question. Either way, Dunning-Kruger does not apply.

I also doubt that a Dunning-Kruger brigade exists. To my knowledge, Dunning-Kruger applies to all of us, it can kick in whenever we talk about a topic we are not an expert on. I might be “guilty” of it right now.

PS: Why assume Fluther has gotten dumber, when you could be assuming that it’s you who’s gotten smarter? ;)

lmao, the black plague XD

@Symbeline Yep. Can’t make this stuff up.

“I don’t know how I could have been clearer.”

So you can’t figure out how to make the question clearer, but you’ve decided to blame everyone else for that? Okay. You might also consider the possibility that some of the other responses actually do answer your question in ways you haven’t yet noticed. Or that others are responses to responses in the discussion thread rather than to the OP.

My answers there, for instance, could be explained in both ways. First, I don’t think there is a specific evolutionary explanation for either side of the relationship you are inquiring about. Second, I was agreeing with @Zaku, who had already made a similar point. So I was responding to some of the responses rather than the OP, but in a way that could nevertheless prove helpful to the original question if anyone wanted to take the time to reflect on it.