It’s seems like the kind of abstraction that is impossible from object level analysis of others’ questions or one’s received answers.
Putting myself in the mind of an answerer confronted with someone’s specific question, I can easily imagine myself hitting on the general/abstract problem through sheer exasperation: “AAAARGHHHH. IF YOU’D JUST SAID WHAT YOU REALLY WANTED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE WOULDN’T HAVE HAD TO WASTE TIME ON SOMETHING BASICALLY IRRELEVANT”.
Of course, this does not help very much with the question of how to identify Q&A failure modes. “Study specific cases of bad Q&A sessions until I’m so annoyed that my mind spontaneously summarizes them together” is probably an unreliable method.
Putting myself in the mind of an answerer confronted with someone’s specific question, I can easily imagine myself hitting on the general/abstract problem through sheer exasperation: “AAAARGHHHH. IF YOU’D JUST SAID WHAT YOU REALLY WANTED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE WOULDN’T HAVE HAD TO WASTE TIME ON SOMETHING BASICALLY IRRELEVANT”.
Of course, this does not help very much with the question of how to identify Q&A failure modes. “Study specific cases of bad Q&A sessions until I’m so annoyed that my mind spontaneously summarizes them together” is probably an unreliable method.