Also when, for example, someone suggests a strategy that is useful in scenario X, but because it can be problematic in scenario Y, they get a bunch of replies warning them about that - even though they had no intention of advocating applying it in scenario Y. That’s also a kind of XYing - “oh don’t do that, it’s bad if you re trying to Y…” when we’re not, we are trying to X.
For example, when someone says they think the XY problem model is a useful framing when evaluating customer feature requests in product design, they are talking about using it in scenario X.
But inevitably they will attract a bunch of replies telling them how bad it is to apply the XY problem approach when answering questions in a technical Q&A forum. That would be scenario Y.
Stack overflow started out with a lot of Microsoft ecosystem people, eg. Joel Spolsky. I worked at Microsoft in 2008 and this kind of de-framing was a bit of a corporate cultural obsession there at that time. You'd report a bug internally and PMs would ask you what you were really trying to do ... It was frustrating when you wanted people to just fix their shit. Instead people would universally treat you like you didn't know what you were doing and really meant to ask something else. I saw this trait a lot on SO around the same time.
Apparently I was too subtle so let me put a lampshade on it.
The replies to the post which said that the XY problem approach is useful in product development, which are talking about XY reframing being a problem on stackoverflow are XY reframing the parent post.
They are doing exactly what they decry.
The smell of irony is apparently not as thick in the air as I thought it was.
Even if you know that the strategy is problematic in scenario Y, other viewers of the reply may not; you are only one of the many potential consumers of the response. Isn't it useful to flag the potential gotchas of a given approach for a naive reader?
I feel like many of the complaints Stack Overflow users come down to this: in many users' minds, the site is a Q&A forum, while the SO team wants it to be an authoritative repository of technical knowledge.
For example, when someone says they think the XY problem model is a useful framing when evaluating customer feature requests in product design, they are talking about using it in scenario X.
But inevitably they will attract a bunch of replies telling them how bad it is to apply the XY problem approach when answering questions in a technical Q&A forum. That would be scenario Y.