-On the wall of a classroom in my past -can’t remember where.

* mental laziness (didn't want to spend a few seconds thinking and just wanted to be handed the answer -- very commonly disguised as curiosity)

* bad faith (trolling, attempts at eliciting humor, "not really a question but a comment", agenda pushing)

It's very tiring to respond to stupid questions of this ilk -- it shifts the burden from the questioner to the respondent. It's not neutral, and having an environment of "no question is stupid" is draining -- psychologically, empathy is a finite resource like it or not. That's why there are so many guides on how to ask questions. (asking questions that elicit useful answers is actually a life skill!)

That said, I think the spirit of "no-stupid questions" is really about being open to (1) really out-of-left-field questions that challenge our thinking; (2) sincere questions that arise from curiosity; (3) clarification so that one doesn't persist in the wrong direction. I think this framing should be encouraged and environments/cultures should be cultivated to enable this.

But in my opinion "no stupid questions" as a catch-all is not practically tenable. The costs seem too one-sided.

2. Also, when someone asks if anyone has questions, and nobody has any questions, it can feel demoralizing and like nobody cared or understood what you were saying. Filling that space with an obvious question can be a small kindness. If you had a better question, maybe you should have asked it.

Disclaimer: I felt the exact same way as you when I attended university and have gained some perspective since.

The (2) case is sort of nuanced, sure. I think there were sort of two cases of "dumb" question here: (2a) the person really just hasn't been paying attention and asked a question covered earlier in the same lecture, potentially even quite recently; if they didn't understand it, they should have asked when it was introduced, and if they weren't paying attention, they should've been. And (2b), remedial-type questions, which would be good in a class prior to the current one, but just demonstrate that the asker isn't ready for the course they're in.

These are bad questions for everyone else in lecture, who get to be distracted and sidelined from learning.

I didn't get the impression that anyone was throwing freebie questions to the professor to invite more questions from the tentative, but that's just my anecdotal experience.

What makes for good questions? I think good questions are timely and on-topic — relevant to recently discussed material. Save the questions about homework for after (or before) class, or office hours.

"Kindness" seems to be in short supply, these days.

It really is depressing to see how many people take kindness for weakness. I'm seeing that demonstrated in this very article's comments.

One thing that I did learn in that corporation, was how to be an effective member of an effective team.

There is no culture on earth that comes close to the Japanese for effective teams. There's a ton of downsides to their culture (but I won't get into that); but their teams are incredibly tight and effective.

Being an effective member of a team requires far more than "hard" skills. It requires a lot of "soft" skills, and, in my experience, those lessons seem harder to learn.

One of the lessons that I learned, very early on, is that the person I denigrate now, may the one that I depend on to pull my ass from a fire, down the road.

At that time, they will remember whether I helped them, or tripped them up. To their credit, most of the Japanese that I know won't actually take that into account. If helping you helps the team, they will do it; regardless of how they feel about you.

That's actually kind of amazing, and rather humbling.

Why would you denigrate someone in the first place? Imo, the kind thing is not to denigrate anyone, including people that can not possibly be useful.

Exactly.

In fact, I have always found it advantageous to treat people "far down the ladder" with respect and kindness.

This has always worked out well for me. These people know everything.

In such case, nuance would be visible from answer.

I am not saying that every question is bad. But had experience of few individuals flooding lectures with too many such questions and it was not good experience. (They did it systematically, but lecturers eventually figured out to how to limit them - but it took multiple stalled lectures for that to happen. )

Yes, I know you don't know that, and yes, you're going to be confused if you don't remember how to diagonalize, but this is your 4th linalg question today, can you please review your linalg notes before next class? It's not just you but a whole class that's held up here.

One reason is that I am not afraid to ask questions about why something is. I need to learn my subject "to the bone."

At the start of class, I'd always be asking questions that would have facepalms and guffaws around the room.

By the end of class, I'm helping everyone to figure the material out.

The best teachers I ever had were trained teachers; not subject matter experts.

The absolute worst teachers I ever had were subject experts. They would routinely skip important fundamentals, and shame you for not knowing them. I guess that they assumed we would be able to figure it out on our own; which isn't a bad idea.

Except when they don't give us the time or access to resources required to learn.

Mostly, first group were people who did not paid attention or were not used to think for themselves. Plenty of times it takes like 15 seconds to find the answer if you think about it. People who don't bother to think rarely start to be able to figure out on more difficult concepts by the end of the class. The dichotomy between people who ask simple questions and the ones who don't care is false one. There is massive group of people who think for themselves at least a bit when they come across issue.

"Senpai notice me" people tended to be orthogonal to quality of knowledge or willingness/ability to explain. Full disclosure, I asked these questions when the "participation" was necessary to get points. It is a bit stupid when you know answer, but still needs that participation point ...

None of that has anything to do with quality of lecturer.

I'm not very competitive. In American culture, that makes me a "reject," but I have always felt that I need to get by on my own merit; whether or not that compares favorably to anyone else.

People who know more than I do are not "competitors." They are resources.

The biggest issue that I have with people (and I am guilty of this, myself), is the tendency to ascribe motive to behavior.

In my case, I'm dead wrong -a lot- (See "on the spectrum," above). I've just learned that my projections of motive are usually wrong, so I have come to ignore them, and concentrate on the facts that are on the table (as opposed to in my head).

If I want to impress the teacher, I do good work. If I want to learn the topic, I ask questions to resolve gaps.

It really is that simple.

A class is just a transitory experience. If I fail to learn the subject matter because I'm afraid of what these people that I'll probably never see again think about me, I have no one to blame but myself.

"I know it's a much better decision to shut yo' mouth When you don't know what you talkin' 'bout Than to validate what everybody already thinks of you" -Hip hop

I'm there to learn.

If I don't understand a subject "to the bone," I am quite tenacious about finding out what makes it tick; even if that means bothering a content expert teacher with questions about fundamentals.

The results speak for themselves.

I also don't shame or humiliate others; even if they seem to be "intellectually lazy," or willfully ignorant. I get absolutely no benefit from that attitude.

None whatsoever. In fact, learning to shame and humiliate others makes me a pretty shoddy team member. No one wants to work with someone that will jump on their weak points and won't help them to fulfill their potential.

Plus, if you're wondering it, so is half the class. There was only a couple of occasions where it turned out I was on a very idiosyncratic path and decided to just let it go. Most of the time the class is nodding along at the question.

That remark shows a complete lack of understanding of your situation, your best interests, and social awareness.

In the very least, your role is to ensure your peers don't become a roadblock on your path to progress. The least you should aim for is to leverage your classmates as facilitators by helping you lower the difficulty curve.

By completely disregarding your classmates you are effectively doing the stupidest thing you could do, other than antagonizing both the student body and teachers: make your life harder just because you are totally oblivious to the importance of living in society