[otterley]

I think it depends on the individual and the culture. In a strong culture, engineers don’t their egos get in the way of healthy conversations and will be capable of defending their position against probing questions without it upsetting them.

[BeetleB]

> In a strong culture, engineers don’t their egos get in the way of healthy conversations and will be capable of defending their position against probing questions without it upsetting them.

Everything is great when you don't have constraints. If I, however, have to spend 30-60 minutes justifying something to you every time I come to you, then you definitely are the problem.

Using the wrong tool to solve a problem is not inherently problematic. If it's a one-off and it solves the problem, abusing an existing tools is about the finest engineering imaginable. Sure, if it's a long term solution to something important, I can understand the pushback.

As other commenters have said: I'm all for a deeper discussion provided two things:

1. Both of us have the time.

2. You actually answer the question I asked.

Not providing an answer is patronizing.

[otterley]

> If I, however, have to spend 30-60 minutes justifying something to you every time I come to you, then you definitely are the problem

That might be true if you’re skilled in whatever the particular subject matter is.

But what if you’re not? Have you ever had a colleague that kept trying to solve problems the wrong way? Such people do exist.

I don’t personally withhold answers, but when I suspect something is amiss, I ask probing questions in order to better understand the deeper problem underlying the question. Then I collaborate on a better answer, if one exists, with my colleague.

[pdhborges]

How about answering the question and then add details later? IME that tends do work better.