Questions regularly ask how to deal with a situation, rather than how to improve a situation. My understanding of the phrase "deal with" is that there must exist something that is causing a problem or making things difficult.
Why do users seemingly embrace the notion that a situation must be dealt with, rather than improved?
Surely starting from the latter perspective would instil a more positive mindset, which is typically beneficial.
I interpret deal with to be suggestive of a problematic person, which seemingly disregards the possibility of an interpersonal problem. Whereas improve seemingly acknowledges the possibility of an interpersonal problem. Now, of course, problematic people exist, so dealing with a situation may be appropriate. (E.g., extracting oneself from a toxic relationship.) But, surely such people are in the minority.
Is this forum focusing more on problems caused by problematic people? Or do questions disregard the possibility of interpersonal problems?
My question is likely ill-phrased. (Finding the right problem statement is the hard part!) I'm trying to get a better grasp on the underlying causes of problems that plague academia (from this forum's perspective). In particular:
Are interpersonal problems being ignored in favour of a blame culture?
Equally, is my perspective absurd, ill-informed, misguided, or similar?