Questioning vs. Asking
candost.blog
candost.blog
It’s mostly tactics on how to negotiate well, and one piece of advice I’ve adopted is to start my questions with “what” or “how”, not “why”.
“Why” comes across as interrogative; forcing “what” or “how” creates enough time to reassess the actual uncertainty and rephrase as a curiosity question, not an implicit accusation of wrongheadedness.
“Why did you choose this algorithm” becomes “how did you choose this algorithm?” or “what factors did you consider when choosing this algorithm?”
It can be manipulative when done in isolation. My other main takeaway from the book was to have a genuine interest and concern for the other person’s needs, even when you disagree.
Between the trick and the mindset, I’ve found it’s served me well.
To take the example from your parent, some sort of problem where you had to choose an algorithm to solve some problem. There are multiple choices that have their pros and cons.
Mh, very interesting! Why did you choose that algorithm?
Now the very same one:
Mh, very interesting! Why did you choose that algorithm?
The point after all this being that the word why can very easily be interpreted this way, which is harder to do when using these other words in part also because you have to structure the sentence in a less 'violent' way.
Perhaps even better, albeit informal: "Why this algorithm?"
Another variation: "What's your thinking behind choosing this algorithm?" That has worked well for me over the years.
The point is you can only make a judgement based on the context as the article states, intention is often invisible and difficult to communicate. Changing "why" to "how " is one potential way of communicating intention but it's not perfect. People will always make a judgement based on the total sum of the context that conversation might be happening in.
> We don't say, "I'm just questioning!"
> That's the nuance.
I quite like the substance of this article, but it is important to articulate that this sort of analysis is actually a mistake. If you read that level of intent and nuance into word choice, life is going to be very hard and confusing if you meet someone not in your culture bubble. The article reiterates the thought a few times and it is not a powerful idea.
The real issue that I believe the author wants to get at is actually the follow up to the answer. If the follow up is an attempt at persuasion with question marks on the end of sentences people will sometimes (often, really) get unhappy. If the follow up reveals that the question was a pit trap that leads to moral judgement then they will get unhappy. But there is very little tactical difference between the verbs "ask" and "question".
So I like the point, but it is over-analysing the words. A lot is revealed about intent after the question when we start to learn how it is being processed into words and actions by the questioner and that is where the focus should stay.
This has been my experience. Be patient and give the 'questioner' a chance to show they are 'asking'.
The questioner is you, and it really is about the first question and your attitude going into it.
If you could (and perhaps should) preface it with “Oh, that’s interesting!”, that’s asking/curiosity. If there’s an implied “Seriously?”, it’s questioning/judgement. Never mind analysing the words, the tone will be very different. And if it might help (for example in contexts where tone doesn’t carry), make it explicit.
If someone "came across as questioning" then yeah they'd be questioning, but that largely depends on how it's interpreted by the receiver, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it???
Curiosity is great, and it does lead to answers, but often it’s helped if it’s balanced by descriptiveness, in which you describe where you’re coming from – what you observe, how you’re experiencing it, etc. Skilful questioners move easily between the two, reducing defensiveness or anxiety. Particularly important where there’s a power imbalance.
This is a pet peeve of mine. I'm astonished by the entitlement of superiors asking blind questions like “When will it finish?” Well, the finishing time doesn't exist in a vacuum, so if you had told me why you were asking, I could have answered properly. Rest of the dialog goes like this:
- It will finish in 10 days.
- But we need it at the end of this week for such and such reason.
- (Thinking “Why don't you fucking tell me that first.”) OK, we can prioritize it then. No problem.
I’ll never forget the little landmine Ghost in the Shell planted in me when it represented the Americans as having used their cybernetic tech to give themselves permanent, atrociously fake smiles. That landmine exploded years later when I learned the fake “half smile” is something Non-Americans pick up on and are very uncomfortable with.
In general, most cultures outside of the US find us to be very indirect, obtuse, and overly obsessed with very specific word choices. The verbal and non-verbal mazes of our prevailing corporate culture is something of a beast for them to overcome.
So it’s amusing to see a lot of virtue signaling about preferring direct language and having a thick skin in this thread alongside people earnestly showing off their “negotiating skills.” Be interesting if you could see who was inside or outside the US, because I suspect it’d fall along the lines I’ve laid out above.
"asking" can often come across as "questioning", especially in workplace chat (like on slack). As a manager I don't want to give this vibe to colleagues (reportees, peers, and seniors).
The main point was that good faith questions come from a place of curiosity, whereas bad faith questions belong on the battlefield… Even if people try to pass their bad faith questions as curiosity.
Most important is the concept of safety as defined in Crucial Conversations. I would be willing to go into very thorny conversation as long as it feels safe. Safety is fundamentally based on mutual purpose and mutual respect.
>The intention is invisible
If the intention is important, then make it visible. "I'm trying to understand this system and want to make sure it is as reliable as possible". I would then be much more willing to go into such a conversation (assuming I believe you and agree that reliability is indeed important)
A simpler expression however is the following:
"Why?" implies intention seeking / judgment
"What/How/When/Who" generally don't
Strive to use the latter forms unless the effect of the former is necessary.I've noticed though, that some percentage of people disagree that there is a difference; and don't have a mode in which asking something is not questioning in the challenge sense of the word.
The best solution in such cases might be to simply not ask, but look for cues and clues and draw your own conclusions. Not great, but sometimes it's all that is available.
1. Knowledge is more important than judgment. 2. Intentions are esoteric babble.
Science is about curiosity, not debates.