Observations-Asking the Right Question

 

“When faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”

Daniel Kahneman

If one combines the above quote from Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman with the observation that most people do not listen to understand, they listen to reply, I think we would be able to account for most of the vitriolic, confrontational, and many times divisive interchanges in our everyday lives, this applies to all social interchanges, not just on social media.

First, we all subconsciously listen to reply, it is a natural response, it takes someone who is actively listening or are consciously aware of our listen to reply foible to deliberately listen for understanding. Listening to reply is a difficult habit to eradicate, it is also adding layers of misunderstanding and confusion when we habitually listen in this manner. More insidiously, it complicates simple questions because the listener is not paying attention to the speaker, understanding the speaker’s main arguments or questions, superimposing their own agenda on the conversation. What Kahneman points out in his quote is that we also spin and twist the original thought or inquiry to fit a simpler frame of reference, coming from a different world view; which first changes the original question, but also does the original questioner a disservice by bending their intent to the point of view of the responder. The ensuing responses are often not intentionally adversarial but becomes so because the conversation becomes a game of arguing in circles because each side has staked out a piece of real estate to defend, falsely believing that they are speaking on the same topic, never realizing that the conversation has been irreparably changed into two subtly different, but still altogether different questions.

I have observed this many times in my role as an administrator for a discussion group as well as being members of several other groups. Some of the biggest blowups come from initially innocent questions, which somehow gets hijacked, intentionally or unintentionally, by people who responds to the question with their own agenda.

Those who are malicious or who respond with an agenda usually respond with: “I agree with you, BUT…” Or  they go straight for the BUT statement without even acknowledging the original discussion or question by addressing their own agenda directly. Minorities and people of color understand this very well, because that is the usual rhythm of many conversations: first they try to placate the speaker with the “I agree with you” part and then they jump to the BUT, there is always a BUT. Many times they won’t even acknowledge your original point and they go into their defense of their point of view, as if your point is not worthy of discussion and then they proceed to “mansplain” to you how you are mistaken, how your viewpoint is in error, according to their viewpoint coming from their privileged perch without ever taking into consideration your viewpoint coming from your not so privileged perch.

Unfortunately, it is one thing to understand the phenomenon  and it is another to recognize it in the heat of the moment. Your system 1 response (From Kahneman’s Thinking: Fast and Slow) is to respond emotionally because you believe that the response is aligned with your question or your argument. The rational part of your cognition overlooks the slight and subtle twists that skews the question away from what you had asked and perhaps you were also looking for an easier question to answer. The discussion then spirals completely away from the initial point. I have seen many discussions going that route.

Another head fake that goes on is the: “what about this other thing ...” response. Which may not seem as deliberate, but it is yet another tactic used to obfuscate the direct question by introducing situations and facts that muddies the original train of thought. Sometimes the situation or facts are legitimately germane to the original question, but many times they are extraneous. It is the conversational equivalent of dividing and conquering by forcing the original questioner to defend themselves without having had their original question answered.  Regardless of whether the additional factor that is introduced, the conversation inevitably veers off away from the original question never to be brought up again in that conversation. This act saves the person who introduces the “what about this other thing ...” factor from having to answer the difficult question.

I am not saying that every instance of what I am describing are always deliberate, these tricks are ingrained in our psyche and we naturally respond in this way in a very procedural manner, as if that should be the natural flow of conversation rather than acknowledging it for what it is: a head fake, a digression, a spin move.

For example:

Q: I am looking for a place that serves a good burger.

A: XYZ serves a great vegetarian burger.

Q: What are the progressions for teaching perimeter defense?

A: You don’t want to run perimeter, middle-middle is much better.

Q: How does one obtain these parameters experimentally?

A: You can calculate those parameters by using numerical simulation.

On the other side of the conversation, sometimes the original questioners do not ask the difficult questions, they ask the easier question while fully believing that they are asking the question they want answered rather than recognizing that they are asking the easier question.

For example:

Question asked: Good Mexican restaurants and go!

Better question: I am looking for restaurants that serve good Tex-Mex/Authentic Mexican/Foods native to specific Mexican states.

Question asked: My team can’t pass, any advice?

Better question: My passers have a hard time passing jump floaters. Should I position them closer to the net to start?

Question asked: My experimental results does not agree with my simulation results, why?

Better question: I simulated what I assumed to be a linear problem, I believe my experimental results are valid, could there be nonlinear elements in the problem that would skew my results because I did not take them into account?

Habit 5  from Steven Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is: First Seek to Understand, Then be Understood. If we all kept this in mind when we engage in face-to-face conversation or in battle on social media there would be far less wasted time and effort on discussions that turns on misunderstandings and misinterpretations.