I’m going to pay forward a book rec found via a Hacker News comment: Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss.
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.
A lot of this comes down to personal preferences. As someone who prefers direct language and doesn’t take things personally, I’d rather by asked “why”. I understand that you’re asking for reasons, I can share my reasons without feeling like I’m interrogated.
"How did you choose this algorithm?" can be ever worse than "why" because you're questioning my "processes", which are closer to my "self", whereas "why" can be interpreted as questioning the outcome.
Perhaps even better, albeit informal: "Why this algorithm?"
This is a great suggestion but I wonder how it would hold in other languages both in terms of finding equivalent language elements as well as the weight of those language equivalents in that culture. Seems very English specific but arguably a large fraction of business is in English anyway.
> In facing with resistance, we simply say, "I'm just asking!" trying to release some tension.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
This article and these comment threads are such a US centric discussion.
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.
Starting with "I'm just curious", is a good way to make sure I'm asking.
"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).
While I understand the significance, I find these nuances exhausting. As a senior experienced engineer I am also supposed to provide guidance and show some authority, especially in design meetings and code reviews. Being too humble comes off as lacking knowledge and confidence and people question (not ask) whether you really are a senior engineer. But the moment you try to show some strong opinions and authority, people get put off.
I don’t think it’s totally unrelated, but I don’t think that’s really what the article was about.
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.
I think a better way to put it is "trying to find flaws" vs "trying to understand".
If your goal is to understand, you can explicitly state or show it preemptively. "I'm trying to understand X." "My current understanding is XYZ. Right?" (Note, trying to find flaws has its place as well, but it's more touchy)
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)
Although to "question" often implies an element of doubt or at the very least analysis (while to "ask" typically doesn't), the definitions of the two words share too much in common to be distinguishable as a general rule in the way TFA suggests.
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.
This is a good explanation of the difference between two things, and how one can try to communicate intention between them.
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.
[+] [-] sharkbot|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jstx1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bogdanoff_2|3 years ago|reply
Perhaps even better, albeit informal: "Why this algorithm?"
[+] [-] DoingIsLearning|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dctoedt|3 years ago|reply
Another variation: "What's your thinking behind choosing this algorithm?" That has worked well for me over the years.
[+] [-] amtamt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WanderPanda|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roenxi|3 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] possiblydrunk|3 years ago|reply
This has been my experience. Be patient and give the 'questioner' a chance to show they are 'asking'.
[+] [-] asplake|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] krinchan|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] vedant_ag|3 years ago|reply
"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).
[+] [-] monster_group|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epgui|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bogdanoff_2|3 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] joshka|3 years ago|reply
A simpler expression however is the following:
[+] [-] atoav|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kylecordes|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lvxferre|3 years ago|reply
1. Knowledge is more important than judgment. 2. Intentions are esoteric babble.
[+] [-] epgui|3 years ago|reply
Science is about curiosity, not debates.
[+] [-] timcavel|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 0xHenry|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]