Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

> 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'.

I read it differently.

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.

It's more about the perceived tact of positioning the question, rather than the pursuit of the answer, isn't it?

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???

Another book recommendation (the Chris Voss book someone recommended in another thread is great too): Gervase Bushe’s Clear Leadership.

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.

> describe where you’re coming from – what you observe, how you’re experiencing it, etc.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com