Roy Lilley pointed to a fascinating article in the Harvard Business Review from 2015 this morning.
In it, Tom Pohlman Neethi Mary Thomas note that in a cohort of adults they surveyed:
Those with children estimated that 70-80% of their kids' dialogues with others were comprised of questions. But those same clients said that only 15-25% of their own interactions consisted of questions.
The obvious question is, why is that?
The authors dedicate their note to a discussion of types of question, but for me their most pertinent comment was:
Think back to your time growing up and in school. Chances are you received the most recognition or reward when you got the correct answers. Later in life, that incentive continues. At work, we often reward those who answer questions, not those who ask them. Questioning conventional wisdom can even lead to being sidelined, isolated, or considered a threat.
That is so true.
What we live in is a world that encourages non-questioning compliance. That is exactly what Hugh Pill, the chief economist of the Bank of England, demanded of the UK population yesterday when he said that we must all accept that we are getting poorer. Doing so, he was simply the heir to Margaret Thatcher and her claim that 'there is no alternative'.
That is not true. There is always an alternative. The whole purpose of this blog is to ask questions that suggest that those alternatives are not only possible, but are achievable.
If this makes this blog a threat, so be it.
But I will keep on asking the questions.
I would encourage everyone to do so. All progress is dependent upon us doing so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Interesting take.
I think there is a case to be made that we might be subject to a far more effective and comprehensive propaganda regime than in more overtly authoritarian countries – even Russia.
Yes there are questioning voices – such as here.
But given the dominant corporate media, the govt controlled BBC, the cowed opposition and the many quasi-independent institutions like the BoE pumping out versions of TINA the few questioning voices may be just enough to convince ourselves that we know exactly how things are – that we have multiple news sources, so we can make an objective judgement on whats going on.
Yes, we have to keep asking questions and challenging the ‘MESSAGE’ , but please dont underestimate the overwhelming strength of what we are up against.
From ‘minor’ things like – the pandemic is over ‘ when hundreds a week are still dying – right up to the US intelligence servces waging an endless ‘military/industrial’ complex war
to make sure ‘we’ always have an enemy….and all the economic interests in between trying to privatise healthcare and public services.
‘Its being so cheerful that keeps me going’
The PM has been pushing recently to get more people to do maths, and “school maths” is often all about finding the correct answer and moving on to the next problem. Instead, it would be better to push inquisitiveness in schools, regardless of topic, and to encourage people to keep that skill going.
Within science, or research generally, it is asking questions that is more important for making progress. If science just stopped asking “why” and “how” the moment one question was answered we would never discover anything new. I fully agree with what you’re saying here.
Even more insidious is the management of the questions that are asked. Control the news agenda and everything else falls into place. That is why the Conservative Party spends so much time, resource and effort controlling the news agenda through the predominant neoliberal media. Politicians and press are now effectively the same thing; there is a revolving door on Downing Street, shared with the press.
Could not agree more!
Framing.
Answering questions allows the questioner to frame the context – in which the question is asked and the answer delivered.
Vice-versa: Questioning allows the questioner to frame the context.
I have noticed that many conferences now only allow questions on-line (a feature of most confs in the Brussels Village).
This allows the moderator to select what fits and what does not, & thus a variation on de-platforming.
On a long walk with a 10 year old yesterday – most of his opening words were: who..?, why…? what…? etc.
I hate that approach to questions at conferences
If Richard and most of the people on this blog, like those contributing today, were In charge, what a wonderful country it would be – decent, fair and, contrary to Tory mantra sucked up by a gullible public, wealthy. As it is, obscenely greedy and powerful big business, pulling the strings of a degenerate government figure-headed by a compliant, self-absorbed Monarchy, consider the people merely as a source of labour whose income is to be clawed back as quickly as possible by the pernicious processes of uncontrolled capitalism. So we can expect the betting company ‘reform’ today to be nothing more than window dressing, ensuring a continuation of the unedifying status quo.
(was my original typo ‘widow depressing’ a Freudian slip I wonder?)
Re: Roll of Questions
I suggested to an Intern whom I was mentoring, that he consider framing his (rather good) opinions as Questions rather than Statements, in order to promote an engagement with his peers.