Mark Koranda

Thanks for stopping by.

The curious case of asking

July 20, 2024 - ask cognition communication comprehension connect conversation dyad interest listen production psycholinguistics question speak

I’m reading a book called “Ask”. “Ask” is the thesis of the book, too. Let’s assume a basic conversation is happening.

All other things equal, asking (instead of “answering” or talking) will improve the engagement of the other person and the likelihood they find you enjoyable.

Who doesn’t want that? There’s an inherent asymmetry to questions that creates a unique dynamic in conversations.1

The main implied reason is that we don’t do it enough. We want to share. There’s a darker paradox about this. By asking, you’re letting the other person share, that thing we’re assuming each of us does too much in the first place. To ask, somewhat relieves the other person of the burden. This dynamic also increases the willingness to engage, creating a positive feedback loop in conversations.2

When it comes to cognitive effort, it takes less effort to listen than to talk. This suggests a very strong drive to talk, more than to listen. The drive is even stronger if the talker has been explicitly invited, as it confirms that it’s warranted. This ask-answer imbalance acts as a positive-effects multiplier in conversations, but doesn’t contain intrinsic value alone.3

A critical question remains: When is it too much? Identifying the right balance and timing for asking versus sharing is key.4 What makes these gears of human interaction churn the way they do? At face value, a question is merely another group of words. But somehow it has this atomic power to grease the wheels in a unique way.5

Footnotes

All the footnotes are edits Claude recommended, and I adopted, in revising this document. My criteria for Claude was to increase information and clarity, but decrease word count. Do you think Claude did a good job?6

  1. Sentence added at Claude’s recommendation: “There’s an inherent asymmetry to questions that creates a unique dynamic in conversations.” Removed “or saying” for conciseness. ↩

  2. Paragraph replaced at Claude’s recommendation. Omitted: “There’s at least a little more, here. The invitation of asking is itself a signal that you’re actively wanting to be in this situation, the conversation. Besides that you’re simply keeping the conversation going, and that the participants are already willing and interested in volunteering ideas, it’s an affirmation. To ask anything is to say, “You’re the one who should be in this conversation right now.”” Also omitted: “I want you to ask me my opinion. If you ask me, I feel less guilty.” Changed “darker and strange paradox” to “darker paradox” for conciseness. ︎ ↩

  3. Paragraph significantly condensed while maintaining key points about cognitive effort and the drive to talk. Sentence added: “This ask-answer imbalance acts as a positive-effects multiplier in conversations, but doesn’t contain intrinsic value alone.” ︎ ↩

  4. Sentences added at Claude’s recommendation: “A critical question remains: When is it too much? Identifying the right balance and timing for asking versus sharing is key.” ↩

  5. Condensed final paragraph. Omitted: “Of course there are exceptions, but I think there is more magic to be uncovered”. Rephrased last sentence for clarity and brevity. ↩

  6. If this isn’t meta enough, I then asked Claude to objectively and critically evaluate the original draft I gave it, and it’s revision. After making a 7 point analysis, I told it to attempt to write the “intersection” draft that maintains the advantages of each. Here is that version. ↩

« Back to Blog