Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Social LifeHow to ask an "intelligent" quest …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How to ask an "intelligent" question to boost your status

#1 · January 30, 2022, 11:30 pm

Quote from Ali Scarlett on January 30, 2022, 11:30 pm
I remember watching a video a few years ago called "asking supercar owners what they do for a living".
And, in the video I watched, the YouTubers would walk around town until they spotted an expensive car, find out who's car it is, and then ask the owner what they do for a living.
Then, the YouTubers would ask what their "secret" is. They'd ask:
"How do I get a car like this too, bro?"
"What's your secret?"
"What advice would you give to someone who wants a car like that?"
But, the comment section was livid. All of the top comments said variations of the same thing:
"They all said the same thing...the rich will never reveal their secret. If you found a goldmine, why would you tell people where you found it."
And, that's because the answers to the YouTuber's questions were often more or less the same.
They'd ask, "What do you do?" and they'd respond, "I own a business" or "investing". They'd ask, "What's your secret to success?" And, they'd respond, "Work hard."
Unfortunately, the comment section came across as if its commenters were entitled to a long-winded, detailed response when those supercar owners would've gotten nothing out of it.
But, more than the social exchange mistakes, I've noticed that asking a "smart" question is considered a sign of competence.
A vague question like, "How do you make a million dollars" will get a vague answer like "work hard". But, specific questions get specific answers.
So, the topic of this thread is: how do you ask specific questions that encourage the receiver to carefully evaluate it? How do you ask questions that make you come across as smart?
Here are my ideas:
The Last Puzzle-Piece Approach
This is the approach of solving the problem 98% by yourself and then only asking questions about the 2% that stumped you.
One way to do this would be to briefly share what you've already tried and some of what you've learned in the process. Then, you can frame your question as only this one thing you couldn't seem to figure out.
This is the idea:
Create a goal. (E.g. Live a freedom-based lifestyle with a successful business.)
Craft a plan to achieve that goal.
Do your best to resolve any challenges in the plan on your own steam.
Note the challenges and any "holes" in your plan that you couldn't figure out.
Ask your question based on the information before you.
So, that might take you from asking:
You: "How do you grow your business?"
To asking:
You: "When you're doing your quarterly or annual review of your company's performace, what key indicators do you look for to know where to improve moving forward? How do you decide what needs changing and what needs to be left alone?"
This is a specific question based on determining that the hole in your plan is not knowing how to grow your business. More than that, not knowing how to carefully (and properly) adjust and adapt your business moving forward.
So, you ask a question surrounding effective decision-making to help you overcome that hole in your plan.
Ask Questions Surrounding "Smart" Topics
If the question requires a high competence to understand in the first place, people can infer it's coming from a highly competent individual.
Questions on the topic of strategic decision-making are an example (so long as the asker actually has some competence and/or background knowledge in the subject).
Any topic that requires effortful thinking is typically a good go-to to come across as more intelligent (though, it might cost you social points in terms of losing the audience — or worse, the receiver — if they can't follow or keep up).
Philosopher's Frame Your Questions
When you get an answer, say, "Well, (I think) that depends," and share an exception to their answer (if they haven't already).
Then, encourage them to give an answer based on the exceptions to the rule.
Feel free to ignore this thread, guys.
I've been trying to formulate a strategy for asking intelligent, "high-competence trigger" questions and these are only my scattered thoughts so far.
But, a breakthrough is coming. I will get there soon.

I remember watching a video a few years ago called "asking supercar owners what they do for a living".

And, in the video I watched, the YouTubers would walk around town until they spotted an expensive car, find out who's car it is, and then ask the owner what they do for a living.

Then, the YouTubers would ask what their "secret" is. They'd ask:

"How do I get a car like this too, bro?"
"What's your secret?"
"What advice would you give to someone who wants a car like that?"

But, the comment section was livid. All of the top comments said variations of the same thing:

"They all said the same thing...the rich will never reveal their secret. If you found a goldmine, why would you tell people where you found it."

And, that's because the answers to the YouTuber's questions were often more or less the same.

They'd ask, "What do you do?" and they'd respond, "I own a business" or "investing". They'd ask, "What's your secret to success?" And, they'd respond, "Work hard."

Unfortunately, the comment section came across as if its commenters were entitled to a long-winded, detailed response when those supercar owners would've gotten nothing out of it.

But, more than the social exchange mistakes, I've noticed that asking a "smart" question is considered a sign of competence.

A vague question like, "How do you make a million dollars" will get a vague answer like "work hard". But, specific questions get specific answers.

So, the topic of this thread is: how do you ask specific questions that encourage the receiver to carefully evaluate it? How do you ask questions that make you come across as smart?

Here are my ideas:

The Last Puzzle-Piece Approach

This is the approach of solving the problem 98% by yourself and then only asking questions about the 2% that stumped you.

One way to do this would be to briefly share what you've already tried and some of what you've learned in the process. Then, you can frame your question as only this one thing you couldn't seem to figure out.

This is the idea:

Create a goal. (E.g. Live a freedom-based lifestyle with a successful business.)
Craft a plan to achieve that goal.
Do your best to resolve any challenges in the plan on your own steam.
Note the challenges and any "holes" in your plan that you couldn't figure out.
Ask your question based on the information before you.

So, that might take you from asking:

You: "How do you grow your business?"

To asking:

You: "When you're doing your quarterly or annual review of your company's performace, what key indicators do you look for to know where to improve moving forward? How do you decide what needs changing and what needs to be left alone?"

This is a specific question based on determining that the hole in your plan is not knowing how to grow your business. More than that, not knowing how to carefully (and properly) adjust and adapt your business moving forward.

So, you ask a question surrounding effective decision-making to help you overcome that hole in your plan.

Ask Questions Surrounding "Smart" Topics

If the question requires a high competence to understand in the first place, people can infer it's coming from a highly competent individual.

Questions on the topic of strategic decision-making are an example (so long as the asker actually has some competence and/or background knowledge in the subject).

Any topic that requires effortful thinking is typically a good go-to to come across as more intelligent (though, it might cost you social points in terms of losing the audience — or worse, the receiver — if they can't follow or keep up).

Philosopher's Frame Your Questions

When you get an answer, say, "Well, (I think) that depends," and share an exception to their answer (if they haven't already).

Then, encourage them to give an answer based on the exceptions to the rule.

Feel free to ignore this thread, guys.

I've been trying to formulate a strategy for asking intelligent, "high-competence trigger" questions and these are only my scattered thoughts so far.

But, a breakthrough is coming. I will get there soon.

B has reacted to this post.

#2 · January 31, 2022, 3:07 pm

Quote from B on January 31, 2022, 3:07 pm
Hi Ali,
I really like your "last piece of the puzzle approach", where the questions you ask are specific and only related to precise steps you are missing in a plan to reach an objective.
From my personal experience, people will resent questions that come from a position of no previous rapport, no real work being done by the questioner, expectation of a particular answer.
So these are my thoughts on the subject, which follow your points:
Ask questions after you developed some rapport
If you don't develop some prior rapport, all answers you get will be useless and generic, including those to specific questions.
Ask questions after you provided some value
And, value is what the other person is looking for at that time. Might be the furthest thing from advice.
Ask questions that recognize the right of the other party not to answer
Nobody likes to be pressured. A statement that leaves room for correction by the other person can sometimes be better than asking a direct question.
Of course, this does not imply you have to continue interacting with the other person if this person only takes form you. But, a position of "if you provide some value back to me, great, if not I'm off this relationship" is in my opinion generally better than a position of "I provided you this, now you have to answer".
Ask questions while keeping in mind at all times the possibility that the answer you receive is deliberately deceptive and harmful
Unfortunately, some (maybe most?) people are simply incapable of helping another human being, and instead find all occasions to harm others, especially if you are perceived as potential competition.
Even people beyond suspicion do that. See here and also here about Arnold Schwarzenegger deliberately doing this to young bodybuilders going up to him asking for advice. I quote a passage:
This attitude, at least in regard to bodybuilding, was championed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who made no secret about his embrace of this creed, stating in the movie Pumping Iron that when his good friend Franco Columbu came to him for advice on some point of bodybuilding:
Franco is like a little child who comes to me for advices [sic], so it's not that hard for me to give him the wrong advices [sic].
Earlier, in that same movie, he related to the amusement of a journalist how he had deliberately sabotaged a young bodybuilder's first attempt at competition by deliberately instructing him to do something that would result in his being disqualified and pulled from the stage in humiliation (i.e., to growl and scream at varying pitches as he posed). I would like you to consider the bigger picture of what transpired here for a moment: a young competitor came to him for advice who looked upon Arnold (as indeed most of us did in the mid to late 70s) as being almost godlike in terms of his physique, success and, indeed, the aura that he created. Instead of helping him or even politely declining to offer advice, Arnold instead deliberately chose to sabotage the bodybuilder's chances of winning or even placing in the contest by betraying his confidence (i.e., by deliberately misleading him under the guise of appearing to be his benefactor) and negating whatever serious efforts and preparations the bodybuilder had put into preparing for his first contest. In all likelihood, this individual never competed in bodybuilding again. As this bodybuilder was an amateur, and thus not a threat to Arnold in terms of being a competitor at the Mr. Olympia level of development, one might well wonder why Arnold would feel the need to act so maliciously and what benefit Arnold could have derived from subjecting the young man (and his psyche) to such public humiliation.
Ask questions and let them give you written answers
People will say anything wrong to gain an advantage, but those same people will be very careful of writing something wrong, for fear of being pinned down on their wrong answer.
From the above, it may follow that written advice (including reading books) may generally be "safer" than verbal advice.
If they don't want to give you written advice, this in itself may tell you something about their cheap talk.
Not a big surprise that some of my colleagues seem to prefer face to face talk to certified emails. So why not pin them down with these emails :)
Ask questions, but be more attentive to their behavior than to their answer
Even assuming they really want to help, people are often simply incapable of knowing what makes them successful. They will give you the answer they think is right, but often the reason for their success is in another entirely unrelated thing they are doing without even knowing it consciously
Look for the overlays in answers and behaviors from different people
If someone says A, it might be true or it might be false. But if three persons that do not know each other say A, then it is probably correct to assume there might be some truth in at least some aspect of A.

Hi Ali,

I really like your "last piece of the puzzle approach", where the questions you ask are specific and only related to precise steps you are missing in a plan to reach an objective.

From my personal experience, people will resent questions that come from a position of no previous rapport, no real work being done by the questioner, expectation of a particular answer.

So these are my thoughts on the subject, which follow your points:

Ask questions after you developed some rapport

If you don't develop some prior rapport, all answers you get will be useless and generic, including those to specific questions.

Ask questions after you provided some value

And, value is what the other person is looking for at that time. Might be the furthest thing from advice.

Ask questions that recognize the right of the other party not to answer

Nobody likes to be pressured. A statement that leaves room for correction by the other person can sometimes be better than asking a direct question.

Of course, this does not imply you have to continue interacting with the other person if this person only takes form you. But, a position of "if you provide some value back to me, great, if not I'm off this relationship" is in my opinion generally better than a position of "I provided you this, now you have to answer".

Ask questions while keeping in mind at all times the possibility that the answer you receive is deliberately deceptive and harmful

Unfortunately, some (maybe most?) people are simply incapable of helping another human being, and instead find all occasions to harm others, especially if you are perceived as potential competition.

Even people beyond suspicion do that. See here and also here about Arnold Schwarzenegger deliberately doing this to young bodybuilders going up to him asking for advice. I quote a passage:

This attitude, at least in regard to bodybuilding, was championed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who made no secret about his embrace of this creed, stating in the movie Pumping Iron that when his good friend Franco Columbu came to him for advice on some point of bodybuilding:
Franco is like a little child who comes to me for advices [sic], so it's not that hard for me to give him the wrong advices [sic].
Earlier, in that same movie, he related to the amusement of a journalist how he had deliberately sabotaged a young bodybuilder's first attempt at competition by deliberately instructing him to do something that would result in his being disqualified and pulled from the stage in humiliation (i.e., to growl and scream at varying pitches as he posed). I would like you to consider the bigger picture of what transpired here for a moment: a young competitor came to him for advice who looked upon Arnold (as indeed most of us did in the mid to late 70s) as being almost godlike in terms of his physique, success and, indeed, the aura that he created. Instead of helping him or even politely declining to offer advice, Arnold instead deliberately chose to sabotage the bodybuilder's chances of winning or even placing in the contest by betraying his confidence (i.e., by deliberately misleading him under the guise of appearing to be his benefactor) and negating whatever serious efforts and preparations the bodybuilder had put into preparing for his first contest. In all likelihood, this individual never competed in bodybuilding again. As this bodybuilder was an amateur, and thus not a threat to Arnold in terms of being a competitor at the Mr. Olympia level of development, one might well wonder why Arnold would feel the need to act so maliciously and what benefit Arnold could have derived from subjecting the young man (and his psyche) to such public humiliation.

Ask questions and let them give you written answers

People will say anything wrong to gain an advantage, but those same people will be very careful of writing something wrong, for fear of being pinned down on their wrong answer.

From the above, it may follow that written advice (including reading books) may generally be "safer" than verbal advice.

If they don't want to give you written advice, this in itself may tell you something about their cheap talk.

Not a big surprise that some of my colleagues seem to prefer face to face talk to certified emails. So why not pin them down with these emails :)

Ask questions, but be more attentive to their behavior than to their answer

Even assuming they really want to help, people are often simply incapable of knowing what makes them successful. They will give you the answer they think is right, but often the reason for their success is in another entirely unrelated thing they are doing without even knowing it consciously

Look for the overlays in answers and behaviors from different people

If someone says A, it might be true or it might be false. But if three persons that do not know each other say A, then it is probably correct to assume there might be some truth in at least some aspect of A.

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.