« What was the problem with financial regulation? | Main | Which U.S. states are most populated by neurotics? »
A theory of question supply
Somebody who knew President Bush well once remarked to me. "You'll notice he never asks questions."
"Why not?" I said.
"Because he doesn't know what it's okay for him not to know."
I am interested in the principle, not in discussion of President Bush. Hat tip to Ross Douthat.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 14, 2008 at 03:37 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
interesting principle. i would be one to err on the side of caution though.
Posted by: pants at Sep 14, 2008 4:02:09 PM
I never ask questions, because I can use Google or UrbanDictionary to figure out what people are talking about without risking admitting I don't know something I really should.
It also annoys me when people who are near a computer ask questions they could find the answer to much more quickly by Googling.
Posted by: Ben_Wraith at Sep 14, 2008 4:02:52 PM
Tyler,
Please don't take this to be a defense of George W. Bush. Although I don't think he's the worst president in history, I do think he's the worst president since LBJ. The comment about Bush not asking questions may be true of him as President, and there seems to be lots of evidence for it. It's also true that he shows almost zero curiosity. But I remember in the late 1990s a number of my Hoover colleagues coming back from Texas after having spent serious time with him and being impressed by all the thoughtful questions he asked.
Best,
David
Posted by: David R. Henderson at Sep 14, 2008 4:05:54 PM
Seems pretty dangerous, as a principle.
Posted by: odograph at Sep 14, 2008 4:08:36 PM
I never ask questions, because I can use Google or UrbanDictionary to figure out what people are talking about without risking admitting I don't know something I really should.
It also annoys me when people who are near a computer ask questions they could find the answer to much more quickly by Googling.
HAH! Me too. But there is a critical difference between you me and the laypeople, and President Bush. You just can't Google: "Q-Clearance Nuclear Weapon Design plan presented by Energy Secretary on September 12"! They keep that stuff off the internets.
Posted by: pants at Sep 14, 2008 4:11:35 PM
here to close my tag.
Posted by: pants at Sep 14, 2008 4:12:10 PM
It sounds to me like this is a matter of perception. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to praise the current President but when your in a position where all eyes are on you have to be perceived as being in control.
Posted by: Mateo Puig at Sep 14, 2008 4:18:36 PM
I think the truly intelligent know how to fake it. There are plenty of ways to ask questions, without revealing your complete ignorance on the topic.
Posted by: Taggert Brooks at Sep 14, 2008 4:21:41 PM
Asking questions will also tell you what the other person doesn't know.
Posted by: Harsh at Sep 14, 2008 4:21:58 PM
I've seen defenses of Bush similar to David Henderson's, and they may be creditable. But Woodward's books don't seem to show that. Whether it's the difference in the office or not, or biased reporting, who can say? It might seem a governor has a less exalted position to maintain than a president, so might be freer to ask questions.
A snotty question: are there professors who seek to maintain a facade by never asking questions?
Posted by: Bill Harshaw at Sep 14, 2008 4:30:31 PM
Sounds like a product of south or central European school systems. Many pupils and students are hesitant about asking questions because they are afraid they will be ridiculed by the teacher and the classmates. In contrast, when I was an exchange student and met US peers, I was pleasantly surprised at their active attitude - they acted as customers and treated the teacher as a supplier, so they demanded clarity and discussion. (On the other hand, I was occasionally unpleasantly surprised at the level of their questions but then, some European students might have been just as dumb but you coudln't tell because they were silent.
Posted by: J. at Sep 14, 2008 4:35:35 PM
To anyone worth impressing, asking questions probably appears more impressive than not. I know I'm impressed more by curious ignorance than I am smug confidence.
Everyone is ignorant on most subjects. Those who don't reveal it are really the ones showing weakness, IMO.
Posted by: Grant at Sep 14, 2008 4:36:08 PM
The premise is wrong. He does ask questions.
Posted by: John Goodman at Sep 14, 2008 4:37:13 PM
I've noticed that the more intelligent, knowledgeable and confident students at all levels of education ask far more questions. Some of the questions are insightful but quite a few are "dumb". In other words, many of them don't necessarily seem to "know what is okay not to know." This is true even of professors in seminars.
However, asking a lot of questions has at least two important effects.
1) It makes it easier for other to judge the questioners' true level of knowledge. If they are above average, then this is to their advantage (assuming they care about what others think, which isn't necessarily true). Of course, if you're really ignorant, you may prefer to stay in the pooling equilibrium aka "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt."
2) The questioners' level of knowledge is not fixed, but endogenous. Asking questions, not surprisingly, increases the questioners' knowledge so over time they move up in the knowledge rankings.
Bottom line: If you have any self-confidence at all, the best long-term strategy seems to be to ask lots of questions, even if think a given question might be "dumb".
Does that sound right?
Posted by: a student of economics at Sep 14, 2008 4:43:45 PM
This is the first rule of politics in Chicago. The Mayor knows nothing. It's safer when the grand jury starts asking questions.
Posted by: jorod at Sep 14, 2008 5:03:27 PM
I suspect that this just isn't true, from what others have said.
But fundamentally, what are you doing in a face-to-face meeting if you're not asking questions? It would be more efficient for the other people to just write you a a report: you could scan it more quickly, or get a subordinate to read it first and see if it needs your attention.
Maybe you're the one answering the questions, I suppose. But even then you'd expect to have to ask some questions back to get to the point. And again, it would be more efficient for them to submit a list of questions to you, and your subordinates could see which ones need your attention.
So, probably false, but if true would seem to indicate someone who manages their time very poorly.
Posted by: TheophileEscargot at Sep 14, 2008 5:08:00 PM
So many people are concerned about looking intelligent. I guess I'm a reformed know-it-all, because I find that pretending not to know much of anything at all turns out to have a lot of advantages, even if I'm well versed on the subject in question.
Posted by: Tony at Sep 14, 2008 5:08:35 PM
I suppose it does matter who is asking, what questions he has in mind, and when he asks them. For example, sitting on a passenger seat, I would be concerned if the driver suddenly asks me where we are going or where the break paddle is. The same questions wouldn't be so disturbing if I am driving.
Posted by: Yan Li at Sep 14, 2008 5:38:15 PM
Riffing on David Henderson's comment above, the difference between the GWB of the late 90's and of today could simply be a strategic choice of "brand image".
If that were true, i.e. that the "dumb-guy" schtick were just that, then asking any sort of question while in role could potentially shatter it.
Posted by: Francis Regan at Sep 14, 2008 5:48:05 PM
Tyler,
Two thoughts:
1) I suspect that your choice of example is not conducive to good responses, for several reasons (among them being disputing the example itself). But that said,
2) There are some people who are comfortable not knowing, and are able to project their ability not to know (and to want to know). Other people are much less comfortable looking less than knowledgeable. I suspect that this distinction ("perceptions", rather than "expectations"?) is very important in determining the supply of questions (as a big part of the marginal cost of questioning).
Posted by: Jared at Sep 14, 2008 6:01:04 PM
Asking "intelligent" questions is, often, a status competition among the striving educated class. Which is why many meetings devolve into question one-upmanship.
Sometimes asking good question is a way to move up the status game, other times it is not.
In politics it often is not - especially in public. Now, behind the scenes, among loyalists, asking smart questions should be done. But asking questions in front of political enemies will often just give them fodder to attack you.
I think Palin's response on the "Bush Doctrine" is a good example. Her enemies are trying to make her reasonable questions about a vague and ill-defined "Bush Doctrine" into some major gaffe.
....
In sum, I'd say the wisdom of asking questions depends on the context and the status-game you are playing. There is no single correct answer on what you should do.
Posted by: jim at Sep 14, 2008 6:22:47 PM
There's a lot of good research and advice from the business sphere -- from people like Bob Sutton and Jeffrey Pfeffer, and of course Peter Drucker -- on how to manage and lead in such environments. I always wonder why all the great work on leadership and learning organizations, etc., isn't discussed in the political sphere more often.
Posted by: Brian at Sep 14, 2008 7:10:05 PM
The cliche 'there are no dumb questions, except the ones you don't ask' is a cliche for a reason -- lots of people are afraid to display their ignorance by asking questions they should already know the answer to. And it's a legitimate fear -- I know I've had my level of respect for co-workers drop dramatically when they asked questions that proved they didn't know stuff they really should have. Someone who is extremely confident in themselves and other people's opinions of them could probably pull it off anyway, but a lesser mortal really does run the risk of looking stupid.
Posted by: Jacquilynne at Sep 14, 2008 7:23:49 PM
I agree with the principle. I think it was major problem in my first year of grad school. Almost every question was a good question, which I think means there weren't enough questions being asked. Since first year is pretty technical, I think it was partly due to people with widely varying math backgrounds not knowing what math it's ok they didn't know. It is easy to sit there and assume everyone else knows what is going on.
Posted by: Charlie at Sep 14, 2008 7:27:16 PM
Doesn't seem to work psychologically. Why would an ambitious, social climbing, son of a former President feel the need hide ignorance from a staff member who works for him?
Abstracting away to more general circumstances, however, it does seem to be the case that some people will avoid asking questions in order to avoid revealing ignorance. As a life-long "why" question asker, I've gotten used to heavy sighs and imperious sneers. Also as a life-long "why" question asker, I've gotten used to discovering that for some people it's more important to seem like they know something than to actually know it. But the latter group are not often part of the former group.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Sep 14, 2008 8:37:59 PM
