Guiding Conversations Based on Internal Questions

In my Questioning & Answering book ( McCusker, 2023), I emphasized that effective communication is not simply about exchanging words.  It is about fostering understanding, building relationships, and promoting well-being. Communication research emphasizes that individuals can guide their conversations by asking themselves three internal questions. These questions serve as cognitive-emotional anchors that help structure dialogue, ensuring that communication is purposeful and impactful.

The first internal question—“What?”—focuses on identifying the subject matter of the conversation. Research in communication highlights that clarity of content is essential for knowledge exchange and audience engagement (Warwick University, n.d.). By asking “What?” individuals ensure that they are addressing the topic directly, reducing ambiguity and enhancing comprehension. This step is particularly important in educational and professional contexts, where precise information sharing supports learning and productivity.

The second  internal question—“Why?”—encourages reflection on the purpose and significance of the topic of conversation. Communication scholars note that understanding motivations and underlying reasons fosters empathy and relational depth (Social Science Research Council, 2024). Asking “Why?” helps individuals connect ideas to broader contexts, whether in personal relationships or organizational settings. This reflective practice strengthens social bonds by validating perspectives and encouraging mutual respect.

Finally, the internal question “What to do now?” directs communication toward actionable outcomes. Research shows that conversations that conclude with clear next steps are more effective in promoting behavioral change and problem-solving (Lee, 2025). This forward-looking orientation transforms dialogue from abstract discussion into practical guidance, supporting both personal growth and collective decision-making.

Applying these internal questions has broad benefits.  In the knowledge realm, asking “What?” ensures accurate information exchange, while “Why?” deepens understanding by linking facts to meaning.  And regarding social relationships, “Why?” fosters empathy and trust, strengthening interpersonal connections. Physical and mental health benefits accrue because structured communication reduces stress and uncertainty.  The “What to do now?” question helps us by promoting proactive coping strategies that support well-being.

Communication research underscores that internal questions transforms conversations into tools for empowerment. By guiding dialogue with What, Why, and What to do now, individuals can cultivate clarity, empathy, and action—qualities that enhance both personal and collective flourishing.

How about some practical examples?  

Think about workplace collaboration: You’re in a team meeting about a project deadline. First internally query, What is the issue here?  Then aloud you ask, “So, the main challenge is that our data analysis is behind schedule, right?”  Your next internal query is, Why is this important?  That is followed by stating aloud, “If we don’t finish by Friday, the client presentation will be incomplete. That’s why this matters.”  The last internal question is What’s the next step? Then out loud you advise, “Let’s assign two people to focus on the analysis today so we can catch up.”  The outcome ideally is that the conversation stays focused, clarifies urgency, and ends with a concrete plan.

Next, imagine a personal relationship in which a friend seems upset during dinner. Your what is: What is happening here?  Your aloud, “I notice you’re quieter than usual tonight. Is something bothering you?”  Your why, Why might this matter to them?  Your aloud, “Is  work stress  weighing on you—it’s been a busy season.” Your What is the next step is the question:  “Do you want to talk it through, or would you prefer a distraction tonight?”  This strategy demonstrates your awareness, empathy, and offers agency, strengthening the relationship.

Now, questions pertaining to having heard a doctor’s just-delivered advice to promote lifestyle changes and health. What is the key message?  Aloud, “So the main recommendation is to increase physical activity, correct?” Internal Why is this important for me?  Out loud, “That’s because regular exercise lowers blood pressure and improves heart health, right?” Internal “What to do now?” Out loud: “Would starting with 20 minutes of walking three times a week be a good first step?” Outcome: You clarify the advice, connect it to health benefits, and leave with a doable plan.

In all three examples, the strategy is obvious.  Knowledge: “What?” ensures you understand the facts.  Relationships: “Why?” builds empathy and shared meaning.  Health: “What to do now?” reduces uncertainty and stress by creating actionable steps.

 

References

Lee, S. (2025, May 25). Research impact in communication: Methods and strategies. Number Analytics. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/research-impact-in-communication-methods-and-strategies

McCusker, P. J.  (2023). Questioning & Answering: How, Who, When, & Where. New York: Amazon.

Social Science Research Council. (2024, June 9). Seven tips from experts on communicating your research. The Mercury Project. https://www.ssrc.org/mercury-project/2024/06/09/seven-tips-from-experts-on-communicating-your-research/

Warwick University. (n.d.). Quick guide to research communications. https://warwick.ac.uk/research/priorities/productivity/media/documents/research_communications_guide_pdf_1.pdf

 

Where the Tribe Ends & the Individual Begins

The role of the advocatus diaboli (Latin for “Devil’s Advocate”) was formally established in the Catholic Church during the canonization process (Delaney, 1980). The intention was to ensure rigorous scrutiny of candidates for sainthood by appointing someone to argue against canonization, highlighting flaws, inconsistencies, or potential exaggerations of virtue. This institutionalized skepticism was meant to safeguard against hasty or biased judgments.

Yet, even with such a moderator, groups could descend into adversarial argumentation. The Devil’s Advocate often reinforced a combative dynamic, where the goal was to win rather than to understand.

Instead of perpetuating adversarial debate, a more constructive position might be envisioned: the Angelic Inquirer. This figure would not argue for or against but would facilitate objective, Socratic questioning. The Angelic Inquirer’s task would be to guide participants toward clarity, encouraging dialogue that seeks truth, not merely self-serving victory. The “angel” would facilitate objectivity, introduce and facilitate questions that illuminate assumptions. The model would require and moderate the Socratic method, encouraging participants to articulate reasoning and confront contradictions. And, finally, insofar as possible, the angel would ensure a constructive tone that demands inquiry that does not descend into hostility.  in short, the angelic process would reframe discourse from adversarial combat to collaborative exploration.

One of the angel’s greatest challenges in dialogue is disentangling tribal identity—political, religious, or cultural—from personal identity. When individuals conflate group membership with selfhood, disagreement feels like a personal attack (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).  Considered in the light of identity, Socratic dialogue offers a pathway to disassociation. First, assumptions are questioned, asking why one holds a belief and whether it is contingent on group identity. Second, alternatives are explored by considering perspectives outside one’s tribe without immediate rejection. Third, reflective distancing is reinforced by indicating that identity is multifaceted and not reducible to group affiliation. By practicing these steps, individuals can cultivate resilience against polarization and rediscover their authentic selves beyond tribal boundaries.

To conclude, the Devil’s Advocate was designed to safeguard truth through opposition, but adversarial roles can entrench division. An Angelic Inquirer, by contrast, facilitates objective questioning by nurturing Socratic dialogue. In doing so, individuals can learn to disassociate tribal identity from personal identity, fostering a culture of inquiry that strengthens democracy and human flourishing. However, such learning is just as critical— perhaps more critical—an issue for our dysfunctional governmental officials. The recent and longest government shutdown in American history is attributable to our legislators’ total unwillingness to accept the reality of their situations and limitations of their power. They sought personal political advantage over the welfare of the nation. Perhaps, at minimum, we need an objective angelic advocate citizen to be present at every government session that addresses substantial issues.  The advocate would publish on the Internet a full report, quoting not only what was said, but also,  who said what, and when.

References

Delaney, J. J. (1980). Dictionary of saints. Doubleday.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.

Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies. Routledge.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

 

 

Defusing Our Uncivil House of Dynamite

Since war is the absolute antithesis of civility, consider that within the past week millions of Americans—and millions more around the world—watched Kathryn Bigelow’s A House of Dynamite, a film  dramatizing the tense 18 minutes after a missile is detected heading toward the United States. Also, factor in the 2024  Annie Jacobsen book Nuclear War: A Scenario that became a bestseller and was shortlisted for the Baillie Gifford Prize for nonfiction, vividly describing how a single nuclear strike could escalate into global catastrophe. Finally, recall that in 1983, President Ronald Reagan watched The Day After, a chilling portrayal of nuclear war’s aftermath. According to his memoirs and contemporaneous accounts, the film deeply affected him, reinforcing his urgency to collaborate with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. They met and that meeting led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a landmark agreement that reduced nuclear arsenals and eased Cold War tensions.

Regan could confidently negotiate with Gorbachev, because he had a 73 percent approval rating.  That reflected the fact that Americans were fully united behind him and our national priorities. Citizens did not always agree with all national policies, but—more often than not— they were willing to communicate rationally about policies rather than personalities.

As I said in my previous Kimmel, Kirk and Us  blog post, our adversaries—China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran—are not just monitoring our military posture. They are watching our politics, our media, and our culture. They are measuring whether we are a nation capable of rational debate. When we descend into ridicule and polarization, we project weakness. We show ourselves as distracted, fractured, and vulnerable to intimidation. Adversaries then are emboldened, less likely to negotiate in good faith, and more likely to threaten war, even nuclear war, as Russia and North Korea recently have.  In short, American division is an invitation to catastrophe. .

All this means that rational discourse is our existential responsibility.  When speech is weaponized for political or monetary profit or division, it exacts profound costs by eroding democracy, safety, and civility.  Jimmie Kimmel and his allies parlayed punishment into profit, teaching millions how to divide and destroy America for entertainment. I again restate and emphasize that our children, along with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, are watching and learning.

By contrast, civil disagreement minimizes national threats.  It deters aggression by demonstrating resilience in disagreement. It signals strength. Respectful debate shows that we can govern ourselves without collapsing into chaos. You may feel powerless in the face of nuclear weapons, but you are not powerless in shaping the climate that influences whether conflict escalates or is contained. You can model civility. Even in disagreement, speak with respect, reject division-for-profit by refusing to reward those who monetize outrage, and by being mindful of the audience, our adversaries, and our children.

The lesson of House of Dynamite, Nuclear War: A Scenario, and The Day After is stark: in a nuclear age, our margin for error is vanishingly small. If we cannot govern our speech and disagreements with discipline, we risk undermining our individual and collective freedom.  One more historical memory is instructive: on June 16, 1858, during his famous speech at the Illinois Republican convention in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." America is a house imperiled. Let’s defuse what now has become a political House of Dynamite.