Challenging the Norm: Questions That Demand More
Questions serve as the bedrock of discussions, guiding our understanding and shaping the narrative. However, there are questions that, rather than illuminate the issues at hand, lead us down a rabbit hole of simplistic reasoning. As we step into the complexities of 2026, it's high time we reevaluate the questions we routinely pose.
The First Question: How Did We Get Here?
This query often kicks off conversations with an air of scholarly importance, yet it quickly devolves into an exercise in historical cherry-picking. Depending on whom you ask, “here” could mean a tragic era marked by economic disparity, political division, or cultural upheaval. But what does it really mean to ask, “How did we get here?”
It's tempting to trace a linear path from past to present, but this prompts a deeper concern: Are we simplifying the complexities of our current situation for the sake of narrative convenience?
For instance, consider how varied the answers can be while mediating on the emergence of the so-called Trump era. Some may point to economic factors initiated by globalization; others might theorize about a reaction to identity politics or a deterioration of public discourse. Each answer depends on the perspective of the person responding, revealing more about their biases than about the historical realities.
The Flaw in Reductionism
I question the reductionist narrative that insists upon a single cause for multifaceted outcomes. This tendency not only diminishes the richness of historical inquiry but also sets the stage for misinformation, as it provides an incomplete understanding of the complex interrelations at play in our world.
Take note: whenever someone presents a clean-cut historical explanation, it is essential to inquire what biases dictate their perspective. Does their understanding of the present distort their interpretation of past events?
The Second Question: What Has Surprised You the Most?
This seemingly innocuous question operates as a conversational crutch, one that can be applied universally across topics—from political events to sporting achievements. However, by focusing on personal astonishment, we detract from the actual substance of the discussion. What does surprise indicate in this context? Often it signals misaligned expectations rather than newfound knowledge.
The challenge for journalists, moderators, and those engaging in dialogue is to pivot from self-reflective inquiries to more substantive questions that enrich understanding.
Proposing Alternatives: Asking the Right Questions
Instead of retreating to these overly simplistic questions, let's strive for depth. The next time you find yourself poised to ask, “How did we get here?” consider substituting it with, “What does it mean to be here?” It shifts focus from a deterministic narrative to one that encourages context-rich dialogue.
And if you really must ask about someone's surprise, follow with: “What does that reveal about our expectations?” Such follow-ups can unfurl layers of misunderstanding and redirect the conversation toward clarity.
A Necessary Evolution in Journalistic Discourse
As journalists and thought leaders, we bear the responsibility of advancing the discourse rather than retreating into catchy, easy questions. The evolution of our conversations depends not only on how we ask but also on the questions we are willing to explore.
Our national conversation deserves more than platitudes. It demands intellectual rigor and a willingness to grapple with complexity.
So as we move through 2026, let's embrace the challenge. Let's push against the tides of intellectual laziness and take pride in asking questions that illuminate rather than obscure.
Source reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/01/opinion/podcasts-interviews-questions.html
