Category: Words & Language

“I’ve Done My Research.” No, You Haven’t. You Just Googled It.

During my years in academia, I worked alongside actual researchers. People trained in the discipline and rigor of research. People who spend years refining questions, testing hypotheses, analyzing data, and subjecting their findings to skeptical scrutiny.

The kind of work that, quietly and painstakingly, makes us safer, healthier, and better informed.

So yes, this is a bit of a rant. But it’s also a defense of rigor, discernment, and the kind of thinking that takes time.

What Real Research Looks Like

  1. Question Formation
    It begins with a focused, well-formed question, rather than a hunch, a headline, or a vibe.
  2. Literature Review
    A deliberate survey of what’s already known: what’s been asked, tested, and found wanting.
  3. Methodology Design
    You don’t just gather information. You design a method to test, measure, and interpret with care.
  4. Data Collection
    Interviews, experiments, fieldwork, archives. Sometimes months, sometimes years.
  5. Analysis
    Pattern-finding. Anomaly-hunting. Applying logic and statistical rigor.
  6. Peer Review
    Others trained in the field critique your process, your conclusions, and your blind spots.
  7. Revision
    You change your mind. You rethink your conclusions. You improve your work.
  8. Synthesis
    You connect your findings to what came before… and to what comes next.
  9. Replicability
    Real research invites challenge. Others can retrace your steps and see if they arrive at the same place.

What Google Is

Clicking isn’t thinking.
You’re not discovering insight. You’re collecting headlines.

Google is the fast food of knowing.
Quick. Tasty. And rarely nourishing.

Algorithms aren’t experts.
They reward what spreads, not what holds up.

Search is not scrutiny.
A search bar is not a method. It’s a suggestion box.

If you found it in under a minute, it’s not insight. It’s background noise.

“I Googled it” is the modern “I heard it somewhere.”
Equally shallow. Equally suspect.

Google simulates understanding. Research earns it.

Research has steps. Google has scroll.

Just because it’s online doesn’t mean it’s settled.

Google shows you other people’s answers. Research helps you construct your own.

The Bottom Line

Stop calling it research when what you did was open a browser and skim.

Research is not just information gathering. It’s a disciplined, skeptical pursuit of understanding.

Google is a tool. It can help you start, but it can’t carry you through. Research begins where search ends.

Knowing is harder than it looks. And more worth it, too.

==

 

The power of ‘What For?’ Questions: Rethinking Conversation

You’re asking the wrong question—and it’s holding you back.

The power of ‘what for’ questions offers a transformative alternative. In conversations, we’re often inclined to ask ‘why’ to understand someone’s motivations or reasoning. We want to know what led them to a certain choice or how they came to hold a particular belief. “Why?” is so ingrained in our thinking that it almost feels like a reflex, especially in moments when we’re seeking clarity or alignment. Yet, while “Why?” pulls us backward, making us trace origins and reasons, there’s another question that can sometimes unlock even more meaningful answers.

When I first started thinking about this distinction, I assumed “Why?” was always the deeper question. But the more I worked with leaders and reflected on conversations, the more I noticed that “Why?” often kept us circling the past instead of building toward the future. That’s when I started asking, “What for?”—and the difference surprised me.

Consider the question “What for?”—a question that directs our attention to the future, inviting responses centered around purpose, goals, and intentions. Unlike “Why?”, which often demands an answer that begins with “because,” “What for?” skips the backward-facing detective work of “because” and leaps straight into the architect’s blueprint of “so as to” or “with a view to.” It’s less Sherlock Holmes and more Frank Gehry.

In many ways, this distinction between “Why?” and “What for?” mirrors the difference between asking “Where are you coming from?” and “Where are you going?” The first question looks back at origins and reasons, while the second looks ahead to direction and purpose. Let’s explore why “What for?” might be the question that opens up more purposeful, forward-thinking conversations.

The Purposeful Shift from “Why?” to “What for?”

When we ask “Why?”, we’re usually looking for causes. “Why did you choose this direction?” “Why do you believe that?” This line of questioning digs up the motivations and histories behind people’s actions and beliefs. And while this backward look can be valuable, it may not always reveal where someone hopes to go next.

Asking “What for?” is a small shift with a big impact. Instead of grounding a conversation in the past, “What for?” directs it toward the future. For example, in a coaching context, asking “Why do you want this promotion?” might reveal motivations like ambition or a sense of obligation. But asking “What do you want the promotion for?” could invite a different answer, perhaps touching on the desire to lead, the vision of making an impact, or the goal of developing new skills. The response here isn’t simply about motivation—it’s about purpose and direction.

“What for?” might feel like a minor adjustment, but it’s the conversational equivalent of turning your GPS from “history mode” to “destination preview.”

Practical Applications: Shifting Conversations Forward

Here’s how “What for?” can make a difference in a few scenarios:

In Executive Coaching

When a client is setting new goals, asking “What for?” helps them to envision the purpose behind those goals. Instead of grounding their thinking in past achievements or past struggles, it encourages them to articulate the future impact they’re hoping to create. This forward look can lead to greater clarity and motivation.

In Team Meetings

When a team faces a decision point, asking “Why are we choosing this approach?” could yield a list of past-oriented reasons, often grounded in what has or hasn’t worked before. Asking “What are we choosing this approach for?” invites the team to discuss the outcomes they aim to achieve, keeping the conversation focused on objectives and end results.

In Personal Conversations

Even in everyday discussions, shifting to “What for?” can open up new perspectives. Instead of asking a friend “Why did you decide to move?” try asking “What are you hoping to gain from the move?” This small change can reveal the goals, dreams, or opportunities they’re looking forward to, making the conversation more about their aspirations than their past.

The Different Impacts of “Why?” and “What for?”

Both questions have their place, and each has the potential to lead to important insights. “Why?” helps us understand context and background, which can sometimes be essential. But “What for?” brings us to a different layer of understanding, one that speaks to vision and purpose. While “Why?” can help explain what led to today, “What for?” can help shape tomorrow.

In conversations, as in life, both questions matter. “Why?” connects us to our roots, grounding us in what’s brought us here. But it’s “What for?” that pulls us forward, aligning us with the goals and intentions we often overlook. The balance between them is where meaningful progress lives. So, the next time you’re tempted to ask “Why?”, pause for a moment. Maybe it’s time to ask, “What for?” instead—and see where it takes you.

An Invitation to Experiment

Rather than simply deciding that “What for?” is better than “Why?”, think of this as an experiment in how we approach conversations. Try this: In your next meeting or conversation, pause before asking “Why?” and reframe it as “What for?” Notice how the responses shift. Does the person lean into their goals instead of their reasons? Or try flipping it—ask yourself both questions about a current challenge and compare the answers. What does “Why?” reveal about your past, and how does “What for?” shape your vision of the future?

By leveraging the strengths of each, we can have richer, more purposeful conversations. You might find that each question brings out a unique perspective, but that “What for?” invites others (and yourself) to connect more deeply with where you’re heading.

==

Go HERE for more Essays.

Large Language Models — LLMs: it’s technology, not intelligent agents

Alison Gopnik [bolds are mine]:

A very common trope is to treat LLMs as if they were intelligent agents going out in the world and doing things. That’s just a category mistake.

A much better way of thinking about them is as a technology that allows humans to access information from many other humans and use that information to make decisions. We have been doing this for as long as we’ve been human.

Language itself you could think of as a means that allows this. So are writing and the internet. These are all ways that we get information from other people.

Similarly, LLMs give us a very effective way of accessing information from other humans. Rather than go out, explore the world, and draw conclusions, as humans do, LLMs statistically summarize the information humans put onto the web.

It’s important to note that these cultural technologies have shaped and changed the way our society works. This isn’t a debunking along the lines of “AI doesn’t really matter.” In many ways, having a new cultural technology like print has had a much greater impact than having a new agent, like a new person, in the world.

 

Source: “How to Raise Your Artificial Intelligence: A Conversation with Alison Gopnik and Melanie Mitchell | Los Angeles Review of Books.” Los Angeles Review of Books, 31 May 2024, lareviewofbooks.org/article/how-to-raise-your-artificial-intelligence-a-conversation-with-alison-gopnik-and-melanie-mitchell/. Accessed 19 June 2024.

‌

Inspiration: don’t wait for it

Simon Sarris:

Inspiration, the admixture of genius and motivation, is sometimes described as a force that strikes us after some patient lull or waiting period. This idleness is a mistake.

The Muse arrives to us most readily during creation, not before. Homer and Hesiod invoke the Muses not while wondering what to compose, but as they begin to sing.

If we are going to call upon inspiration to guide us through, we have to first begin the work.

So it is an error to wait around for inspiration, or to demand some feeling of readiness for an undertaking, or for a teacher or some other golden opportunity.

I think these slouching inclinations come partly from an overly-systematized experience during childhood school years, and partly from a fear of failure. In fact, when you stop waiting for others—for either their permission or instruction—and instead begin on your own, fumbling through, regardless of how ready you are, this could be considered one of the true beginnings of adulthood.

 

The American self-help industrial complex

Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen in The Yale Review:

As Americans, we find ourselves in a culture that so fetishizes success that it cannot tolerate failure. So it deals with it in one of two ways.

The first is to view failure in individualized and atom­ized terms, blaming the losers for their losses.

The second, which is equally insidious, is to be so disdainful of failure that it insists that what looks like failure in fact is a mere “stepping-stone to success,” in the philosopher Costica Bradatan’s phrase.

Thus the platitudinous self-help bromides that we find adorned on a framed poster in a bank teller’s cubicle (“Failure is success in progress”) or shouted by a fitness influencer hawking protein powder on TikTok (“There’s no failure that willpower can’t turn into success”).

In a culture that demands overcoming against all odds, even failure has been commodified by the American self-help industrial complex: rebranded not as a devastating and possibly life-altering event but as a blip en route to a chest-thumping achievement, accomplish­ment, or acquisition.

Communication is a process by which all parties make themselves co-responsible for the creation of a shared understanding

We are a few days into the invasion of a sovereign country by another sovereign country… and the senseless deaths that ensue. I’m not one for pronouncements but if we can learn anything from history it is this: if we don’t discuss our differences, if we don’t talk, then the only alternative is violence. This is as true internationally as it is domestically. Technology has only exacerbated this fundamental human tendency. The only way to prevent violence is to learn to express one’s differences and learn to hear and understand the differences of others.

“Communication” is not about how eloquent or smart or well-spoken one is. It’s not about the clever tricks of rhetoric or the slick slide deck. My work as a consultant and a coach is to invite people (I work mostly with managers) to approach communication as

a process by which all parties make themselves co-responsible for the creation of a shared understanding.

I am responsible not only to express my ideas clearly (which requires that they be clear ideas to start with). I am also responsible to ensure that the other party has understood what I was trying to say. Conversely, it is also my responsibility to ensure that I have understood what the other party is trying to say.

This is impossible without dialogue: not only my telling you something and you telling me something, but also my asking you if I got you right and your asking me if you got me right… with the purpose of creating a shared understanding. The outcome is that we have both understood the meaning that each other is trying to convey.

People or parties talking without the express work of creating a shared understanding are at best engaging in turn-taking monologues. They are talking at each other. They are not necessarily talking to each other. There is no dialogue.

And while listening is important and one can learn to do that better, nothing replaces the premise of effective listening: a genuine interest in what the other person has to say.

If you know it all, if you’re the most experienced person in the room, if you’re the most senior person in the room, the smartest person in the room, if you think you have forgotten more about this topic than the other person will ever know then you might be far removed from having a genuine interest in what the other person has to say.

photo by Tina Hartung on Unsplash

==

Go HERE for more essays.

Stop saying “If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product”

Nicolas Carr:

¨If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.” If I have to hear that sentence again, I swear I’ll barf.

As Shoshana Zuboff [*] has pointed out, it doesn’t even have the benefit of being true. A product has dignity as a made thing. A product is desirable in itself. That doesn’t describe what we have come to represent to the operators of the machines that gather our signals.

We’re the sites out of which industrial inputs are extracted, little seams in the universal data mine. But unlike mineral deposits, we continuously replenish our supply.

The more we’re tapped, the more we produce.

A contrarian position to be sure. I appreciate the protest to a tired (and tiring) cliché. It does well to point to the two different planes: the commercial and the personal.

==

[*] Shoshana Zuboff is an American author, Harvard professor, social psychologist, philosopher, and scholar.

When in doubt, draw a distinction

By far the most substantial piece of content I read recently is from Jay Rosen. He is a press critic who writes about the media and politics. He is a professor at the School of Journalism at New York University.

Here is how it starts:

And here are some of the distinctions he draws in this Twitter thread:

  • Public vs. audience
  • Journalism vs. the media
  • Truth-seeking vs. refuge-seeking
  • Political vs. politicized
  • Issues vs. troubles
  • Ritual vs. transmission
  • Expect vs. predict
  • Subscription vs. membership

He says that

For distinctions to work, the terms have to be sufficiently close that prying them apart clears space for thought. If I write, “bending is not the same as breaking,” well, who said it was? That one is going nowhere. But “naked is not the same as nude” is an idea with legs.

It’s not just semantics. Well, it is, but it’s more than that. It’s a show of clarity of ideas in your field of endeavor. In his case, it’s media and politics.

And it occurs in all fields.

Just last week, I bumped into a few more instances:

  1. My friend and colleague Ed Carvalho invited us to draw a distinction between intelligence and intellect;
  2. And then this one in the Harvard Business Review between habit and routine:

When we fail at forming new patterns of behavior, we often blame ourselves, rather than the bad advice we read from someone who doesn’t really understand what can and cannot be a habit.
A habit is a behavior done with little or no thought, while a routine involves a series of behaviors frequently —and intentionally— repeated. A behavior has to be a regularly performed routine before it can become a habit at all.
The problem is that many of us try to skip the “routine” phase.

There are other distinctions that Rosen does not discuss in his thread, including

  • Lying vs. bullshitting
  • Experience vs. expertise
  • Exit, voice, and loyalty
  • Information overload vs. filter failure

Anyone who took part in one of my leadership development programs will have heard me discuss exit, voice, “loyalty”/conformity, and sabotage as a way to distinguish how different people react differently to finding themselves in conflict situations.

The take-aways from this piece?

  1. When in doubt, draw a distinction;
  2. Doing so is a way to manifest that you are a thinker – that you don’t take things at face value but you do reflect on them and come out with your own thoughts;
  3. Drawing distinctions is also a manifestation of where you put your attention, that is, what your field of endeavor really is.

And since a lot of readers of this newsletter are managers then it begs the question: are your distinctions mostly about the domain of expertise that preceded your becoming a manager or are they about management itself?

The content of this post is an edited version of an entry in my free, monthly newsletter in which I share my own writing as well as links to articles and research on management, leadership, and strategy. It’s easy to subscribe… and unsubscribe.