Using "What" To Get To "Why" - Access Higher Level Thinking

We all know "Why" questions address the real meat of the matter. They aim for justification, for synthesis, for the higher level thinking. Yet, often, when we use them, they don't achieve the result we're after. Instead of insight, we get confusion, defensiveness, or just... silence.

The problem isn't the goal of the why question; it's the unnecessary complexity and ambiguity it adds to the process.

To break down the most difficult question in the world, and show you why you should stop asking "Why", and instead, start asking "What."

"Why" questions are important, but they demand a cognitive leap that many people simply aren't ready for. We can boil down the difficulty into five key challenges:

1. They Demand Justification and Defense: As soon as you ask "Why did you do that?", you put the other person on the defensive. Thinking shuts down; self-preservation kicks in.

2. They Ask for High-Road Transfer: To answer "Why," you have to abstract a principle from one area and apply it to a new situation—a complex skill psychologists call High-Road Transfer.

3. They Require a Higher Cognitive Load: Answering "Why" means holding multiple variables in your working memory at once—economic factors, political history, social pressures—it's too much.

4. They Rely on an Undeveloped Schema: If the person you're asking hasn't yet built the deep, interconnected knowledge structure (the schema) needed, they can't possibly explain the cause.

5. They are Ambiguous and Seek Interpretation: "Why is this significant?" That question is open to infinite answers. It lacks the specificity needed to guide thinking.

So, how do we get the synthesis, the justification, the higher-level thinking without the breakdown?

We pave the way. We make the deep thinking accessible by changing the question from a single, overwhelming jump to a sequence of manageable, supportive steps. We exchange "Why" for "What."

This shift aligns perfectly with established educational frameworks.Think about Bloom's Taxonomy, which classifies thinking skills. A simple "Why" immediately jumps past the base levels—Remembering and Understanding—and slams the person into the Analyzing or Evaluating tiers. By contrast, a "What" sequence starts small and builds up.

It also directly addresses the SOLO Taxonomy, which tracks the complexity of a learner’s response. A struggling learner might be stuck at the Unistructural stage, only able to state one isolated idea. But a proper "What" sequence forces them to the Multistructural stage (listing several ideas) before they can reach the desired Relational stage (explaining the "why").

The key aspect is to allow a natural progression of understanding. If the "Why" is getting in the way, change it to a "What."

To implement this, we use a simple, memorable four-step framework: R.O.S.E.

R.O.S.E. stands for: Reason, Opinion, Significance, Evidence.

Instead of asking the big, ambiguous "Why did the project fail?", you guide the thinking using this accessible sequence of "What" questions:

1. R - Reason: "What are three reasons why the project missed the deadline?"

   • This uses the "What" to facilitate Analysis (Bloom's) and push the learner to the Multistructural level (SOLO). They just have to list the components.

2. O - Opinion: "In your opinion, what reason is the most likely to explain the situation?"

   • Now we ask them to Evaluate (Bloom's), but only after they've clearly identified the options. They're making a conscious judgment.

3. S - Significance: "What is the significance of this particular reason on our team's performance?"

   • This asks them to make Relational connections (SOLO), exploring the impact and consequences of their prioritized reason.

4. E - Evidence: "What evidence do you have (or would you look for) to support that choice?"

   • The final, and most crucial step. They must now Substantiate their claim with facts, logs, or data. They've built their case from the ground up.

   • 
     

By the time they finish the R.O.S.E. sequence, they haven't just answered "Why"—they've built a full, evidence-backed argument. They’ve engaged in deep thinking without the initial stigma or pressure.

This leads to one more question "What Else?". This simple question can prompt a broadening of thinking, a consideration of other possibilities that allow the learner to realise that there are other connections to be made. This is particularly important in the reasoning, the significance, and the evidence to determine if all of the relevant factors have been included.

The goal is never to avoid the big questions. The goal is to make them solvable.

If you’re a teacher, a manager, a coach, or just someone trying to understand a complex idea, stop demanding the answer to "Why" right away. Instead, guide the process by asking "What."

The path to expertise is paved with small, specific questions.

Michael.