The Art of Asking Better Questions

This post is about 3,300 words long, and takes about 21-26 minutes to read.

A Sneak Peek!

Welcome back friends, readers, and the generally bewildered! I've been furiously working of late to keep up with the various writing and editing tasks I have assigned myself, along with client work, social media, etc., and it's got my head spinning a bit. Combine that dizziness with the barrage of nutty, daily news events from the crazy world we inhabit these days, and I can tell you that it leaves me with countless moments of head shaking bewilderment. Seriously, just a lot of moments where I shake my head and think "What the…?"

However, that got me to thinking about one particular section of my upcoming book, The Inception of Truth, in which I address one of the big challenges in the way we've been taught to question. That's when the old lightbulb popped on, and I thought, "Hey, I should just preview that section for the patrons this week!" So, below is sneak peek into our first full length book to be released. I've adapted it slightly to make a couple of additionally valuable points, and to fit this format. I think you'll find it eminently useful during these times where we seem to have more questions than answers. Enjoy!

The Art of Asking Truth Based Questions, or, Why to Avoid “Why”

Our discovery of Truthfulness through the process of Coherence Verification (CV) is aided by eliminating one of the most egregious and common human errors of all time: the insistence on asking, “Why?” In order to get to the truth of any matter with CV, we must make certain that we are inquiring in a truthful manner. To do this we must first eliminate all forms of questions and curiosities that begin with the word, “why.”

“Why do I have to do that,” you might be asking?

Let me explain a bit, and I think it will become clear.

Logic is your friend, and “why” is not logical

Despite the fact that Coherence Verification (CV) is a nonlinear, quantum computation process, it does require some basic logic. Logic is necessary to keep verifications accurate, and let's face it, many of our interactions during an average day aren't exactly logic based, so it's important to follow Mr. Spock's lead any time we are trying to sort out what the truth is. Logic allows you to readily resolve untruthful beliefs and ideas in a manner that is easily comprehensible, especially given that we are likely going to be a little resistant to relinquishing long held ideas.

So, what's the exact problem with "why" questions? Asking yourself “why” about anything draws you into a spiral of illogical justifications and meaning ascription that complicates thought, and leads to confusion. Curing yourself of the illogical habit of creating “why” questions is partly accomplished through the identification of the question’s inherent lack of specificity.

Plainly stated, there is no real answer to a “why” question because it's never a specific question.

To show this we will do a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that you are reading this during a lunch break from work, and your friend Clara comes to you and asks, “What are you reading?” That is a question that has a specific answer. “Hi Clara! I am reading a short piece from the Inception Publishing blog.” Specific question, specific answer. Now imagine that Clara says, “Oh, I heard about that wacky blog. Why are you reading that?”

Now, how are you supposed to answer that? The simple answer is that you just feel like it, but most people don’t accept that kind of answer. Most people want a supposed reason or justification for your choice. Most people want you to give them a reason so they can agree with you, or disagree with you. Let’s play this scenario out a little more and see how it goes, only this time you try to explain, “why” to Miss Clara.

Clara: “Oh, I heard about that wacky blog. Why are you reading that?”

You: “Well, I wanted to learn about Coherence Verification, and this blog seemed like it had the best explanation of it.”

Clara: “Why do you want to learn about Coherence Verification?”

You: “It seems very interesting to me and I think it could be helpful in understanding the Truth.”

Clara: “The truth huh? Why do you think you need to learn about the truth?”

You: “I guess it occurred to me that I never learned a way to determine what the truth really was, and how to discover it. We have a lot of facts these days, but rarely do we get to the heart of an issue.”

Clara: “Why do you have to read a blog to do that?”

You: “Uhhh, I suppose because no one ever taught me how to get to the truth on my own.”

Clara: “Do you have to get there on your own? Why don’t you just ask somebody, or Google the truth?”

You: “Mostly because what passes for the truth is usually just someone’s belief or opinion, and that doesn’t seem very truthful to me.”

Clara: “Why can’t somebody’s opinion be the truth?”

You: “You know, that is a big question, and my lunch hour is almost over. Let’s pick up this conversation later. Bye!”

While we can credit Clara for being inquisitive, we cannot credit her with asking specific questions that allow for specific answers. Clara, like most people, is asking why questions that essentially have an unending list of answers. The only two absolute discussion ending answers to “why” questions are, “I felt like it,” and, “That’s just the laws of physics.” Those two answers usually end “why” questions, but aren't likely to satisfy anyone.

If you have ever been around small kids, you know how early little humans grasp ahold of this “why” problem, and how maddening it can be to get an unending string of unanswerable interrogations from a four year old. Questions that are unanswerable, are simply not useful, and certainly not logical. "Why" questions do not lead to a truth. They only lead to confusion, argument, and misunderstanding. The requirement for understanding this in the context of our Coherence Verification study is this: If we have a question about something that we intend to use CV to sort out, then we must have a logical question that can be placed into a declarative statement for verification. This is mandatory for CV, but also entirely beneficial in daily discourse.

Declarative statements or propositions are the only totally effective way to clear your consciousness for a verification, and thus, the only way to structure the concept or thing being verified, or "checked against" the available information energy of the Universe. Not only that, but "why" questions just confuse the brain because there is no specific answer. Take a look at these three questions that I have often used as examples of the "why problem" when actually using CV with another person.

A. “Why does the sky appear to be blue?”
B. “Why do bad things happen to good people?”
C. “Why?”

If you are healthy human and undistracted, all three of the CV results to the above questions will have been “not yes,” or a weak muscle response. In other words, if I were to have completed these three verifications on you, your entire brain and body would have been momentarily weakened. Achieving these “not yes” results is a consequence of the “why” questions being unanswerable, not because the verification result was “no.”

The simplest way to see that “why” questions are to be avoided, is simply to do a Coherence Verification. With a few oddball exceptions (cases where someone is so energetically adaptive that they verify strongly even for errant concepts, which is very rare), everyone always verifies weak when asking “why” questions, or even thinking of the word “why.” This phenomenon occurs due to the complete incoherence of the concept of a “why” question. All incoherent concepts have no energetic resonance, therefore the body is weakened.

The primary takeaway here is that you must not ever use “why” in a verification statement if you are practicing CV, and intend for the results to be accurate. The secondary takeaway, is that it is an excellent choice to eliminate “why” questions and statements entirely from your language as they are illogical and confusing. Just say no to the why!

Practice suggestion

“Why” can nearly always be replaced with a more specific “what” question that leads to reasonable, trackable understanding. Practice utilizing “what” questions to replace “why” questions at least 10 times daily for one week. For example, “Why did that project not get finished Judy?” becomes, “What is it that seemed to have taken priority over our project Judy?” This may require some forethought and writing these questions down prior to asking people. Take note of how the energy and clarity felt when asking more specific questions. Also, take note of the results you got in your interactions with others when you asked specific, logical questions, instead of just asking, “why”.

Causation versus Contribution

There is something more at the heart of the “why” question problem, and it is important that we clear this up so you can avoid errors from now on. “Why” questions hide within them an assumptive error that renders them not only illogical, but inherently flawed in comparison to the Truth. The hidden assumption is that one action or event “causes” a reaction. Causation (or “cause and effect” as it is often called) as an objective reality, does not exist. It’s a simple physics fact.

There is no causation, only limited physical perception that appears as cause and effect (the Newtonian model of the world that we are all familiar with). In reality, there are millions of contributions to every outcome. There are also countless coherent or non-coherent energetic and information states in every situation. There are nearly always purposeful or unconscious errors in most interactions; but, no causation.

So, “why” questions have no real coherency (cannot be verified as you will always just get a “not yes” result) because they are inherently causation questions, and there is no objective causation, only contributions. When we ask “why” questions, we are essentially asking what the causes are for a particular situation or action, but causation is a flawed idea. If this seems a little too esoteric for you, then you can still recognize that the question of causation doesn’t make much sense as there can be an endless number of so called "causes" for any situation.

Please note that the Truth, or Absolute Truth, is information energy that structures the inception and form of Everything. The Truth is the Universal Infrastructure. Real Truth is not just someone’s idea; it is that which is the underpinning of all Power. The Truth is the set of “rules,” or if you prefer, the “laws” that determine all. When you are using Coherence Verification at its most expansive capacity, you are tapping into this infrastructure and checking that your ideas are ‘matching’ that which is the Universal Infrastructure. The inaccurate idea of causation has no place in that infrastructure because it literally doesn't exist.

The Truth is the ultimate blueprint for Everything, and CV is your pass to get into the ‘planning room’ and be certain that what you are verifying is adherent to the information energy that makes up the structure of Everything. I know that may sound completely over the top, but it is what is occurring when you are creating verification statements that rise above the level of just testing for what is coherent with the body. I won’t go so far as saying that CV is a sacred event, but it definitely supersedes the mundane. That much I can certify.

We will look at this definition of Truth, and the extent to which we can take CV, more in the future. For now, just remember that “why” statements are confusing, and really a form of trying to determine causation, which is not something that can be logically defined as there are always myriad contributions to any event.

Here are a few actual verifications I've done that show the fundamentals of CV, and the points I'm making:

A. “The Truth is a pattern that structures everything in the Universe.” Result: Yes.
B. “The human brain is always confused by “why” questions and statements.” Result: Yes.
C. “Causation exists.” Result: Not yes. 
D. “The appearance of causation, or cause and effect, is a human misapprehension.” Result: Yes.

Turning the philosophical into the practical

If this all sounds a little impractical to you, I get it. People are pumping out "why" questions in just about every minute of their lives, and this method of illogical questioning appears to be the primary methodology for much journalistic and legal questioning. The "why" thing is thoroughly ensconced in our society, education, discourse, and personal questioning. The irony is, the point of the "why" questions are usually an attempt to get at the root of what happened in any given situation; but, the illogical, imprecise, and mentally confusing nature of this flawed interrogative obscures the resolution of the questions. If we are asking "why" questions, and we want to discover what's going on, then we are asking the wrong questions.

How do we move away from this gigantic human habit that is fundamentally flawed? How do we shift from this somewhat philosophical recognition I'm presenting, and into practical solutions?

I have a couple of thoughts about that, as you have probably already guessed.

If you are attempting to define "why" you or another person made a particular choice, then you are really asking to elucidate three thoughts that are rarely consciously recognized. First, you are asking what the motivation was. Motivations are only very rarely identified, and so people's choices are typically an unhealthy potion with ingredients that include fear avoidance, fulfilling perceived wants and needs, and heading in the direction of expected outcomes. All choices have motivations, so it's always helpful to begin any inquiry into human activity with, "What exactly was your motivation?"

Second, you are asking what the goal was. Goals are often as unrecognized as motivations, but they are always there, hidden amongst the mental mess. All choices have goals, and so it is sane to ask, "What was the goal?" This moves you towards specificity, and away from the vagueness of "why" questions.

Third, you are asking how the choice was expected to accomplish the goal. Once the goal has been defined, the next logical step is to clarify how the idea was constructed that the particular choice (or series of choices) was going to get one from start to finish. The question is, in essence, "What was the plan?" When this line of thought is examined, once again, you'll probably find many gaps in awareness.

That's it. It's not too difficult.

"What was the motivation?"

"What was the goal?"

"What was the plan?"

Three questions that can lead you to clarity in any human situation, even if the clarity discovered is only that someone was entirely unclear about their motivations, goals, and plans.

Oh, and by the way, advanced uses of Coherence Verification can also be used to discover all of these choice factors, once learned and practiced. This kind of application of CV accounts for nearly half of the work I do for clients. There you have it, my secret assessment process. It's not magic, it's just logic and physics. (I see some of you yawning! Sorry, no magic here to keep you on the edge of your seat – just practical stuff.)

Anyway, the next practical justification for the elimination of "why" questions, is the improvement of your health and sanity. This is my, "Don't punch yourself in the face!" guideline. It goes like this: every time you ask a "why" question, it's like rabbit punching yourself in the smoocher. Sure, it doesn't hurt much, but it does throw the brain and body out of balance and ideal function for a bit, so what's the point in doing that? You're right, there is none, so you might as well not do it. From now on, every time you ask a "why" question, you'll get an image of you punching yourself in the face, which should be a helpful reminder not to bother with that unhealthy form of questioning.

The third practical application scenario where "why" questions pop up, are utterly useless, and can be replaced, is in the effort to try to understand Nature and the universe. You know the bit. "Why are we here?" "Why haven't we met any aliens yet (to our knowledge)?" "Why did we evolve this way instead of that?" "Why are there black holes, and why can't we see dark energy and dark matter?" "Why are some people hermaphrodites?" The list is endless.

I know that these "why" questions often lead to more effective "how" and "what" questions in science, but most of us aren't scientists, so it's likely we are asking some big questions without the clarity of detail and rigor found in science. So, we end up punching ourselves in the face, again. The next time you are in an intellectually stimulating conversation, try ditching the "why" questions. I think you'll find that asking answerable questions is much more satisfying than sounding like a four year old kid.

Historical Endnote

I began my personal search for the big Truths many years ago with a few simple guidelines that have never failed. One of those is that I will always attempt to ask more reasonable, more effective questions than those I had been previously taught to ask. In my professional work, I try to get my clients to do the same. We cannot discover more effective ways of choosing and living unless we are asking more effective questions than we have in the past. I believe it was Albert Einstein that said:

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

Well, how are we going to change our thinking unless we are changing our questioning? How can we resolve challenges, whether practical or psychological, if we aren't asking questions that are resolvable?

Ding, ding, ding! You win the prize for the correct answer!

We aren't going to create resolutions with old ways of questioning because the repetition of vague, limited, and face-punching "why" questions will ultimately end up landing us back where we no longer want to be. We have to change the script entirely, and that begins with more effective questions. Questions that lead us into the truth. Questions that push us to progress and learn. Questions that challenge us, and the beliefs, assumptions, and habits that no longer serve us individually, or as part of the great experiment called, humanity.

That's what we're all about here at Inception Publishing, and I look forward to throwing some more effective questions your way in the near future!

Thanks for taking the time to read this.


The Truth Value of this post is 67%. This Truth Value level indicates completely verified facts, and total accuracy relative to the subject matter. This post has basic intellectual value to everyone reading it, especially those interested in personal and professional development.

Patron note: This is initially a patron only post that exists because you have been so generous as to help Inception Publishing in this educational work. You currently have exclusive access to this content. However, because of the timely and socially valuable nature of this report, we have chosen to post it for the public fairly soon. So, once it is public, feel free to refer people to it at As always, thank you for your support, and your anticipated sharing with others!