John Kelly
Role: Participant with medical/hyperbaric expertise
Contributions to the Discussion
John participated actively though had to manage competing commitments during the call.
Participation Notes
"Have to leave for appointment. Will come back on phone in a minutes"
John juggled the call with other obligations, showing commitment to the conversation despite constraints.
On "How" vs "Why"
Pete Kaminski captured John's insight:
"from John K.: how is a more neutral version of why"
This subtle but important point suggests that "how" questions may be less threatening or loaded than "why" questions, potentially eliciting more openness in conversations.
Social Context for Inquiry
Pete Kaminski paraphrased John's contribution on creating safe spaces for curiosity:
"from John K.: I found that if you created a context in which there's a social reason for participating and pursuing a question like the five whys, they'll participate for the social reason, and then down the road, they'll get the benefit in terms of the enrichment of the conversation and the possibility of realizing, 'Oh—we actually discovered something we weren't even looking for.' If you'd told them to look for it, they probably wouldn't have. But because it happened inside this little game, they ended up uncovering something new and walked away with a different perspective."
Teaching at Multiple Levels
John brought extensive teaching experience:
"I taught different levels, you know. young kids, high school, college, and adults."
This breadth gave him perspective on how curiosity techniques work differently across developmental stages and contexts.
Working with "Militantly Uncurious Students"
John shared a striking teaching story from a first-generation college in a mill town:
"I had plenty of militantly uncurious students. First genera... first-generation college. in a mill town, you know, their ideal, their career goal was to become a shop teacher."
"When I started talking about communication, they said, well, When are we going to laminate? And they had pictures of motorcycles and things like this they wanted to land. This is college. This is college."
This was a shock to John, but he found that creating social contexts for participation worked:
"But I found that if you created a context in which There's a social reason for participating and pursuing a question like the five whys, they'll participate for the social reason, and then down the road, they'll get the benefit in terms of the enrichment of the conversation and the possibility of say, oh, we actually, uh... discovered something that we weren't looking for."
The Five Whys Technique
John discussed the 5 Whys technique commonly used in consulting and systems thinking:
"A classic one that all of us who have done any consulting, or even just people who are here, I mean, you've heard of the five wives things, where you just keep asking why, water. You basically take apart each answer... You don't accept it as, oh, that's not the... that's not the ultimate why, the other whys are underneath."
The Danger of Over-Focusing on "Why"
John made a crucial observation about question hierarchy:
"I actually noticed in teaching that It's possible to over-focus on why. when you haven't done the previous work about what? And how."
"And how is a more neutral version of why. Y assumes, you know, why we tend to look for a motivation. We tend to look for a human actor and a motivation."
"And it's a good place to look, you know, if you're... If you're in a mystery story, or if you're in a, you know... Murder mystery or other kind of mysteries, but... There's other kinds of... kinds of collaborative coherence of, uh... causes, and you might not notice those unless you said how instead of why. And also, if you said what? First."
The What-How-Why Hierarchy
John's teaching insight: Do the work on "what" and "how" before jumping to "why"
- "What?" - Establish what is actually happening
- "How?" - Understand mechanisms and processes (more neutral)
- "Why?" - Explore motivations and intentions (assumes human agency)
"Why" limitations:
- Assumes human actors and motivations
- Good for mystery stories, but misses other causal patterns
- Can overlook "collaborative coherence of causes" that aren't about intention
- May feel accusatory or threatening
"How" advantages:
- More neutral and exploratory
- Reveals mechanisms and processes
- Less threatening to students or colleagues
- Opens up non-intentional causation
Playing the Little Game
John emphasized that indirect learning through structured games works better than direct instruction:
"We did it in the context of... playing this little game, and as a result of playing the little game, we now have a different perspective."
The students wouldn't have engaged if told upfront what they'd discover, but by participating "inside this little game," they:
- Uncovered something new
- Walked away with a different perspective
- Discovered things they weren't looking for
The Hyperbaric Chamber Moment
One of the most memorable moments of the call was John's casual revelation:
"I'm in a hyperbaric chamber, by the way." (lines 2962-2999)
This connected to Scott Moehring's son's work as a Navy Diver and sparked a discussion about hyperbaric medicine, showing John's domain expertise while literally demonstrating commitment to curiosity by joining the call from unusual circumstances.
Key Insights
- Social reasons can motivate participation in inquiry even when direct curiosity isn't present
- Indirect discovery through structured activities (like games) can bypass resistance
- People discover value retroactively rather than being told about it upfront
- Creating safe containers for exploration matters more than demanding curiosity
Themes John Explored
- How vs Why Questions
- Social Containers for Curiosity
- Indirect Learning
- 5 Whys
- Hyperbaric Medicine (implied through Scott Moehring's reference to Scott's son)
Related Participants
- Pete Kaminski - Relayed John's insights when John was on phone
- Scott Moehring - Connected via Scott's son's work as Navy Diver with hyperbaric chambers