Understanding ‘Why’
Apart from being just an incredibly adorable yet extremely funny meme, the premise of it actually might strike you in a way that is deep and confusing. Quite fittingly, you might then ask me, “Why?” And to that, I cannot quite answer because doing so would be rude and an injustice to your actual question! To that, you might then also ask “Why?” Well, it would be rude because I don’t even know what you are asking.
For instance, you could be wondering, “Why is it adorable?” which I could then answer with research about human conceptions of cute-ness and how the monkey-esque animal has a generally round and plump body as well as a small mouth and nose (Kringelbach et al, 2016).
Perhaps that wasn’t your expectation to your question. I could also infer that you are asking a similar question about why the image is funny, which would lead me to point to the sociological appeal of memes (Coscia, 2013) and psychological desire for participation in a widespread culture (Rintel, 2013).
And while there exist many other questions that could then branch into many others, the main ones that intrigue me are overarching ones— How do we best understand “why” questions? And why do we ask “why” questions? The answers bring us one step closer to deciphering how we best learn as growing people through one of the most intuitive and common ways we begin to understand the world: questions.
The Ambiguity of “Why”
Suppose a child asks you: “Why do giraffes have long necks?” What do you think they want to know? Surprisingly, the answer isn’t obvious. One possibility is that the child wants to know the purpose or reason for giraffes having long necks. Another possibility is that the child wants to know the process behind how giraffes came to have long necks. This is because ‘why’ questions are fundamentally ambiguous. They can be treated as ‘how’ questions (i.e., “How do giraffes have long necks?”) or ‘purpose’ questions (i.e., “What’s the purpose of giraffes having long necks?”). These then can be explained by an anatomical approach that discusses muscle, spine, and ligament structure or, conversely, a higher-level approach that mentions the need to reach high leaves for sustenance and survival.
These two distinctions of questions are quite intentional, and they correspond to what are called teleological or mechanistic explanations (Joo, 2021). At this point, you should’ve automatically asked “Why?” and I will trust that you did for my own satisfaction. Teleological referencing the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve and mechanistic referencing the explanation in terms of the cause in which they arise. And while these distinctive categories for explanation have been researched for many decades, its formal experimental distinction to ‘why’ questions has only just begun.
Thus, to give another example for clarities sake, to a question of “Why do microwaves supply heat?”, one might give a teleological answer of “to warm up leftovers” and another might give a mechanistic answer of “from the microwave radiation that reflects in the interior.” These are both acceptable answers to the question at hand, which brings us to an important characteristic of ‘why’ questions: ‘why’ questions are pragmatically ambiguous.
Even though both answers are legitimate, you most likely have an answer that you were expecting, or at least one that you would prefer. You’re not alone — most people have similar expectations of an answer to any given question, which is fortunate. Otherwise, we would have never-ending conversations of clarifications and follow-ups. English is also not the only language that has this pragmatic ambiguity. The same distinction between teleological and mechanistic explanation has been shown in Mandarin, Russian, and Polish (Tsai, 1994; Tsai 2008; Jedrzejowski, 2014). This then underscores the importance of the ‘why’ investigation because it gets at the core mechanisms for how we inquire, discuss, and learn as a conversational species.
Teleological Preferences
Because we can have constructive conversations that both infer what the question-asker is wanting to know and respond with a sufficient answer, we must have a bias or preference for which answer is desired. And in fact, we do! Both children and adults have been shown to have a preference for teleological (purposeful) explanations over mechanistic explanations (Kelemen, 1999).
Studies about children’s preferences in regards to the natural world have shown that children were even more likely than adults to “broadly examine… in teleological terms” (Kelemen, 1999). In the same paper, a subsequent study was run in hopes to reduce this bias by explicitly teaching the kids about the physical processes in which natural things form. Despite being given this primer, children showed very little shift in their preference.
Quite fittingly, research was then done to figure out why we have this preference for purpose-filled explanations. Lombrozo et al (2018) found that it was not an effect of a “bias in learning or generalization” because children were able to correctly respond with a new explanation when asked to generalize from given explanations of a certain type. This study showed that children were able to give responses of both types with equivalent accuracy when explicitly asked to.
Theories of our Inherent Nature
Others have used this preference to reveal deeper fundamental theories of human intuition. Kelemen argues that it is proof for intuitive theism, which is the belief that humans have a natural belief in a God or Gods, which is a fairly bold claim (2004). To break it down, teleological explanations can be seen to imply an intention-based creation. From the previous example, microwaves are used to heat up food, which can easily be tied to the inventor’s purposeful invention. Given that there is a reason and thus an effect of the object, there might then be a cause for its existence. Kelemen then argues that this can be applied to natural entities as well, such as the giraffes’ long neck example, so there must be a form of intelligent design in these characteristics.
A similar view is held by Rose who claims that these preferences give evidence for an “agentive worldview,” which is the belief that humans view nature as intentional and “infused with agency and purpose” (2020). Even when a situation has no mention of agents — a person or thing who has an active role or acts with intention — people automatically assign intentions and goals, which again goes back to the microwaves and giraffe necks (what an interesting combination, by the way, which unfortunately has very little Google images). The beginnings of natural selection came from a desire to accurately have a teleological explanation of biological phenomena and specific advantages or disadvantages for survival. Even without a mention of deism, evolution also implies a purposeful explanation but instead ascribes it to a way of life and nature rather than to a being.
As a whole, there is a view that teleological thinking is unscientific because it relates to the purpose or intention in comparison to mechanistic thinking, which draws on origin and internal parts. One might justify this claim by arguing that the general public is, as a whole, unknowledgeable in science and therefore unable to explain most phenomenon in a scientific way, but if given the knowledge, they might explain scientifically. Kelemen tested just that theory in a study with 80 physical scientists (2012). They were asked to determine whether a statement was true or false with half having a time constraint of around three seconds and the others not. While they overall agreed with less teleological statements, more interestingly, scientists agreed with almost double the percentage of statements when rushed. In psychology, time pressure is often used to inhibit conscious decisions and to instead unlock hidden, internal beliefs. In this case, the scientists proved that teleological biases are inherent to the human mind and although it may be covered, it can never be replaced.
While research has been done to refute these claims by looking more experimentally at the context and assumptions that underlie common questions, which then preference teleological explanations, the idea of human intuitive theism is quite intriguing. It gets at one of the most fundamental and integral parts of culture — religion — and attempts to explain its origins. And the fact that these theories are grounded in something as integral to human development as questions is quite stunning.
‘Why’ (hah) All This Matters
Like with all psychological inquiries, it is worthwhile, and perhaps integral, to ask “so what?”. The human mind is infinitival in terms of things left undiscovered or half-figured-out. Thus, it is necessary to at least start with the most important. I have already shown how understanding ‘why’ questions can unlock fundamental biases and assumptions of human beings. But if that was not enough, ‘why’ questions also lead to one of the most significant qualities of human intelligence: learning. Still not enough? ‘Why’ questions can also investigate the core of child development and maturity by investigating conversational characteristics with adults, other children, teachers, strangers, and practically any human (or non human) possible at a prime inquisitive stage of a person’s life.
One of life’s undebatable truths is the fact that children are incessantly questioning. They ask about what they see, smell, or feel, what others see, smell, or feel, and even why people in general, might see, smell, or feel. Although sometimes ill-received, children need to ask questions to further their own cognitive development (Chouinard, 2007). Logically, it’s much more efficient to ask a question and receive an answer than to theorize or come up with the answer yourself in the same way that dividing up tasks is much more efficient than doing it all yourself. Asking questions also improves social skills and critical thinking. And that’s just scratching the surface! Thus far, I have shown that the explanation will often be of a certain kind. But will the question?
Question Asking
As a person grows up, they begin to ask less questions (Vale, 2013). Social pressures begin to steer children towards giving answers rather than asking questions. Perhaps a child asks a seemingly ‘dumb’ question and is thus ridiculed for it or is given the perception that their questions are annoying or bothersome. Another possibility is that they are consistently not receiving the answers they want and subsequently just give up on asking. As children grow up, they are more rewarded for correct answers in school than good questions. While logistically sound in order to limit class time to a certain focus or topic, it severely limits a person’s inquisitiveness, forcing them to mainly take in knowledge rather than actively seek it.
Questioning any and all things also works to broaden a person’s horizons about things that might not even be in their current scope of knowledge. When asking a classic question of why the sky is blue, they could then learn about light waves and the science of color or perhaps cognitive perception and the anatomy of the eye. Given the accumulation of many answers, a person can begin to have a better understanding of not only their currently understood world but also the endless things that are not even mentioned to them.
Therefore, it is worth discovering not only why children stop asking as many questions as they get older but also how they form their question-asking in order to best educate teachers and parents on how to encourage curiosity well into adulthood.
Questions for the Future
Both the question itself and the answers following have much to reveal about human cognition as a whole. From ingrained beliefs to sociological effects, ‘why’ questions reveal much about how we best learn and understand the world! What could be better?
While there is much to still uncover about the implications of teleological explanations, the reasons for our preferences, how they come to be, and of how a child forms their questions as a whole, there is an exciting relationship between ‘why’ questions and the specific yet daunting question of how the mind learns.
References
Chouinard M. M. (2007). Children’s questions: a mechanism for cognitive development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72(1), vii–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2007.00412.x
Coscia, Michele. (2013). Competition and Success in the Meme Pool: A Case Study on Quickmeme.com. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2013.
Jedrzejowski, Łukasz. 2014. Again on why. but why? In Cassandra Chapman, Olena Kit & Ivona Kucerová (eds.), ˇ Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 22: The McMaster Meeting 2013. 151–169. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Joo, S., Yousif, S. R., & Keil, F. (2021, March 31). Understanding ‘Why’: How implicit questions shape explanation preferences. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ma8b2
Kelemen, D. (1999). Why are rocks pointy? Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1440–1452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1440
Kelemen, D. (2004). Are Children “Intuitive Theists”?: Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature. Psychological Science, 15(5), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00672.x
Kringelbach ML, Stark EA, Alexander C, Bornstein MH, Stein A. On Cuteness: Unlocking the Parental Brain and Beyond. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016;20(7):545–558. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.003
Lombrozo, Tania & Bonawitz, Elizabeth & Scalise, Nicole. (2018). Young children’s learning and generalization of teleological and mechanistic explanations. Journal of Cognition and Development. 19. 10.1080/15248372.2018.1427099.
Rintel, S. (2013). Crisis Memes: The Importance of Templatability to Internet Culture and Freedom of Expression. Australasian Journal of Popular Culture, 2(2): 253–271. DOI: 10.1386/ajpc.2.2.253_1
Rose, David (forthcoming). Mentalizing Objects. _Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy_ 4.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994. On nominal islands and LF extraction in Chinese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12(1). 121–175.
Vale R. D. (2013). The value of asking questions. Molecular biology of the cell, 24(6), 680–682. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E12-09-0660