We can predict how likely a dialogue will yield mutual learning by looking at how people make statements and ask question. For example:

• High advocacy, low inquiry, is one-way communication -- even if both people are doing it!  It can be useful for giving information.  It makes it difficult to  understand what leads to diverse perspectives or to build commitment to a course of action.

• High inquiry, low advocacy, is one-way in a different sense: the speaker does not state his or her views.  It can be useful as a way of finding out information.  It can create difficulty when the speaker has a hidden agenda and/or  is using questions to get the other person to “discover” what the speaker already thinks is right.

• Low inquiry, low advocacy,  is also one-way: people watch but contribute little. This is okay when being an observer is useful.  It can create difficulty when people withhold their views on key issues and cover this up by staying on safe subjects (“Nice day we’re having, don’t you think?”).

• High advocacy combined with high inquiry fosters two-way communication and learning.  I state my views, I inquire into your views, and I invite you to state your views and I inquire into your views.

• For mutual learning to occur, the quality of advocacy and inquiry is also crucial.  Saying “That’s a stupid idea.  Were you born that way?” is both a statement and a question, but it does not promote a lot of learning.

• To create high quality advocacy and inquiry, use the Ladder of Inference as a resource.