Steve: Jay, do you think the January 6 Select Committee asked the right question?
Jay: Albert Einstein famously said “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask. For once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in 5 minutes.”  Intelligent Analysis agrees with Einstein, that a well formulated question — in our book we call it the key intelligence question (KIQ) - will lay the groundwork for an objective, evidence based final report. Indeed, getting the question right should be the committee’s first, and arguably the most important, step. 

Steve: That sounds easy. 
Jay: It’s not at all. Why it matters so much, for example, is reflected in the difference between these two questions:

1. How involved were white supremacists in pre-planning and carrying out the attack?

      2.  To what extent did outside groups collaborate with each other to pre-plan and carry out the assault?

Steve: Those two questions sound quite alike.
​Jay: Let me explain the difference. What’s wrong with the first one is that it answers the question in the question. It assumes that white supremacists were involved. From that point on, the focus of gathering information and inquiries will be to make that argument. Conversely, the second question is an open question which leaves room for a broadly-based assessment that begins with no preconceived outcome, regardless of personal opinion. An open question shifts the focus to the data and can blunt the impact of deeply held biases and opinions going in. A question that answers the question leads to cherry-picking reporting and leaving aside the possibility of more nuanced analysis. 

Steve: So, if the committee had selected the second question, how could they have answered it?
​Jay: The committee could have broken down the KIQ into what we call sub-questions, that must be answered in order to answer the broader KIQ.  These can be wide-ranging and probe more deeply into different aspects of what happened, for example:

• What indications are there that members of congress were involved in pre-planning or otherwise supporting the assault?
• To what extent were the capital police involved in supporting or facilitating the assault?

The sub questions can be still more specific, for example:

• What weapons were brought into the building?

What level of communication or coordination was there among the various outside groups that participated in the assault?

​Steve: It seems like a structured process is needed, to avoid falling into the trap of formulating a KIQ that answers the question in the question.
Jay: Exactly. Our book includes an extensive chapter on formulating the “right question,” including a tool to help bring discipline to the process that would please Einstein.