The power of curiosity in relationships
Curiosity is a stance, not a tactic. Being genuinely interested in someone creates more connection than being interesting ever can.
Being interested in someone creates more connection than being interesting. Kashdan et al. found that curiosity predicts relationship closeness — partners who expressed genuine curiosity toward each other reported higher intimacy and satisfaction than those who didn’t. The people you remember as great conversationalists weren’t performing; they were paying attention.
Telling is the default — and it costs you
The cultural reflex is to tell. Someone shares a problem and we offer a solution. Someone describes a situation and we give our read. Edgar Schein (Humble Inquiry) traced this to deep professional and cultural conditioning: expertise is valued, answers signal competence, and silence feels like a failure to contribute. So we tell — and in doing so, we crowd out the other person’s thinking before they’ve had a chance to fully express it.
This matters more than it sounds. When you tell, the conversation stays in your frame. The other person’s job shrinks to confirming or correcting your assessment, not exploring their own. Humble inquiry flips this by asking from a place of genuine not-knowing — “what’s on your mind?” rather than “here’s what I think about what you just said.” The question is open not because it’s a technique, but because you genuinely don’t know the answer and actually want to find out.
The practice is uncomfortable at first because it requires giving up the authority position. You’re signalling that you don’t already have the answer, which runs against every instinct that’s been rewarded in professional life. But that signal is exactly what makes the other person feel safe enough to go deeper.
Curiosity as the antidote to conflict
Most difficult conversations don’t fail because the topic is too sensitive. They fail because both parties are arguing from certainty — each convinced they understand what happened and why — and neither is especially curious about the other’s version. Stone, Patton & Heen (Difficult Conversations) put it plainly: the shift from certainty to curiosity is the single move most likely to change a conversation’s outcome.
Oren Jay Sofer (Say What You Mean) and Elizabeth Lesser (Finding Clarity) frame it identically: when you replace judgment with curiosity and care, conflict transforms into connection. Not agreement — connection. You can be curious about someone’s perspective and still disagree with it. What curiosity does is signal that you take their inner experience seriously enough to investigate it, which is the precondition for any productive conversation about difference.
The practical version: next time you notice yourself building a rebuttal while the other person is still talking, stop and ask a question instead. Not a rhetorical question — a real one whose answer you’d find useful. “Help me understand how you got there” is enough. Our guide on how to have a difficult conversation applies this framework to specific conflict scenarios.
The co-active coaching insight: assume they hold the answer
Co-Active Coaching (Kimsey-House et al.) operates from a founding assumption that became its most practical idea: the person you’re talking with already holds the answer to their own situation. Your job isn’t to provide the answer — it’s to be curious enough, and patient enough, to help them find it.
This is a radical departure from how most people approach a supportive conversation. The default is advice: you hear the problem, you provide the solution, you feel helpful. But advice given before understanding is complete is often advice applied to the wrong problem. Curiosity — asking “what have you already tried?” or “what do you notice when you imagine doing that?” — serves the person in front of you. Advice usually serves your need to be useful.
Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay describe a related move: modelling ignorance. Rather than assuming you know what someone means, you act as if you don’t — because, often, you don’t. “Tell me more about that” isn’t a stall; it’s an honest acknowledgment that you haven’t fully understood yet. Alan Alda’s communication workshops with scientists used the same principle: genuine not-knowing is more generative than performed expertise.
The payoff, documented by Kashdan et al., is real: curiosity produces self-disclosure, and self-disclosure builds closeness. When someone senses you’re actually curious about them, they reveal more. When they reveal more, the relationship deepens. The mechanism is almost automatic — which is why questions that deepen relationships don’t need to be clever. They need to be genuine.
The stance: being interested beats being interesting
Here’s the explicit position this post takes: the person who is curious wins more connection than the person who is captivating. This runs counter to a lot of social advice that frames self-presentation — how you come across, how you tell your story, how you hold a room — as the primary lever.
Keith Ferrazzi Mann (Reverse the Search) found that people who led with genuine curiosity about the people they met opened significantly more doors than those who led with self-promotion, both in professional networking and in personal life. The reason isn’t mysterious: people are drawn toward anyone who makes them feel genuinely seen. Being seen requires someone paying close enough attention to notice what’s actually there — which is precisely what curiosity does.
The tactical flip: instead of asking “how do I become more interesting?”, ask “how do I become more interested?” The answer is simpler. You ask better questions. You follow threads that the other person opens. You remember what they told you last time and ask what happened. You treat their inner life as territory worth exploring, not as a prelude to your own. This is what active listening trains — and what curiosity, held as a stance rather than deployed as a tactic, makes natural.
References
-
Reference Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling
Schein, E. H. (2013). Berrett-Koehler.
-
Reference Say What You Mean: A Mindful Approach to Nonviolent Communication
Sofer, O. J. (2018). Shambhala.
-
Reference Finding Clarity: A Buddhist Approach to Settling the Mind
Lesser, E. (2023).
-
Reference Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Penguin.
-
Reference You're Not Listening: What You're Missing and Why It Matters
Murphy, K. (2019). Celadon Books.
-
Reference Co-Active Coaching
Kimsey-House, H., Kimsey-House, K., Sandahl, P., & Whitworth, L. (2018). Nicholas Brealey.
-
Reference How to Have Impossible Conversations
Boghossian, P., & Lindsay, J. (2019). Da Capo Press.
-
Reference Reverse the Search
Mann, J. (2022).
-
Reference Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning in life
Kashdan, T. B., et al. (2018). Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 179–199.
FAQ
What does it mean to be curious in a relationship?
It means treating the other person as someone whose inner life you don't fully know yet — and actually wanting to. **Schein (Humble Inquiry)** describes it as asking 'what is in your mind?' without a predetermined answer you're steering toward. That's the difference between **genuine curiosity** and the kind of performative questioning that's really just waiting for your turn to talk. Curiosity in a relationship isn't a technique you apply; it's a disposition you hold — an assumption that the other person contains more than they've shown, and that finding out matters.
Why is curiosity more powerful than trying to be interesting?
Because connection is built on feeling *known*, not on admiring someone. When you focus on being interesting, the other person's job is to evaluate you. When you lead with genuine curiosity — as **Alan Alda** and **Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay** both argue — you hand them the floor and signal that they're worth understanding. **Mann (Reverse the Search)** found that people who led with curiosity about others opened far more doors in professional and personal life than those who led with self-promotion. Being interesting is about *your* reputation; being interested is about *them*.
How does curiosity reduce conflict?
By replacing the assumption that you already know what the other person means. **Stone, Patton & Heen (Difficult Conversations)** argue that most conflicts stay stuck because each side is _certain_ about their own interpretation and barely curious about the other's. Shifting from certainty to curiosity — asking 'help me understand how you see this' instead of defending your version — changes the conversation's entire structure. **Sofer (Say What You Mean)** and **Lesser (Finding Clarity)** both describe it the same way: replace judgment with curiosity and care, and conflict transforms into connection. You don't have to agree; you just have to get genuinely interested in the gap.
Is curiosity a skill I can develop, or is it a personality trait?
Both — and the skill part is more accessible than it looks. **Kashdan et al.'s** research on curiosity and well-being shows that **trait curiosity** varies between people, but **state curiosity** (being curious in a specific moment) can be cultivated deliberately. The practice is mostly about slowing down the impulse to tell, advise, or evaluate, and replacing it with a question that genuinely requires the other person's answer. Even one well-placed open question per conversation can shift a dynamic. The habit compounds over time into something that looks like a trait.
What is humble inquiry, and how do I practice it?
**Humble inquiry**, as described by **Edgar Schein**, is the art of asking questions you don't already know the answer to — from a place of genuine ignorance rather than a place of leading-the-witness. It starts by recognising that **telling** is our cultural default: we're trained to offer answers, advice, and assessments faster than we listen. The practice is to pause at the moment you'd normally speak, and ask instead. Schein's simplest example: 'What's on your mind?' — open, non-directive, and real. It works because it treats the other person as the authority on their own experience, which they are.
Can curiosity replace good listening?
No — they depend on each other. **Murphy (You're Not Listening)** argues that **natural curiosity about the other person is the prerequisite for genuine listening**, not an add-on to it. You can't truly listen to someone you're not curious about; you'll only hear the parts that confirm what you already believe. Curiosity is the motive; listening is the mechanism. What you can say is that genuine curiosity almost automatically improves your listening, because you're now actually trying to find out something rather than filling time between your own sentences. See our piece on [active listening](/en/blog/active-listening) for the mechanics.
How does curiosity help in difficult conversations?
It gives you a stable position to stand on when the conversation gets uncomfortable. **Stone, Patton & Heen (Difficult Conversations)** show that the hardest conversations fail not because the topic is too painful but because both parties are arguing from their own story rather than getting curious about the other's. Curiosity shifts your posture from 'I need to win this' to 'I need to understand this' — and that shift is visible to the other person. It doesn't guarantee a good outcome, but it almost always changes the temperature. Our guide on [how to have a difficult conversation](/en/blog/how-to-have-a-difficult-conversation) applies this directly.
What is the link between curiosity and intimacy?
A strong one, supported by research. **Kashdan et al.** found that **curiosity predicts relationship closeness** — partners who expressed more curiosity toward each other reported higher intimacy and satisfaction. The mechanism is straightforward: curiosity produces self-disclosure (you reveal more when someone is genuinely interested), and self-disclosure builds closeness. This is why shallow small talk keeps relationships shallow: it signals that no one is especially curious about what's underneath. Even one question that goes deeper than the surface — on [questions that deepen relationships](/en/blog/questions-that-deepen-relationships) — can restart an intimacy that had gone dormant.
What if I genuinely don't feel curious about someone?
Then the question to ask yourself is *why*. Curiosity can stall for a few reasons: you've decided you already know this person; you're preoccupied with your own concerns; or the relationship has calcified into routine. The first two are addressable immediately. **Boghossian & Lindsay** describe **modelling ignorance** — deliberately reminding yourself that you don't have full information — as a way to restart genuine curiosity even when it's gone dormant. If none of this moves the needle, the relationship may have run its natural course, and that's a different conversation.
How do I ask better questions without it feeling like an interrogation?
By asking one at a time and actually listening to the answer before the next one. An interrogation fires questions in sequence without pausing to receive; genuine curiosity asks one thing and then follows the thread wherever it goes. The other key: **ask about meaning, not just facts**. 'How was the conference?' is a fact question. 'What was the most surprising thing you heard there?' is a meaning question — it invites the person to tell you something about how they see the world. Our guide on [how to ask better questions](/en/blog/how-to-ask-better-questions) breaks down the mechanics in detail.