The spaces we keep closed

Following on from my post, The spaces we keep open, I want to address a potentially false dichotomy (or at least a gross oversimplification) in my question-statement schema. In that post, I failed to acknowledge certain categories of questions that are sometimes intentionally asked in bad faith (e.g. leading, rhetorical, interrogative), logically flawed), deployed to deceive or derail conversations. The classic example of, ‘tell me — yes, or no — do you still beat your mother?!’ serves us well. The question itself is inherently disingenuous and defies a simple yes/no answer (presuming you haven’t or aren’t beating your mum).

So, demonising statements and deifying questions seems too simplistic schema to hold true. I now suspect the better distinction might be centred more around motive than method. My imprecise question-assertion formulation assumed too much of the questioner’s sincere motivation to learn and create room for others. In that sense, we can see how some questions can close spaces while some statements can keep them open (e.g. ‘I don’t think it is that black and white.’)

Still, with all that said, there is something I quite like about questions when trying to create safe spaces to explore belief. I can’t help but wonder whether my initial question-comment observation, nonetheless, holds when questions are asked in good faith? Is an altruistic motive the only qualifier we need (that was missing earlier) to prefer the power of questions over assertions, or is there more to generously holding space open to explore belief?