While live conversations are often more engaging and can lead to moments of serendipity or unexpected but enlightening revelation, they lag far behind written communication when it comes to methodical rigor. Indeed, we have developed an entire vocabulary to help us cope with this failing—"put a pin in," "circle back," "unpack," etc. Even if our working memory was infinite and our thought processes perfectly ordered, the contexts in which public dialogues on important conversations take place constrain interlocutors' ability to follow up. Worse yet, existing norms and fears about loss of access to influential figures further undermine people's ability and willingness to meaningfully probe others' statements.

Some limitations may be inevitable, but that does not mean there's no room for improvement. Should we decide that we currently have no hope of significantly altering current practices in live conversation, we may nevertheless supplement the status quo with written follow-ups. "Why do you think that?" "What might lead you to change your mind?" We cannot guarantee engagement, but surely we'd benefit from norms that, at a minimum, make it harder for public figures to blithely dodge questions.