Even if the technicality is answered, connection can be lost if an unsaid emotional question is not addressed.

Medicine is based on data and science but can be less convincing than emotional stories social media provides.

Considering the question behind the question may help, not only in the office but also in everyday life.

“Is there a supplement I can take? I saw something called Super-Brain Calm online—what do you think?”

“Is there a supplement I can take? I saw something called Super-Brain Calm online—what do you think?”

I hear questions like this almost every day in clinic, and they seem to be accelerating with the era of social media and misinformation. On the surface, they seem like simple requests for information, for expertise, for a clear answer.

Earlier in my career, I would respond the way I was trained:

“I wish we had something like that, but there’s no good scientific evidence to support it.”

“I wish we had something like that, but there’s no good scientific evidence to support it.”

It’s a responsible answer. It’s truthful.

And yet, I could often see it in my patients’ faces—a flicker of disappointment, a subtle withdrawal. The conversation would move on, but something important had been missed.

Over time, I’ve come to realize that questions like this are often not really about supplements. The technical questions they ask may be a clue to their emotional needs.

“Is there a supplement I can take?”→ Is there anything I can do?

“Does this treatment work?”→ Is there hope for me?

“What do you think about this?”→ Am I going to be OK?

In other words, the question being asked is not always the question that needs answering.

Why This Matters More Now

Academic medicine is built on evidence. We rely on the scientific method, statistical reasoning, and a systematic attempt to minimize bias. It speaks in probabilities, uncertainties, and data. Traditional medicine prioritizes accuracy—but sometimes feels distant, even cold. Unintentionally, it can leave patients’ emotional needs unaddressed, leaving some quietly dissatisfied.

A small study analyzed transcripts of more than 100 clinic visits and tried to identify clues when patients desired to share their emotions with their physicians and how physicians responded to them. Not surprisingly, there were missed opportunities to adequately acknowledge patients' feelings. What was surprising was that visits with missed opportunities tended to be longer than visits with a positive response.

Social media is now filling this unmet emotional need. They are persuasive voices offering advice, products, and personal success stories.

A recent article described how health conversations in social media mix expertise, entrepreneurship, and entertainment, exposing users to bias and potential harm. The researchers identified four overlapping biases in social media health posts: limited expertise, industry influence, entrepreneurial interests, and personal belief.

Yet, they offer hope. They recommend solutions. They speak directly to people’s fears and desires. While they may not be grounded in scientific rigor or a careful accounting of harm, the messages are powerful because they appeal to human emotion and stories.

Part of the challenge is how our minds work. As psychologist Daniel Kahneman famously described, we are not naturally intuitive statisticians. We struggle with probabilities and abstract data.

But we are deeply responsive to stories. A single compelling narrative can feel more convincing than 100 well-conducted studies.

This is not a flaw—it’s part of being human. But it does mean that facts alone are rarely enough.

Answering Emotional Questions

I am trying to change my approach. Instead of answering the question immediately, I pause and try to respond to what might be underneath it.

“I really like that you’re thinking about ways to improve your health.”

“I really like that you’re thinking about ways to improve your health.”

“We do need to be careful—some of these products aren’t as harmless as they seem.”

“We do need to be careful—some of these products aren’t as harmless as they seem.”

“Let’s think together about what does help—and what you can do that’s safe and effective.”

“Let’s think together about what does help—and what you can do that’s safe and effective.”

The information hasn’t changed much, but hopefully the connection has.

This dynamic isn’t limited to medicine. It shows up in everyday life—in conversations with partners, family, colleagues, and friends.

Sometimes a practical question carries something more:

“What time are we leaving?”→ Do I matter in this plan?

“Did you finish that?”→ Can I trust you?

So the next time someone asks you a question, before answering, ask yourself: What might they really be asking?

Often, the most important part of the conversation is the part that was never said out loud.

In a world full of information, what people are often searching for is not just answers—but reassurance that they are not facing things alone.

Levinson W, Gorawara-Bhat R, Lamb J. A Study of Patient Clues and Physician Responses in Primary Care and Surgical Settings. JAMA. 2000;284(8):1021–1027. doi:10.1001/jama.284.8.1021

Heiss R, Woloshin S, Dave S, Engel E, Gell S, Willis E. Responding to public health challenges of medical advice from social media influencers. BMJ. 2025 Dec 3;391:e086061. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2025-086061. PMID: 41338610.

Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. Little, Brown Spark.

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today