We, researchers, can't help asking the question "so what?" about our research product. Otherwise, the peer researchers or the general public are likely to do so, when our research product is made public. The question leads us to think about how (much) the research could contribute to solving puzzles (i.e., what are "causes" after the fact?) or problems (i.e., what are needed "effects" before the fact?). The peer (scientific) researchers might focus mostly on the former, while the general (nonscientific) public is most likely to do on the latter, that is, problem solving. Thus, if we are to communicate research or science toward the public, we should be able to handle the question "so what?" in terms of problem solving, not just puzzle solving. Otherwise, public communication of science is not likely to attract the public's relevance and attention (Kim, 2007). As things stand, we, researchers, are more likely to pay attention to a situational problem than to the behavioral problem. The latter pertains to the "How" problem to solve the situational problem. Without solving the behavioral problem (Carter, 2021: behavioral architecture), the situational problem may not get solved. Judging from current world problems, such is the case all too often. We tend to disregard the behavioral problem, often just adopting available means (e.g., habits, rituals, and norms, including communication practices), because we lack the principles of the behavioral process critical to developing new solutions relevant to the public. Solving the behavioral problem is to build procedural as well as tool technologies. It is the priority before we ever invent more tools to solve a public's situational problem. It derives from choreographing about minding (e.g., designing) and moving (e.g., performing), the work sure to make research painful but stronger and, at last, joyful. Choreography involves researchers in principled construction with art, science, and the humanities, as exemplified by Pasteur (Kim, 2020). The behavioral problem is ever-present, because a tool technology also demands procedural technology for its use. We admire researchers and engineers who have developed an innovative solution for a particular situational problem. They are often said to be a natural-born talent or genius (e.g., Edison, Pasteur). However, as a matter of fact, they must have made many efforts ("tries") to develop effective procedural technology that would result in producing the innovation. Unfortunately, we, researchers, are also more concerned with the tangible or observable product than with the prior, procedural technology, that is, of solving the behavioral problem. We, researchers, should appreciate the choreography of developing procedural technology. Otherwise, we can't invent an innovative procedural technology as a pre-solution to the situational problem, so as to solve those problems that the general public would be most concerned with. Thus, the question of "so what?" pays researchers back by driving us into development of procedural technology for more effective problem solving and eventually producing a better solution of the situational problem. Carter, R. F. (2021). Behavioral foundations of effective problem solving. Accessed 29 August, Retrieved from http://bfeps.org Kim, H.-S. (2007). PEP/IS: A new model for communicative effectiveness of science. Science Communication, 28(3), 287-313. doi: 10.1177/1075547006298645 Kim, H.-S. (2020). Realizing interdisciplinarity among science, humanism, and art: A new paradigmatic explication of community problem solving. Asian Communication Research, 17(3), 20-54. doi: 10.20879/acr.2020.17.3.20