This article presents the authors' response to commentaries that focus on the "Behavioral Constructs and Culture in Cancer Screening" (3Cs) study. The 3Cs study had an unremarkable beginning, with two colleagues discussing their frustration over the narrow range of behavioral theories and the limited guidance the theories offered for a study underway to promote breast and cervical screening in five ethnic groups. The rest of the story, however, never lacked for drama. As mentioned in the overview article (Pasick, Burke, et al., 2009), no road map existed for assessing the meaning or appropriateness of current behavioral theories or their constructs across cultures. The composition of the team that was assembled ensured that refinement and execution of a research plan would be a lengthy process. From the authors' years of study in underserved communities, they knew that health behavior theory and methods neither captured nor explained much of what they observed. Because this field of inquiry has been confined to cognitive understandings of behavior, it was clear that expertise was needed from other disciplines: psychology, sociology, biostatistics, public health, behavioral science, psychometrics, and anthropology. To varying degrees, each of the commentaries falls back into familiar territory, for example, referring to the authors' social context domains as "moderators" or "mechanisms". The authors encourage removal of these "old glasses" of "behavioral science" (Rothman, 2009) to refocus their efforts on the "science of understanding behavior" (W. Rakowski, personal communication, April 23, 2009). The authors hope to join with others to explore how social context concepts can contribute to more meaningful behavioral constructs and theoretical models. They also hope that by shining a light on the limits of current behavioral theory and methods, health disparities researchers will come to view scales and surveys as two dimensions in a three-dimensional puzzle that can be filled in only through inductive inquiry.