The Art of 'Answering' Questions
The other day i was at this talk, listening to a politician speak on world economic issues and i learned something very interesting. I’ve always heard that politicians cannot be trusted, but i was amazed that day, when i got a first class example of how politicians can be such wily people.
After the 2 hour speech, there was a Q and A session where members of the floor were asked to bring forth any enquiries that were in their mind. This is the part that i found most interesting. About 5 people presented their queries regarding what she had spoken about. Although all the questions were addressed, none were truly answered. As she ‘answered’ the questions, i realized that she wasn’t really answering them at all. What she was doing was twisting the question to her penchant and coming up with some sort of response. I found it interesting how she would take certain key words from the original question and just work with those words, ignoring the question as a whole. The result of this was probably just as she had hoped for…the original question was forgotten.
On an average, i would say that it took her about 5 minutes to attend to each question. Any peripheral route processor would be easily convinced that this politician had answered the questions. Of course, she successfully sprinkled in some humor here and there to create a good rapport with the audience and gain their liking. Between the good jokes and lengthy answers, i believe that more than half of the audience thought that she had answered the questions excellently.
One would have to be critically listening to and questioning what she was saying to understand that all she had done was beaten around the bush…in style, but had failed miserably at answering the questions that had been put forward. I was extremely fascinated at how she managed to do this so inconspicuously. Thus, i conclude that this method of ‘answering’ questions requires a certain amount of skill as it is an art of its own. Of course, how ethical this act is, is a totally different question all together.
posted by daenielle @ 8:45 AM
9 Comments:
wow...u could actually stay focus during the entire speech n q&a session?...erm..im amazed..i would have probably fallen a sleep or drifted into my own world....haha,.....wat was so intresting in her speech that got ur attention n kept u awake?...erm...but intresting!...maybe..can use her q and a..skills for our presentations!...:p
John Wee: Well, thats a politician for you. Doesn't mean it's bad, but sometimes things you say would be twisted and turned by the media. Especially when it comes to Q&A, it's an unprepared speech, and words can play against you. But I've no idea what your talking about concerning who was talking. But politicians, no matter how dirty, are doing whatever they can to make the world a better place for the whole. Just that sometimes, it's a question whether "The Ends justify the means?"
Well John, i would say that most politicians ‘answer’ questions the way they do for probably for very justifiable reasons. But i would question what you said about all politicians doing whatever they can to make the world a better place. I’m sure that some of them have the best interest of mankind in their mind, but then again, we have politicians at the other extreme too.
Does the end justify the means? This is a good question...does it? What happens if the journey to the end is so messed up that it affects the end result? Can the means still be justified then?
Thanks for your views.I really appreciate them.
John Wee: No idea whether the ends justify the means. Unfortunately we cannot turn forward time to see the end result. Or turn back time if it all screws up. But sometimes, you have to think of the majority and not the minority.
Like I kinda liked (Sincewe're talking most likely about US politics, I think), Bush'es tax cut policies for the US. And although it doesn't mean anything to the relative poor people of US (Maybe get US100 extra from their monthly wages). But it made the rich very much richer(Probably Millions richer).
But although it didn't do much for the poor, you have to understand that it's only the Rich that create jobs for poor people. And with the tax cuts, the extra millions, Rich people would enlarge their companies meaning that they need to hire more people and create more jobs. If there's no rich people, there wouldn't be any companies. And the whole American economy would eventually have a downturn.
So the Politicians may have to get the bigger picture than just being everyone's friend. And maybe screw the little people abit.
But yeah, we will have politicians at both extremes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I like stepping in to a discussion at around this stage. We obviously have two differing points of view, the republican, conservative, right-wing, gun-toting, supporter of tax breaks and big business AND the green, left-wing, protect the rights of people, politicians need morals, animal-loving, supporter of union rights and individual liberties.
The institution of a democratic Government is given the mandate by the people that constitute this Government, to manage the country on their behalf. The politicians are agents employed by this institution to effect these management policies, with the interest of the people at heart. Theory is great isn’t it? The reality is that politicians are ordinary human beings endowed with huge amounts of power. And power corrupts. As long as Government is administered by people, Government can never serve 100%. It’s akin to the saying justice is blind, but administered through human eyes (the jury), how blind can it be when humans are inherently prejudicial.
I agree that politicians have to sometimes sound like they’re not really answering the question because they can find themselves compromised or contradictory if they’re pushed into a corner by virtue of being caught off guard. They believe it’s best to be non-committal and let their policies speak for them instead. Besides, the press in particular are notorious in trying to trip up politicians and make a fool of them just so they can create sensationalism and sell more newspapers.
Being human, politicians will always seek their interest first. Some will feel a greater calling to serve the greater good but then again their compensation must be just. Only if they are paid similar amounts to CEOs and managers in large corporations, will they think less of themselves and more of their responsibilities as public servants. In defence of politicians, I believe very strongly that the end really does justify the means. Our parents raise us that way. They know from our birth that they have our best interest at heart, even if we don’t always see it. Politicians, like parents, have the unique opportunity of being in a position to see things from a vantage point high above where they can see the big picture, and can make decisions that will bring more benefit to achieve a desirable end, as opposed to just benefiting a select few.
Which is why I cannot agree with Bush’s tax cuts. The rich do benefit from being richer, and yes they can create more jobs, etc. However, these aren’t corporate tax breaks, these are personal tax breaks. Meaning that the money that goes into their pockets only serve to increase their net worth. A tax break does not mean the receipt of cash, it simply means less cash goes out. Besides, rich folk transfer most of their money around from stocks to bonds to t-bills to hedge funds, we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars. If not, the bulk of this money finds itself sitting in offshore banks like the Cayman Islands or Switzerland. This only benefits a handful of investment bankers who number very few.
Tax breaks to the middle class helps the economy directly. Middle class people go out and use the additional disposable income they have from the tax breaks, to buy food, clothing, entertainment, bills, cars, houses, holidays, etc. The size of the US middle class (around 80% of the population) spending even 100 bucks extra a month can propel almost 190 billion into the economy annually. THIS is what creates jobs, increases profits for corporations (leading to MORE corporate taxes for the Government), increases share price, consumer demand, property prices, etc.
Politicians should be excused for speaking in vague terms, we have no one but the public and the press who have forced them into corners but asking non-productive, difficult questions that require committed answers, sometimes beyond their power to give. And if we have elected a politician to office, I will try not to question their policies because they have the big picture in their head, and are trying to effect the desirable end through sometimes undesirable means. If I do find myself questioning or bothered by the means, then I will wait for the next round of elections to affect change.
John Wee: I thought the rich would prefer to invest into property everywhere rather than transferring their money offshore to Switzerland and Cayman.
But your very right about Shares and Stocks which is still putting money back in to companies creating jobs bla bla.
I would think those that transfer their money to banks are dumb though. Because of the rate of inflation nowadays.
Hmm, I also thought that the top 2% of the rich also consist of most of the US'es GDP, somewhere like 80% of the economy. I guess my sources (Forum's) are wrong. Heh, can't get reliable sources this days.
Well, I'm no expert in this field, and I'm not even in the US. Your most likely right in that sense about Bush'es tax cuts.
Eh... Investment of GDP
Post a Comment
<< Home