5 ms·

It depends on your goal. Depositions are not taken with a judge. It’s great as a method for asking specific, exhaustive, exploratory questions and not letting t

It depends on your goal. Depositions are not taken with a judge. It’s great as a method for asking specific, exhaustive, exploratory questions and not letting the “witness” word herself out without at least making it obvious to you. I’ve used it a lot with sneaky suppliers and in general as a method to find truth. With friends a loved ones you should make it much softer and know when to stop. But the underlying conceptual framework is the same.

kayodelycaon 5y ago
Interrogating family and friends in these way is inherently hostile because the goal here is to catch people lying. By doing this, you’re telling the other person you don’t trust them. As someone on the receiving end of this, it destroyed any trust I had with my parents and teachers. The problem was that I wasn’t lying, but that I couldn’t tell a story in a coherent and linear order on the first attempt.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  Some of this advice is simply how to structure a conversation that helps the other person communicate what they know. If doesn't need to be hostile.
  - kayodelycaon 5y ago
    The article does not tell you how to use these techniques in a non-hostile way. You need to have good social skills to even pull that off… in that case, why do you need them?
    - xyzelement 5y ago
      Like I said, it doesn't have to be hostile. For example, the one fact one question pattern is useful when someone is throwing a messy ball of information at you. They may not be doing it to be intentionally evasive, but it's simply ineffective for helping you understand what they know, so you need to help them along. People can "end up" unintentionally evasive(aka confusing) and having a structure and strategy for keeping them on track is key.
      - ysleepy 5y ago
        These techniques only really make sense if you want to make someone say something specific you already know, I strongly assume they even prevent actually finding out what someone really is thinking about or means.
        xyzelement 5y ago
        > These techniques only really make sense if you want to make someone say something specific you already know I mean, yes if you take it very literally - but why limit yourself? Here's an example of using the "one question one fact" technique for a non-hostile "interrogation" that's almost verbatim from last week: Colleague (super irate): everyone who works here is a fucking incompetent idiot! We need to fire half our team! Me: Was there a production problem last night? Colleague: Yes Me: did we roll out some bad logic? Colleague: Yes Me: Was the logic obviously bad? Colleague: Yes!!!! Me: was there a code review that missed it? Colleague: Yeah Me: who reviewed it? Colleague: Bob. Me: wasn't Bob the reviewer the last time something obvious broke? Colleague: Yeah... Me: we should help Bob become a stronger reviewer. Colleague: Agreed! Did I interrogate my colleague? Sort of. Was it hostile? Not at all. Did the one fact one question form help him get from "we should fire half the team" to "we need to help Bob"? Yup. Was that a vital recognition to make things better? Yup. Could we have gotten there so quickly if I didn't intentionally structure the conversation? Probably not.
        ljm 5y ago
        This kind of works okay when the other person is agreeing to being coached, but sometimes you want to express something without it being something to be immediately fixed. Because it sounds like you're not hearing the frustration, and skipping a few steps ahead. It's great when someone wants it, but do it often enough or by default and people will start cutting you out of the loop. Because it's genuinely exhausting. I've been on both sides of this, especially when I did coaching training and then thought I could use it for everyone.
        xyzelement 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kayodelycaon 5y ago

Interrogating family and friends in these way is inherently hostile because the goal here is to catch people lying. By doing this, you’re telling the other person you don’t trust them. As someone on the receiving end of this, it destroyed any trust I had with my parents and teachers. The problem was that I wasn’t lying, but that I couldn’t tell a story in a coherent and linear order on the first attempt.

xyzelement 5y ago
Some of this advice is simply how to structure a conversation that helps the other person communicate what they know. If doesn't need to be hostile.
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  The article does not tell you how to use these techniques in a non-hostile way. You need to have good social skills to even pull that off… in that case, why do you need them?
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    Like I said, it doesn't have to be hostile. For example, the one fact one question pattern is useful when someone is throwing a messy ball of information at you. They may not be doing it to be intentionally evasive, but it's simply ineffective for helping you understand what they know, so you need to help them along. People can "end up" unintentionally evasive(aka confusing) and having a structure and strategy for keeping them on track is key.
    - ysleepy 5y ago
      These techniques only really make sense if you want to make someone say something specific you already know, I strongly assume they even prevent actually finding out what someone really is thinking about or means.
      - xyzelement 5y ago
        > These techniques only really make sense if you want to make someone say something specific you already know I mean, yes if you take it very literally - but why limit yourself? Here's an example of using the "one question one fact" technique for a non-hostile "interrogation" that's almost verbatim from last week: Colleague (super irate): everyone who works here is a fucking incompetent idiot! We need to fire half our team! Me: Was there a production problem last night? Colleague: Yes Me: did we roll out some bad logic? Colleague: Yes Me: Was the logic obviously bad? Colleague: Yes!!!! Me: was there a code review that missed it? Colleague: Yeah Me: who reviewed it? Colleague: Bob. Me: wasn't Bob the reviewer the last time something obvious broke? Colleague: Yeah... Me: we should help Bob become a stronger reviewer. Colleague: Agreed! Did I interrogate my colleague? Sort of. Was it hostile? Not at all. Did the one fact one question form help him get from "we should fire half the team" to "we need to help Bob"? Yup. Was that a vital recognition to make things better? Yup. Could we have gotten there so quickly if I didn't intentionally structure the conversation? Probably not.
        ljm 5y ago
        This kind of works okay when the other person is agreeing to being coached, but sometimes you want to express something without it being something to be immediately fixed. Because it sounds like you're not hearing the frustration, and skipping a few steps ahead. It's great when someone wants it, but do it often enough or by default and people will start cutting you out of the loop. Because it's genuinely exhausting. I've been on both sides of this, especially when I did coaching training and then thought I could use it for everyone.
        xyzelement 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]