Subconscious Interruption: Why Our Simple Minds Think 'Politicians' are 'Liars'
@mythociate (21437)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
August 8, 2018 3:19pm CST
I watched a video of 'a political conspirator' (the name "Manafort" comes to mind, but it could've been any member of any political-team dealing with any 'uncouth behavior') and the committee (Senate, courtroom-official, etc.) asked him a 'Yes-or-No'-question.
And he started to explain the action they asked him about, but--before he could even finish the first couple 'clauses' of a response--they interrupted him, "I ASKED YOU A YES-OR-NO QUESTION! PLEASE ANSWER YES OR NO! 
"
And I was reminded of 'how a simple response can make the respond-er into a criminal'---I'm reminded of my deposition (when my parents were meeting with my injurer's insurance's lawyers to work out an out-of-court settlement ... but don't quote me on that).
A lawyer (either my parents' lawyer or the insurance-lawyers) would ask me a yes-or-no question like "Do you know how to look-both-ways before you cross the street?" (something simple like that, where the answer is obvious and where they would most-likely follow-up with 'So why didn't you see the car coming to hit you?'), and I'd start my reply with an explanation like 'I knew I was in a school-zone. I knew the motorists were watching the road so that I didn't have to. [b]I WAS FOURTEEN YEARS OLD!
'
But they interrupted with "Please answer yes-or-no."
But such an answer (both in my insignificant case and in big Federal cases) I think violates the fifth amendment to the Constitution:
To see what I mean (and I'm anxious to find out myself 
), I think of an example: a man is attacked by another man, and kills the other man in self-defense. Someone (in court, in the Senate or Congress or some other committee) asks him, "Did you kill the other man?" And he starts with an explanation of the situation. But they interrupt him, "I ASKED YOU A YES-OR-NO QUESTION!"
That's the point I'm getting to: The "truth" isn't always "right." And--though I'm sure the gathered hearers there know the killing was "in self-defense"--history doesn't hear the context! In the court-records, it would read, "'Did you kill?' 'Yes I did.'" (Sure, maybe the context is there too; but the reader is done reading and declares the man guilty-guilty-guilty! no further reading required!)
Another example: God. If I say 'God is real,' you subconsciously interrupt me and think I just claimed to believe there's "an invisible man in the sky watching over us like an ant-farm owner." That interruption comes before I can explain that 'it's not the popular idea of God' that's real; God is more like 'the concept of existing' than "some supernatural deity."
So--no matter what 'my complete answer is' in a response of 3 or more paragraphs--'the answer you see/hear' is usually "just the first line of the first paragraph." And if you disagree with it, you'll call the whole thing "a lie." 
"
And I was reminded of 'how a simple response can make the respond-er into a criminal'---I'm reminded of my deposition (when my parents were meeting with my injurer's insurance's lawyers to work out an out-of-court settlement ... but don't quote me on that).
A lawyer (either my parents' lawyer or the insurance-lawyers) would ask me a yes-or-no question like "Do you know how to look-both-ways before you cross the street?" (something simple like that, where the answer is obvious and where they would most-likely follow-up with 'So why didn't you see the car coming to hit you?'), and I'd start my reply with an explanation like 'I knew I was in a school-zone. I knew the motorists were watching the road so that I didn't have to. [b]I WAS FOURTEEN YEARS OLD!'
But they interrupted with "Please answer yes-or-no."
But such an answer (both in my insignificant case and in big Federal cases) I think violates the fifth amendment to the Constitution:
To see what I mean (and I'm anxious to find out myself ), I think of an example: a man is attacked by another man, and kills the other man in self-defense. Someone (in court, in the Senate or Congress or some other committee) asks him, "Did you kill the other man?" And he starts with an explanation of the situation. But they interrupt him, "I ASKED YOU A YES-OR-NO QUESTION!"
That's the point I'm getting to: The "truth" isn't always "right." And--though I'm sure the gathered hearers there know the killing was "in self-defense"--history doesn't hear the context! In the court-records, it would read, "'Did you kill?' 'Yes I did.'" (Sure, maybe the context is there too; but the reader is done reading and declares the man guilty-guilty-guilty! no further reading required!)
Another example: God. If I say 'God is real,' you subconsciously interrupt me and think I just claimed to believe there's "an invisible man in the sky watching over us like an ant-farm owner." That interruption comes before I can explain that 'it's not the popular idea of God' that's real; God is more like 'the concept of existing' than "some supernatural deity."
So--no matter what 'my complete answer is' in a response of 3 or more paragraphs--'the answer you see/hear' is usually "just the first line of the first paragraph." And if you disagree with it, you'll call the whole thing "a lie." 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Amendment guaranteeing rights related to trials and due process This article is part of a series on theConstitution of theUnited States of America Preamble and Articlesof the Constitut
2 people like this
2 responses
@Starmaiden (9311)
• Canada
8 Aug 18
I do understand and agree with what you are saying. That's what is wrong with the judicial system. The "Truth" is supposed to be got NOT by hearing an actual testimony of the defendant and witnesses. But by answering a few mundane closed questions of the people. "Yes or No" does not explain without reasonable doubt, the truth behind the allegations and people are not given the opportunity to do so.
1 person likes this
