repost
The Subtle Science and Exact Art* of Interviewing for Personal Information, as written by a Young and Inexperienced Philosopher.
People construct walls and barriers between themselves and other people to protect themselves from embarassment, ridicule, criticism, and rage. For many people, it is hard to open up to others, because they fear that the others will not accept them for what they truly believe in. I imagine it's hard to be a creationist in U.S. public schools, as it is hard to be a Mormon in the heart of Saudi Arabia, as it is definatly hard to be any non-christian in the entire united states any time after 9-11 until infinity. People fear differences, and the different people fear that fear.
That is why it is difficult to have a real conversation with someone who you know to be different from you. Especially in a planned-out, short-lived interview. You want them to open up as quickly as possible, and you need to convince them that you will in no way, shape, or form, even subtly, even in what you may believe to be in an acceptable range of reaction, even in the reaction of visibly not accepting their words as truth (not just 'oh, that's truth as you know it, but what do you know?', but truth as in, 'this office is your universe, and we are playing in your universe, and so you dictate your truth and we must accept it or nothing can be learned an no progress can be made if we don't'), and you must convince them of this right away, and then they will open up to you. Obviously, preconceptions and prejudice have no place in an interview, but it really must go much further than that.
You must make yourself an open book for the person you're interviewing to write in. And you must let them know that you are. When you're discussing a controversial topic, you need to get past the point where they're trying to convince you of something, because that will inevitably be someone else's words coming out of their mouth. You need to make them believe that you already believe them, and furthermore, that you don't even have beliefs that can be changed or convinced of their position. If they believe that their words of persuasion are falling on ears that have no need for them because there is no reason for them not to either believe it all or believe nothing, then they will stop trying to convince you of something. Does that make sense?
For instance, our first acupuncture contact came into our interview trying to convince us of acupuncture's validity. He kept quoting studies that had been done on some stuff, and explaining why it hadn't been done on other stuff. But that's not what we wanted to hear about him. So we had to first convince him that we didn't need convincing, because we either wholeheartedly agreed with everything he had to say, or because we had no souls and therefore made no judgements and had no opinions about his practice or beliefs. I'd say that while both are fun to act, the interviewee will respond to one better than another, and you just have to see what kind of person they are before picking a role. Also, it's hard when you're there with people, because when they don't think that this is a good way to interview people, and they see you take on these personas, they act weirdly and you feel weirdly for acting weirdly. You know.
This kind of technique - the willing suspension of your own person/soul/personality/beliefs/ideologies is, I think, a very applicable and very powerful thing to be able to do. If you can talk to someone about what they believe in, and just absolutely not put any bit of any part of your own beliefs into the conversation, at all, in any form; if you just ask them honest questions about themselves without an agenda or trying to trap them into an answer; if you can just listen to what they have to say, you can learn so much more than you ever could if they had been trying to defend themselves. Once people see that you are not out to trap them, or to convince them, you can actually watch them open up to you, and they will spill stuff that is much more truly 'them' than any words they've learned with which to convince you. Because the best arguments and persuasive speeches are rarely one's own, many times, they are bits and bats from long-forgotten monologues that made one say, "oh!" But if you can get past all this by convincing them that they have nothing to prove to you, that you just want to know about them and will not make any any any judgements upon them, then you will learn more about them than probably many other people know, in a very short time.
This is all from experience. So, I don't have enough data to know that this works with everyone. Some people's walls are very thick to break through, and some conversations are very hard to hold back personal thoughts. Usually you need to be alone, because you need to focus all of your attention on the person; see what they react to, see how they respond to your questioning, and tailor your persona to what they want to see in you. This is, obviously, impossible with more than one person, because you try to flip-flop between personas, and then it just looks ridiculous. And it's also hard with more than one interviewer, because they might have the audacity to bring their personal views into play, even if it is in the subtlest way, such as a slight gasp and then a scurry to write something down, which would quickly replace the wall that you've been trying so hard to break thorugh.
So, ha. The Art of Interviewing for Personal Information, as written by a young and inexperienced philosopher. Thank you, thank you. You may leave the flowers in my dressing room.
*'subtle science and exact art' taken from JK Rowling, because she's awesome.
People construct walls and barriers between themselves and other people to protect themselves from embarassment, ridicule, criticism, and rage. For many people, it is hard to open up to others, because they fear that the others will not accept them for what they truly believe in. I imagine it's hard to be a creationist in U.S. public schools, as it is hard to be a Mormon in the heart of Saudi Arabia, as it is definatly hard to be any non-christian in the entire united states any time after 9-11 until infinity. People fear differences, and the different people fear that fear.
That is why it is difficult to have a real conversation with someone who you know to be different from you. Especially in a planned-out, short-lived interview. You want them to open up as quickly as possible, and you need to convince them that you will in no way, shape, or form, even subtly, even in what you may believe to be in an acceptable range of reaction, even in the reaction of visibly not accepting their words as truth (not just 'oh, that's truth as you know it, but what do you know?', but truth as in, 'this office is your universe, and we are playing in your universe, and so you dictate your truth and we must accept it or nothing can be learned an no progress can be made if we don't'), and you must convince them of this right away, and then they will open up to you. Obviously, preconceptions and prejudice have no place in an interview, but it really must go much further than that.
You must make yourself an open book for the person you're interviewing to write in. And you must let them know that you are. When you're discussing a controversial topic, you need to get past the point where they're trying to convince you of something, because that will inevitably be someone else's words coming out of their mouth. You need to make them believe that you already believe them, and furthermore, that you don't even have beliefs that can be changed or convinced of their position. If they believe that their words of persuasion are falling on ears that have no need for them because there is no reason for them not to either believe it all or believe nothing, then they will stop trying to convince you of something. Does that make sense?
For instance, our first acupuncture contact came into our interview trying to convince us of acupuncture's validity. He kept quoting studies that had been done on some stuff, and explaining why it hadn't been done on other stuff. But that's not what we wanted to hear about him. So we had to first convince him that we didn't need convincing, because we either wholeheartedly agreed with everything he had to say, or because we had no souls and therefore made no judgements and had no opinions about his practice or beliefs. I'd say that while both are fun to act, the interviewee will respond to one better than another, and you just have to see what kind of person they are before picking a role. Also, it's hard when you're there with people, because when they don't think that this is a good way to interview people, and they see you take on these personas, they act weirdly and you feel weirdly for acting weirdly. You know.
This kind of technique - the willing suspension of your own person/soul/personality/beliefs/ideologies is, I think, a very applicable and very powerful thing to be able to do. If you can talk to someone about what they believe in, and just absolutely not put any bit of any part of your own beliefs into the conversation, at all, in any form; if you just ask them honest questions about themselves without an agenda or trying to trap them into an answer; if you can just listen to what they have to say, you can learn so much more than you ever could if they had been trying to defend themselves. Once people see that you are not out to trap them, or to convince them, you can actually watch them open up to you, and they will spill stuff that is much more truly 'them' than any words they've learned with which to convince you. Because the best arguments and persuasive speeches are rarely one's own, many times, they are bits and bats from long-forgotten monologues that made one say, "oh!" But if you can get past all this by convincing them that they have nothing to prove to you, that you just want to know about them and will not make any any any judgements upon them, then you will learn more about them than probably many other people know, in a very short time.
This is all from experience. So, I don't have enough data to know that this works with everyone. Some people's walls are very thick to break through, and some conversations are very hard to hold back personal thoughts. Usually you need to be alone, because you need to focus all of your attention on the person; see what they react to, see how they respond to your questioning, and tailor your persona to what they want to see in you. This is, obviously, impossible with more than one person, because you try to flip-flop between personas, and then it just looks ridiculous. And it's also hard with more than one interviewer, because they might have the audacity to bring their personal views into play, even if it is in the subtlest way, such as a slight gasp and then a scurry to write something down, which would quickly replace the wall that you've been trying so hard to break thorugh.
So, ha. The Art of Interviewing for Personal Information, as written by a young and inexperienced philosopher. Thank you, thank you. You may leave the flowers in my dressing room.
*'subtle science and exact art' taken from JK Rowling, because she's awesome.
posted by laurenm at 7:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home