He who asks the question last, asks the question best

[Symbology]

Something I have observed is that much like chess, conversations revolve around who has initiative. In chess White is given the initiative, and as long as he continues to press the point (threaten Black's pieces) then Black is forced to respond. Therefore White remains in control.

 

However if Black is willing to sacrifice a threatened piece (in conversation this is know as "willing to look like the bad guy"), or if White fails to continue the attack, then Black has the opportunity to gain the initiative and the upper hand.

 

It seems to me in conversations that the person asking the questions is generally the one in control of the conversation. That is assuming the questions are of the interrogation variety instead of the permission kind.

 

It seems the be fairly well known that the proper response to a (rude or unwelcome) question is to answer with the question "Why do you want to know?" This accomplishes two tasks:

 

1) It asks a question, therefore the other person is generally forced to stop their line of questioning and respond. Or at least is put in an awkward position.

 

2) It questions the intentions of the original asker and puts the focus on their intentions and off of the prior subject.

 

An alternative is to ask the question "What is the deeper question here?" Again it responds with a question and then takes the focus off the immediate attack and instead on a higher level... as in what is really going on in the conversation.

 

It seems to me that a favorite quote has some relevance here:

 

One day the student asked the Master how he was able to remain calm when others disrespected him.

 

The Master asked: "If I offer you a gift and you refuse to accept it, to whom does it still belong?"

 

To which the student replied: "I suppose if I refuse to accept it, it still belongs to you."

 

The Master continued: "My second questions is: If I refuse to accept your abuse, to whom does it still belong?"

 

I'm not sure that I even know what to ask here at the moment. But I would like others to weigh in on what they have observed relative to these points, so that I could deepen my understanding.

 

Thanks,

Symbology

 

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."

- George Orwell

& lyrics from Rage Against the Machine

[Kriminal99]

I feel like experience and maturity affects how people react to conversations.

 

When you subconsciously perceive something as a threat to you, it tends to affect you more. By subconsciously perceive, I mean induction. I mean that in the past you have seen that similar occurrences have lowered other's opinion of you and kept you from achieving your social goals.

 

If you have seen that someone's behavior is not capable of doing this, then it won't really affect you. Developing a strong understanding of people and social situations, and testing it, will allow you to remain unaffected by people's comments and allow you to appear to come out on top to any observing third parties.

 

In the case of the master, the master is probably wise and has seen many things and many people that he has actually earned respect from.

 

He probably reasons subconsciously that the people attempting to abuse him can and would benefit from his wisdom - probably because he has often seen this to be the case over time.

 

Similarly, you wouldn't really care if a 5 yr old called you stupid. What do they know? When a small minded and ignorant person attempts to assault my character in a social situation, I feel the same way and it shows.

 

Granted extreme experiences can still cause you to doubt what you know to be true... for instance if a small minded person was able to make you look bad in front of your boss because your boss had a similar personality. You know they are both wrong, but they are able to inflict significant damage despite their ignorance. Of course they are still worse off in the long run because of it (ability to run the company, even if it's just unnecessary turnover), but you still had to suffer.

 

Anyways I talk about this because I believe it is relevant to your ideas... If people recognize that you are unaffected by an attempted assault on your character, it has an impact. People who try to do this to me and then see I couldn't care less what they think will often get really nervous. I encourage that if the person is just saying things for petty reasons, but if they are really trying to be constructive I will listen to and respond rationally to what they say.

 

This means I will consider it if it really makes sense and is voiced out of genuine concern. If the person is just being petty, then the "What are you getting at?" or "What's it to you?" response is useful. They are really the same because if it becomes clear a person wants to claim something negative about you before they have any evidence, it shows what kind of person they are.

 

Sometimes though, I just tell the person straight up that they are just insecure and trying to force the world to match their backwards ideas.