You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #108: How an honest advocate and an academician might differ in answers [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #103
108. How an honest advocate and an academician might differ in answers
Edited on Thu Aug-18-05 11:27 AM by Land Shark
Question: Isn't it true that you haven't reviewed dataset X?

Honest Academician Answer: Yes.

Honest Advocate Answer: Though not important to my analysis, it's true I haven't reviewed it.

The advocate, while still being honest, is alert to ohw inferences may be used against her in the future and attempts to protect against them.

In cross examination one is not allowed full sentence answers though, so it is up to the other lawyer, on re-direct examination, to allow the opportunity to explain if the cross-examiner has insisted on yes or no answers.

So, OTOH, I'm not talking about taking extreme positions, but I am talking about covering all bases and taking all available territory, and claiming that territory as one's own at each reasonable opportunity (unfortunately some lawyers interpret this to mean "crowing" about one's claimed victories which is not very effective however)

Applied to the debates here, I don't think everyone's put the best construction on what TIA has said, thus they appear in the adversarial mode (taking all available territory and claiming success) rather than in the friendly mode of mutually strengthening positions. Then, of course, one's own words are then also not interpreted in the most friendly way. And no, i don't want to get into "who started it".

Flipping between team mode and adversarial mode typically leads to questions about loyalty in all communities of discussion. Sometimes this is merited and sometimes not. Motive is hard to divine, yet important. Trust, when deserved, allows for efficiency and effectiveness in work by elimination of duplication.

Simply put, if one is in attack mode, you leave yourself wide open to either "outta control" inferences or else "freeper/disrupter" inferences. Occupational hazard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC