- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 106
Definition of Bad Faith Question(s) as a (weak) Display of Dominance:
Bad faith questioners are those people asking questions with the sole intention of negatively critisizing the answers, no matter what those answers are.
Response to Bad Faith Questions
The most useful (and constructive) response to take to a bad faith questioners (weak) dominance display is to firstly:
find that person’s position or perspective on that topic prior to answering.
I know guys that did this in University or just politically motivated aquaintances or other simply jealous/threatened men in the workplace or in social or political situations.
Men (it’s usually men) can only lambast or critisize your statement, opinion or position on something if they haven’t forwarded their own statements or opinions first.
Alot of bad faith politicians are seen doing this same thing: lambasting someone else’s opinion or position on something that they have never forwarded an opinion on themselves.
Alternative Contingency for Bad Faith Questioner (if your Opinion is Reasonable)
Sometimes the bad faith questioner escalates - when that bad faith questioner finds himself AGREEING with you or finds your position difficult to attack:
Sometimes they’ll claims to have experience doing the same thing or they they’ve simply harboured that
opinion themselves - when he’s never had such experience or opinion.
Often, that person will say, “Yes, I agree (but I did it better in this way and you didn’t do this or this)” - when they’ve never done this thing before and have no evidence of their position.
Which is simply another weak attempt at a display of dominance.
Neutralising Contingencies
Finding out someones position first - usually this completely stops either of these responses (from the bad faith actor) from happening completely.
It neutralises their attempt at a dominance display before it’s even attempted or become an issue.
What to Do if Questioner Stonewall’s You
If the bad faith questioner doesn’t want to give their position or statement first, abandon the topic and move the topic or conversation to something else.
If they persist in questioning - simply insist on on curiously hearing their position/first.
Rinse>Repeat
It removes any potential dominance display they may have planned when they keep persisting for an answer
This is why people don’t like sharing their opinion when asked by someone that hasn’t shared theirs first.
Bad Faith Questioner Alternative Contingency: Taunting & Shaming
What Bad faith questioners will do when they’re cornered into giving their position first is to taunt or shame the person into a position.
This is a weak way of diverting you or others away from their refusal to give their position - so they can conclude their planned display of (weak) dominance.
Proposal of their Position
When the bad faith questioner gets to this stage: it’s useful to propose what you think their position is, so they can either defend it or correct it or at least narrow down an approximate position they may have.
This then puts the Bad faith questioner in a position where they need to defend a position they don’t have or to actually give their position (as a correction) or simply abandon the bad faith display of dominance altogether.
You can have fun with proposing their imagined positions, then remove yourself from the topic or conversation completely if a position isn’t given.
I’ve found that when the bad faith actor is done making fun of your position - when you ask them their position: they’ll (usually) refuse to give it to you.
The same response can be taken at this point: propose their position for them and have fun with it.
If they do give it to you: their position is usually very weak, uninformed, someone else’s opinion or even factually incorrect or idealogically based, with little to no experience of the what they’re asking - as the bad faith questioner was never expecting to be questioned themselves.
Comedic Example
It reminds me of the running gag between the FBI Agents in ‘White Chicks’: where the agent keeps asking his partner,
“Would you rather (this horrible thing) or (this other horrible thing)?”
- simply to make fun of him after he gives his opinion, then never give his own position on the question when he’s asked.
The bad faith actor made both answers wrong or disgusting on purpose
White Chicks Bad Faith Questioning - Who Would Rather 1
White Chicks - Bad Faith Questioning 2
It’s a comedic example of bad faith actors & how they operate in a weak way to boost their low self esteem and to bully others.
Here it seems like it’s done in fun, but it is an underhanded bad faith dominance display that’s cloaked in fun.
Motivation of Bad Faith Questioners
I suspect the reason people do this (mostly men) is for an easy low risk dominance display: a simple way to elevate themselves in the dominance heirarchy (or so they imagine).
But done with removing any outright aggressive confrontation or fear of of the questioner losing anything socially (because they haven’t forwarded their position or opinion first).
Conclusion
Use Bad Faith Questioning to your advantage to be:
1. constructive in a conversation or socially constructive
2. Simply turn the tables on the bad faith questioner or
3. have the bad faith questioner weakly chasing you to complete their dominance display, thereby neutralising any potential gain they may have expected.
Bad faith questioners are those people asking questions with the sole intention of negatively critisizing the answers, no matter what those answers are.
Response to Bad Faith Questions
The most useful (and constructive) response to take to a bad faith questioners (weak) dominance display is to firstly:
find that person’s position or perspective on that topic prior to answering.
I know guys that did this in University or just politically motivated aquaintances or other simply jealous/threatened men in the workplace or in social or political situations.
Men (it’s usually men) can only lambast or critisize your statement, opinion or position on something if they haven’t forwarded their own statements or opinions first.
Alot of bad faith politicians are seen doing this same thing: lambasting someone else’s opinion or position on something that they have never forwarded an opinion on themselves.
Alternative Contingency for Bad Faith Questioner (if your Opinion is Reasonable)
Sometimes the bad faith questioner escalates - when that bad faith questioner finds himself AGREEING with you or finds your position difficult to attack:
Sometimes they’ll claims to have experience doing the same thing or they they’ve simply harboured that
opinion themselves - when he’s never had such experience or opinion.
Often, that person will say, “Yes, I agree (but I did it better in this way and you didn’t do this or this)” - when they’ve never done this thing before and have no evidence of their position.
Which is simply another weak attempt at a display of dominance.
Neutralising Contingencies
Finding out someones position first - usually this completely stops either of these responses (from the bad faith actor) from happening completely.
It neutralises their attempt at a dominance display before it’s even attempted or become an issue.
What to Do if Questioner Stonewall’s You
If the bad faith questioner doesn’t want to give their position or statement first, abandon the topic and move the topic or conversation to something else.
If they persist in questioning - simply insist on on curiously hearing their position/first.
Rinse>Repeat
It removes any potential dominance display they may have planned when they keep persisting for an answer
This is why people don’t like sharing their opinion when asked by someone that hasn’t shared theirs first.
Bad Faith Questioner Alternative Contingency: Taunting & Shaming
What Bad faith questioners will do when they’re cornered into giving their position first is to taunt or shame the person into a position.
This is a weak way of diverting you or others away from their refusal to give their position - so they can conclude their planned display of (weak) dominance.
Proposal of their Position
When the bad faith questioner gets to this stage: it’s useful to propose what you think their position is, so they can either defend it or correct it or at least narrow down an approximate position they may have.
This then puts the Bad faith questioner in a position where they need to defend a position they don’t have or to actually give their position (as a correction) or simply abandon the bad faith display of dominance altogether.
You can have fun with proposing their imagined positions, then remove yourself from the topic or conversation completely if a position isn’t given.
I’ve found that when the bad faith actor is done making fun of your position - when you ask them their position: they’ll (usually) refuse to give it to you.
The same response can be taken at this point: propose their position for them and have fun with it.
If they do give it to you: their position is usually very weak, uninformed, someone else’s opinion or even factually incorrect or idealogically based, with little to no experience of the what they’re asking - as the bad faith questioner was never expecting to be questioned themselves.
Comedic Example
It reminds me of the running gag between the FBI Agents in ‘White Chicks’: where the agent keeps asking his partner,
“Would you rather (this horrible thing) or (this other horrible thing)?”
- simply to make fun of him after he gives his opinion, then never give his own position on the question when he’s asked.
The bad faith actor made both answers wrong or disgusting on purpose
White Chicks Bad Faith Questioning - Who Would Rather 1
White Chicks - Bad Faith Questioning 2
It’s a comedic example of bad faith actors & how they operate in a weak way to boost their low self esteem and to bully others.
Here it seems like it’s done in fun, but it is an underhanded bad faith dominance display that’s cloaked in fun.
Motivation of Bad Faith Questioners
I suspect the reason people do this (mostly men) is for an easy low risk dominance display: a simple way to elevate themselves in the dominance heirarchy (or so they imagine).
But done with removing any outright aggressive confrontation or fear of of the questioner losing anything socially (because they haven’t forwarded their position or opinion first).
Conclusion
Use Bad Faith Questioning to your advantage to be:
1. constructive in a conversation or socially constructive
2. Simply turn the tables on the bad faith questioner or
3. have the bad faith questioner weakly chasing you to complete their dominance display, thereby neutralising any potential gain they may have expected.
