XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

I wanted to do this without using an "outside source", because this is a VERY basic psychology and a well-known tactic that moronic liberals use to, in essence, tell us that they haven't a clue about the topic or questions asked, so they employ THIS: answering a question with a question.

=====

(this seems to be translated from another language, so grammar Nazis, beware)

Answering A Question With A Question - Psychological Reasons For Doing So

In psychology, behavior of answering a question with a question can have multiple meanings. DOES THE PERSON we ask the question NOT UNDERSTAND US?

Does he understand but is TRYING TO DISTRACT us because HE DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER? Or is he trying to save time? No. Or are they making fun of us? Probably, but this goes deeper in many cases.

We Should Examine The Psychology of It In More Detail

There is no need to perceive this badly all the time. Sometimes it is normal for a person to suddenly respond with the question WHEN STUNNED BY A QUESTION.

stunned = does not have an answer

Another variant of answering a question with a question is answering the question with the same question, IT'S A TACTIC people often use to save time.

Well, we KNOW this isn't true, because NONE of this is in real time. It COULD be a "stall" tactic, but it's usually employed when the party either does not WANT to answer the question, KNOWING he'll look like an idiot, if he does, or he doesn't have an answer, at all.

It is well known... this method is also a one used to capture the sense of rhythm in dialogue while writing a script.

Well... we know THAT'S not it.

For some people (Alan Baker), this has become a habit, and they use this method so much that EVEN IF THEY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, THEY RESPOND WITH THE QUESTION FIRST.

Meh... 9 times outta 10, it's he does NOT have an answer.

Moreover, if this action is done intelligently, it is effective enough to make them think about the answer and forget the question they asked completely.

Again, this is not in real time, so no... that is NOT the reason.

To understand this more accurately, let's first look at a little bit of response psychology.


The Response Psychology

Understanding the question asked is the first stage in the answer process, here is the most important what the researcher in question, the interpretation of the same meaning does not change.

Answers can be affected by many factors. The researches are even the questionnaire, the answer order given with the questions shows that it creates changes in the results.

The response-order effect (response order effect) is to comprehend the question, to find the relevant information in memory, to generate an answer and it can be seen as the consequences of other mental stages on the answer.

(Alana Baker has all the time in the world to come up with an answer, so much of this does not apply, but is being left in as a guide to other behaviours exhibited in and on Usenet. Many people often exhibit knee-jerk reactions in their answers, when they try to be the first to respond to a question posed on Usenet. Many times, their answers do not fit the narrative, only acting as placeholders, until they can answer the questions in a more meaningful way. That fits Rudy and most other circle-jerkers on Usenet)

Question queue the effect of answering a question to the previous or next question. It refers to the determination of the answer (item-order effect).

The previous question and interpretation of the general next problem of the given answer and the answer is given it affects it. The difficulty of the problem and the obtained answer there is an inverse relationship in general terms.

It has been found to have a significant effect. Data from the field of linguistics judgingly, uncommon words, ambiguous noun phrase or it causes syntax comprehension problem, so hand survey questions it affects the quality of the answer given.

Some people's responsiveness is extreme to choose values or to prefer values that take place in the center, in general, maybe. The level of interest of the people also depends on the quality of the answers given the last stage is effective.

Some people may tend to only give a satisfactory, simple answer (satisficing [1]), avoiding hard mental effort. Satisficing given the theory, respondents can shorten the mental process that will produce the correct answers.

(but, Alan Baker never DOES answer the questions posed... he always tries to deflect away form the fact that he HAS no refutation, but still feels the need to get in on the conversation. This is where his low self-esteem comes into play. He'll respond to others without having ANY kind of true reply. He HAS to show you he's a intelligent being, even if he has NOTHING to add to the discussion. There is also the hate and jealousy factor. Rudy Canoza is a prisoner to this paradigm... he NEVER has a refutation, relying ONLY on insults to quench his thirst for superiority. Alan Baker exhibits this same behaviour, only without the egregious insults or attacks. He simply refuses to even TRY to answer a question, with an answer)

And with very little effort, however, to appear logical, answer all questions in the order of questions in the same or similar way (Anand et al.,2009). This issue (escapism) is generally confronted by the researcher if the individual's mental ability is insufficient and the willingness to answer is low.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Based on this information how can we list the reasons for answering the question with a question in psychology?

We can say that many individuals get more time for themselves by "responding to questions with questions" where they are blocked in the course of the conversation. As THE "BEST DEFENSE IS ATTACK" METHOD is used in battlefields, this is perhaps a tactic in mutual dialogue, according to some.

BINGO!

Socrates applied this in the same way at the time. When he looked at his mentality, he believed that all the information contained in human beings from birth.

While applying this method to his students, he aimed "to be able to prove himself to find the answer to the question he was asked to himself without being aware of the answer to the question he was asked to himself."

He says that you have the right to request before fulfilling this request. You can consider another response request as a precondition and take sanctions before responding to the response request requested by the other party. At this stage, the detail of answering the question with a question comes into the game.

The point is, of course, none of us are Socrates, we are aware of this. Some of us even answer the question with the question, some of us directly respond to the question with the same question BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER.

(leave it that... shut up, already, if you have no answer. But alas... low self-esteemed nerdy liberals can not)

If we list the possible reasons, "it is quite intelligent people trying to save the situation, OR IT IS A TACTIC, maybe it may ALSO INDICATE SOME SELF- CONFIDENCE PROBLEMS, the essence of the job is to try to hide that you do not know the answer, time. it is trying to win ".

(LOL... I knew I knew what I was talking about. 40+ years hasn't degraded my memory one bit)

One thing I'm sure of is that the act of "answering the question with a question" DAMAGES THE COURSE OF THE DIALOGUE and the human UNWILLINGNESS to continue the conversation.

With a simple logic, the purpose of asking a question is to get an answer.

Or you can ask your questions to be sure about something. So why is it so difficult for a person to answer? However, instead, it can be said that I know the answer to this question, but I do not want to say, OR DIRECTLY SAY, I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, nobody can press you on this issue. The choice is yours.

Are you one of those who use the word I don't know, or one of those who answered the question with a question?

I don't see bilateral dialogues as a race, so I don't need to answer questions with questions often. I prefer to say I don't know if I have no knowledge or can not form an opinion on a topic. I try to learn new things from him by saying I don't know instead of giving it and reducing the quality of the dialogue.

Of course, this may not always be caused by an instructive dialogue. Sometimes the person in front of us can ask meaningless or disturbing questions to force us, and if I realize this, I CAN USE THE METHOD OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION WITH QUESTIONS TO PROVOKE THE OTHER PERSON like any other person. It may differ.

When we look from another perspective, answering the asked question with a question is actually an inquiry. The person who answers the question with a question questions the other person.

(THAT is not what's needed on Usenet. If you can't answer the question, shut the fuck up and let others have a go at it)

WARNING: If you don't want to read EXACTLY what I've said about Alan and what he is doing, read no further:

So the person who answers the question with the question means that HE/SHE IS CONVINCED THAT HE IS SUPERIOR or wiser than the other person.

(if you were, you'd answer the fucking questions or refute what was stated)

We can say that two individuals who constantly ask each other questions are competing for wisdom or superiority.

(no... this is a one way street. *I* do NOT ask questions to show superiority. I ask questions to get to the truth of the matter. THAT you can never refute or answer the questions, IS what I'm after, proving that what I state IS true. Yes, it is a little self-satisfying to show you twerps you're wrong, but it is never done out of feeling superior, like what Rudy does. It's simply done to show everyone how big of liars you are or misinformed you can be, sometimes ON PURPOSE. You believe ANYONE who has a "left bent" to their "facts" and/or statistics)

This is used as a tactic in job interviews.

If you are asked what do you do in your spare time, and you have read more science time, you will answer that I am reading science books. In this way, he comes to you with new questions such as who are you reading. In the interview, you have questions asked.

It is an inertial aggressive behavior, even if it appears to have no obvious intention to manipulate.

Naturally when you answer a question with a question who asked a question remains in a passive-aggressive situation, AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

A "sincere' question should be able to get the sincere answer it deserves. I wish our only concern was to be understood instead of using such confusing methods to make an impressive impression.

BINGO!

You weirdo liberals are NOT as hard to figure out and as smart as you think. Anyone with a modicum of education in Psychology can see WHO and what you are.

Nothing but a bunch of scared little nerdy basement-dwellers, who are narcissistic in your self-think. You think, that because you took AP classes and were nerds who knew every character's name on Star trek, you are smarter than everyone else.

Hell, you even fight amongst your liberal selves, trying to make the others look dumber than you. Nuh uh... nope... cain't do it... you're all fucking dumb, because you all think you're so fucking smart.

Get the fuck over yourselves and just answer the questions posed, or refute what you disagree with.

=====

[1] Satisficing is a decision-making strategy or cognitive heuristic that entails searching through the available alternatives until an acceptability threshold is met.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)