People use the Q & A time for their soapboxes, and as an
opportunity to upbraid the speaker for not mentioning their favorites. “What would you say is the impact of…” or
even “I notice that you didn’t mention…” No actual question, hoping to elicit
important new information from the expert, occurs.
The speaker’s most acceptable answer is “I was planning on
covering that in detail in the afternoon breakout session,” letting the
questioner know that yes, I do get it about animal rights, or the need for
light rail, or whatever, with the added benefit of complimenting her that she
is spot on by elevating that topic to the top shelf.
Folks tend to remember it more when it is a religious topic
being “injected” into the conversation, and I have some sympathy. There are times when it is clearly forced,
and we all inwardly groan. Yet I also
notice that lots of other issues are “injected” without the audience
generalising about the speaker’s group.
That, I imagine, comes from the presence of an installed narrative and
confirmation bias.
2 comments:
Fortunately most of those I've been at have been pretty much free of such posturing, but press conferences seem to be alive with it.
Or it comes from the fact that people don't mind religion's being injected into the topic as long as it's their own religion (wealth redistribution, global warming, etc.).
Post a Comment