Most often we hear people asking for concise and compact answers. This is only acceptable when the two parties share a common understanding of the context. Due to the inherent ambiguity of the natural languages is the cause of the problem. More so, if one of the parties tries to play with words (showoff!) and other ignoramus obiliges.
An example of this is the popular illustration: "Panda eats, shoots and leaves" vs. "Panda eats, shoots, and leaves". The difference is that, of a panda doing what pandas do, or a clinteastwood western classic.
More dangerous are the glitches that show up when some one with a uncanny knack for finding loopholes (lawyers!) comesup with a ridiculous conclusion that wasn't even half expected. This makes, usage of simple language and active voice, of paramount importance. I have recently read a joke to illustrate this:
David and John were walking by a church. David suddenly had one of those electrifying moments and popped a question to John.
David: "John, is it ok to smoke and pray at the same time".
John: "Why don't we ask the preacher."
David: "Ok" (goes into the church)
David: "Father, Is it ok to smoke while praying to God?"
Priest: "Son, such things are unacceptable while praying"
(David comesout and tells John)
John: "Are you sure about that? I will go and ask once again" (John goes in)
John: "Father, Is it ok to pray when we do other things in life"
Priest: "Son, It is the most ideal thing to do"
(Moral: Ask the right questions to get the right answers)
In the movie "Rashmon" the director Akira Kurosawa, showcases the human eccentricity in narration and interpretation of the events. Life would be a better place, if every interviewer/questioner deals with fact finding than interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment