Why is replying to a question with a question perceived as offensive somehow?

That could be subliminal for some, in my case I have to admit I purposely make a question to both identify a potential avenue of where it can seem rude and also to be "rude".

I'm pretty sure you'll find most of the other posters used a question for the same reason, although if it was subliminal it would definitely open up a few rather interesting Derren Brownesque experiments on the forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i did it on purpose..its the smart ass in me..
(didn't help that like 20 ppl did it before me..)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is it offensive? What kind of question did the first person ask and what kind of question did the second ask in response? Wouldn't a great deal depend on context in these situations?

Did the first individual perceive the second's responding with a question as evasive? Was it interpreted as the disrespectful dismissal of an issue that the first person thought was important?

What if the second person didn't understand the first's question or wanted to discuss the presuppositions that might lurk behind a seemingly loaded question?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, that's a good one

Oh, yeah. That one bugs people.

I once caused a riot by asking a guy how bad his father's cocaine habit was. I suppose when someone holds up their father as an example of a cocaine user, it's completely undignified to impugn said father by suggesting he had a cocaine habit insofar as one might inquire how much coke the guy used.

In the end, I really think that it's about the fact that at least one of the two people in any given conversation resents being asked to think. A lot of times, if one knows and acknowledges the answer to the secondary question, the initial question is likewise answered.

To wit, the classic, "Does a bear shit in the woods?"

Any time you hear that question in response to another question, it means the answer to the original question is, "Yes."

And what was once a time-honored conversational habit has become an annoyance because variations on the theme have asked people to think harder than they did to come up with the question whose answer is so damnably obvious.

But, no, that's hardly a uniform overview.

Imagine one accused of racism.

One: You can't call me racist!

Other: Well, fine, then. What are you actually saying? What are you trying to communicate that is coming out so poorly?

One: What does it matter what I'm trying to say if you've already decided I'm a racist?​

Whenever I see that kind of exchange, I wonder if maybe the accused racist is simply afraid of spelling out what he thinks because he really, really, really doesn't want to be racist, despite the fact that he really, really, really is, in fact, racist, and doesn't want to put the effort into finding a way to say it that will con a few hapless souls into believing him when the object of his objection, e.g., the accusing other, isn't going to buy it.

There are all sorts of reasons why people answer one question with another. And, yes, some of them are rude. In many cases, though, I think the reactions are more indicative than anything else.

 

Why do you think that it is perceived as offensive? What kind of dumb question is that?

 

i have been told my answering a question with a question is rude cause i do it ALOT..(usually by ex's when they weren't ex's)

 

What I find strange is that the content of the question doesn't seem to matter with some people.
Just that the moment they see someone reply with a question, this puts them on the defensive.
(Some posters in this thread exemplified this.)


I see the thread was moved into Free Thoughts, even though I posted it into Human Science, wanting to discuss the psychology behind this topic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Did they offer any explanation why it was rude?


I suppose we won't be able to get answers out of Orleander - she is someone who doesn't want to get a question in reply to her question.

 

it was because i did it alot..
and sometimes they just wanted a direct answer..
and pry i used it as an escape, once or twice..

 

I suppose some people approach forum discussions in a the same manner as watercooler conversations, so they get defensive more quickly once approached with what are otherwise standard discussion strategies.

 

Why do you find this annoying?

 

Damn you Yaz! God DAMN you for asking a question to this question!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I take no offence to reciprocal questioning if it is ingenuous. But hell eventually somebody's GOT to commit and make an assertion, however vulnerable that makes them to attack or ridicule. I've had certain trolls in this group play that game with me--they interrogate everything I say and basically derail the whole discourse by directing it's course themselves. So imo it's important for the OP not to lose control of their own discourse, at least if the point of their posted question was to honestly solicit possible answers.

 

Thanks, Fraggle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One last point that I think no one touched on —

The person who asks the questions controls the conversation.​

So, in a sense, it's a power struggle.

 

Yes. This is the kind of analysis I wanted to get at, which is why I originally posted the thread in Human Science.


While I don't think that posing a question automatically means that the asker controls the conversation, I find it telling that some people would think so, as this says something about how they essentially view the relationship with the other person - whether they see it as a competition, or as cooperation.

 

If a response is intelligent and serious, then it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether a response is a question or a statement.

I sometimes answer questions with questions. My reasons vary --

Sometimes I'm trying to suggest that I'm unsure of my answer and am not really comfortable in flatly asserting it. So I frame my answer in the form of a hypothetical -- what if this were true? I think that I do that quite often.

Sometimes I'm addressing my reasons for producing the view that the other person has questioned. So I'll ask a question which, if it's answered as I suspect that it will be, will produce an answer that supports my position and not theirs. In effect, I'm suggesting that if the other person looks at the problem correctly, that they come around and begin to argue as I do. It seems less aggressive and arrogant somehow to do that instead of simply lecturing somebody and brow-beating them.

And sometimes I think that a question is based on false premises. So instead of responding to a question that I think is poorly conceived or even intentionally misleading, I'll home right in on the underlying assumptions by questioning them.

Yeah, that's a game that a number of people will sometimes play here on Sciforums. It happens on all discussion boards actually.

Somebody will compose a what I think is a rather carefully thought-out opinion on an issue, and somebody else will respond with a single-line question, consisting of a demand that the first person define a word or something. (Typically one of the less important words in the post, something not important to the thrust of the argument and seemingly chosen almost at random.) That kind of response requires no effort to produce, it doesn't require that the responder even read the post that they are "responding" to, let alone understand what the other person was trying to say, and it places the responder on top and pushes the original poster onto the defensive. People will even chase the original poster around with repeated 'You refused to answer the question!', which naturally keeps them on top and allows them to avoid actually engaging with the issues.

When that happens to me, I'll honestly answer a question if I think that it's germane to the topic of discussion and if doing so clarifies things and eliminates ambiguities. If I think that the question was simply rhetorical, then I'll probably just ignore it and continue on making my points as placidly and persuasively as possible while trying to ignore the ego-games.

Threads here on Sciforums often resemble exercises in free association and tend to derail very quickly. They often only stay on topic for a page or two. I tend to lose interest in long threads with 100 or more posts, since they are typically dominated by one or more running ego-battles between a small number of individuals. Sometimes long threads will stumble into interesting new topics almost at random though, which might lure me back in.

 

Is your liver diseased?

I was wondering if this was a spoof, because it is an existential problem which Dostoevsky explored in Notes From Underground:

In the first chapter it says:

"...Now, I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot become anything seriously, and it is only the fool who becomes anything...."

I don't know that reading this will be of any help, but at least it is in the domain of the problem described by this young man.

Dostoevsky was a very religious writer, although he never uses his writing as a vehicle for describing his beliefs explicitly. He presents them as fictional problems for the reader to solve. So....