thank you :blushing:
I have the challenge of working with someone/some-two who, although they aren't criminals, have the same, um, conversational habits (? is that a nice way to say it?) as I think Casey does. A specific example...the guy I work with, let's call him R, is not very open with his work. In my case I work in a lab so among ourselves we are constantly batting ideas around. When we run experiments we enter and graph our data every day and just by virtue of being around each other while we do this we all know how each other's experiments are going and we can ask each other questions about what we are doing, etc. But R doesn't do this, so literally the first time we see his data is when he is presenting it at a lab or project meeting or at his department seminar. That is the first chance we have to ask him the same questions that we ask each other in the comfort and privacy of the lab. And I have made the mistake of asking him those questions and I got a talking-to from my adviser afterwards...saying that he felt like I was being rude to him, trying to make him look stupid, etc. etc. IE it wasn't R's fault for being unprepared for the question (or not having addressed the question in his experiment), it was MY fault because I ASKED it! And that was even MORE egregious because I'd had the audacity to ask it in front of other people...so the narrative became that I was trying to make him look bad in front of our superiors!
Sorry to go off on a tangent which isn't totally analogous to the Casey thing, but it kind of is...just in terms of blaming the question-er. Like I really feel like Casey would blame this entire mess (in terms of the uncomfortable scrutiny and tough questions) on 2 people: 1) Erica, because if she hadn't "made" the situation that invited scrutiny, no one would be asking in the first place, and 2) these mean, nosy people who are just picking on her by asking her totally legit, normal questions. (2) is the one I can relate to - it is a very blatant and unsophisticated (IMO!) strategy that can really just put an end to all productive dialogue. In my experience one way for this to happen is that it has the effect of putting the questioner on the defensive - his/her integrity or intelligence is questioned and (IMOO, my own experience) that can bring emotion into play, in addition to the fact that you (the questioner) may now feel obligated to justify your questions and/or your right to ask them. (The roles are reversed.) The truth is, though, that for some people, no justification or defense will ever be sufficient. (This is what happened in my personal example...R didn't give 2 chits that I gave a scientific rationale for my question about his, y'know,
science, or my explanation that I was asking him the exact same questions I would ask any colleague, etc etc.) S/he (Casey eg) will keep twisting it around on you! And unfortunately this "conversation style," although I called it unsophisticated, can be very effective because in the meantime you (questioner) have become entangled in a war of words about your right to ask - meanwhile, the questions themselves go unanswered.
I believe it is SmoothOperator who has the tagline "The quickest way to become a fool is to argue with one." Everyone on these threads has comment on the fantastical logic of Casey's, um, tales, so I will leave that aside...but the quote applies to this matter of the interview as well. I know in my experience that when I was belittled for questioning, I felt the need to explain, and before I knew it I was knee-deep in bs because it was like we were talking past each other. You cannot win when the person you're talking to starts from the assumption that s/he is always right and anyone who questions it is a big old meanie! (GAG!) You will just go round and round in circles in a quagmire of BS.
JMO and again great observation to the person who posted about Casey doing this.
