It is easier to judge a person's intelligence by his questions than by his answers. One fool asks, and a hundred wise men hang in thought because not everyone assumes an intelligible answer. So, the most reliable weapon in a conversation is a question!
Of course, a correctly posed question indicates some familiarity with the subject, but usually this is not necessary to stump a person. You can be stupid yourself, the main thing is that you ask the questions.
However, it should be remembered that there are questions that are better not
ask if you don't want to get an unpleasant answer.
Yes, and people lie, most often when they are pushed against the wall.
unwanted questions. a wise man said:
“Don’t ask questions, and they won’t lie to you.”
Of all the questions asked, the most unpleasant are the unnecessary ones. They
easily spoil our relationships with others and, at the same time, our
own reputation. There are questions that are better not to ask,
so as not to reveal the depth of my ignorance.
And, if you want to find out something, you need to ask questions to the one
who is able to answer them. Don't ask the poker
oven temperature.And it’s useful for yourself to hear only those questions
to which you are able to find the answer.
There are, however, people who like to answer their own questions, who prefer
Don’t risk hearing someone else’s opinion. The worst thing is when questions
those who ask them answer, but have not yet understood the answer.
Children are interested in the question “where does everything come from?”, adults – “where
Is everything going away?We are all searching for meaning. First we need constant
pleasure and absence of pain.Then our brain develops, we
we master speech and gradually begin to become interested in
reasons for what is happening (asking the question “why?”).
This can be confirmed by any parent whose children constantly
they ask why the sun is shining or why the sky is blue.
And if parents turn to science and talk about thermonuclear
synthesis or howthe earth's atmosphere scatters light, it arises
the main problem.
They immediately hear the following question:
“Why does such a reaction occur with hydrogen atoms?”
- “Because of thosetemperature and pressure,” the parent answers.
“Why is there pressure there?” - askhowls the child.
Every new question he asks sounds like a punishment for stupid answers.
"How" on the question “why?” Remember: when children ask “why?”
they really wantknow the purpose of what is happening.
At first glance, this seems an innocent desire, even charming.
And we wantexplain. However, if you answer in detail each time, then
an unpleasant one will come up soonmoment: we are not able to give
satisfying ourselves answers to even the simplest ones
questions.
We don't know why the sun shines or why the sky is blue. We
we don't know the truethe causes of many phenomena, and most importantly – themselves.
However, this does not mean that there is no need to think.
At some point we narrow the scope of our questions.owls up to one
the most important: “Why do we live?” Some people are interested in simple
question:"How to live?" And here you no longer need someone external,
to drive us into a dead end...
The solution is usually simple: we switch our attention to simple actions.
We just start living our life so as not to get into it
in conclusion, a gloomy answer that our life was continuous
quiz.
Just don’t be completely afraid to ask questions in order to find out
new, and it’s better to ask twice than to get it wrong once. Track
to the truth - the correct sequence of questions asked.
It is worth considering whether your question will cause an undesirable reaction?
Or are you so eager for confrontation? What result will follow?
for a carelessly asked question, one can predict if
turn attention away from yourself and your desire to get at your interlocutor
the point of the question is on your counterpart.
Often, it is enough to imagine for a moment that such a question
they ask you so that you can get the answer and understand the stupidity that
I could ask through your lips.
The smartest answer to a stupid question is silence. Yes and in case
very smart question, the salvation is similar. The smarter
the question asked, the more profound the silence instead
answer.Moreover, there are questions to which there are no answers; but there is
answers that raise a lot of questions, so there is always silence
will help out.
It is even easier to escape for those who have never learned to remain silent...
They simply don't give others the opportunity to interject a question, but...
The only salvation from such people is flight...
More about this next time..
Many people even sent them to the archive, naively believing that this interferes with communication (remember how Sharikov from “Heart of a Dog” reproached the professor), and especially with looking for a person for a happy family life. As one would expect, the topic of inappropriate questions has become very relevant, especially for the sensitive part of society - beautiful ladies.
On the one hand, almost everyone understands that it is inconvenient to ask questions about age, salary and property. On the other hand, many women no longer see anything special in them: some calmly tell the truth, others also answer unethically, but they asked for it and are rude. And yet, it’s not checking your pocket or asking for your passport details that hurts the most. There are several questions that not only deeply offend, but also baffle.
1. Why are you not married?
A very unpleasant question, both for a woman who has been living in a humiliating “civil marriage” for many years, and for an absolutely lonely lady. Especially if she's a little over...
How can you answer such a question, so that they don’t ask anymore? As with most unpleasant situations, a sense of humor will help.
Try saying your train has left. Yes, yes, you have given up on yourself. And who needs you, with extra pounds, or a child, or a nasty character!
If a man asked a question, ask him directly - well, will you marry me? Either take it or don't ask again!
2. When will you give birth to a child?
This is perhaps the most painful question. The one who asks is not always aware of the woman’s personal affairs. Perhaps this is grief for her...
What to say? Polite answers are difficult to find. Say you don't want to talk about this topic. In general, never. Otherwise, you will simply stop communicating with this person.
3. Why did you get divorced?
A popular question among potential boyfriends. If you have known each other for a long time, you can provide some facts.
And if a man shows interest in this topic already on the first date, answer with a serious look that it is only for the sake of meeting him. Didn't get the hint and asks the next tactless question? It's time for you to say goodbye.
4. Who are you dressed up for?
You want to refresh your relationship - you bought a lace peignoir or a breathtaking underwear... And the beloved hubby grins sarcastically, and even asks a terribly offensive question!
You shouldn’t tear expensive things in tears and cause a scandal. Ask him what he himself thinks. After all, the question is not that difficult.
In conclusion, it is worth saying that inquisitive strangers or close people did not always want to get under your skin. Perhaps nothing else came to mind, but it was necessary to maintain the conversation.
Not everyone who listens to your problems can understand you. As a result, the conversation develops into an unpleasant skirmish that will not lead to anything good.
Of course, there are many ways to end something unpleasant, but what if we don’t want to offend our interlocutor? This is where we need comprehensive response techniques, which include the motivation of immersing consciousness in understanding your answer or remark. In other words, everything you say should make a person think - and as a result, the dialogue will stop. There are several here, and you will probably remember similar situations from your life.
Option one:
Your comment in a conversation with an interlocutor or answer to a specific question should be absolutely not about what the conversation is about or what you were asked about.
Example:
The answer or remark in pauses: “One remains unchanged, passing through millennia, along with Egyptian rock patterns. I think they are brilliant, don’t you?”
Option two:
Your answer should be verbose, and the more words, the less meaning.
Example:
Speech of an annoying interlocutor: “...How my neighbor got me. It’s just terrible... yes, he... and him... and where do such stupid people come from?”
Answer or remark in pauses: “Perhaps, as many say, allowing for understanding what is not understood by others, you probably know, so to speak, what to do, occupying your consciousness with the solution of this issue. Of course, by keeping excerpts from well-known books in your arsenal, you can challenge everything said if there are no other options in terms of resolving this issue. And here you will probably remain right, but won’t it be just as stupid, that is the question.”
Option three:
Let your answer look complicated, and it’s okay if there is nothing wise in it, the main thing is to smoothly translate the answer into a question, and as a question, a koan.
A koan is a task and motivation to solve it, but it has no chance of success in classic version consciousness. The interlocutor becomes interested in solving the koan, and as a result begins to conduct an internal dialogue, from which.
Example:
Speech of an annoying interlocutor: “...How my neighbor got me. It’s just terrible... yes, he... and him... and where do such stupid people come from?”
Answer or remark in pauses: “Something always leads to something. Agree that everything in our life is just a banal consequence, but in order to understand the consequence of what it is, you need to know what it is now. So I clapped my hands, what sound do you think one palm made?”
Choose questions based on what your personality is and what might interest him most. There are many koans, but the essence is one. Do not forget that all your answers should sound confident and firm; answering three or four times in any of the above ways will stop the dialogue.
Phone conversation! IN in this case In order for a person to lose the desire to talk to you and distract you, you only need to change your intonation and manner of speaking. You need to become the complete opposite of your interlocutor. That is, if a person is alert, in good mood if he wants to chat with you positively, then you start talking sluggishly, reluctantly, at length - and after another minute he himself will stop the dialogue. AND !
Happy communication!
← Tell your friends
Questions that do not have correct answers in advance are the favorite part of the dialogue between a man and a woman. More precisely, only women, because it is she who asks them, putting a man in the most awkward position in which he could ever find himself. What questions should you avoid if you don't want to scare them off? And are there good reasons why men don’t always trust us?
1. “Did you like the gift I gave you?”
" Certainly!" - the most obvious answer. But why is this still so interesting to you, three weeks later? Men don't understand this.
2. “Are you sure about this?”
When their boss asks them this question, they are much more confident in the answer than when they see your stern face. They think that one wrong answer and they will go straight to hell!
3. “What is your password?”
They cannot lie, they cannot deny, but they cannot fall through the ground either. So what should they ultimately do?
4. “Do you like my friends?”
Your friends are your friends. The only reason he spends time with them is because of you. Let the answer to this question be unspoken, so as not to offend or be offended.
5. “Can I borrow your phone?”
“Um, okay. But you just make the call, right? Why are you looking at my contacts? Why messages? Why should I trust women at all after this?” , - flashes through his head.
6. “Can we make matching tattoos?”
If a man says no, then don’t think that he doesn’t see his future with you. Men avoid obligations by all means, and tattoos are regarded as a “stigma”.
7. “How many girls have you had?”
There is no correct answer to this question. Too little - a simpleton, too much - Casanova.
8. “Why do you love me?”
Men feel like they have to have a pre-written and rehearsed answer, so be prepared for him to speak in poetry one day.
9. “What should I wear, a skirt or a dress?”
You see, he never asks if he should play Call of Duty or FIFA, so he doesn't expect you to start talking to him about fashion.
10. “Why don’t you change your VKontakte status?”
“Strike me with thunder,” he thinks.
How to put your interlocutor in his place. Verbal attack methods
Do you want to win in negotiations and verbal duels?
20 - December 21, 2014 Igor Vagin's training will take place
“How to put your interlocutor in his place
We invite you to the training! details =
Chapter 1.
The tongue is worse than a gun!
The art of parrying verbal blows is the most necessary thing in life. People who do not mince words have been respected since ancient times. The winners of verbal duels gained fame as great orators. The ability to sting with a word is valor. In Ancient Greece, for example, Diogenes of Sinope became famous for his ability to return blow to blow. His antics are written about in many ancient works.
Before becoming an eccentric and philosopher, Diogenes was engaged in minting coins. But he was soon caught cutting off money. Later, his enemies more than once reminded him of this “sin of youth.” “So what,” Diogenes answered them. “As a child, I not only cut coins, but also wet the bed!”
Diogenes himself knew how to masterfully put people in their place. One day he was brought to the house of a rich and influential man. Moreover, knowing about his bad habit, they warned him in advance not to spit there. It’s inconvenient, they say, it’s too clean. Without hesitation, Diogenes cleared his throat and spat in his companion’s face: “Sorry, I couldn’t find a worse place here!” Another time, Diogenes heard a man who, with the air of an expert, was discussing celestial phenomena. And he asked him: “Have you come down from heaven a long time ago?”
Ill-wishers once reproached Diogenes for visiting evil and indecent places. “So what,” Diogenes objected. - And the sun sometimes looks into the cesspool. But that doesn’t make it any dirtier.”
One day Diogenes began to beg for alms from a man known for his stinginess. He sarcastically remarked: “I will give you alms, Diogenes, if you convince me to do this.” “If I could convince you of anything,” the philosopher answered, “I would convince you to hang yourself!” Contemporaries wrote that once Diogenes began to beg even... from a statue. When asked about the reasons for the strange act, he answered: “Don’t interfere! I am accustoming myself to refusals!”
It is also known how Diogenes reacted to Socrates’ famous statement “I only know that I know nothing.” “I’m smarter than Socrates,” he said. “Because I don’t even know that!”
The name of the eccentric philosopher has been preserved for centuries. The ability to find a sharp word in time will be useful to you today. It will help you win an important dispute. It is stupid to object directly, to rush at the enemy, like a bull rushes at a bullfighter. You need to be more flexible, listen to objections and respond quickly and effectively. Only speed, wit and the ability to understand the hidden motives of an opponent guarantee victory in a verbal duel. There are quite a lot of techniques that will help you successfully put your presumptuous interlocutor in his place. Here are just a few.
1. White from black. By turning a negative into a positive, you will completely disarm the enemy. It turns out that he does not blame you, but praises you.
- You talk on the phone too much!
- Of course. This is necessary in business: clients are people too and love to communicate. Who are you to me, warden?
- Your seminar does not correspond to practice!
- Do you try these techniques in real life! Many clients are satisfied with my seminar; it helps them in practice. And what is “practice” anyway, in your opinion?
2. Boomerang. Reproach the one who attacks you. He probably doesn't expect this turn of events.
- You are not protecting my interests at all.
- I may not be protecting your interests, but I am protecting the interests of the cause!
More answer options:
- You are not protecting my interests at all.
- I barely have time to defend mine.
- I am ready to defend your interests if you also defend mine.
- Your answers do not suit me.
- What is the question, is the answer!
3. Reduction to the point of absurdity. A reproach can be exaggerated to such an extent that one can only laugh at it. Try it, it's a win-win!
- I think you drink too much!
- Would it be better if I ate a lot?
- You're a cheapskate!
- Would you like me to be forced to beg?
More options:
- You're a cheapskate!
- If I had someone to spend money on, I wouldn’t save.
- I'm not greedy, I'm calculating.
- You're arrogant!
- What can you do, the tires are bad!
- I'm used to riding with the wind!
More options:
- You're arrogant!
- And you're stalling all the time!
- So how are we going to bring me in?
4. “Weak?”
Put pressure on the most famous psycho-complex, and the enemy will be defeated. Nobody likes to feel like a weakling.
- You dance just awful!
- How about dancing weakly together?
More answer options:
- I’m just moving my legs so you don’t crush them on me...
- But I sing well!
- It's strange, but others like it. Maybe you have no taste?
Another example:
- This is too risky an idea.
- Are you weak to take risks?
5. Specifics. Hitting the specific shortcomings of your interlocutor sometimes helps save time and nerves.
- It's too expensive.
- What, you have no money at all?
- We'll talk when your sanity returns!
“He hasn’t left me for forty years now, and you haven’t even noticed it.” By the way, when will yours be back?
Reception6 - oh. “What would you like?”
This magic formula will more than once help to confuse an overly aggressive interlocutor.
- Why are you quiet?
- Would you like me to be angry?
- Why are you walking around like you’ve been nibbled on?
- Would you like me to walk around like I've been bitten?
- Yes, you are a simple housewife!
- Would you like me to be a prostitute?
- Someone must be the master of the house!
7. Exchange of roles.
Did they “run into” you? Immediately go on the attack yourself. Don't waste time!
- Do you beat your children?!!!
- Who else will teach them to fight?
More answer options:
- Whose should I beat?
- or
- And yours beat you...??
- What... did you take money from the cash register?
- Is there not enough money there? How much exactly?
- Your seminar does not meet practical requirements!
- What are you responsible for? What requirements? Look how practical...
8. "A sharp response against criticism" Shift your emphasis. Make your opponent confused with a harsh remark or a snide counter-offer.
- You should wash the car!
- It’s okay, if it dries out, the dirt will fall off on its own...
- You talk too much on the phone!
- Good that I have there is someone to chat with!
- Why didn’t you cope with foreign policy issues?
- Tortured by internal enemies!
-You have a sense of tact like an asphalt skating rink!
- No, I have it much more thoroughly!
- I don't like how you pose the question.
- So we are not involved in staging, but solving the problem!
9. Positive versus negative.
Turn a reproach into a positive statement. In this case, the attacker will have to urgently start defending.
For example:
- Oh, I don't believe it!
- And I don't believe it either...
- But how ornate!
- Why did you fail to manage the project?
- What a project, what a management...
10. Picking on words. Feel free to choose any word from the attacker's phrase. And try to achieve an accurate definition. As a rule, this causes the opponent to fade away.
- What do you mean by “too long?” Isn't the process worth it?
- You are deceiving clients!
- What do you mean “deceiving”? Maybe I deceive when they themselves demand it!
- There is nothing to expect from such a miser!
- What did you expect from him then?
Reception 11. Full agreement.
Any attack is pointless if you agree with everything in advance. Just don't overdo it!
- Are you drinking too much?
- Of course I drink a lot! Aren't you?
- Your pants are all dirty!
- Amazing observation! And my shirt is not the newest either...
- You only think about yourself!
- Yes, who else? I have no one closer to me...
Turn the reproach inside out and forcefully prove that you are right.
- You haven't fully studied the problem!
- Your project requires improvements.
- You are wrong. It's almost ready.
- I will never tell you his I don't trust the child.
- Yes you can trust me any baby and not have to worry about anything!
13. Super idea.
Show your opponent a certain goal, in front of which his reproach will seem paltry and stupid. We are talking about important things, they say, there is no need to find fault with details.
- Why didn't you warn your customers in advance?
- The company's task is not to warn customers, but to earn money. This is exactly what we achieved!
- Your company is a monopoly. It needs to be divided.
- This is not about a monopoly. The product that the company makes is important. And when the company is divided, the quality of the product will suffer.
14. Self-esteem.
Remember: you are the master of the situation. Everything you do is one hundred percent correct. And if so, you can safely ignore the comments.
- Why do you always have the last word?
- And who else can it go to??
- When was the last time you read something other than newspapers?
- With my knowledge books no need to read.
Technique 15. Directness versus hints. Hidden reproaches are most easily broken by revealing the opponent’s “little trick.” Speak up those nasty things that he tried to disguise.
- It is hard to believe!
- Are you saying that I'm lying? Right?
- Honey, how much does this dress cost?
- Are you again trying to imply that I am wasting money on nonsense? Did I understand correctly?
Technique 16. Let's call it “Coup”.
Expand the reproach into reverse side. If you are caught with a disadvantage, then your opponent does not have such a “minus”. Ask how he managed to achieve this.
- Speak to the point!
- I am amazed by your ability to always say only the main thing. How did you learn this?
- Your pronunciation is terrible.
- How do you manage to speak so well?
- You're always late!
- How do you always manage to arrive on time?
17. Exaggerated agreement.
Don't be afraid to agree and joke about comments made to you. There is no better weapon than humor. By bringing your opponent's statement to the point of absurdity, you neutralize it.
- You have completely changed!
- Yes, my husband says that somewhere there is clearly cancer.
-You're always blushing!
- Yes, I was even recently invited to work as a traffic light.
18. Absurd comparison. By comparing the bad with the worst, we put the situation in a favorable light. It is enough to add a little humor and you will easily be able to deal with the impartial remark.
Example:
-You have unreliable partners!
- Ha! And my friends are even worse...
Or in another way:
- You just breakdown!
- Are you a non-pathologist?
Technique 19. Absurd advantage.
A joke never fails. And in any situation you can find a couple of humorous advantages. Talk about them, and you yourself will see how your opponent is “blown away”.
- Looks like they forgot to put your brains back in during the operation!
- Yes, and since then I have been at the ideal weight.
-You constantly make the same mistakes!
- At least I don't have to stress out and come up with new ones!
Technique 20. Remedy against boasters. Someone else's boasting always gets on your nerves. But it is always possible to show a braggart’s “numerous talents and advantages” in an unfavorable light. The main thing: determination and a good sense of humor.
- 50 people report to my husband!
- Does he work as a watchman at a cemetery?
- I was recently written about in the newspapers!
- Yes, I remember reading it. There was something about a bank robbery...
21. Hidden counterattack. You can always parry a blow with a sharp statement starting with the words “better than...”.
- Your fly is unzipped!
- An unzipped fly is better than an unzipped wallet.
- What you have on your head is not a hairstyle, but a garbage dump!
- It's better to have a dump on your head than in your head!
A lot of other methods could be cited. Surely, you yourself have resorted to similar methods of self-defense more than once in your life. This is quite natural! At my trainings, visitors specifically learn accurate responses and figure out how best to win a verbal duel. Here are just a few examples from the classes:
- Why are you such a penny-pincher?
- If I had someone to spend money on, I would spend it!
- You are a weakling, you are not a man!
- Yes, I'm not a plowman, I'm a dentist!
- Why do you look so stupid?
- How about not standing out from your group?
- Why are you barely muttering there?
- The others can hear me fine. Maybe you have hearing problems?
- Why are you so arrogant?
- This depends on the height of the position you occupy!
- What a lop-eared person you are!
- What, ears are the main male value?
- You are an upstart!
- Yes, and I'm proud of it.
- You're a fool.
- Nothing, but I will pleasantly shade your mind.
- I don’t want to stand out in your company
- You're a bitch.
- It's better to be a bitch than a fool!
- You are a burr on your ass!
- It's better to be a jerk than an ass!
Another possible answer:
- It depends on whose... There are very nice asses...
- Your skirt is too short!
- Well, with legs like these I can afford it. What, does she excite you?
- All sorts of people are calling here!
- We are intelligent people, let's get to know each other first...
- What, did you want money?
- Don't you want money?
- I was warned to stay away from boys like that in ties!
- Excuse me, what orientation are you?
All famous people were famous for their ability to win verbal duels. We still re-read their original answers and aphorisms with great pleasure. Here are just a few examples:
Zhukovsky to the sick Pushkin:
- Yes, misfortune is a good school,
Pushkin:
- And happiness is the best university!
- Is it true that there is only one step from the great to the ridiculous?
Mayakovsky:
- Yes, and I am taking this step towards you!
Question for Kennedy during his speech:
- What can the country do for young people?
Kennedy:
- You ask what the country should do for you, and I will ask you: what can you do for the country?
The ability to quickly respond to unpleasant statements will be useful to anyone in life. Review all the above techniques and examples again. And then try the following exercises. Simply put, learn to come up with witty answers on the spot. Ready? Forward! So, they tell you:
· You failed the project!
· Can't you dress more fashionably?
· You speak English like a chimpanzee!
· Why did you lie about your colleague?
· You're too fat!
· What are your weaknesses?
· You can always ask my advice. After all, your work isn’t going well right now, is it?
· Could you put a muzzle on the dog?
· People complain about you all the time!
· There is already mold on this cake!
· You are so boring!
· You drink too much!
· Why are your teeth so yellow?
· Stop being rude!
These suggestions are for you to warm up! Train your hand (or rather, your tongue) and don’t be afraid to get into an argument. Verbal duels cannot be avoided. But you can learn to always emerge victorious
Chapter 2.
Under the investigator's hood
There is no point in swearing off money or prison in Russia. The chances of being behind bars for any of us are always higher than the chances of remaining free. Don't wave your hands, think about it better:
We are putting everyone in jail. There were two vice-presidents in Russia: Rutskoi and Yanaev, and now Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the oligarchs, is in prison. Two speakers of parliament have been in Russian prisons: among them Khasbulatov. Even the acting Prosecutor General, Ilyushenko, was in prison. And the Minister of Defense is Yazov. And deputy Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and... You see for yourself, no one is immune from this...
A conversation with an investigator is an extreme situation. This is not bullshit for you. This, by the way, depends on where exactly you will spend the next few years...
Familiarize yourself with your rights in advance and go ahead to the interrogation. It cannot be avoided no matter how hard you want. But knowing about some techniques for putting pressure on the brain, you will be able to avoid the worst. Forewarned is forearmed. Of course, one should feel sorry for the investigators - their work is not easy. Solving a crime is a very difficult task. Perhaps that is why the most savvy representatives of this glorious tribe limit themselves to collecting the minimum amount of information to transfer the case to court. It is sometimes much easier to obtain a false confession of guilt or fake evidence than to establish the truth. So, better sympathize with yourself, your loved one. And try to at least mentally prepare to defend yourself if you find yourself in the notorious office with a bright lamp.
What do investigators use? Your fear, guilt, a sense of superiority, a feeling of revenge, envy... Most of the "zhellovy and sharapov" are fluent in the techniques of "carrot and stick", bluff, intimidation, exhaustion... They have a standard arsenal for "persuading" stubborn defendants , which is used by both experienced investigators and newbies.
1. The “know-it-all” technique. The investigator begins the interrogation by reporting minor offenses that the arrested person had in the past. Gradually it reaches the “present time”. It seems that he already knows all the ins and outs about the accused. Some details can be clarified in advance from the suspect’s accomplices. If you are not a complete fool, do not inject yourself, even if it seems that everything is open. Who better than an investigator can pretend that he has already known everything for a long time. Demonstration of investigative capabilities also has a good effect on the brain. The investigator reports in detail how and what he will use to further solve the crime. Presents the results of the examination, the results of interrogations and confrontations. Anything goes, even the “random” demonstration of evidence allegedly found during a search. So that the suspect knows for sure: everything will be revealed anyway, and a sincere confession makes the punishment easier.
2. Bluff technique. They try to present the case as if the confession of the accused is just an empty formality, everything he will say is known in advance. And the investigator only needs to find out some minor details. The insignificance of these details lulls the suspect's vigilance. So errors, inaccuracies, or even some major “puncture” appear. Funny little details can lead to serious facts. In addition, the suspect is completely unknown. What does the investigator know? What does he not know? These thoughts distract attention, make you nervous, that is, as a result, they again work for the benefit of the investigation.
3. Technique “against each other”. Using the suspect’s “comrades” who supposedly “have already confessed to everything” is a very popular method of pressure. So, one arrested person is taken into a room and asked to write his biography. Then his accomplices are led past the same room: “Look, he’s already writing on you.” And at the same time they sarcastically declare: “Why are you pretending to be heroes? Everyone who could has already admitted everything. Who will know whether you are heroes or not. So you will rot behind bars as unknown heroes.” If no information can be squeezed out of one of the accomplices, he is asked to simply say to the second: “I told the whole truth.” Perhaps he didn’t even say a word. But the second one is now completely at a loss; you can take it with your bare hands.
4. Method of repeating questions. Our head is an imperfect thing. Too many details are an overwhelming burden for her. And because than more people says, the more likely he is to get confused. As soon as he forgets at least something from what he said last time, he can be caught in a lie. That's why investigators love to ask and ask again. It’s as if they all suffer from sclerosis... All answers are compared, plus the same technique of clarifying minor details is used. By the way, they catch the suspect precisely on indirect, “insignificant” questions, on things that are easily forgotten. Do you think that your “version” cannot be knocked out of your head with a hammer? You are wrong. There are a lot of ways to make someone forget what was said. You can exhaust the person under investigation with a long interrogation, repeating questions at intervals of an hour or two. Or you can suddenly distract attention, lull vigilance, break the will to resist...
5. Reception of “emotional reaction”. Emotions are a suspect's worst enemy. Very often the investigator’s goal is to cause a strong emotional wave. It will entail mistakes, inaccuracies, and even full recognition.
What an investigator can play on:
· On jealousy: “Are you sitting here while your friend and your wife are having fun?” (And what difference does it make if it’s a lie? Bluffing is the first order of business here!).
· On a sense of justice: “Is this fair? You sit, and he walks free.”
· On a feeling of hopelessness: “You’ve already been handed over” (a fake interrogation report is attached). “Look at how many people are sitting, they also considered themselves smart, just like you. They also said: the first commandment is not to inject yourself. And where are they all now? All our prisons are full!” (pronounced with a pleased gleam in the eyes).
· On antipathy: “Look what kind of scum you've messed with! Is this your circle? They will sell their own mother! But you good guy, not like these scum of society.”
· On a feeling of revenge: “This bastard sold you out, and you feel sorry for him!”
· Feeling guilty: “How could you do this to your brother!”
· On the feeling of fear: “You will get a “tower”!” (Even if the defendant does not face anything other than a year in prison...) “Do you know what kind of prisons we have?? We’ll put you in the same cell with the perverts, then you’ll find out...” A popular technique: in the midst of an interrogation with passion, one of the policemen flies into the office: “Come on faster! It’s time for us to go to the shooting range.” Fear and confusion sometimes force a person to say what he did not plan to say at all.
6. Exhaustion Technique. If a person is tired or simply does not expect a trick, it is much easier to “break” him. It’s no secret that our investigation loves hours-long interrogations, “pounding water in a mortar,” and returning to the same thing. Did you think this is just how it's done?
Acceptance of uncertainty. Many people do not tolerate the unknown well. Delaying the start of the interrogation, the mystery of what is happening, omissions and hints often have a worse effect physical punishment. The information vacuum is very mentally exhausting.
The technique of surprise. Investigators love “hot pursuit” interrogations. The person has not yet had time to gather himself and consult with the defender - it’s time to get everything he needs from him. That is why sometimes, despite everything that is written in the law, they try to delay a meeting with a lawyer until the last minute.
Pounce technique. The calm conversation is gradually coming to an end. This is the time to turn around and ask the key question in a completely different tone. The interlocutor has already relaxed, and the investigator will easily find out the most important thing....
Let's remember Commissioner Columbo from the television series of the same name. Already leaving after boring “idiotic” questions, he returned two or three times and again asked some “nonsense”. The suspects were glad that he had finally fallen behind and they could relax, then they became furious at his impudence and... made mistakes. At the same time appearance, and by his behavior he portrayed himself as such a fool, asking stupid and naive questions. His famous raincoat and equally famous car of an unknown breed only strengthened the impression of “stupidity.” He himself appealed to the sense of superiority of his interlocutors and constantly complimented them. And as a result... I learned everything I needed. Yes, a good investigator is a good psychologist.
The "good investigator - bad investigator" technique. Even five-year-old children know about this technique. Two “different” people alternately speak to the suspect. One is bad, angry and rude. The other one is good, kind, affectionate. It would seem that there is no need to fall for the bait. But no! The suspect is exhausted, he is simply “drawn” to a nice and good investigator. He cooperates and awaits sympathy, promises, encouragement... Even if this does not work out right away, he will be crushed by the psychological swing “from good to bad” and the illusion that one investigator does not know what he told the other.
Reception of the game with evidence. If the investigator has something to show the suspect, he does it masterfully. Sometimes the evidence is shown “in ascending order”, the psychological pressure increases and the suspect quickly confesses to everything. If the person under investigation is an impressionable person, he is immediately shown the most compelling evidence: even a bloody knife found in the bushes, or even a signed testimony of an eyewitness to the crime. Very often, no other evidence is required after this.
Reception of mental struggle. As you know, in any person “the devil fights with God.” And in certain situations, it is enough for the investigation to prove to him that his “legend” will collapse like a house of cards with one touch. And along the way, the suspect is told how good he is, how much good he has done before, how high his authority is and how stupid it is to ruin all this by lying once. After which, under a plausible pretext, he is left alone with his thoughts. And very often the mental struggle ends in favor of the investigation...
Acceptance of legend assumption. As you know, adults lie wisely. And other adults, that is, investigators, pretend that they allowed themselves to be fooled. They smile and nod, supposedly completely trusting the suspect. Then they begin to go into detail and ask questions. And not one or two, but fifty, seventy, a hundred questions. Even if the defendant had time to think over the legend in all its details, he is not able to foresee everything. This means he will have to make up something on the fly. He has no right to say “I don’t know,” because then the credibility of his version will be undermined. The details invented are instantly forgotten, and catching the deceiver is a piece of cake. In addition, the investigator can suddenly pose an “acute” question without changing the timbre of speech or tone of voice. The suspect is lost (after all, everything went so smoothly and calmly!), does not immediately understand what happened, and gives himself away completely.
But even the most effective techniques psychological pressure does not give effect without the right questions. Investigators are masters of the art of questioning! Every question here is double-lined. Among quite neutral issues- the right ones come across, regarding indirect details. Also, with the help of questions, the investigator seeks to direct evidence to the right direction. Sometimes he suggests choosing “either-or”. Or provides the opportunity to choose, but in such a way that the answer “yes” seems most preferable. And sometimes it leaves no choice at all: “One of two things. Either you killed or you stole!” There are also suggestive questions. If you directly tell the suspect: “Did you kill?!”, it is very possible that he will immediately break down and sign the report.
But remember: don’t lose your presence of mind, don’t give up: investigators have their little tricks, and you have your civil rights!
Chapter 3.
SAY A WORD ABOUT THE POOR VILLAIN
(Lawyers)
What is a “good lawyer”?
This is a question that you must answer for yourself when fate drives you into a corner, and when you remember the bitter “from the scrip and from prison - do not swear.”
How will most ordinary people answer this question?
A good lawyer, unlike a bad one, can ruin a criminal case. The bad one only collects papers, certificates, in short, he just imitates work. He, like everyone else, also needs to earn his bread. Often lawyers themselves say: “Nobody needs the truth.”
The first word that is related to lawyers and, at the same time, gives rise to a lot of associations is Defense. Protecting your rights, your property, your loved ones, and sometimes your life.
“Protection” is a word that in our aggressive reality is associated almost with physical action, pressure and fighting qualities. That is why the lawyer who rips throat for his client at the trial, the majority of ordinary people will consider him good.
Confident tone, intensity, any form of emphasizing one's own respectability, competence and infallibility - the key to successful work with clients. By the word “successful” we do not mean, as it may seem, the success of legal proceedings - that is, winning the case. You can lose the case. Success is that the client, even if he is not satisfied, is certainly must consider that he The lawyer did everything possible.
The fulfillment of these commandments begins at the stage of familiarization with the case from the words of the client: “I am familiar with such cases, I know how to help you, I will try to do everything possible, but your case will require special effort ..." and, often, a story of a similar case with a successful completion is given.
1. Every step should be endowed with great meaning.
Competent and respectable people do not do small and meaningless things) and therefore, any little thing is presented as something very significant: “I talked to the investigator today and pointed out to him the significant (in fact, nonsense or meaningless) mistakes in your case!”
2. Routine and obligatory conversation is presented as something “special”, plus “I’m all about work! I’m doing my best for you!”.
How much do you and I understand about the intricacies of jurisprudence, the Criminal or Civil Codes? I think no. I even think that many judges, being up to their necks in work, do not know all the intricacies of the Law - there is no time to delve into them. It would be a sin not to take advantage of this. And, often, bluffing lawyers force even judges (and even their less experienced colleagues) to believe in the existence of certain “mistakes”, inaccuracies, nuances unknown to the opposing side. The defendant will be imbued with respect, the judge or an incompetent colleague will also feeling of guilt(“How did I not know such a thing!..”).
And then, when the decision has already been made, or the case is lost by the misled party, the opposing lawyer feels or finds out the true state of affairs, he is unlikely to want to “spit on his bald head” a second time and admit his incompetence squared. It will be easier to find an excuse for a stupid court decision and your own mistakes, and properly justify them with documentation...
This technique works especially effectively when the lawyer on the other side is not a regular lawyer, but an “invited” or new one and, therefore, cannot know all the nuances of the case. He, as a rule, gets lost and asks to postpone the matter. This has an extremely negative effect on the court, especially if you comment on its confusion with sincere surprise: “Didn’t they tell you about this? ...Haven't you seen this document? ...It’s strange how, with your extensive experience, you did not see this document and did not ask your owners for it. It is directly related to the issue at hand.”
This technique can unsettle even a very experienced lawyer.
It happens that in the reasoned part of the court decision, where the arguments of the parties were set out, rules of law appear that were not present and which were not referred to by either party. For example, in an arbitration court, minutes of the court hearing are not kept at all, and it is impossible to restore the picture of the discussion.
Experienced lawyers often use the technique " Bluff”, pretending to read, openly distort the rules of law on which they base their position. And strangely enough, the court believes this. The judge makes a short decision (“yes” or “no”) at the hearing, then writes a detailed justification within five days.
Judges often make decisions on the spur of the moment, under the hypnotic influence of one of the parties.
The court simply does not have enough time to rummage through the rules of law. Allow 15-30 minutes to think about the decision. After this, the judge is obliged to read out a short decision on the merits of the dispute, or to postpone the case (time pressure mode). The judge can only adjourn the case up to three times. Therefore, the decision is made under the persuasive influence of one of the parties and can be emotional. And since in the five days that the judge is given to write the reasoned part, he can write anything, but he cannot change the decision itself.
As you can see, it works here time pressure technique.
If time pressure is used by judges, it is necessary to tactfully remind about the principles of fairness and equality of the parties in trial, talk about “objectivity”.
“Your Honor, I think that your objectivity will not allow you to retire to make a decision without fully hearing the positions of the parties, especially since you are an experienced specialist and cannot help but see that our provisions on this issue cannot but influence the decision on this matter "...
“Dear court, I think that we should not violate the declared principles of fairness and equality of the parties...”
Most decisions are made by the court emotionally.
It is only in books that there are doctors and lawyers “who are equally concerned about the good/justice of others, regardless of their personal qualities, abstracting from their emotions. We are all human, and we cannot be free from emotions, especially if it concerns our own complexes.
Lawyers know this better than anyone and use it for emotional pressure on judges, jurors, witnesses, their colleagues on the opposing side and other participants in the process.
They say to their female colleague: “You don’t look good today! There is a stain on your dress."
To the judge, the old maid, the bigot and the “upholder of morality”: “Your honor! Does this person, who, as we have learned, leads a very dubious lifestyle, have the moral right to accuse my client of what he did? »
To the jury: “Gentlemen! My client is a simple person like you. Imagine your loved ones in his place, would you want them to suffer the same fate that the respected Mr. Prosecutor asks for? »
No matter how sophisticated people they all are, no, no, the lawyer will touch some chord.
It's no secret that many judges hate lawyers.
Apparently, because in their eyes, people who administer justice, lawyers appear as prostitutes who defend scum, obviously guilty scoundrels and similar evil spirits for money. In a word, those who paid. Therefore, picking up the key to the judge is very important point. A technique as old as the world is in use: “ we are with you - One field of berries"For example, fellow countrymen, people of the same circle, fellow lawyers.
Knowing about the judge’s weaknesses or complexes, you can play on them and try to arouse in the judge a feeling of sympathy for yourself and your client.
It is also important to “put pressure”: to show that you are a strong lawyer, who has “certain forces” behind him, that you will fight to the end and, if necessary, will go through the authorities. Judges are often afraid that a confident, strong lawyer will send the case to higher authorities for review. Who wants to get involved?
to the client: “I’ll break myself into pieces for your sake!” You see how I give all my best"
judge, jury: “I care for the cause of Truth! See how excited I am!”
or both: “See how competent I am! »
Excited or tired jurors can easily make a mistake (remember “Resurrection” by L. Tolstoy), but the task of emotional influence force to do necessary error.
At the same time, it’s a good idea to disable the attacker, a colleague of the opposing side.
We have already talked about the emotional side of the impact. But there are still techniques of distraction, unsettling and social mimicry.
For example, you can ask a colleague for her only fountain pen “for a minute” and not rush to give it back, so that she will get nervous and miss something important or make a mistake.
It’s not a bad idea to accuse a novice colleague of incompetence: “You’re a professional and you understand perfectly well that what you just said was stupid!” "(unsettling).
You can pretend to be a fool (mimicry) and start saying obvious nonsense - the other side will relax, deciding that they will win the case with such an idiot, their arguments, the strength of which they now do not really care about, become weaker and at this time they are dealt a decisive blow.
You can also lull your colleague’s vigilance by offering him help, guardianship, better job, and at the same time form in him a certain “immunity” to attack, a kind of projective feeling of guilt: “How much do they pay in your company? Not much! I could offer you a more interesting job.”
Erotic manipulation of both colleagues and judges is a classic of manipulation in general. She doesn't need any special comments.
Unfortunately, it is not so uncommon for a judge to be directly bribed by an interested party's lawyer. Moreover, it is easier for him to do this than for the relatives of the accused.
Two series of techniques are called psychological karate and psychological aikido.
In the first case, rude pressure is used: a series of questions, interrupting - “this is not relevant” (although it is very relevant), “everything is clear here, you don’t have to continue”, asking questions like “yes” or “no”, when In fact, it is simply impossible to answer that way.
In aikido the tactics are more subtle. The lawyer agrees with most of the arguments of the opposing side (especially if they are really strong and there is no point in denying them). The attacker's attack gets bogged down in pleasantries. And here, against this background, counterarguments are presented, the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the case are shown.
At the same time, a lawyer is courtesy itself. You can also seat a lawyer’s colleague in an inconvenient place, where it is impossible to properly arrange the documents, and take a comfortable one yourself.
Increasing the waiting threshold.
Let’s say the lawyer clearly sees that the case will last for a maximum of five years, and, taking into account many mitigating circumstances, the court will give three. He tells the client that the whole eight years are waiting for him, but he, the lawyer, “will achieve mitigation.”
By raising the expectation threshold, he simultaneously kills several birds with one stone: he increases his professional authority, shows concern for the client, and insures himself against failure.
Unfortunately, today the time for beautiful performances has passed. Judges are no longer affected by incendiary emotional speech. Apparently cynicism and a decline in the general culture, in which rhetoric in itself has always been valued, have taken their toll. Only the jury can be moved by emotions. Things go better with judges if the lawyer finds "punctures" in the case: inconsistencies, shortcomings, contradictions, weak arguments - and builds his defense on them.
Acting out to the side.
But what to do when the business fails? How to implement reception removing the blame from yourself?
The best - shift the blame onto the client himself.
“You are to blame for hiding important (in fact, trivial) information from me! ...You behaved wrongly...You lied...Be grateful that they didn’t give you more....”
You can blame the “complexity”, “specialness” of the case: “Your case is an equation with many unknowns” (acting out to the side).
Can beat for pity: “I tried so hard, you saw it!” (And you don’t feel sorry for me!) It’s all the judge’s fault...” (at the same time it is also transfer of blame to the side or acting out to the side).
Memo.
Let us once again list the techniques and psycho-complexes involved in the work of a lawyer.
· Paternalistic model of building relationships, that is, subordination to the point of suppression. Firstly, as the most suitable for post-Soviet culture, and secondly, as the most manipulative. It includes:
Þ patronizing, “fatherly” manners, turning into direct pressure; confident tone, peremptory, assertive.
· Giving a “special” meaning to all, even minor or routine procedures and actions.
· Imitation of enormous effort.
· Personalized manipulation: playing on complexes, gender differences, prejudices.
· Mimicry (pretending to be more stupid than you really are, presenting yourself as a “man of the people”).
· General manipulation:
Þ appeal to feelings of guilt, duty, conscience, fear, pity.
Þ “unsettling” through distraction, rudeness (shock methods).
· “Increasing the expectation threshold” technique.
"Acting to the side."
