= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Communicating via writing vs. in person - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (23)
Before a debate the campaign of a candidate thinks about the possible questions that can be asked. Then they write talking points of how the candidate is supposed to answer the questions. The candidate memorizes those talking points and goes armed with them to the debate.
Regardles of the questions asked a good candidate sticks to his memorized talking points. If he forgets which governments departments "he" wants to eliminate he loses. If a questions comes up that isn't covered in his memorized talking points, no problem. Simply pick the talking point that's nearest to to topic of the question and run with it.
Having the questions written down wouldn't change much. It just removes the memory test that weeds out candidates who can't remember their own talking points.
The thing which would be important is to not let politicians get away with given statements of the record. Campaigns should answer all meaningful questions that journalists have on the record.
My root comment on this subject was made in the context of the OP comparing verbal vs written conversation. To be clear, I don't disagree with your main point and in fact, I've made the same argument.
I do lean towards disagreement on the idea that it "wouldn't change much" (of course, defining that phrase is problematic), as it seems to me that a large part of "winners" and "losers" in debates is "mere" presentation and likability in that format and that these presentation and likability skills mean little towards the effectiveness of fulfilling their purported jobs. Reference the classic example of the Nixon/Kennedy televised debate (a quickly-googled link for a refresher).
In a written format presentation and likability are also important but candidates can have all the help they need with as much time as they need in a written format.
In all, though, I don't think we disagree much on this. I, too, would like more rigorous debate moderation and if I had to choose between written debates with current standards of debate moderation and verbal debates with rigorous moderation, I'd choose verbal debates with rigorous moderation.
"Help they need" sounds like an euphemism. It might very well mean that the candidate isn't directly responsible for a single word.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant and what I would expect.