the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:
The interviewer most certainly was using underhanded tactics and clearly thought out the questions and the order in which to ask them, to slowly build up to a climax. You can see it in Ben's face and body language as it goes on. The questions become more and more personal and while he wants to do the right thing by keeping calm, cool and staying focused, he instead get's wound up and doesn't handle it well, being in too deep at that point. Going after Ben for something he's taken the time to reflect on and admit he was incorrect or stupid etc, while publicly posting it so he doesn't have to waste time dealing with it in the future, is something that would surely irk him, which is where he seemed to finally draw the line.
I will say I have to give the interviewer and whoever made and laid out the questions props because they did so very elegantly, from a political point of view, even though it wasn't exactly done in good faith. Another interview with this guy and I think Ben will easily redeem himself without having to stoop to their level.
|
What do you mean from a "political point of view"?
|
Well in politics, today anyway, the point is typically to 'destroy' your opponent to make yourself seem more worthy to the people. The interviewer executed this quite well and whether or not you think he 'destroyed' Ben, he most certainly made him look bad. Ben made some decent points as well, but overall the interview did not end if his favor. It's not a big deal because nobody is perfect and it's actually good to get knocked down a peg here and there because it keeps you sharp.
