jim.shamlin.com

Introduction

The author observes the way in which children attempt to lie their way out of punishment, and observes this behavior follows into adulthood. People just lie about more things, and for different reasons. Whether they have done something they should not have done or failed to do something they should have; whether they have actually done something or intend to do it; or whether they fear punishment for what they've done, want reward for something they failed to do, or simply want to avoid embarrassment, they lie. And they do this quite often, to others and to themselves.

In many instances, we let them get away with it because it simply does not matter. We play along, out of a desire to assist them in saving face. But there are instances in which playing along with a lie, or even allowing it to stand, can be very harmful. And in these situations, it's necessary not only to know the truth, but to get the other party to admit to and accept the truth as well. This is where interrogation skills are necessary.

Interrogation, as the name implies, is about asking questions. He suggests that the human mind is like the engine of a vehicle, and questioning people is a way of peeking under the hood, to understand the reality they are attempting to disguise and their reasons for doing so.

He also briefly questions our own motives for interrogating others: why do we want the truth? When is it valuable? When is it necessary? If we interrogated everyone we met about everything they said, we'd have little time to do anything else - and we would not like or be liked by anyone as a result.

The author provides an outline of some of the major topics, and mentions his own credentials that include over two decades of experience as a professional interrogator, including training others to do the same job.

What's So Hard about Asking a Question?

The authors present a couple of examples that show an interesting tendency. The first example is the Twitter comments in which everyday people asked some very intense questions about a frivolous stunt. The second example is an instance in which professional journalists, who are trained to investigate the truth by means of interrogation, let a politician get away with a very obvious like about a matter that was serious to national security and chose instead to ask very soft and superficial questions - the kind that could be batted down with simple yes-or-no answers without disclosing anything of interest.

He then attempts to address some of the negative connotations of "interrogation" - it has nothing to do with coercion, intimidation, or the various other tactics that people often see in movies and on television - and in fact, these tactics are often used to get someone to tell a lie rather than to admit the truth. Interrogation is about getting people to talk, and making them comfortable enough to disclose the truth - it is more about being friendly than hostile to the subject.

He refers to the curiosity that is so natural, and so innocent, in young children. They ask "why" repeatedly not because they have a sinister agenda, but merely because they are curious to know. Adults tend to lose that natural curiosity - they dismiss many things as being unimportant, and have an exaggerated sense of their own knowledge.

Questioning Process versus Questioning Principles

The author mentions the US Army Intelligence Center in Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and the nine-week course given to interrogators prior to releasing them to the field. The course covers a lot, and nine weeks actually seems rather short considering how much there is to learn, and the fact that those who interrogate enemy soldiers have to understand their culture.

Probably the most critical component of this training is questioning, which is essential to interrogation, and which is often very badly done. The course the author took involved memorizing hundreds of sequences of questions by rote.

And so, he tool on the task of boiling "good questioning" down to basic principles so that interrogators could learn them and develop questioning patterns of their own: if you understand why you are doing something and what it is meant to accomplish, procedures are pointless and can even be counterproductive.

What's In It For You?

The practice of interrogation is often considered within the demesne of the military and police forces, but it has a great deal of applicability in other professions and even in daily life - exchanging information is essential to any interaction with another person, for getting complete and accurate information that will avoid misunderstandings, even if you feel the other person is being entirely truthful.

Questioning is also a way of improving social relationships: when you ask a person questions, it demonstrates your interest in what they have to say, and your concern for their agenda. It encourages others to share, and builds rapport and trust. When people expect you will have questions, they will be prepared to answer - and when they expect you will ask for details, they will be prepared to provide them.

Questioning improves your cognitive skills. You become a better listener - one who actually pays attention to what other people say, and gather more information from what you hear. You will become a more critical thinker, comparing what was said from one sentence to the next and identifying incongruities.

Questioning makes you more effective in your role. As a parent, knowing more about your children is essential to making accurate choices, guiding them in the right direction, and getting their cooperation.

Questioning skills also give you a competitive advantage: the salesman who gathers more information, listens attentively, and speaks in a way that is relevant to what his prospect has said is more likely to close the deal, and to be sought out in future.

What's In It For Them?

Interrogation is not entirely self-serving, but provides a value to the people who answering your questions. It's important to understand this, because getting people to talk to you is easier if they have the sense doing so serves their interests as well.

People are social, and have a natural attraction to interact with others. They have a hard time ignoring a ringing phone and are inclined to answer it, even though the suspect it's a telemarketer on the other end. When asked a question, they are inclined to answer - it flatters them to think someone cares enough to listen. (EN: This is a bit presumptuous, as in the present day people are very suspicious of others' motives in confronting them.)

Questions facilitate conversation: when you ask someone a question, it gives them a topic to speak about. If you merely make a statement, they are uncertain whether or how to respond.

In the context of a relationship or business transaction, the other party recognizes that they stand to benefit by giving you information. A customer speaks to a salesman in order to get his assistance in identifying the product they need.

In other situations, the other party recognizes that they stand to lose something by not giving you information. Taking the same scenario, a customer who does not tell the salesman what he wants often ends up getting pressure to purchase something they don't need - or at the very least has to invest more time in untangling the salesman's misconceptions.

In terms of truthfulness, most people have learned that simply telling the truth is a lot less difficult and painful that attempting to hide the facts. When they have a sense that their cover story is weak, and that the other party is smart enough to see through it, they recognize the truth will eventually be known.

Some people feel obligated to reciprocate: when someone discloses information about themselves to them, they feel that they "owe" the other person the same sort of information in exchange. To ask a question after a statement is presenting a bill for the social debt.

One Thing at a Time

One principle of his system that he considers to be critical enough to call out, from the very beginning. Is that an interrogator should seek to find out one thing at a time. It's a simple principle, but one which many ignore, and fail because they are unfocused and scattered in their approach.

He provides a few examples of common situations in which people ask "why did you do A and B" or "why did you do D after C" - in essence, assuming that two things were done simultaneously, or in a given sequence. When one or the other was done, or they were not done in the sequence that was assumed, the other party may fail to provide the information we really want.

This is so problematic that the author asserts that if the reader stopped reading here, they would improve their questioning skills by ten percent.