Long Answers

[Hobbs]

I hate it when I ask someone a simple "yes" or "no" question, and they have to go on a long, complicated tangent that is much more than I wanted, or cared, to know. Let me give you a recent example"

Me: (duh), thoughts in brackets, []
CC: C/Cadet

Me: Do you have your quiz? [Please be "yes"]

CC: Sir, you see, what happened was I didn't open the email, so I didn't get the attachment that we needed to print out.

Me: [First of all; that was a yes/no question. Secondly, you're shitting me, aren't you? Why the crap did you ignore my email?]

So, a short exchange, to say the least, but nowhere did I ask him to explain to me why he didn't follow direction. I already have him on my list of "problem" cadets, and this really didn't improve my impression of him.

(Note: for those interested, I had him write out an MFR and turn it into me. He'll have to present his memo to another cadet-officer who's in charge of the quizzes.)

PS: It just doesn't happen in the cadet corps, this is something I see constantly. Instead of a simple, one-word answer, people turn it into a long, detailed story. Does anyone else here hate that?

[Ladeeda]

Uck, I get that kind of stuff from my Aunt (and a few clients). You ask a simple question, then get this freaking epic backstory and tangent, and there's no way to shut them up without interrupting, since you can't get a freaking word in!

[HYHYBT]

In your example, sure, but often something is worded as a simple yes-or-no question when the answer is either more along the lines of "sort-of" or "it depends on exactly what you mean by x" or otherwise calls for a longer answer. Then the person asking gets mad or cuts you off when you try to give that vital additional information.

Not the greatest example, but an easy one: "have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a yes-or-no question, but nobody who's paying attention (unless he's a fool) would give only a yes-or-no answer.

[blas87]

Oh my lord do I agree with this one.

I have a few coworkers who do that. My bf even does it. I want to beat them all senseless because of it.

"Are you coming home on time today?"

"Well, I gotta stop here and then I might go get something to eat, but see my brakes really need to get fixed so I probably should just come straight home but I really want to get something to eat because there's no food in the house, but I don't want to end up having them seize on me, but...."

[HYHYBT]

Exactly my point though. You ask a yes-or-no question, and get an answer that's essentially "I'm not sure because..." Why is that not a valid, non-complaint-worthy response?

[Sage Blackthorn]

Any Yes/No question that can also be read as an accusation of wrong-doing on the part of the listener will tend to elicit not only a Yes/No answer, but an accompanying statement of defense. It could just be the situation where the listener KNEW that they'd done something wrong, and being confronted with this immediately puts them on the defensive.

How you ask the question could be the source of your frustration, because it's inviting the kind of responses you dislike.

[Hobbs]

Exactly my point though. You ask a yes-or-no question, and get an answer that's essentially "I'm not sure because..." Why is that not a valid, non-complaint-worthy response?

Because there were only two valid answers, "yes" or "no." Anything else is extraneous bs that does not matter.


How you ask the question could be the source of your frustration, because it's inviting the kind of responses you dislike.

Okay, this isn't meant to be offensive to you, and if it is, I apologize. In your greeting thread, I asked if you were male/female. I probably should have explained it was to ensure I used the right pronouns towards you (he/she, etc.). The point is, you wrote out a (not very lengthy, but substantial) paragraph about gender-confusion on the 'Net and your upbringing. While valid, it wasn't what I asked. Does that example make sense?

[Ginger Tea]

some times the long answer is a preemptive 2nd answer

"are you coming home on time tonight?" for example
"no"
"well why not?"

I hate when I as an a/b question and get yes for the answer

[Ghel]

There are many situations where someone may be reluctant to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a question.

In the situation in the OP, the cadet may have been reluctant to say no for fear of getting in trouble, so he/she may have given the explanation as a pre-emptive way of trying to stay out of trouble.

In Sage's welcome thread, he rightly explained the differences between physical sexual makeup, gender roles (as perceived by society) and emotional/mental gender. An answer which I think was spot on.

In a third situation, the question may belie a misunderstanding of the situation or contain some sort of logical fallacy, and the person responding has to explain why the question is invalid. In that case, a "yes" or "no" is an inappropriate answer.

[Hobbs]

In the situation in the OP, the cadet may have been reluctant to say no for fear of getting in trouble, so he/she may have given the explanation as a pre-emptive way of trying to stay out of trouble.

Actually, his answer made him look worse in my eyes than if he had simply said "no." We'd had a briefing by our Commandant on the honor code (We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate anyone amongst us who does). His answer, by definition, was lying, since his answer was evasive to the question asked.

In Sage's welcome thread, he rightly explained the differences between physical sexual makeup, gender roles (as perceived by society) and emotional/mental gender. An answer which I think was spot on.

I'm not saying his question was wrong, I'm saying it wasn't what I asked. I wanted to know how to address him in speaking, and so I asked if he was male or female. If he wants to discuss gender roles, there's plenty of opportunities on this forum to do so.

[HYHYBT]

Absolutely, unequivocally wrong. If neither of the answers you offered is correct, you have no business at all complaining that the answer was something else.

As for "evasive," unless the long answer provided did not provide the information you sought, then it was not evasive, much less lying (which not all evasive answers qualify as.)

[Hobbs]

As for "evasive," unless the long answer provided did not provide the information you sought, then it was not evasive, much less lying (which not all evasive answers qualify as.)

His response was quibbling. Quibbling is defined as: "To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections." He was evading the truth, which was that "No, he had not done his work."

We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard in our morals than the civilian population.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Okay, this isn't meant to be offensive to you, and if it is, I apologize. In your greeting thread, I asked if you were male/female. I probably should have explained it was to ensure I used the right pronouns towards you (he/she, etc.). The point is, you wrote out a (not very lengthy, but substantial) paragraph about gender-confusion on the 'Net and your upbringing. While valid, it wasn't what I asked. Does that example make sense?

Not offended at all. And yes it makes sense. I wasn't reading your question as a simple "Male or Female" one. Again, the problem of interpretting what someone is saying through the limited medium of text. And while you were wanting to know how to refer to me (and I'd probably have pissed you off by saying "Just Sage is fine"), I read your question as one pertaining to how I saw myself than how you should address me in polite conversation. Again, it was entirely my own interpretation of what you ment.

And it was a bit pre-emptive on my part (something I need to work on not doing anymore) as I've noticed that people will treat you differently depending on whether they view you as one gender or the other. Which, honestly is a subect I could (and probably will) start a whole new "Things I Hate" thread on :D I'd rather have people relate to me for who I am than what I am.

Anyway, back to what we were talking about. It could also be a cultural thing to deal with. I have the opposite pet peeve. I hate simple one word answers like "Yes" or "No". I expect people to give me an answer and a reason or explanation behind that answer. When they don't, I feel like I'm trying to pull teeth to get anything out of them. Or it makes me suspect they are hiding something by not being forth-coming with pertinent or relevant information. When I didn't want to tell someone something because I thought it might upset them, I'll usually say as little as possible and leave it upto them to read as they want, while still being technically truthful.

[HYHYBT]

We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard in our morals than the civilian population.Still, at the VERY least, not lying by any rational definition. And I'll just cut out the rest of what I'd typed here, because "reasonable" is not expected of military rules.

[gremcint]

The ones who piss me off are those who make a conscious effort to not give a straight answer or yes or no. I've had teachers trying to act all intellectual by giving bullshit answers or diverting yes or no questions and trying to distract you, usually these people are just a waste of breath.

[Hobbs]

Still, at the VERY least, not lying by any rational definition. And I'll just cut out the rest of what I'd typed here, because "reasonable" is not expected of military rules.

Wow, I wonder if you even know what our rules entail. Then again, "reasonable" is not expected of the civilian population when it comes to understanding the military society.

I have already explained that what the cadet was doing was quibbling, which is defined as an evasion of the truth. An evasion of the truth is a lie.

The ones who piss me off are those who make a conscious effort to not give a straight answer or yes or no. I've had teachers trying to act all intellectual by giving bullshit answers or diverting yes or no questions and trying to distract you, usually these people are just a waste of breath.

I hate that too. In fact, that's what the cadet was doing. I probably should have called him out on it, but he's giving me an MFR (http://www.airforcewriter.com/mfr.htm) that I'll send up the chain.

[HYHYBT]

Logically, it is not the same thing. Your rules may well define it as such.

[Hobbs]

Logically, it is not the same thing. Your rules may well define it as such.
Logically, if you follow the line of reasoning, you'll see that I'm correct.

[Greenday]

Logically, it is not the same thing. Your rules may well define it as such.

Purposely avoiding to tell the truth is pretty much a lie.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Purposely avoiding to tell the truth is pretty much a lie.

More to the point, it's a Game. One which I think people resort to to avoid conflict and navigate the hazards of Politically Correct society.

Some folks get to be quite good at avoiding the truth why not technically lieing by things like answering questions exactly as they are asked. Or answering questions in a way that can be interpretted multiple ways (leaving the questioner to read the answer as they want to). Yes/No questions aren't as precise as some folks think they are.

For example: "Are you a traitor?! Yes or No?!" could be read many different ways because it calls for some self-assesment. The person who committed the act might view themselves as a Patriot and answer "No Sir!" and feel they are telling the truth. or "Did you or did you not sabotage the equipment?!" when it was an accident and not intentional. (Sorry this are all sounding like a bad spy movie, but it's just what's coming to mind. Probably because I was watching a James Bond marathon last night before bed.) Again, how you ask a question is just as important and what you are asking. If it's not exactly what you want to know, it if can be read more than one way, then the questioner is actually INVITING the other person to play a game where the reward is avoiding punishment on their part or hurt feelings, or other negative consequences. Lawyers do this all the time, they intentionally ask questions in such a way as to elicit a predicable response and to paint a specific picture to the jury in court either to get a conviction or to absolve their client. Being declared "Not Guilty" isn't exactly the same being innocent. It just means the prosecution couldn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that ya' did it.

I find the really scary part is once you learn to recognize when people are doing this when answering a simple question. When you can recognize when they are avoiding telling you something by appearing completely truthful. Makes a person want to rethinking how they ask their questions.

[ZedOmega]

Christ at a CVS buying crackers, I hate question-dodgers. I wonder what made people think that it was okay to avoid giving a straight yes/no answer by immediately going to an explanation before the question 'why (the hell not)' is even asked. Simple solution: if they jump straight to the 'you see, it's like this' spiel, assume it's the answer you don't want to hear.

[blas87]

I was once told that overly elaborating, unless specifically asked, just makes you look guilty or stupid.

Which is why when I call in sick to work, I just say that I have a cold or the flu, or I have a migrane, whatever. I don't give a whole play by play hour by hour diatrabe of my symptoms and how it's progressed, or if I'm asked if I did something, I say yes or no and if I'm further questioned, only then do I elaborate.

[Sage Blackthorn]

I was once told that overly elaborating, unless specifically asked, just makes you look guilty or stupid.

Which is why when I call in sick to work, I just say that I have a cold or the flu, or I have a migrane, whatever. I don't give a whole play by play hour by hour diatrabe of my symptoms and how it's progressed, or if I'm asked if I did something, I say yes or no and if I'm further questioned, only then do I elaborate.

Calling in sick to work is a bit of a different situation, I think, than what Hobbs was talking about with his Cadets. In a work situation, you usually have a set number of "sick or personal days" per month that you can use without penalty. There is no real need to elaborate beyond "I'm sick, I'm not coming in today."

Now change situations to one in which you are involved in an incident that could result in some unpleasant consequences for you and you feel you were not responsible for some reason. Simply giving a short answer when there were extenuating circumstances that could keep you from said unpleasantness is not going to seem logical (unless yer some sort of masochist who likes punishment). I think it's natural to try and explain what happened.

It's like you've shot a guy who was coming after you, intending to kill you. If the judge asks "Yes or no, did you shoot and kill him?" and you just say "Yes", you get the gas chamber. If you say "Yes sir, but I was in fear for my life as this man is a known psychopath and was coming at me with a large bloody axe and wearing a hocky mask. I felt that I would be killed if I did not defend myself and my family." Huge difference than just "Yes, I shot and killed him." Holding back information you feel is relevant, in some cases, is just plain stupid and even harmful to yourself.

[Hobbs]

It's like you've shot a guy who was coming after you, intending to kill you. If the judge asks "Yes or no, did you shoot and kill him?" and you just say "Yes", you get the gas chamber. If you say "Yes sir, but I was in fear for my life as this man is a known psychopath and was coming at me with a large bloody axe and wearing a hocky mask. I felt that I would be killed if I did not defend myself and my family." Huge difference than just "Yes, I shot and killed him." Holding back information you feel is relevant, in some cases, is just plain stupid and even harmful to yourself.

A judge wouldn't ask a question like that. I'm pretty sure there's a rule against that. Also, you wouldn't be made to testify against yourself because of that pesky thing we call the Bill of Rights.

[DrFaroohk]

A judge wouldn't ask a question like that. I'm pretty sure there's a rule against that. Also, you wouldn't be made to testify against yourself because of that pesky thing we call the Bill of Rights.

Well other than his example being a bit flawed, I think we all know what he meant. Sometimes it just depends on the question, who's asking it and where they want it to go. Anyone in an authoritive position, even if its just emotionally, can trim questions and answers to get what the answer they want.

Sometimes people need to give a long answer because a yes or no doesn't cover it, or because you know that the person asking it has an agenda against you and won't ask the necessary followup questions nor will they allow you to interject.

Here's a slightly better example than the judge one: Imagine your roommate finds a bottle of vicodin in the closet. Here's one way it might play out:

"Are these your drugs?"

YES OR NO ANSWER: "Yes."

"I don't want drugs in here, get out!"

"But -"

"NO BUTS, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE."

"But -"

"I SAID GET OUT OR I WILL KILL YOU!"

OR....

"Are these your drugs?"

"Yeah dude, I had my wisdom teeth out yesterday. Dentist prescribed them for me."

"Oh, ok. I thought you were a junkie! Haha, imagine what a misunderstanding that could've been."

Again, I'm sure someone can pick apart the plot holes in this example, if they really want to be a douchebag, but I'm sure everyone sees what I'm getting at. Sometimes yes or no just doesn't cut it. Sometimes it does. But typically I'm wary of anyone demanding yes or no answers because I figure they're trying to "lawyer" me in some way. Lawyers do that crap. They might not get you to admit that you killed Johnny Larson, but by cutting you off and limiting your answers they can get you to say "Yes, I hated him, because he fucked my wife, and I had private fantasies about wishing him dead" without giving you a chance to say "But I did not, in fact, kill him."

[Hobbs]

if they really want to be a douchebag...

Nice Catch-22. I could tear apart your argument, which is easy, but in doing so, apparently I am a douche-bag. Touche.

I've never had an unreasonable roommate, so I'm not sure how that scenario would play out. Point of fact, if you're given as yes/no question, why go beyond a yes/no answer? What's the harm in just saying "Yes/No."

As for the last part of your statement...you still wouldn't be compelled to testify in a case against yourself. However, if you did take the stand and the prosecutor asked you that, your lawyer can simply redirect and ask, "Did you kill Mr. Larson, though?" To which you would answer, "No." Your lawyer sits down, "No further questions."

[DrFaroohk]

I've never had an unreasonable roommate, so I'm not sure how that scenario would play out. Point of fact, if you're given as yes/no question, why go beyond a yes/no answer? What's the harm in just saying "Yes/No."


Like I said before...most people aren't nearly reasonable enough to listen or even give an opportunity to explain. I rarely get one, so I learned just to throw my whole statement out on the floor immediately to get it out there. If someone chooses to interpret that as being dishonest or lying or just plain lame, that's their problem.

Sometimes yes or no just doesn't cut it. If the whole world was black and white, it would, but it's not, and it doesn't.