Conversation

Replying to
It’s not a court so you can’t get testimony from other side. They’re unconsciously looking for validation but if you cave and supply it, you’re useless and they’ll eventually realize it and end the gig You can’t cross-examine like they’re a hostile witness: you’re on their side
2
7
The way this works is: when somebody reports a scripted-sounding conversation ask diagnostic questions they’d only know answers to if they were listening in free-play mode” Eg: Client: “I called him out on project delays but he just made excuses” Me: “what’s on his plate?”
1
17
If they can’t answer, you simply set conversation-data aside as insufficient/incomplete and say “maybe we can table this item until you’ve had a chance to talk with them again and figure X out” It’s an informal version of disallowing inadmissible evidence. Or down-weighting it.
1
11
For a sufficiently mature person, a word to the wise is sufficient. They instantly get why hearsay of anything other than properly witnessed free-play conversations is basically noise as consulting input. Or that at best it reveals stuff about projection tendencies.
1
11
Once you get it it seems like a superpower. “Oh wow you can actually use conversations to discover new info if you allow other side to own their side of the conversation. It doesn’t have to be a Sisyphean struggle of hostile universe repeatedly knocking your story off-script.”
1
23
People who resist the allure of this discovery potential are attached to the world being the way their scripts validate. They literally want to hear nothing except confirmation. When I sense this (if it gets this far) I tell them they need a therapist not a consultant.
1
11