Provocative questions can be asked both from the audience and in person. Usually their goal is to discourage, make them embarrassed, and in a dispute they often serve as weapons to confirm their point of view and crush the opponent. Are there any effective ways to counter this?
One of the commonly used methods of confusing a person is a question from the personal sphere, for example: "Is it true that you were a poorly performing student at school?" Such a question perplexes and forces one to make excuses, because to admit to being a doppelganger is to drop your authority. Even if this question is initially false, and you really studied at the top five and got a red diploma, the attempt to justify itself calls into question the competence in solving some problems. To prove that "I am not a camel" is always disadvantageous. And the provocateur, having received his advantage, calms down and further draws his line. You can think of a lot of such questions, they can be ridiculous, inappropriate and even vulgar, and this does not bother the provocateur.
Then everything depends on the ability to behave. You can get out of this situation in the simplest way: look strictly at the provocateur, wait a short pause, and then continue to talk about your topic. This technique kills two birds with one stone at once - firstly, you did not begin to make excuses and lose credibility, and secondly, you exposed the provocateur as a person who is not worthy to answer him. Usually this technique allows you to besiege it.
In addition, any uncomfortable question can be turned into a joke. This removes the essence of the injection and adds credibility to you. For example, the ill-wisher cries out: "You say complete nonsense." Pause. He is already looking forward to your confusion and desire to make excuses. And ask him a question to the question: "How do you know my aunt?" He will most likely begin to grumble that he does not know any aunt, that you are translating a topic, etc. And then you reveal the cards: "She criticized me for a long time with these words."
You can make several such blanks and use them if you have a difficult meeting. They can be used not only for a large audience, but also in a closer circle and even one on one.
The meaning of provocative questions is more psychological. Therefore, it is possible to easily neutralize them, if you turn the angle of attention to the questioner himself and reveal his negative motivation. This technique is expertly used by our president. Once he was asked an uncomfortable question at a press conference, to which he replied that, of course, he understands that the person who asked the question supports the interests of his newspaper, which is financed by this and that, and their aspirations are understandable
". After such an introduction, the severity of the question immediately subsided, and then it was possible to calmly answer on the merits, or to divert the argument in the other direction.
Another option for this technique is to pay attention to the personal motivation of the provocateur. For example, you can say: "I understand that you want to assert itself in this way, but now is not the time for this." Such an answer will almost always be to the point with provocative questions, since their authors really assert themselves and, if successful, enjoy their superiority. If it turns out to point out this motivation, the severity of the attack will be leveled and then the attacker himself will be discouraged.
In the case of using any methods of neutralizing provocative issues, calm and calmness are of great importance. If you calmly meet an acute issue, then it is much easier to neutralize it than in the case when it really hurts and serious excitement appears. This is given with training and not immediately.
And one more trick - changing the context of a hot issue. The essence of the provocation is to put you in an unfavorable light, not with the help of a fact, but with the help of your attitude to this fact. If you go back to the question of d-lee, you can feel ashamed that academic performance was low, and you can be proud that many great people did poorly at school, but this did not prevent them from succeeding. It all depends on the attitude to this fact.
For example, if you are told that as a person with such poor academic performance at school, you can occupy such a responsible position, then you can answer: "I am very glad that I can at least to some extent feel my involvement in great people who have poorly studied at school, for example, to Albert Einstein."
Or another question: "Did you also previously belonged to the party you are criticizing now?" Answer: "I just entered it in order to learn in practice all its negative aspects."
Summing up, we can say that there are effective ways to neutralize provocative issues. It takes only some practice to learn it.