Conversations:
Most of us are familiar with these
kinds of interactions. Conversations are two directional; they involve a
dialogue between both parties. Most of my professional interactions with anyone begin this way. In the early part
of my interaction, I want to build relational bridges with the people I engage.
This takes time and it takes a true heart for people. You can’t fake this; it’s
not a technique or tactic that can be employed falsely. People will see right
through you if you don’t have a true interest in them. In all the years I studied
interview and interrogation techniques as a detective, learning the tactical “tricks
of the trade”, my interviews and interrogations only improved after I became a
Christian. My conversion made me a better interviewer. Once I truly recognized
my own fallen nature, I was able to relate to others without judging them
harshly. I began to develop a heart for people that I never had as an unsaved
detective. My interactions changed dramatically and my introductory
conversations became genuinely empathetic, regardless of the person I was
talking to.
I began to eat meals with the people I
arrested. After taking them into custody, I would often ask them if they were
hungry, and if they were, I would order something and make sure I ate with them
in the interview room. I recognized that many of God’s most important
conversations with humans have been over a meal (the Lord’s Supper is the most
powerful example of this). We don’t eat with people we don’t know well, and a
simple meal can unite two people in a way that few other settings can achieve.
Once my heart was broken for people, I was actually willing to eat with the
people I arrested. The conversations we had were powerful, even though they
weren’t directed intentionally at the issues we would later cover together.
Conversations are benign interactions between two people who share something of
themselves with the person they are engaging. Be prepared to open up a bit and
share something personal if you expect the other person to do this with you.
Interviews:
At some point, conversations turn
toward interviews. In an interview, one person begins to probe more deeply into
an area by asking specific questions related to that area of interest.
Something is usually mentioned in the initial conversation that triggers a line
of questioning. When we begin to probe this aspect of the conversation, we are
slipping into interview mode. Interviews are not antagonistic, they are simply
inquisitive. My questions are not pointed
at this stage of the interaction, they are simply curious and directed. My goal
is to establish a baseline from the person with whom I am talking. What do they
believe? What did they see? What did they do? What happened next? If I am
talking to a witness, I am simply trying to collect data. If I am talking to a
suspect, I am trying to establish a preliminary story and baseline that I can
then compare to later statements and evidence I have at the scene.
This is where Greg’s book on Tactics
begins to interact with our interview strategy. Greg employs two “Columbo”
questions when talking with skeptics. It’s no coincidence that he uses the example
of Columbo; detectives have been doing this sort of thing for generations. My
dad worked this way as a detective, I’ve worked this way and my son will
someday work in the same fashion. Here’s where questions like, “What do you
mean by that?” and “Why do you believe that?” are invaluable.
Interrogations:
At some point, especially when dealing
with suspects, I have to move from interview to interrogation. Interrogations
are more pointed and seek to uncover and probe the inconsistencies that are
discovered in the interview process. When talking to a suspect who is lying to
me, I will eventually collect a series of statements that are either
inconsistent with the facts of the case or with the prior statements of the
suspect. This is the portion of the interaction where I must confront those
inconsistencies. This is where the interaction can become difficult and
confrontational if I’m not careful.
In many ways, each of us has to enter
into an “interrogation” phase when talking to people about their spiritual
convictions (or lack thereof). At some point in the conversation and interview
process, the person we are talking to is going to make an inconsistent
statement. They are either going to make a claim that is obviously inconsistent
with the world we observe, or they are going to expose faulty logic and
internal inconsistencies with some statement they made previously. That’s when
good tactics (as described in the aforementioned book and blog post) can really
help us to make some headway.
Unless you’ve
taken the time to sincerely engage people in conversation and interview, don’t
expect to move or influence them in the interrogation phase of your
interaction. There’s a reason why I’ve described these phases of contact in this
order; one must follow the other. Detectives are constantly engaging people
with questions in this simply sequence of interaction. This process can teach
us something about how to engage the world around us in spiritual conversation,
interviews and interrogations.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment