What’s the substance of responses, as shredded in a blender,
while the interviewer screams for conformity? Is it ever nuance, this social
fire, bottled up in indirect substance? I, too, wonder about the interviewer. This
absolute position, empowered by titles, this type of infallibility; and what about
addiction, or profound insecurities, or a god complex? While we scrutinize,
what ensures that we are seeing beyond self; what differentiates projection
from profound insights? If an interviewee were to be provoked, but he responded
with ease: Is he, hereby, exhibiting psychotic features; moreover, if we come
to the interviewer with a problem: Does this problem become an absolute filter
for all of our interactions? For example: if the interviewer deliberately sets
out to provoke the interviewee, where the interviewee merely rolls her eyes:
Does this prove as a deviant behavior; or is this considered a genuine
response? I also need to ask: Are responses concrete indicators of a troubled
mind; or are they merely signpost pointing to multiple avenues of
investigation? I am searching for a backboard in a world of both abstract and concrete
responses; where some behaviors are left undefined, while overt behaviors are
screaming for diagnoses. It appears palpable that if the interviewee is
screaming as does a maniac, that person is exhibiting a high level of
irrational anger; but what if the interviewee merely leaves the room when
provoked; or what if the interviewee changes the subject; or what if the
interviewee is silent for a moment, and then presumes as if nothing has
happened: Would these responses render the interviewee as manipulative, or even
passively hostile; or would it be fair to assume that this person suffers from
an inability to resolve conflict in a healthy fashion; moreover, if this proves
to be the case: Is the interviewee exhibiting signs of one deemed as a
psychopath; furthermore: At what point does the interviewer entertain the
possibility that the interviewee may be responding to the interviewer instead
of the treatment? We are with need to ask an obvious question: What is it that
lives as a normal response; that is: If a particular response is deemed as
normal: Is it because it favors the technique of a given enterprise, thereby,
making the interviewer’s job easier? The statement becomes: Work with me,
otherwise, be classified as something challenged socially. I haven’t found ease
with this line of thought. It appears that both parties must harmonize in order
that the interviewer is permitted to aid the interviewee; otherwise, the
process merely becomes a case of the two beefing up evidence for a position
that may have been structured in error.
