Skip to main content

Why ask the impossible-to-answer question?

I'll be the first to admit I'm an over-analyzer. I rarely think in black-and-white terms, so even when someone asks me a basic yes or no question, I hesitate before answering, and typically wind up giving an essay in response to the question. Yes, to say I couldn't stand true/false tests in school would be like to say the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, if on that other side of that fence was a marijuana field.

Hypothetical questions, on the other hand, can be interesting. They can provide for some intriguing back-and-forth conversations, which can open people up to a new side of another person. When the hypothetical scenario is more loopy than a Terry Gilliam-meets-David Lynch film, such discussions can be quite entertaining as well.

However, even though I often times find hypothetical questions and discussions interesting, I have a difficult time understanding the impossible-to-answer question when a person presents a hypothetical scenario after the fact.

An example of this would be if a person got hired at Wal-Mart and a few months later was asked the question, "If Target offered you a job before we officially hired you, would you have taken their offer over ours?"

How is the person supposed to answer this question except with, "I don't know."?

He or she was never offered a job by Target, was offered and accepted a job at Wal-Mart, so the questioned scenario never presented itself and never will, since that moment has already passed. It'd be different if the questioner asked the Wal-Mart employee something pertaining to the future, such as, "If Target offered you a job right now, would you take it?" While it may still result in the Wal-Mart employee responding with the words, "I don't know.," the question would actually make sense from a time standpoint, since the possible scenario has not already unfolded, if it will at any point.

Sure, in the first scenario, the Wal-Mart employee could have played along and said something along the lines of, "Oh, no, sir/ma'am, I would never have taken that offer from Target. This is where I'm supposed to be and I couldn't be happier of that!" However, since the scenario has already taken place, the validity of the employee's words could never be proved or disproved.

I was asked such a question just yesterday and felt stuck as a result. My girlfriend joined some family and I at a bar this past weekend to see a band perform. It was her first time at this place. After telling her about my first time there, and being asked by a couple women to dance not five minutes after sitting down (and kindly declining, as they were quite a bit older than myself, I had just sat down, and was talking with my father), she asked me the question, "If we had yet to meet and I asked you to dance, what would you say?"

I kind of chuckled at first, because my first thought was, "How am I supposed to know?" I could have played along and said, "Of course I would have said yes!" However, my brain just doesn't function like that. In the end, I kind of thought, "Why on earth would she ask me a question like that? One that is impossible to answer?"

I wound up giving the only honest answer, which was, "I don't know." Whether I responded with a yes or no, I wouldn't be able to prove either, since the potential scenario long passed us by. 

I think the moral of the story is to never ask an over-analyzer a question which cannot be answered, unless the questioner is prepared for a mixture of silence and words which say little more than "I have no idea" - that or get the over-analyzer high prior to hearing the question.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"