As we can see hypotheticals get you into all sorts of trouble- it's no wonder people in office, or running for office, don't want to answer them. It's impossible to be human and not ponder hypotheticals- we all think ahead in our lives, and think "If this happens I will...", "but if this other thing happens then I will..." I think you would have to be profoundly retarded not to think that way.
I can understand Kinsley's frustration with candidates who do not answer hypotheticals, but the hypothetical adds a huge layer of abstraction to things. At least when you have an incident, there is something real that has happened, which one then perceives (uncertainty) and describes with words (more uncertainty) and then the words are interpreted by a hearer (a third layer of uncertainty, and they too have some perception of what happened- a fourth layer of uncertainty- if both parties have read about it from a newspaper than you add two MORE layers- for the perception of the reporter, and his or her word choices).
In the case of a hypothetical you must add even more uncertainty since nothing is being perceived at all, except a thought in someone else's brain. Then we get words- uncertainty. 2 layers- but there is no external referrent for the whole thing. I see that as inherently problematic- because we will all imagine the hypothetical differently, much more differently (imo) than we would imagine something that actually happened.
Obviously candidates have experienced this uncertainty and have learned from it. Further, if candidates had been positively rewarded for their rambling speculations, then they would do that. Kinsley and the rest of the reporters out there, have trained candidates to be the way they are. Candidates didn't start out this way, they are merely responding to the stimulus of the press, and so I think Kinsley really ought to complain about himself, if he misses candidates answering hypos, since he has been very apt to jump on people who speculated about things. |
