The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Financial Planning / Estate Planning and the Fool

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/hi-jafo-except-you-have-never-explained-why-you-30247832.aspx

Subject:  Re: How to find Professional Advice Date:  9/6/2012  7:01 PM
Author:  Dwdonhoff Number:  4093 of 4325

Hi JAFO,

Except you have never explained why you believe that many of your questions reveal core character. You just continue to assert that they do.
Fair enough... you did ask previously, and I passed it by as you had marched on to a different attack.

You previously asked;
How would you measure?
How does the response measure character?
It feels like reading tea leaves to me


Character is a *subjective* judgment... it doesn't yield well to scoring, accounting, or any other objective metrics. Further, the purpose of the character determination is not to weigh out against a scale, but to determine whether there sufficient mutual trust and respect for the principal asking the questions. In order for a principal to determine whether they can respect and trust the interviewee, some significant subjective insight must be uncovered.

Everyone's results will vary (and rightly so!) Yes... in that aspect it *IS* a bit like reading tea leaves.

Except you have yet to offer any explanation about how the parents' occupations reveals necessarily reveals anything about the personal core character of the child turned lawyer.
I already explained that the actual occupations are irrelevant. PSUE already expressed an understanding of it... the content of the answer is not the relevant consideration, but rather the rich context of how they answer is.

"The problem with this question, as written, is that its not neutral...
Then rephrase it.
I certainly would if I were to use it... and that's the point. My phrasing is better designed for the purpose of the interview.

Only if the answer is no, which answer would in fact tell you something about the cpersonal core character of the lawyer.
If the answer is yes, there are immediate follow-up questions: when, how many, how were they/was it resolved, etc.

Again, effectiveness & efficiency. Why use a question that forces a follow on question when a single question, properly designed to be open ended and neutral could have been more effective?

I will chalk this series of posts off to a bad week or forgetting some emoticons, but your tone in this thread has been bordering on insulting to someone with whom you have friendly bantered for years on TMF.
By *ALL* means friendly banter (and still is.) However... Really... *my* tone? I just re-read the long thread, and I thought everything was pretty neutral & positive until the manhole & affair comments (#4076,) which (at least to me) went beyond the boundaries of interviewing for trustworthy & respectworthy professionals of character.

I'll admit I'd lost traction of decor by #4086 after I'd twice sincerely asked for substantive alternatives to the options I offered which you rejected with derision, yet brought no serious alternatives (at least I didn't believe you really thought manhole covers and affairs were serious alternatives. I still don't.)

Still curious how most of your suggested questions reveal anything about the core character of the lawyer?
Hopefully you've read my explanations throughout this thread now, as I have broken it out in several posts.

If you sincerely don't understand how my process invites character disclosure, I still consider you my friend... and more importantly, I still trust and respect (and appreciate) you.

Cheers,
Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us