Masks lead to words: the structure in which role-playing defines questions (2000s - present)

Masks lead to words: the structure in which role-playing defines questions (2000s - present)

The success or failure of a question depends almost entirely on "who you are asking the question as," before the skill or skillfulness of the question. The range of questions that can be asked and the depth of information that the other party can provide will vary greatly depending on the position and character that is being played. Creating a role is not just acting, but a comprehensive set-up that includes social titles, age, expertise, and even personality traits.

One seems to be answering the question itself, when in fact one is answering the "questioner. Depending on whether one is being asked as a supervisor, a colleague, an expert, or an uninformed novice, the information returned will vary in quality and quantity. Role-playing is a prerequisite for lowering the other person's guard and is the foundation of the art of questioning.

This point is emphasized by social engineering researcher Christopher Hadnagy. He states that one needs to decide "who you are going to be in the room as" before questioning techniques. If you ask sophisticated questions while your role is unclear, it will create an unnatural feeling, and the other person will intuitively feel uncomfortable.

The key is not to be overly rigid in creating roles. If too much detail is worked into the role, it will be impossible to respond to unexpected questions or reactions, which in turn will reveal unnaturalness. It is effective in practice to share the minimum settings while leaving room for flexible behavior depending on the situation.

Recent web-based security education and anti-phishing materials also emphasize the perspective of "why did you answer that person? People respond to context, not content. Creating a role is the act of designing that context, an invisible premise that determines whether the question will work or not.