This is done by answering questions such as: "What if each attribute were not so, what could it be then?" Find, define and record the new attributes based from the what-if-not questions.
Ours is a comfortable hegemony, particularly if you do not question it.
The conflict worsened if the partners did not question themselves individually.
If they can answer the question, they get the sweet, if not, the question goes round the circle until somebody gets it right and wins the sweet.
The gnawing if not confounding question remains: what exactly are they looking for?
If not, the question is held over till next day, this time for $10.
To anyone who grew up in the 60's this seems like an absurd, if not offensive question.
If not, then question them some more.
As compared to deep questions (for example why, why not, how, what-if, what-if-not), shallow questions (who, what, when, where) are asked more by learners and teachers.
But going after the Times raises political, if not practical questions.
