Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to listen when you disagree

urbanconfessional.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 192 posts

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#51

Post by AnimalMuppet »

whiddershins wrote: post #33
zzalpha wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. So I'll make a counter-point: let's say we're back in the old slavery days. I'm sure Abe did his fair share of listening and talking with folks from the South. But eventually, there just ain't no compromising and something had to be done. And so it was done. Ultimately, I think, for some issues, there is si…

>> To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues. Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass incarceration. Lots and lots of change happens in the hearts and minds of lots and lots of people without force being involved. Peo…

I think that, had Lincoln lived, Reconstruction would have looked very different. Arguably, Lincoln's assassins destroyed the South for 100+ years by trying to save it.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#52

Post by mindslight »

I wholeheartedly agree with this article's premise (to listen and truly understand conflicting ideas), but its specific approach seems like just subjecting oneself to emotional warfare. Listening to someone's story will get you an understanding of why they believe something, but not necessarily an understanding of the actual belief.

What if this woman didn't have a compelling personal narrative (infertility) driving her viewpoint, but had instead just copied the advice from a culture with only 2 kyr of success? I'm guessing the author would have likely concluded something less empathetic like the woman was just a victim of backwards thinking.

I think this phase we're going through is mainly people who rely on peer-scoped emotional reasoning having to come to terms with a wider communication scope and get used to the left-brain verbal communication engendered by the Internet. In order to truly understand something, your intellectual gamut must be able to describe it. If you wish to understand a different point a view, you must work at expanding your own logical framework to be able to express the new idea simultaneously with what you already believe. This is not a skill most people have developed, so instead of working to understand, they give in to their gut and treat the differing idea as a threat.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#53

Post by throwanem »

zzalpha wrote: post #26
throwanem wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like you're making mine, and the article author's. Listening is a lot harder than contempt, but you might think about trying it some time all the same.

Who wasn't listening? Did anything in either of my comments imply I wasn't? I read the author's post. I digested it. I provided my counterpoint. Your initial response was essentially dismissal. I prompted you to provide a more substantial response (admittedly rather sarcastic, though I hope it wasn't viewed as hostility... probably a bad decision, that), and you once again come back with a pithy response. It's almost…

"Offended" is the wrong word. "Pissed off" is closer. That probably seems not very fair to you, but you're far from the first person in a short space of time whom I've seen fail to recognize the fact that, while understanding the other person's perspective certainly isn't guaranteed to lead to compromise, it just as certainly is the only thing that can.

The really infuriating thing is how close to it you come, and again, I see this all the time. "The viewpoints are so polarized that no compromise is possible," you say. But that's not true. Having read and digested the article, you (have no excuse not to) understand where this individual woman's objection to abortion originates: in deep, lifelong personal pain. You talk about compassion, but only so you can dismiss it offhand on your way to a multi-paragraph denunciation of the way she and people like her are just so unreasonable. And it's amazing how the other guy is the only one who ever has that problem.

That's why I talk about contempt. I mean, in the example we're looking at here, there's every reason to imagine that a show of compassion, from someone who's able to put basic human integrity ahead of mere ideological disagreement, might help give this woman some perspective that'd make it possible for her to understand the issue of abortion from a point of view outside the one that she's used to, because it comes along with the pain that her condition has inflicted upon her. Even if it doesn't, easing another person's suffering is a bedrock tenet of almost any scheme of ethics or morals. But that doesn't even occur to you, because you're so caught up in the question of whether you can make someone else think like you that nothing else has a chance to get a look in.

Perhaps it's unjust of me to react to this kind of heartlessness with contempt. Perhaps it's even cruel. I know for damn sure it doesn't help anything or convince anyone. At the moment, I find the urge insuperable. I mean, how high-minded can you really imagine yourself to be if the only people for whom you are capable of empathy are those who already believe substantially what you do? Does that not at some level of your psyche stimulate a certain degree of unease? I'd really like to hope so.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#54

Post by AnimalMuppet »

enraged_camel wrote: post #18
whiddershins wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was hard for me to resist the urge to downvote this comment. Yes, everything you are saying has merit, but overall I completely disagree with the main thrust of your point. If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. And I am unwilling to just call the problems unfixable, throw my hands up, and resign myself to a world full of such misunderstandin…

>>If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. It is the first step, but it only works if the other side is also willing to take it with you. If you are the only one changing your position, it is not a mutual compromise, by definition.

No. But even in the worst case, if there is no possibility of compromise and it comes to force, you are in a position to use the force with sadness rather than hatred. That's much better for you, and it's even better for the other side, especially if you win.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#55

Post by Esau »

wrsh07 wrote: post #24
ploxiln wrote: post #17

So you're saying, basically, we should "put words in their mouth".

You might be making a joke about active listening, but it's actually really effective. Try it out next time you disagree with someone -- it is a good tool to prevent you from talking over or past someone.

I once attended some training that discussed communication skills and one of the things they asked us was: when talking to someone, are you listening to what they are saying or are you merely waiting for your chance to talk?

I have to admit to frequently doing the latter.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#56

Post by notahacker »

whiddershins wrote: post #33
zzalpha wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. So I'll make a counter-point: let's say we're back in the old slavery days. I'm sure Abe did his fair share of listening and talking with folks from the South. But eventually, there just ain't no compromising and something had to be done. And so it was done. Ultimately, I think, for some issues, there is si…

>> To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues. Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass incarceration. Lots and lots of change happens in the hearts and minds of lots and lots of people without force being involved. Peo…

Since you raise it as an example: in the UK opposition to gay marriage (and a few years earlier, more basic gay issues) didn't melt away through empathetic discussion or addressing their concerns but simply from the government going ahead and doing it (I doubt they'd have gone to war for it if it were necessary, but that underlines the point about might being more significant than right in the debate). Public opinion tended to shift more when decisions were made and the debate stopped.

One of the first things to realise about people's apparently very strong views is that often they're simply echoing what they think is the majority view (but they generally really won't like you pointing that out). A second is that often they change quite swiftly when people stop talking about it. Not only are they not constantly being reminded that X is bad by people and sources they trust, but they also don't feel obliged to keep defending a position they held a couple of years ago when not regularly prompted to justify it.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#57

Post by buckbova »

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #37
zzalpha wrote: post #5

Eh, perhaps I'm cynical, but listening to someone, and coming to understanding regarding how they might have developed there beliefs, sounds nice, and it's very compassionate, but I question if it's actually a step toward compromise, or simply understanding. After all, for an increasing number of issues, in the end, the beliefs themselves are so polarized they leave no room for compromise. To this woman, it doesn't m…

X person opposes your view...It is absolutely imperative to understand this person for the purpose of either compromise or annihilation. Know thine enemy. In the process you'll come to know yourself.

It is a battleground. Groups hijack points of view to promote their own "hidden" agendas.

This is why some arguments are dismissed. If group A has to accept group B's point of view as fact then they also must give merit to group B's solution.

If everyone spoke honestly and plainly we can finally see these opposing sides are enemies on this instead of each pretending to have the high ground.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#58

Post by __jal »

zzalpha wrote: post #42
chki wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this wouldn't be a step towards understanding another person: more information should always help you to grasp somebody else's line of thought. I think you are right that understanding is really far away from compromise, especially if your conversational counterpart is obviously having a very non-rational standpoint. But isn't it still better to "understand" them and wouldn't it be easier for you to w…

I think it depends on how you define "better". The situation is better in that the listener has a more empathic, more thorough understanding of the speaker. In that sense there was a positive exchange of information and understanding, which is great. Beyond that, though, what has been accomplished? I know that sounds hopelessly utilitarian, but in the end, when it comes to issues like, say, abortion, I fail to see ho…

I'll throw out at least one selfish, utilitarian-ish reason why understanding of contrary viewpoints still matters: if you don't have a theory of mind that at least somewhat tracks an adversary, you will probably lose whatever competition you're in against them, unless they're even worse at empathy. In complicated political games, from presidential horse races to office promotions, predicting the actions of others and having a guess as to how they may react in different situations is extremely important.

So even if compromise is indeed impossible, understanding where they are coming from is usually vital to beating them. Whoever "they" are.

There is also the personal growth angle, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be compelling to a significant fraction of folks.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#59

Post by btilly »

ploxiln wrote: post #17

So you're saying, basically, we should "put words in their mouth".

No. What you do is echo back to them what you understood from what they said for them to correct. After several rounds you arrive at a point where they have said their piece, and you're able to describe it in your words well enough that they believe you understood them.

Doing this exercise has three huge benefits:

1. Being listened to in this way is often an emotional release for the speaker. Which takes a lot of emotion out of whatever comes next.

2. As a listener, it is common to add a layer of color on what was said without realizing that this happened. This gets past that tendency so you hear what was actually said.

3. The process tends to bring out details that the speaker didn't present clearly, but are crucial to whatever they believe.

All of this sets the stage for a much better future round of responses.

Try it. It is hard, but worthwhile.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#60

Post by ellyagg » 

    It takes a lot of forgiveness, compassion, patience,
    and courage to listen in the face of disagreement.
I can't help but find this condescending. Listening should only take a small bit of intellectual humility. On controversial subjects, people with whom you disagree almost certainly have valid points. It's not heroic to acknowledge them. It's a sign of maturity to be able to admit where your opponent's arguments are strong and, on the other hand, admit the weaknesses in your own position.
Post reply on HN