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

111–120 of 192 posts

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#111

Post by LyndsySimon »

zzalpha wrote: post #46
whiddershins wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

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. Joeboy beat me to it, but I'll reiterate: that's not compromise. It's just change. Don't confuse the two. And for those on the "losing" side of that change, there's an incredible amount of consternation.

> for those on the "losing" side of that change, there's an incredible amount of consternation.

I think that depends very much on the topic. For instance - there was once a point in my life where I was opposed to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. My reasons for this were complex, and not based on a fear or hatred of homosexuals. Over time I came around on it, and by the time SCOTUS ruled on it I was supportive of it (though not of the legal reasoning they cited).

On the other hand, my views on gun rights have not changed, and I cannot envision a point where they would. If Heller were to be overturned I would not "accepting" of it in even the smallest way.

In other words some issues are core beliefs and some issues are secondary. Peoples views on secondary beliefs change over time, but core beliefs are not something that I have often seen changed.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#113

Post by trjordan »

bcoates wrote: post #73

"Hear the Biography, not the ideology" This is just another way of attacking someone else's position, with the added bonus of letting you be intolerably smug while you do it. You're not communicating in good faith unless you're willing to concede the possibility that the other person is actually right about something. At the very least you need to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. This, on the othe…

If you're hearing the biography so you can attack the ideology, you're missing the point.

Ideology is nearly pointless to discuss. Instead, the author suggests talking about topics that are more personal. By talking about experiences, you can expose the nuance that's so easily blown away by swapping talking points.

Perhaps the author and the woman both agree that people should be less cavalier with pregnancy, and there's a productive way forward. Perhaps they both agree it's a heartbreaking issues and more people need support to deal with it. Even abortion is not so black and white, and arguing about it abstractly is a much less fruitful way to find common ground.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#114

Post by tempestn »

Udo wrote: post #102
zw123456 wrote: post #61

I love the sentiment that the author was trying to convey. The example that was provided was beautiful. It is really important to realize that usually it does not work out as beautifully as was presented in this particular example. My experience in active listening is that perhaps 1 out of 20 times do you get a good outcome as was the case in this example. Generally, the person will simply yell things at you about th…

I also found it interesting that this article is hugely concerned with making someone feel loved for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion. I think at some point, the severity of an ideology has to outweigh the desire to accept a person as who they are. We have been somewhat culturally conditioned by the common tropes of storytelling that biography excuses, and in fact makes accep…

The thing is, even if you take as a given that someone's idea is inherently bad, criticizing them for it will accomplish less than nothing. This is perhaps more clear than ever in the world today. Only by actually listening to a person, and treating them as a person worthy of respect, can you have any chance of having a meaningful dialogue, and perhaps, in some cases, allowing them to change their opinion. (Also of course in some cases you may find yourself reconsidering your own opinion, or recognizing some new nuance you had previously disregarded, or similar.)

I actually had a conversation kind of like this with my Dad recently. We tend to agree on most things, but we were discussing a question from the political compass[1] - one of the few we disagreed strongly on. It asked, essentially, whether a person should be required to work, if able, in order to receive support from society. Our initial positions were pretty strongly opposite, and we were both surprised by the other's thoughts. We each sort of explained our thinking, and listened to the other's. I understood where he was coming from, but still disagreed with his conclusions, and that's where we left it. The next day he called me up and said that he'd been thinking a lot about what I'd said, and that he'd come to change his opinion nearly 180 degrees. What's funny was that I'd been thinking about the conversation too, and had actually moderated my opinion a bit too (although not as much), and came to agree with a couple of his points. It was really cool, because neither of us changed the other's mind; we changed our own minds after the fact. Now sure, we have a good relationship to begin with, and were having a good-natured discussion. It's going to be more difficult when you vehemently disagree with someone about nearly everything. But at least by listening it's possible that you'll accomplish something.

[1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#115

Post by pessimizer »

bcoates wrote: post #73

"Hear the Biography, not the ideology" This is just another way of attacking someone else's position, with the added bonus of letting you be intolerably smug while you do it. You're not communicating in good faith unless you're willing to concede the possibility that the other person is actually right about something. At the very least you need to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. This, on the othe…

The article does smell a bit of "If you can just shut up and listen, you may find out that the people you disagree with aren't stupid, they're actually traumatized or mentally ill. Maybe they don't need to be attacked or imprisoned; instead, they could be medicated, or counseled. Maybe when you listen, you're the counselor..."

That's the least generous interpretation, though. I think he was doing a personal art project and fishing for an experience that would confirm the truism that the problem in politics is that angry people should just calm down and listen to each other. This is what he got, so this is what he had to use in that narrative.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#116

Post by Swizec »

joslin01 wrote: post #109
hashkb wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may have read into this too far and/or protected a bit much onto it. How do you figure the OP is helping you attack an opposing position?

The point parent is making is that the one's own stubbornness (that they are indeed correct) forces them to skip a step -- is what they are saying true and/or what is their logical positioning? Instead, OP says "first find out how they got to that position in life" which you gotta understand does come across pretty smug since it implies superiority of opinion/belief and degenerates the disagreer as if they are merely…

> merely using emotion in their logic.

Truth often goes deeper than facts and logic.

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#118

Post by [deleted] »

bcoates wrote: post #73

"Hear the Biography, not the ideology" This is just another way of attacking someone else's position, with the added bonus of letting you be intolerably smug while you do it. You're not communicating in good faith unless you're willing to concede the possibility that the other person is actually right about something. At the very least you need to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. This, on the othe…

[deleted]

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#119

Post by fatbird »

zzalpha wrote: post #82
fatbird wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By actually listening to her, he found that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition to abortion. Her opposition to abortion is rooted in her insecurity because her husband left her because she's barren; she feels like she's failed at being a woman, so other women getting abortions feels like a spiteful act to her. Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her. At that point, the author could…

By actually listening to her, he found that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition to abortion. Actually, we don't know that either way. We understand where her philosophical position takes root. That's it. On its own that's certainly interesting. Whether or not there's flexibility in that position, though, is a question that remains unanswered. Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her…

We do know that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition because she acknowledges that her opposition is based on her circumstances. That's neither philosophical nor intractable. "Intractable" would be something like "I just believe it's totally wrong and won't entertain discussion otherwise."

Room for compromise comes from the fairly obvious approach of disassociating abortion from her personal circumstances... likely by sharing the author's stories about women he knows for whom abortion was a difficult but justified personal choice, not a spiteful act directed at the woman to shame her for being barren. With some empathetic discussion, this doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome. What more do you want, to believe that there is room for compromise?

Re: How to listen when you disagree

#120

Post by mgraczyk »

groby_b wrote: post #97
mgraczyk wrote: post #74

"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand, disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that person has experienced that resulted in that point of view." This is great advice for getting along with people and treating others politely. However, I don't think it provides any insight into actually improving public policy or improving one's own beliefs. Of course we al…

I'm curious - if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", how will you know all the facts? How will you know you did not miss some data? Sure, for some debates, there is a preponderance of evidence that a specific view is right. For many things in the public light, the debate is not that simple, though. Many of our hotbutton political issues are very complex and nuanced. To stay with the article's…

> if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening",

I didn't say "without listening". I meant that it is better to pay attention to facts instead of positions or opinions. It's not important that your conversation partner believes X or claims that "Y is obvious". Instead you should pay attention when your conversation partner points on "people measured X in in such and such a way and found Y". Collect evidence in your head, not opinions or other people's' summaries of the evidence.

I agree that in many cases there is no obvious correct answer. In those cases I think it is reasonable not to take a strong position. We should make decisions and compromise by examining objective facts in tandem with our own ethics and values, not by examining others' ethics and values.

To be specific, I should evaluate facts about abortion rates, fetal development, and family planning outcomes in the context of my own ethical worldview. If I want to change my ethics, then the conversation should be about ethics instead of abortion.

> how will we ever get in agreement

I believe in many cases, we will not come to agreement. Many people will never change their mind on abortion (in either direction). The goal is to be happy and improve ones own worldview without it being necessary to agree or to figure out why the other person is biased.

Post reply on HN