What Great Listeners Actually Do • Hacker News Board

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#51

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:37 AM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #25

hoodoof wrote: post #22

My ex partner always said I didn't listen to her. I really want to be a better listener. It seems to me that the key to listening is to actually be present and not half thinking about something else or what YOU want to say. Hard to do. >> thus, if you’ve been criticized (for example) for offering solutions rather than listening, guilty

>>> thus, if you’ve been criticized (for example) for offering solutions rather than listening, >guilty This is not necessarily a question of "guilty". There are two major directions a conversation can go - "sympathy" or "solution". If your partner wants one, and you give the other, you operate under wrong premises due to an unstated assumption. On both sides. (If your "guilty" was a request for sympathy, I'm current…

Leading with sympathy in personal relationships is usually a good idea. If you express sympathy when they want solution, they will often start thinking of solutions aloud, or flat out ask for your opinion. If you suggest solution when they just wanted sympathy, they will often respond with disappointment, anger, or defensiveness.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#52

Post by Artoemius » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:38 AM UTC

pizza wrote: post #35

The computational complexity varieties of listening: Let n be the number of things the other is talking about (tricky to define a "thing" but, whatever?, use a consistent thing metric) - O(1) listening: ignoring/may as well not be there - reading your phone while the other talks to you - O(n) listening: loading their information into your brain while they talk - e.g. repeating back to them, nodding to salient points…

> O(n^2) listening: cross-comparing all the things they've said for informational pairings

If you manage to think of a good hash function for everything they say, you can use a hash table and cross-check every new thing they say in O(1), which makes the total complexity O(n).

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#53

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:42 AM UTC

PakG1 wrote: post #45

groby_b wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> thus, if you’ve been criticized (for example) for offering solutions rather than listening, >guilty This is not necessarily a question of "guilty". There are two major directions a conversation can go - "sympathy" or "solution". If your partner wants one, and you give the other, you operate under wrong premises due to an unstated assumption. On both sides. (If your "guilty" was a request for sympathy, I'm current…

This is crucial. I've found that when I talk especially with people who reside more on the emotional side of the spectrum (I myself seem to be more on the logical side of the spectrum), I need to really clarify before the conversation gets too deep that I'm good at expressing solutions, but I'm not so good at expressing sympathy/empathy. I'm good at having sympathy (not always empathy), but I'm not good at expressing…

I'm also not naturally good at it, and the best I've come up with is that it's basically letting them know (in a way that is natural for you) that you believe that a world in which they have this problem is worse than a world in which they don't have this problem.

In fact just switching my default response to someone presenting a problem to: "that sucks" showed a marked improvement in interpersonal relationships for me.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#54

Post by marmot777 » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:47 AM UTC

I totally agree with this:

"Good listening is much more than being silent while the other person talks. To the contrary, people perceive the best listeners to be those who periodically ask questions that promote discovery and insight."

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#55

Post by sovietmudkipz » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:47 AM UTC

pizza wrote: post #35

The computational complexity varieties of listening: Let n be the number of things the other is talking about (tricky to define a "thing" but, whatever?, use a consistent thing metric) - O(1) listening: ignoring/may as well not be there - reading your phone while the other talks to you - O(n) listening: loading their information into your brain while they talk - e.g. repeating back to them, nodding to salient points…

Observation: O(1) listening is easy enough that a rubber duck can accomplish the task.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#56

Post by Bahamut » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:48 AM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #43

Bahamut wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I despise the tactic of repeating back what other people said - it shows me that the other person isn't really dwelling on what I said, or more often in my experience, are using that to distort what I am saying in order to fit a particular agenda. I rather someone not fake listening in that case and wasting everyone's time.

What's your favorite technique for ensuring that you correctly understand the other person? For example, in a business negotiation, or crucial personal conversation?

If I don't understand something, asking someone to clarify on the part I misunderstand, asking someone to repeat what was said (with an apology prior - this is mainly if I completely missed what was said), or to give me insight on the detail(s) I am missing - leaving room for the other person to correct me is also important, as it naturally evokes a response if I have a detail wrong and give the person an opportunity to rephrase it. More importantly, it is active - repeating what someone said is a passive act, as it does not demonstrate understanding, but just that someone knows how to repeat words said, whereas if someone is actively engaged in filling in important details & probing the implications of what was presented, the person is more likely to be focused on explaining the relevant details (& being mentally focused on the topic of conversation) than distracting emotions, thoughts, etc.

If I am confident I understand what is being said, I will operate under the assumption of that understanding, and continue on the natural implications, or on occasion, rephrase what was said to verify if there are major consequences (especially something legally binding).

This approach highly depends on ability to trust (to a degree) though. If one is in a situation where one cannot trust the other person's intentions, then one must be on their guard and rely on their ability to parse a situation & come up with an approach (or delay immediate response before being able to conduct the necessary research in order to make a proper response or have a productive discussion if possible).

To borrow an idea from literature, it is generally better to show than to tell. There is utility to telling, but its utility is mostly in speedily conveying an idea (or ideas) in order to get to more important matters.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#57

Post by taneq » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:48 AM UTC

Bahamut wrote: post #15

woodandsteel wrote: post #9

As someone who has taught and researched listening skills, I found this article very insightful. However, let me add that the simple skills they described at the beginning (not interrupting, saying "um-hum," and being able to repeat back), are still good to teach because they are better than what most people do much of the time. Here's another HN link on listening: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12228062

I despise the tactic of repeating back what other people said - it shows me that the other person isn't really dwelling on what I said, or more often in my experience, are using that to distort what I am saying in order to fit a particular agenda. I rather someone not fake listening in that case and wasting everyone's time.

I'm with you that repeating back word-for-word (or close to it) is not helpful. I think it's better to paraphrase back to the person talking; the closer the meaning of your paraphrase, the better it shows you've understood their point. Likewise with asking questions, if you can ask a relevant question that they haven't covered yet, it proves you're actually analyzing what they say.

All of these things come under the general heading of 'active listening' and overall it just boils down to "actually be involved in the conversation and interested in the topic."

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#58

Post by taneq » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:50 AM UTC

hamhamed wrote: post #11

This is why I come to HN..to find articles like this. This defies what you learn at school, because I have been taught numerous times, to nod and stfu when you're holding a convo. Always interrupt if you have something constructive to say in a casual/business conversation (unless you're in a debate), that's how you gain trust and credibility.

I distinguish 'interject' (ie. to quickly add in your two bits' worth and then allow the speaker to resume) from 'interrupt' (ie. to talk over them and keep talking, often on a different topic).

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#59

Post by pizza » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:51 AM UTC

sovietmudkipz wrote: post #55

pizza wrote: post #35

The computational complexity varieties of listening: Let n be the number of things the other is talking about (tricky to define a "thing" but, whatever?, use a consistent thing metric) - O(1) listening: ignoring/may as well not be there - reading your phone while the other talks to you - O(n) listening: loading their information into your brain while they talk - e.g. repeating back to them, nodding to salient points…

Observation: O(1) listening is easy enough that a rubber duck can accomplish the task.

Yup ;)

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#60

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 5:53 AM UTC

Listening, and the mode of listening, depends very much on the mode of conversation.

If the case is someone issuing orders, particularly in a critical situation, then yes, you want people to follow attentively, acknowledge the statements, and recall them, correctly, as they apply them.

If you're having a casual conversation with friends, you're looking to, generally, build rapport and mutual cohesion. It's active listening (or more, mutual conversation), but the focus is often lacking -- things can wander.

If you're hashing through (or reviewing) ideas with someone, or a small group, then the highly focused form of interactive participation described is appropriate. Where it's successful -- where people have sufficiently common experience to follow the discussion, but sufficiently divergent to be able to suggest productive directions, and the participants are engaged and committed to supporting the conversation rather than scoring points, torpedoing it, or bolstering some ideology, then that conversational magic can happen.

I suspect an Anna Karenina principle is at play -- good conversations are all good in the same (or at least strongly similar) ways. Bad conversations are each bad in their own way.

I've had the experience of the mistaken interrupter -- the person who tries to finish your thoughts ... but is always wrong (there's a YouTube video of this I saw recently, it's very much as infuriating in real life as the video makes out). I've known people who cannot follow a conversation at all -- it's somewhat like leading a small child along, and prodding them. Not only do you have to point them in the right direction every few feet, but they're wandering off in some utterly incorrect (and inexplicable) direction when you don't do so. In one case, this seems related to an inability to form a correct model of what's happening in other people's minds (or having any idea that such a model might be useful).

There's lack of familiarity with material, there's prior beliefs and knowledge which aren't correct. There's inability to draw connections or inferences (often accompanied by anger or frustration when prompted or coached to try doing so).

Fascinating things, minds.