Live data from Hacker News

What Great Listeners Actually Do

hbr.org

171–180 of 205 posts

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Emotionally honest" is a copout. What you mean is that it's easy for you and keeps you squarely centered in your comfort zone, while the person you supposedly think you're going to help has to do all the scary work of leaving her own.

I don't see how being emotionally honest qualifies as a cop-out. The GP's statement was about appearing to be sincerely sympathetic. What I recommended was to be true to themself and offered an example of how that could be stated in a constructive manner. Perhaps the example I provided was not appealing to you, which is entirely understandable.

The GP's comment also included this crucial statement, which you might have overlooked:

> I'm good at having sympathy (not always empathy), but I'm not good at expressing it.

He wants to be better at expressing the sympathy he feels. That's why I said that, even though it feels fake at first, stick with it and model yourself after what you see other people do, and over time it will become quite natural. This is the same process by which humans learn almost all social behavior; it's just relatively rare to do it as an adult, when consciousness and introspection are fully formed and the concept of sincerity discovered.

The problem with the example you provided is not that it didn't appeal to me; I can understand where you're coming from with it, and I appreciate its sincerity. The problem I have is that that statement is not fit for purpose. In almost any case, it's not a tool which will work.

When I participate in this kind of conversation, I do so expressly because it's an opportunity to help someone. In order to accomplish that goal, it is necessary that my interlocutor be comfortable enough to open up and share the kind of information I need to fulfill the role I've chosen for myself in that context. In order for that to occur, I need to meet that person where he is. As I said, I understand and appreciate the nature of your proposed statement - but I also understand that most people are not like us, and not the sort of person with whom a such a bald statement ("Message: I care") is going to resonate.

So it's going to be very rare that a statement like that will serve the purpose I require of it, which in turn means that, if I use it, I will fail at something into which I've decided it is worth investing considerable time and effort toward succeeding.

My initial analysis suggested that, in order to make it possible for people to be comfortable enough with me that I might have a meaningful probability of being able to help them by any means, it would be necessary to develop a great deal of social fluency. So I did that. Then I went looking for ways in which I could deploy it to the benefit of others, and I found them. I'm still nowhere near as good at that as I intend eventually to become, but retrospective analysis suggests that even the moderate degree of skill I've developed in that regard has enabled me to produce a net positive emotional impact on the people around me - perhaps marginal for the most part, but demonstrable nonetheless, and showing a distinct if modest upward trend.

But I've put a lot of work into it, too, and it is not quite accurate to say that I'm the same person I was when I started. You might want to put some thought into whether that's something you feel is worth your while.

I hope you'll decide that it is. I've chosen to make a vocation of creating for other people, for a little while, a world to live in in which, sometimes, someone just cares. If you decide to do the same, it increases the chance that someday someone will do that for me. And there are days when I could really use it.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my second daughter was born, she had a huge head. We're talking 99th percentile. This is cause for concern, so we took her to a doctor. The conversation went like: Me: What's up with my daughter's really big head? Doctor: It's a condition called "macrocephaly". Somehow, that was reassuring to me, despite realizing that all he did was literally just transliterate my words to Latin—"macro" -> big, "ceph-" -> head—…

Funny, I had a very similar experience with my son's head, but it was that his fontanella closed earlier than expected. My conversation went more like this: Doc: "well, when we see this thing, we're concerned it might be ... but he doesn't have that." Me: "Phew... so..." Doc: "So then we're worried about ... but he doesn't have that." Me: "Phew. hrmmm, so..." Doc "So then we're worried about ..." At which point I int…

Communication is hard.

I can imagine the doc was trying to reassure you or head off questions s/he gets often by going through the litany of scary stuff ruled out. But maybe should not have buried the lede.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#173
post #96
post #2

I had a manager once who would say "mmm-hmm" all the time . It was really distracting and actually made it seem like he wasn't listening at all, even if he was actually hanging on my every word.

Some Japanese carry their listening habits over to English when they learn it as a second language. This involves a lot of these noises and small words like 'amazing', 'wow' etc even if the topic is mundane. I've been told they consider that polite, but in English it's quite irritating.

Huh, that's kind of interesting, although in this case the person in question was about as white as you can be.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#175
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my second daughter was born, she had a huge head. We're talking 99th percentile. This is cause for concern, so we took her to a doctor. The conversation went like: Me: What's up with my daughter's really big head? Doctor: It's a condition called "macrocephaly". Somehow, that was reassuring to me, despite realizing that all he did was literally just transliterate my words to Latin—"macro" -> big, "ceph-" -> head—…

I would imagine the tone of voice and confidence would have made a difference. If he said it an a hesitant way I would imagine that it might have got you worried. (I hope it wasn't cause for concern).

Well, the non-jokey answer is that simply transliterating it to Latin does carry novel information. It says, "your child has something the medical establishment is familiar with". That alone carries some reassurance with it.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#176
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely a difference. You could be perceived as a good listener, while actually not understanding or remembering what the other person is saying. On the other hand, you could appear to not be listening, but if later quizzed on the words spoken you would ace it.

Try describing the concepts without using the word "listen". Most likely you agree and are fighting about irrelevant definitions.

I'm not so sure. johnfn claims "There's no objective judge of listening". Why not? Students are familiar with the idea of a standardized reading comprehension test. Is it impossible to imagine that we could construct a listening comprehension test? If so, you could then demonstrate that its possible to flunk the "perceived as good listener" test while acing the "listening comprehension" test -- underscoring that notion that these are distinct concepts.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#177
Years ago I found habit 5 of Steven Coveys "7 Habits of highly effective people" a great ("idiot's") guide to listening. That book is often reduced to habit "first things first", but said chapter was much more life changing for me. Also to be applied when raising kids (Covey should have known, he and his wife had 9 of them).

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#178
post #159
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't disagree more. My take on listening: https://letmeexplainyou.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/how-to-list...

I am not entirely sure why I am getting the downvotes. Anyone care to explain?

I didn't actually downvote you, I got here after the fact, but:

1) The post feels patronizing.

2) Even if your post was right, you don't really say why someone should believe it, just that the alternatives are flawed. Why are they flawed? Because you think listening works differently.

3) Maybe this is superfluous, but I don't really believe what you say, and I suspect most people here are in the same boat. There probably is something to the idea that your circumstances affect your ability to listen, and meditating, or getting your life in order will make you better at it. But is it necessarily so absolute? I suspect you can listen well even if you have problems elsewhere in your life, and you can do things to try and pay attention here and now. Now, I haven't provided any reason to believe that, but since you didn't give any reason to believe your story either, I don't see reason much reason to abandon my belief.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#179
post #51
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…

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.

Perhaps just as often people don't know or understand what they want.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#180
post #57
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.

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…

I agree paraphrasing is usually better. But with complicated matters you are having trouble understanding, word-for-word repetition can help a lot.

Also, for teaching, a lot of people need to do word-for-word first in order to learn how to really concentrate, then they can switch to paraphrasing.

In fact, I have found that a large portion of the population has a problem listening where their attention wanders away and they miss much of what is said, but they don't realize it and think they have heard it all. When you have them do word-for-word reflecting, they miss a lot of the content, and are shocked to realize their attention has wandered away, and indeed they have probably been doing this all their life, and they suddenly become very focused in their listening. It is quite something when you see this happen.

Post reply on HN