Live data from Hacker News

What Great Listeners Actually Do

hbr.org

181–190 of 205 posts

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#181
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't resist the jokey version. A man goes to a psychiatrist and says "I have this nameless fear." The psychiatrist says, "Oh, that's no problem, we have names for everything."

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not arbitrarily changing the definition. They did a study where they asked people to identify how good others were at listening, and then studied what behaviors distinguished those who got the highest ratings.

The article is freely interchanging the concepts "being a good listener" and "being perceived as being a good listener" from one sentence to the next. That's worse than arbitrarily changing the definition (but being consistent with it).

The meanings of words are determined by usage. If this is what people mean by the term "good listener," then that is what it means.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#183

Are there any excellent books on this topic?

I'll throw out Marshall Rosenberg's "Nonviolent Communication." Call it one framework for listening centered around resolving conflict between individuals and groups. It provides examples of the kind of active listening and questioning mentioned in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Four_... https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Mar...

That's a great book.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#184
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I hear where you're coming from and I'm not going to say you're wrong, but this is like saying that endurance training is unnecessary because humans are innately able to run marathons.

I think metaphors and analogies are difficult to argue with. Of course I am saying something which is hopefully falsifiable otherwise I am not really saying anything at all. The best way to test this is some kind of controlled experiment. But aint nobody got time for that. I would say however, there is absolutely no need to take my word for it. I would actually recommend you don't. You can test this out for yourself.…

> it's more about what works for you

No. It's about what works for the person to whom I'm listening, and my experience suggests at best an extremely limited role for a personal zen, however well polished.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I have found in the past that paraphrased repetition can be all the other person is looking for out of the conversation. A stylized sketch: A: Hey, I have this problem XXXX, I'm not sure what I should do about it. B: Ok, the problem is YYYY [paraphrased]? A: Tha…

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—…

Many (most?) medical terms are just a common description of the thing in Latin. "Anterior Cruciate Ligament" sounds fancy until you realise it just means "the string that goes across at the back." I dunno why but this vaguely annoys me.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#186

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…

Urrgh, that reminds me of one time I was getting some routine blood test results. Lady with a thick Indian accent saying "And you are... HIV...

pause

endless aeons wheel and pass

negative."

Not that I'd ever had any contact with it, but wow, way to leave me hanging.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#187
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…

The brain is massively parallel, your analysis seems to assume 0 parallelism.

The brain may be parallel, but attention [0] isn't for all intents and purposes.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#188
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…

Parroting shouldn't be your go-to tactic. It's useful to get you out of a potentially awkward spot to save the momentum of a conversation, but if you're actually involved in the conversation you should have other things to say/ask.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is necessarily constrained by asymptotic computational complexity. With or without the memory bottleneck implied by the Von Neumann architecture. That it is a turing machine is not merely a pedantic fact. It has both implications and relevance here. At best a different architecture would exploit more concurrency. I don't think it does though; Language processing is extremely recursive. Noam Chomsky suspects our br…

You made me picture a brain evolving some sort of internal lisp in order to build language processing optimizations. :-)

That... is a pretty interesting thought. I'm gonna go into hand wavy mode here. Noam Chomsky also argued [0] that the "language faculty" evolved as a spandrel. Meaning loosely (teleologically) that it wasn't it's own "motivation". This implies that the "language module" [1] may not exist as a distinct structure. Noam Chomsky's deviation from canonical terminology is revealing. He's a very meticulous person; It's not an accident. He specifically disavows a full theory of it's evolution. Other's assert that the idiosyncratic structure of the world's various languages is evidence against this. That the nature of grammar is too complex to have piggybacked on another adaptation. As an accident. It must have been naturally selected for over time. Maybe it was both?

The brain had 4 seconds of echoic memory that it was already pattern matching against; For various "reasons" in the environment. Using this neurology, without further adaptation, we could have learned to identify generic structures in sounds. Languages are just trees encoded as sequences. For example, "the small brown fox ate the white rabbit" is the tree (ate (the (fox small brown)) (the (rabbit white))). The structural recognizer produces a simple hash-like value corresponding to a generic structure. The brain learns to calculate it from the meaning of words. It's the introspective association of these structures with brain states that's ultimately novel. Sequential processing and the state it requires evolved for other reasons. We can use this loose bundle of state for the individual "chunks" we hear. All we needed was the ability to manipulate and maintain recursively structured state. This is just a new meta-state for the generic tree superimposed on these "chunks". Notably, Nim Chimpsky can sign three word sentences. Nim apparently understands the tree (relationship this that). Though he can only form very simple structures; He seems to be utilizing his self awareness. Perhaps the spandrel is piggybacking on the ego. This works great for (eat Nim Banana) but ventures near deranged ambitions like (eat Nim Nim). His environment punishes anything exceeding basic executive function. He is actually extremely conscious when not compared to humans.

The first brains (Planarians) were sort of like jellyfish "brains". They were hardly more than nervous systems and produced no internally sequential cognition. Neural connections formed directed acyclic graphs. They computed referentially transparent functions over sensory input. Their construction was similar to combinational logic circuits. Concurrency was expressed in parallel structure's and not execution steps. Aside from neuroplasticity these brains didn't maintain state. In order for the brain to maintain state it needs a neurological cycle. Evolving such a thing is a very risky endeavor. Simple cyclical structures are liable to produce dangerous feedback; Like Nim's ambitions above. Every cycle takes a developmental and cognitive toll on the brain. It has to learn how to cope with each of them. New cycles must overcome this cost, by producing novel and sufficiently rewarding behavior, otherwise they die.

A stateless brain has a significant limitation. It can easily become stuck. Sensation (input) causes action (output) which reproduces identical sensation. Fixed points persist indefinitely without external intervention. This creates selective pressures for the adaptation of state cycles. The brain can instrument the body for signals like hunger and fatigue. This gives the brain more "external" interventions. But this won't relieve much pressure. The body's state is just the body's state. It isn't a general indication of when you ought to exit a fixed point. The brain can still become stuck and it's terribly expensive. Behaviors, regardless of potential reward, cannot risk entering a fixed point. Lets say a coconut might fall out a tree if you kick it. You can't try it or you'll just stand around kicking the same tree forever. State and sequential processing solve this problem. As an intermediate solution, behavior could be randomized using a noisy feedback loop. Carefully avoiding the brain's distaste for cycles it could then go on to become proper state. This can produce emotional states like boredom. Also basic executive functions like: kick it if you didn't just kick it. It takes a long time to evolve something as self directed as Nim. Then just a bit longer for Eve to bite the apple. Once invented, language would have imposed tremendous evolutionary pressure on the development of introspective state with increasingly sophisticated structure. Simple operational languages co-evolved into the sophisticated cultural languages we know today. This could explain most of what distinguishes our variety of intelligence from the other animal's.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)#Language_as... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_module

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general is a very rewarding experience and in 7cups.com it's also very comfortable to do it (I don't have experience in other similar services so I can't talk about them). You don't have any pressure on when or how many times you should do it and how much time you should spend. You volunteer whenever you feel up to (and this is how it should be because your mood is very important when you are dealing with these th…

This is exactly the sort of answer I was hoping for; on the strength of it, I think I may very well decide to give it a try. Thank you very much! I really appreciate you taking the time.

You are very welcome! I'm glad to hear that you are may give it a try. Good luck and do your best!
Post reply on HN