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

What Great Listeners Actually Do

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 205 posts

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#191

Post by _v7gu »

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…

Can't you reduce the O(n log n) to O(log n) by picking the most important points instead of sorting everything?

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#192

Post by _v7gu »

Artoemius wrote: post #52
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).

I think our built-in neural network provides a great hash function for these kind of things

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#193

Post by _v7gu »

taneq wrote: post #58
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).

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as listening, is in fact, listening/interjecting, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, listening plus interjecting. Listening is not a favorable method unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning talking system made useful by the functional eardrums, wave properties of matter and the composition of the atmosphere comprising a full conversation as defined by the societal standards.

(you can ban me now. I won't regret this)

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#194

Post by cammil »

hyperpape wrote: post #178
cammil wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prob…

Thanks for the feedback Hyperpape.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#195

Post by Klockan »

FreeFull wrote: post #139
bbcbasic wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The brain can emulate a Turing machine but not necessarily vice versa

I don't see a good reason why a turing machine can't simulate a brain, or even a whole universe

A Turing machine can't properly simulate randomness...

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#196

Post by Klockan »

solipsism wrote: post #39
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…

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

The conversation will take O(n) time no matter what, so parallelism doesn't matter.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#197

Post by cammil »

throwanem wrote: post #184
cammil wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well then our experiences differ. That's okay.

Of course your experience is your evidence. And that is what I mean by "what works for you".

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#198

Post by FreeFull »

Klockan wrote: post #195
FreeFull wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a good reason why a turing machine can't simulate a brain, or even a whole universe

A Turing machine can't properly simulate randomness...

Pseudorandomness is fine, and given you do have an infinite amount of tape, the pseudorandom generator doesn't ever have to repeat either.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#199

Post by hinkley »

Practicality wrote: post #151
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I repeat what people say all the time, especially if I am asked a complex question to make sure I understand. A lot of people get annoyed at me.

Most people are not aware of how poorly they communicate and so they are upset when you don't just "know" what they mean.

Evidence: every requirements document in existence.

Re: What Great Listeners Actually Do

#200

Post by Klockan »

FreeFull wrote: post #198
Klockan wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Turing machine can't properly simulate randomness...

Pseudorandomness is fine, and given you do have an infinite amount of tape, the pseudorandom generator doesn't ever have to repeat either.

Can you prove that human behavior can be replicated using pseudorandomness?
Post reply on HN