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

How to be a good listener

tomblog.rip

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 157 posts

Re: How to be a good listener

#131

Post by kelseyfrog »

danparsonson wrote: post #66
novok wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, if you are too good of a listener, people stop listening to you because they enjoy being listened to. You become the calm person that attracts all the anxious into their lives. Sometimes, you have to stop holding space for others for them to finally understand that, no it's not ok what they are doing anymore. To help others listen to you, you realize you have to learn to scream, because as the autho…

This is about setting boundaries - being a good listener only when you are comfortable doing so.

Great point! I have a tendency toward co-dependency so understanding that being needed is different than internal validation is important. Being choosy about when and with whom one is listening is crucial. Burnout is real and always listening is a fast track to it. Anyone, including the listener, can tap the breaks and slow or stop things if they need to for any reason at all.

Re: How to be a good listener

#132

Post by kelseyfrog »

pepve wrote: post #130
kelseyfrog wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a friend in my life who I meet with regularly in a small group setting that falls into this category - never seeming to reciprocate. When I imagine asking him, "What don't you ask questions about my life?" I assume I'd get a response something like, "You can tell me anything," or "I'm open to hearing what you want to talk about," or "You're free to talk about anything." If I had to devise a quick mental mode…

> When I imagine asking him, "What don't you ask questions about my life?" I assume I'd get a response something like, "You can tell me anything," or "I'm open to hearing what you want to talk about," or "You're free to talk about anything." I think this is the insight! > If I had to devise a quick mental model, it might seem like the difference between talking at someone vs talking with someone? (And I think this is…

Excuse me if I read that wrong, but I'd be curious why you think label "talking at" vs "talking with" is semantics.

I see a significant difference between the distribution of behaviors and utterances when I'm "talking at" vs "talking with". There's also a significant difference in response I seem to receive from people when I employ one distribution of behaviors vs the other. But, maybe you see it differently?

Re: How to be a good listener

#133

Post by mvkel »

CadmiumYellow wrote: post #121
mvkel wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would still be listening level 1. If you're asking questions and worried about how it makes you look, that's focusing on yourself. My examples don't come across good via text; I would edit more fleshed out ones if I could. But in any context, if you're focused on yourself, you're not listening.

Uhhhh no it's focusing on the fact that responding to someone in the way you describe as level 3 makes people uncomfortable. You want to put the other person at ease so you consciously avoid revealing the ways in which you've analyzed their behavior. Nobody wants to feel like they're being observed so intensely by the person they're talking to.

Without their permission, absolutely. This is in the context of coaching in which there is an agreement that yes, you may be observed pretty intensely. It does feel vulnerable, and it's up to the coach to make the person feel safe.

Re: How to be a good listener

#134

Post by kandel »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #115
spidersenses wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>worded in their own language Would you (or someone else that's knowledgable) be so kind to share your approach to doing this? I find this to be hardest thing to do in the moment without feeling like a manipulative sociopath.

That's going to fall under clean language. There are some written examples on the aforementioned Clean Language wikipedia article[1] under the examples section. The point I take away from it is the following question, "Who's doing the framing here?" If you're supporting the other person in framing things themselves, then it leans toward clean language. If you're interjecting your own framing, then it leans away from…

A lot of times I use what I think you term as unclean language to inject some energy into the conversation. Without it I feel like the conversation dies, so I relate with my own story, or pass a half-judgement, do something to fire them up. I don't know, it doesn't feel like the best solution, but it's the one I use, any thoughts?

Re: How to be a good listener

#136

Post by zarathustreal »

krisoft wrote: post #70
zarathustreal wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially related for anyone that needs to hear it: evaluate the content in context, the author is irrelevant

> evaluate the content in context, the author is irrelevant But the author is part of that context. Especially with this kind of content where one explains how they think people should behave we can ask the question if the author embodied the guidelines they are talking about, and if so where did it took them. Did they had an enviable life full of things the reader would find valuable?

I disagree. The speaker is not part of the context when evaluating the correctness of a given assertion. This is a fundamental fact, for example when the speaker is unknown. If it helps, in situations where you’re reading something controversial or where you’d be tempted to make unfounded inferences based on the speaker, you can simply pretend that you’ve “discovered” the assertion rather than that someone has said it to you.

Granted, it can be a bit unnerving to accept something without a human being willing to stand with you to defend it when you reach the limits of objective reality (such as the issue of varying perspective). Typically the advice here is to “stand up for what you believe in” - but honestly that’s overrated when survival is on the line (and you potentially haven’t yet absorbed the info as part of your identity).

Re: How to be a good listener

#137

Post by kandel »

CipherThrowaway wrote: post #52
elevaet wrote: post #14

> 5. Don’t relate. I see this recommendation all the time, but I know I do it all the time, and personally I often _like_ it when other people do it to me. Sometimes it's nice to commiserate or share a connection on a similar experience, and maybe even learn from what the other person already went through. Does anyone else question this common piece of advice? Can't relating be useful if it's not being used to steer…

>Does anyone else question this common piece of advice? Absolutely. One thing I notice is that the people sharing this "advice" - while positioning themselves as amazing listeners - seem to have a disgust reaction to people sharing details about their own lives in a conversation. Personally, if I have something I would like to speak about and feel heard about, I feel most heard when the other person is able to share…

I commented this earlier as well. Relating brings a lot of energy to a conversation, but it's also trickier. I wish I had a better solution

When I was at Amaravati the head monk constantly brought up stories from his life, sometimes endlessly, and it was always nice to sit next to him since it was so energetic.

Here, I related something, and it brings a new thing to talk about, a few new edges.

Re: How to be a good listener

#138

Post by kelseyfrog »

kandel wrote: post #134
kelseyfrog wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's going to fall under clean language. There are some written examples on the aforementioned Clean Language wikipedia article[1] under the examples section. The point I take away from it is the following question, "Who's doing the framing here?" If you're supporting the other person in framing things themselves, then it leans toward clean language. If you're interjecting your own framing, then it leans away from…

A lot of times I use what I think you term as unclean language to inject some energy into the conversation. Without it I feel like the conversation dies, so I relate with my own story, or pass a half-judgement, do something to fire them up. I don't know, it doesn't feel like the best solution, but it's the one I use, any thoughts?

Like many skills, learning to be aware is 80% of the work, 10% is the actual skill, and the remaining 10% is knowing when it's appropriate.

That's what works for me too. My experience tells me that just being aware of how much clean language I'm using and when I should and shouldn't be using it gets me to where I want to be. Being unaware, or trying to use as much as possible are, for reasons you mentioned, not the best approach.

Maybe the most interesting things about clean language is how little of it you actually need for it to be wildly effective. Applying just a bit when you sense someone opening up or being vulnerable is, in my experience, a loving way to receive that message gracefully.

Re: How to be a good listener

#139

Post by unsupp0rted »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #132
pepve wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I imagine asking him, "What don't you ask questions about my life?" I assume I'd get a response something like, "You can tell me anything," or "I'm open to hearing what you want to talk about," or "You're free to talk about anything." I think this is the insight! > If I had to devise a quick mental model, it might seem like the difference between talking at someone vs talking with someone? (And I think this is…

Excuse me if I read that wrong, but I'd be curious why you think label "talking at" vs "talking with" is semantics. I see a significant difference between the distribution of behaviors and utterances when I'm "talking at" vs "talking with". There's also a significant difference in response I seem to receive from people when I employ one distribution of behaviors vs the other. But, maybe you see it differently?

I agree. “Talking at” might as well involve a cardboard cutout of my face and a tape recorder that plays back “hmm” and “wow” utterances at random intervals.

My being there in person doesn’t materially affect what the other person experiences from me anyway.

Re: How to be a good listener

#140

Post by pepve »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #132
pepve wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I imagine asking him, "What don't you ask questions about my life?" I assume I'd get a response something like, "You can tell me anything," or "I'm open to hearing what you want to talk about," or "You're free to talk about anything." I think this is the insight! > If I had to devise a quick mental model, it might seem like the difference between talking at someone vs talking with someone? (And I think this is…

Excuse me if I read that wrong, but I'd be curious why you think label "talking at" vs "talking with" is semantics. I see a significant difference between the distribution of behaviors and utterances when I'm "talking at" vs "talking with". There's also a significant difference in response I seem to receive from people when I employ one distribution of behaviors vs the other. But, maybe you see it differently?

I was trying to compliment you! When you talk about your friend, about what you might ask him, and what he might answer, I think you have insight there. I think that's valuable.

And I should have stopped there. But I went on to try to make a point about the quick mental model you proposed about "talking at" vs "talking with". Which I think leads to arguing about semantics (with others or yourself).

What you're saying about the difference between the distribution of behaviors and utterances sounds reasonable to me (if a bit abstract). I just think the specific insight into your friend's behavior is a lot more valuable.

Post reply on HN