I've been using active listening approaches for about 6 years now, when I interview candidates, to great effect.
I give a head's up to the candidate of what I'm going to do, right at the top after introducing myself. During the interview proper, I'll ask a question, and while the candidate is speaking, I'll make notes about what they've said. Then I read back to the candidates the notes I've written, asking clarifying questions, and seeing if there's anything that I've misunderstood or anything they'd like to expand on. I make it clear at the outset, and usually mention later on, that any mistake in the notes is on my part and that they should feel free to correct me. I've been surprised about how comfortable people have been to correct my misunderstandings. From time to time, I've even shared my screen so they can see what notes I've made. Once the interview is complete, I flesh out the notes with any impressions above and beyond the content, while I consider if I see them as a hire or no hire, and at what level.
This has resulted in much more positive experiences all round in interviews. Candidates seem to relax quicker, and get into the flow of things more readily. They're able to talk more freely without fear of being misunderstood, knowing they've got a chance to correct any misunderstanding later on in the loop.
Thank you for using the correct vowel for your context. A pet peeve of mine is when people misuse flesh and flush. Flesh is adding to a body of work. Flush is removing unnecessary details from the work. One adds flesh to bones (an outline, draft, etc.). One flushes crap down the toilet, getting rid of it.
Never heard that either, and I've mostly worked in professional settings where there wasn't many native English speakers, but most of the communication was in English anyways, and don't recall hearing/seeing that once. And I'm usually slightly bothered by those silly things too.
Yes one should write flesh out rather than flush out. However, as someone who uses English as a second language, the concept of phrasal verbs is the single most non-intuitive thing (with the very real risk for severe faux pas).
From your own words, to flesh out implies to me as a non-native that I remove flesh from said thing, when in reality the expression is to mean that you "add" flesh to bones. Very confusing.
> the concept of phrasal verbs is the single most non-intuitive thing
I once said that a person seemed pretty "turned on" when I meant "switched on". Luckily it was on a private conversation with a friend who laughed and took the mickey out of me but then explained the situation so no harm done.
i've often been surprised while working with kids that i'll be trying to manipulate them into a way of thinking about a problem or task and they ask me why i'm talking in that way or asking those (usually just prompting) questions
i'll usually just tell them why i'm trying to manipulate them into thinking about the problem in the way i want (in kid friendly language) and they're perfectly fine with it. people don't really seem to mind being manipulated like that, they really just hate not understanding what's going on or being lied to.
I also tend to think about this with the term manipulation, because it feels to me a bit like that. But in the end it really engages the other party to take their own steps and quetion what I am asking.
I guess that is less manipulative than other communication approaches...
If people are talking about important personal matters, one might fall into the trap of thinking that one can understand another fully by asking more questions. Some authors argued that love and empathy starts precisely once you hit this boundary of your ability to perceive and understand another - it is a strange lived experience of living with the facts that something active and free and incomprehensible exists outside oneself, and still profoundly affects you.
It requires some practice to pull this off correctly. I have met quite some people who followed the instructions but it felt very scripted. And often it’s clear that they have ulterior motives and just use this as a tool.
Yeah, even in those examples it sounds contrived. Way too much "it sounds like you're feeling xyz" and "am I right?"
If someone used that conversation template with me I'd wouldn't interpret it as an authentic discussion. At best I'd think it was therapy speak or they'd read some self-help "how to influence people" book.
Like any tool though, knowing when and how to use it is the way to get the most out of it.
author here. Agree 100% - the idea of the examples is to get you to try out the technique. When we teach active listening, we start with “it sounds like” or “I’m hearing that” and the instruction to check that you got it right. As you get the hang of it, you don’t have to use these guard rails any more.
But really the difficult part for most people is the listening itself. Actually getting your head around what is going on for someone else.
A new joiner colleague from another team tried this with me. The script was followed in such a clunky manner I started to wonder if that team had unwittingly hired someone with learning difficulties. Whatever the situation, they didn't benefit because they made a number of poor decisions on the back of the conversation, but I shouldn't write the technique off due to one poor adherent.
If you can accurately paraphrase someone’s point/argument/viewpoint/feelings then that’s evidence that you’ve understood what they’re saying. Or at least, if you can’t, it’s evidence that you should ask more questions. It’s a check against confidently misinterpreting things.
I had a few sessions on it decades back as part of a conflict resolution course.
I don't think I've ever applied it as described in the article or those sessions, but there were a few things from then that I've found to improve how I engage with people (when I remember).
- ask questions regularly
- make sure your questions are open-ended and can't be answered with a yes/no
- avoid saying stuff like "you are like this" or "this is like that". It's safer to say things, particularly difficult things, from one's own perspective, e.g. "I think that".
I’m confused. Isn't this more or less just listening to someone when they speak? I guess seeing it from their perspective isn’t a default for some people?
I usually work in analogies when trying to share my understanding of what they said, whether it is a story or a question.
I may be misunderstanding this a bit, but the inverse or active listening seems to be someone who is distracted and not actually listening to another person? For example: “Wow, yeah, thats crazy” when someone is rambling.
You've never experienced someone who isn't a good listener? It's fairly common and not always intentional.
For example, Kids are great at rambling off information for attention. Active listening is a skill and isn't the default.
Even if someone is listening, active listening is hearing what the partner says and attempting to intuit why they would think that and what assumptions they are making that may be different from your own.
There is capital “A” Active Listening, which is in a family of behavior modification techniques in which the interviewer can follow the aforementioned scripts to increase engagement…
And lowercase active listening, IMHO is genuinely being interested in the experiences of the person talking that your line of questioning disarms the subject into sharing stories that add personal, “cultural” context to their choices which could be considered taboo.
I have the same opinion. This is just a normal conversation. If I'm not doing this, I either want to rant to someone or I'm in a so hostile conversation that it doesn't make sense to do it.
Couple of tweaks though, try to avoid the same call for response, '..is that right?' or whatever. Patterns in speech become REALLY old REALLY quickly.. It can start to create a picture in their head that this is staged (and it kinda is) which then starts to cause them to raise walls up. Keep to the context of the question using whatever words you're comfy with 'X...? I got that right?', or 'soooooo... X yeah?' and they'll spot the pattern but because of the conversational nature of it their hackles will take a lot longer to raise.
The other thing is putting pauses in. Yes pauses are remarkably powerful, actual dead air forces the other side to fill it, but it also creates a pressure vacuum, it FEELS like minor bullishness and can start causing combativeness.
For me if I want the conversation to feel level between two equals I'll instead fill the pauses with word-salad appropriate to whatever the context is with a couple of words in there to ping reactions.
'Oh wow, yeah the more I think about this the more I'm just... wow. Yeah that's annoying', where 'the more I think' is reflecting back that I agree there's something to what they are saying and 'annoying' to cause them to reflect on the irritation, trying to draw out that feeling more so they can then talk about the next layer down, but it's still basically a pause, it quietly says 'I hear you, I don't have anything to say right now, so go on...'
I concur with you (that this is an excellent introduction)!
Imo, your suggestions are more for intermediate/advanced active listeners that need to interact with folks in their job (e.g. bartenders, reporters, middle managers...).
Still, I feel being repetitive (e.g. 'It sounds like XYZ...is that right?') is better than nothing. Sometimes, training wheels aren't bad when learning how to ride a bike.
author here. Exactly, “it sounds like” etc are training wheels. Use them while you figure out how to do the technique. And yes, when you’re learning, it can sound stilted. As you master it, you don’t need to use those exact phrases any more.
Can we make it sound (and be) less like a mind trick by putting out opinion in.
E.g.
"I think Trumps approach to immigration will help increase jobs for Amercians and help the economy"
"OK sounds like you are for stricter immigration enforcement. I actually disagree for various reasons, but I am interested in knowing why you see this as helping the economy. Maybe I am missing something in my analysis"
That (particularly in the context of polarising politics) seems worse; it's basically the sea lion meme. Just feels like a really disingenuous way of saying "I fundamentally disagree, but you should feel obliged to spend time justifying your opinion anyway because I've responded to you in this faux polite tone".
A polite tone also helps cover absolute dog shit nonsense arguments. You see it in the YouTube "debaters" that dunk on college kids. They keep a level head while college kids get angry. This hides that most of the debaters' "facts" are either opinion, out of date entirely, or just completely made up.
Polite doesn't mean acting in good faith. People seem to forget that.
> Me: It sounds like you’ve got mixed emotions at the moment. On the one hand, you’re happy that your boss says you’re doing a good job. But you’re questioning that, given the problems you’re having with Legal. Did I get that right?
No offense. However, this response from the first example feels robotic to me. It feels like I am talking with some kind of artificial intelligence. I guess we have to make it sounds more natural. In fact, the following examples feel more smooth to me.
Exactly. I was actively reading until I reached that first example. Someone giving me such responses would make want to slap them in the face. Are you some old version of ChatGPT??
This works only under some assumptions about the context, who is talking and who is listening. Observe a heated debate between two adversaries. The more listening you do, the more you lose out. It's all about who got the mike for most of the time, not about who is listening and whether it is active listening or not.
"The technique works by subverting standard social etiquette. The normal rules dictate that we take turns. I talk about myself, then you talk about yourself, etc. Active listening changes that. You are listening, they are talking. We do not take turns.
You need to work hard to maintain these unusual rules. Your partner will try to give you a turn"
This unwritten rule is not understood by many. There are plenty of people out there that are completely happy to drain you of your energy by talking endlessly about themselves. What I try to do in those situations is to assert my speaking time and if that doesn't change their attitude, it's bye bye, fuck off, go drain someone else.
Listening and responding is just like singing. If you are "thinking about it while doing it" it feel off to everyone. Like how singing is best when you embody the lessons and move your focus away from "getting it right". It has to feel like you and not you playing a character.
First, let me describe myself. I'm not always great at explaining my thoughts to others in a meeting. The output peripheral bus has a lower clock speed than the CPU, if you catch my drift. If I'm not the one driving the meeting, I try to wait until I have a decent amount of context before offering my own thoughts. Most critically: I don't speak unless I have something important to say, because time is scarce and talking AT ALL is a very high effort activity for me.
I really don't mind the occasional interruption or clarifying question. But if someone is constantly interrupting me every other sentence, it seems obvious to me that they either think their opinion is more important than mine, or they just like to hear themselves talk. In either case, the constant interruptions mean they don't actually care what I have to say, so there's no value in me trying to say it, and I just stop talking until they are done and let the conversation end naturally.
Sounds like skill issue.
For me there is nothing more beautiful than fast active discussion about xyz. That's what's chatting about: people speak _together_, otherwise it's just slow slide show.
Let be clear tho: I'm talking about positive mindset discussion and NOT shunning someone into silent submission. (That would be awful!)
You and I would get along well. This active listening format would drive me crazy.
I also see interruptions as going hand in hand with collaboration and engagement. I guess it’s a personality thing. I’m adhd, INTJ, family hails from a part of the US northeast that is known to be direct and blunt.
That's not funny, that's messed up. In essence, you're saying that if someone else doesn't submit to your will, talking the way you want, there will be physical violence. And then you escalate that to an imminent threat. Doesn't that sound pretty fucked up to you? I understand you want people to be polite, but what you consider polite is not universal. If you don't like the way a conversation goes, you can exit the conversation, either by not participating or physically leaving, or if you want, interrupt them in turn. Threatening people with physical violence is not the answer.
I think civilized people talk in turns. If you chose to violate the social contract anything goes.
I have a hard enough time remembering what I've already told people. I also have to account for half sentences? I'm supposed to remember where I was rudely interrupted and store their response where? Does it even relate to the topic?
I also fear turning my head into a ravioli of sound bites. Like an aquarium with little chunks of thought floating around. Tiny insignificant chunks. Like death!
English is not my mother tongue, so all I can say is no, that's not how communication works (of course you can think whatever you want or your neurons conjure up, I can't argue with what you think). Discourse analysis revolves around the dynamics of speaking, speakers and conversations: gender, age, empathy, attention there are lots of factors in play that decide who speaks and how or when the other party or parties can take turn (or whether the turn is given). Taking turns is not a social contract; it's a rule in your head. You're free to decide to punish people for violating rules in your head, but depending on the level of punishment, you may end up in court.
These are your personal preferences, not some "social contract". I'm completely fine with people interrupting me to correct something I said or to add an important detail I missed, and I tend to do the same.
To see slightly diverging behaviors as uncivilized, to unilaterally demand that people change it to suit your preferences, and especially to threaten people with physical violence seems really deeply troubling to me. I don't think that's a good attitude to have at all.
People have different cultural and personal expectations, quirks, even medical conditions (e.g. ADHD) that affect how they handle communication. You can ask people - politely - to try their best not to interrupt you because it makes communication difficult for you, otherwise walk away.
I also have ADHD which makes me more prone to interrupting people and while I try my best not to, it happens. If I'm troubleshooting a problem for you and by the end of your second sentence I know what the immediate next step is but you keep talking about some irrelevant back-story, I will probably interrupt you - either that or my brain will completely miss what you're saying for the next 5 minutes, making sure that the thought in my head doesn't just - poof, disappear.
Yes some people think I'm rude for that. No, I don't really care because it's not something I can change. Rude are the people unilaterally imposing arbitrary personal preferences onto other people.
This has never happened in your life. There is a one hundred percent chance that if somebody repeatedly interrupts you, you nod and picture what Sephiroth would do to them.
I ran into someone I didn't see for many many years. He told me that over time he realized I was the only one he ever had a real conversation with. Real was probably not the right word I think but everyone he knows including him takes great care to never let anyone finish a sentence. Everyone reminded him of me. He talked for 40 minutes straight, it was the most memorable life story full of unlikely favorable events. He really needed to get it off his chest too.
I didn't agree to their version either. What follows is a negotiation to figure out how to progress. You could do that verbally but since they aren't interested in what you have to say.
You guys realize he’s writing fan fiction about himself right?
“I live in a world where I regularly threaten strangers with violence and don’t get my ass kicked and people still talk to me. I look exactly like Fabio but with a bigger penis. I drive the original Mustang from Bullitt around the race track on my mega yacht I won by beating Gabe Newell in every video game on Steam. I have eleven girlfriends and they are all Jessica Alba.”
Econ is (I’m guessing) ~12 years old, plus or minus a year or two. These sorts of fantasies are pretty common during puberty.
I asked one time why I was excluded from some behavioral statistics. The guy said with a straight face that it was because I'm not real. You are a figment of my imagination.
I asked, an outlier? No no you actually don't exist. I discovered this when I noticed the data made perfect sense if I removed you. People like you don't exist. Period
I see quite a few US TV shows where people make an effort to prevent others from talking.
The most interesting conversation to be had is with someone you disagree with. These people are completely missing out. In stead they are focused on shaping an uninformed narrative.
Nope, I don't see that. As a therapist, this is a big part of our training. Using it in a business context, there's more emphasis on ideas, whereas in therapy, you do ask people how it makes them feel. Often because people don't know how they feel, and that's important in intimate relationships.
It can land as awkward, un-natural, yeah even 'fake' when it's being used by somebody who is just learning it and is practicing, though after time it will lose those qualities. If people you know are using this on you, they might need to own that they're trying something different to get you into a comfort zone before pressing on.
> Using it in a business context, there's more emphasis on ideas
No. It's a cheap trick to make me trust the interlocutor. Since it's not only cheap but effective, it's entirely my choice whether I submit to it and "open up".
In business the other side is anything but your therapist.
"It's a cheap trick to make me trust the interlocutor".
Hmmm. Different interlocutors can have different intentions. Some are going to have the intention to understand. Echoing what you believe the person said is not a 'cheap trick' when it comes to discussing ideas. I've been on both ends of conversations about singing, engineering and sailing, and one person says "what your saying is this" and the other person says: "No, that's not what I'm saying", with a correction that follows, and the chance for two-way understanding.
I've been using active listening approaches for about 6 years now, when I interview candidates, to great effect.
I give a head's up to the candidate of what I'm going to do, right at the top after introducing myself. During the interview proper, I'll ask a question, and while the candidate is speaking, I'll make notes about what they've said. Then I read back to the candidates the notes I've written, asking clarifying questions, and seeing if there's anything that I've misunderstood or anything they'd like to expand on. I make it clear at the outset, and usually mention later on, that any mistake in the notes is on my part and that they should feel free to correct me. I've been surprised about how comfortable people have been to correct my misunderstandings. From time to time, I've even shared my screen so they can see what notes I've made. Once the interview is complete, I flesh out the notes with any impressions above and beyond the content, while I consider if I see them as a hire or no hire, and at what level.
This has resulted in much more positive experiences all round in interviews. Candidates seem to relax quicker, and get into the flow of things more readily. They're able to talk more freely without fear of being misunderstood, knowing they've got a chance to correct any misunderstanding later on in the loop.
Thank you for using the correct vowel for your context. A pet peeve of mine is when people misuse flesh and flush. Flesh is adding to a body of work. Flush is removing unnecessary details from the work. One adds flesh to bones (an outline, draft, etc.). One flushes crap down the toilet, getting rid of it.
Are you saying that you’ve heard people say something like, “let’s flush this out”? I’ve never heard or read that before.
Although, “let’s flush this out” is also a hunting idiom, as in flushing out game. So that may be part of the confusion.
Never heard that either, and I've mostly worked in professional settings where there wasn't many native English speakers, but most of the communication was in English anyways, and don't recall hearing/seeing that once. And I'm usually slightly bothered by those silly things too.
"I created a story in Jira. Next refinement session we need to flush out the details."
To which the Jira bot should automatically reply, “We need to flush that sentence— and Jira— down the toilet.”
I once had an exterminator flush out an animal from my attic.
Who wants details in Agile/Scrum anyway? Flush them out! /s
Yes one should write flesh out rather than flush out. However, as someone who uses English as a second language, the concept of phrasal verbs is the single most non-intuitive thing (with the very real risk for severe faux pas).
From your own words, to flesh out implies to me as a non-native that I remove flesh from said thing, when in reality the expression is to mean that you "add" flesh to bones. Very confusing.
> the concept of phrasal verbs is the single most non-intuitive thing
I once said that a person seemed pretty "turned on" when I meant "switched on". Luckily it was on a private conversation with a friend who laughed and took the mickey out of me but then explained the situation so no harm done.
i've often been surprised while working with kids that i'll be trying to manipulate them into a way of thinking about a problem or task and they ask me why i'm talking in that way or asking those (usually just prompting) questions
i'll usually just tell them why i'm trying to manipulate them into thinking about the problem in the way i want (in kid friendly language) and they're perfectly fine with it. people don't really seem to mind being manipulated like that, they really just hate not understanding what's going on or being lied to.
I also tend to think about this with the term manipulation, because it feels to me a bit like that. But in the end it really engages the other party to take their own steps and quetion what I am asking.
I guess that is less manipulative than other communication approaches...
If people are talking about important personal matters, one might fall into the trap of thinking that one can understand another fully by asking more questions. Some authors argued that love and empathy starts precisely once you hit this boundary of your ability to perceive and understand another - it is a strange lived experience of living with the facts that something active and free and incomprehensible exists outside oneself, and still profoundly affects you.
It requires some practice to pull this off correctly. I have met quite some people who followed the instructions but it felt very scripted. And often it’s clear that they have ulterior motives and just use this as a tool.
Yeah, even in those examples it sounds contrived. Way too much "it sounds like you're feeling xyz" and "am I right?"
If someone used that conversation template with me I'd wouldn't interpret it as an authentic discussion. At best I'd think it was therapy speak or they'd read some self-help "how to influence people" book.
Like any tool though, knowing when and how to use it is the way to get the most out of it.
The idea is to say more or less the same thing in your own words.
"It sounds like you're feeling fed up" --> "Fed up?"
Eventually you develop your own conversational template that is authentic and effective.
author here. Agree 100% - the idea of the examples is to get you to try out the technique. When we teach active listening, we start with “it sounds like” or “I’m hearing that” and the instruction to check that you got it right. As you get the hang of it, you don’t have to use these guard rails any more.
But really the difficult part for most people is the listening itself. Actually getting your head around what is going on for someone else.
A new joiner colleague from another team tried this with me. The script was followed in such a clunky manner I started to wonder if that team had unwittingly hired someone with learning difficulties. Whatever the situation, they didn't benefit because they made a number of poor decisions on the back of the conversation, but I shouldn't write the technique off due to one poor adherent.
If you can accurately paraphrase someone’s point/argument/viewpoint/feelings then that’s evidence that you’ve understood what they’re saying. Or at least, if you can’t, it’s evidence that you should ask more questions. It’s a check against confidently misinterpreting things.
I had a few sessions on it decades back as part of a conflict resolution course.
I don't think I've ever applied it as described in the article or those sessions, but there were a few things from then that I've found to improve how I engage with people (when I remember).
- ask questions regularly
- make sure your questions are open-ended and can't be answered with a yes/no
- avoid saying stuff like "you are like this" or "this is like that". It's safer to say things, particularly difficult things, from one's own perspective, e.g. "I think that".
I’m confused. Isn't this more or less just listening to someone when they speak? I guess seeing it from their perspective isn’t a default for some people?
I usually work in analogies when trying to share my understanding of what they said, whether it is a story or a question.
I may be misunderstanding this a bit, but the inverse or active listening seems to be someone who is distracted and not actually listening to another person? For example: “Wow, yeah, thats crazy” when someone is rambling.
You've never experienced someone who isn't a good listener? It's fairly common and not always intentional.
For example, Kids are great at rambling off information for attention. Active listening is a skill and isn't the default.
Even if someone is listening, active listening is hearing what the partner says and attempting to intuit why they would think that and what assumptions they are making that may be different from your own.
There is capital “A” Active Listening, which is in a family of behavior modification techniques in which the interviewer can follow the aforementioned scripts to increase engagement…
And lowercase active listening, IMHO is genuinely being interested in the experiences of the person talking that your line of questioning disarms the subject into sharing stories that add personal, “cultural” context to their choices which could be considered taboo.
I have the same opinion. This is just a normal conversation. If I'm not doing this, I either want to rant to someone or I'm in a so hostile conversation that it doesn't make sense to do it.
I’m scared that people think actually listening and not just waiting to speak is a novel or new idea.
It is, and it's not equally intuitive for everyone.
That was excellent!
Couple of tweaks though, try to avoid the same call for response, '..is that right?' or whatever. Patterns in speech become REALLY old REALLY quickly.. It can start to create a picture in their head that this is staged (and it kinda is) which then starts to cause them to raise walls up. Keep to the context of the question using whatever words you're comfy with 'X...? I got that right?', or 'soooooo... X yeah?' and they'll spot the pattern but because of the conversational nature of it their hackles will take a lot longer to raise.
The other thing is putting pauses in. Yes pauses are remarkably powerful, actual dead air forces the other side to fill it, but it also creates a pressure vacuum, it FEELS like minor bullishness and can start causing combativeness. For me if I want the conversation to feel level between two equals I'll instead fill the pauses with word-salad appropriate to whatever the context is with a couple of words in there to ping reactions. 'Oh wow, yeah the more I think about this the more I'm just... wow. Yeah that's annoying', where 'the more I think' is reflecting back that I agree there's something to what they are saying and 'annoying' to cause them to reflect on the irritation, trying to draw out that feeling more so they can then talk about the next layer down, but it's still basically a pause, it quietly says 'I hear you, I don't have anything to say right now, so go on...'
I concur with you (that this is an excellent introduction)!
Imo, your suggestions are more for intermediate/advanced active listeners that need to interact with folks in their job (e.g. bartenders, reporters, middle managers...).
Still, I feel being repetitive (e.g. 'It sounds like XYZ...is that right?') is better than nothing. Sometimes, training wheels aren't bad when learning how to ride a bike.
author here. Exactly, “it sounds like” etc are training wheels. Use them while you figure out how to do the technique. And yes, when you’re learning, it can sound stilted. As you master it, you don’t need to use those exact phrases any more.
Can we make it sound (and be) less like a mind trick by putting out opinion in.
E.g.
"I think Trumps approach to immigration will help increase jobs for Amercians and help the economy"
"OK sounds like you are for stricter immigration enforcement. I actually disagree for various reasons, but I am interested in knowing why you see this as helping the economy. Maybe I am missing something in my analysis"
That (particularly in the context of polarising politics) seems worse; it's basically the sea lion meme. Just feels like a really disingenuous way of saying "I fundamentally disagree, but you should feel obliged to spend time justifying your opinion anyway because I've responded to you in this faux polite tone".
A polite tone also helps cover absolute dog shit nonsense arguments. You see it in the YouTube "debaters" that dunk on college kids. They keep a level head while college kids get angry. This hides that most of the debaters' "facts" are either opinion, out of date entirely, or just completely made up.
Polite doesn't mean acting in good faith. People seem to forget that.
> The active listening formula is simple: […]
The instructions sound a lot like what Weizenbaum programmed into ELIZA. :)
Yup. Weizenbaum knew about active listening.
Is there a decent prompt for getting a modem LLM to do this (but without the Eliza lack of imagination). Would be fun to try out.
> Me: It sounds like you’ve got mixed emotions at the moment. On the one hand, you’re happy that your boss says you’re doing a good job. But you’re questioning that, given the problems you’re having with Legal. Did I get that right?
No offense. However, this response from the first example feels robotic to me. It feels like I am talking with some kind of artificial intelligence. I guess we have to make it sounds more natural. In fact, the following examples feel more smooth to me.
Exactly. I was actively reading until I reached that first example. Someone giving me such responses would make want to slap them in the face. Are you some old version of ChatGPT??
This works only under some assumptions about the context, who is talking and who is listening. Observe a heated debate between two adversaries. The more listening you do, the more you lose out. It's all about who got the mike for most of the time, not about who is listening and whether it is active listening or not.
"The technique works by subverting standard social etiquette. The normal rules dictate that we take turns. I talk about myself, then you talk about yourself, etc. Active listening changes that. You are listening, they are talking. We do not take turns.
You need to work hard to maintain these unusual rules. Your partner will try to give you a turn"
This unwritten rule is not understood by many. There are plenty of people out there that are completely happy to drain you of your energy by talking endlessly about themselves. What I try to do in those situations is to assert my speaking time and if that doesn't change their attitude, it's bye bye, fuck off, go drain someone else.
Active listening isn’t just a skill, it’s a little act of kindness that makes people feel seen and understood.
Come on..
Listening and responding is just like singing. If you are "thinking about it while doing it" it feel off to everyone. Like how singing is best when you embody the lessons and move your focus away from "getting it right". It has to feel like you and not you playing a character.
everybody has to learn to sing at some point. same goes for listening.
Funny, for me active discussion and interruptions are sign of ENGAGEMENT and I respect that a lot.
From my personal experience people who are angry about interruptions are typically arogant and non empathic.
I love heated debates. (Adhd, INTP, Central Europe)
So, I'm going to challenge you on that.
First, let me describe myself. I'm not always great at explaining my thoughts to others in a meeting. The output peripheral bus has a lower clock speed than the CPU, if you catch my drift. If I'm not the one driving the meeting, I try to wait until I have a decent amount of context before offering my own thoughts. Most critically: I don't speak unless I have something important to say, because time is scarce and talking AT ALL is a very high effort activity for me.
I really don't mind the occasional interruption or clarifying question. But if someone is constantly interrupting me every other sentence, it seems obvious to me that they either think their opinion is more important than mine, or they just like to hear themselves talk. In either case, the constant interruptions mean they don't actually care what I have to say, so there's no value in me trying to say it, and I just stop talking until they are done and let the conversation end naturally.
Sounds like skill issue. For me there is nothing more beautiful than fast active discussion about xyz. That's what's chatting about: people speak _together_, otherwise it's just slow slide show.
Let be clear tho: I'm talking about positive mindset discussion and NOT shunning someone into silent submission. (That would be awful!)
Thanks for the unnecessary insult--you asshat--but it's not a "skill issue," it's how I am built. As took great pains to explain.
You and I would get along well. This active listening format would drive me crazy.
I also see interruptions as going hand in hand with collaboration and engagement. I guess it’s a personality thing. I’m adhd, INTJ, family hails from a part of the US northeast that is known to be direct and blunt.
[flagged]
That's not funny, that's messed up. In essence, you're saying that if someone else doesn't submit to your will, talking the way you want, there will be physical violence. And then you escalate that to an imminent threat. Doesn't that sound pretty fucked up to you? I understand you want people to be polite, but what you consider polite is not universal. If you don't like the way a conversation goes, you can exit the conversation, either by not participating or physically leaving, or if you want, interrupt them in turn. Threatening people with physical violence is not the answer.
That's not funny at all. That's abusive.
Thanks for the perspective.
I think civilized people talk in turns. If you chose to violate the social contract anything goes.
I have a hard enough time remembering what I've already told people. I also have to account for half sentences? I'm supposed to remember where I was rudely interrupted and store their response where? Does it even relate to the topic?
I also fear turning my head into a ravioli of sound bites. Like an aquarium with little chunks of thought floating around. Tiny insignificant chunks. Like death!
English is not my mother tongue, so all I can say is no, that's not how communication works (of course you can think whatever you want or your neurons conjure up, I can't argue with what you think). Discourse analysis revolves around the dynamics of speaking, speakers and conversations: gender, age, empathy, attention there are lots of factors in play that decide who speaks and how or when the other party or parties can take turn (or whether the turn is given). Taking turns is not a social contract; it's a rule in your head. You're free to decide to punish people for violating rules in your head, but depending on the level of punishment, you may end up in court.
Raising my hand is not punishment. People are free to fear I will slap them but I didn't do it until I do.
Yes, the settings play a roll of course. The joke is best with other males of the same age. It's not funny with kids or woman.
Social contract, rule in my head? I don't know if there is a difference.
These are your personal preferences, not some "social contract". I'm completely fine with people interrupting me to correct something I said or to add an important detail I missed, and I tend to do the same.
To see slightly diverging behaviors as uncivilized, to unilaterally demand that people change it to suit your preferences, and especially to threaten people with physical violence seems really deeply troubling to me. I don't think that's a good attitude to have at all.
People have different cultural and personal expectations, quirks, even medical conditions (e.g. ADHD) that affect how they handle communication. You can ask people - politely - to try their best not to interrupt you because it makes communication difficult for you, otherwise walk away.
I also have ADHD which makes me more prone to interrupting people and while I try my best not to, it happens. If I'm troubleshooting a problem for you and by the end of your second sentence I know what the immediate next step is but you keep talking about some irrelevant back-story, I will probably interrupt you - either that or my brain will completely miss what you're saying for the next 5 minutes, making sure that the thought in my head doesn't just - poof, disappear.
Yes some people think I'm rude for that. No, I don't really care because it's not something I can change. Rude are the people unilaterally imposing arbitrary personal preferences onto other people.
You have the right idea what should take priority when trying to accomplish something.
If you interrupt me to correct me I actually admire it. Extra points if you get to do it twice in a sentence.
I'm taking about repeatedly interrupting the next step with irrelevant back story or worse, a not even related topic.
The big question I suppose is if your thoughts continue to go poof if you try harder to hold onto them.
This has never happened in your life. There is a one hundred percent chance that if somebody repeatedly interrupts you, you nod and picture what Sephiroth would do to them.
I ran into someone I didn't see for many many years. He told me that over time he realized I was the only one he ever had a real conversation with. Real was probably not the right word I think but everyone he knows including him takes great care to never let anyone finish a sentence. Everyone reminded him of me. He talked for 40 minutes straight, it was the most memorable life story full of unlikely favorable events. He really needed to get it off his chest too.
[flagged]
His life took a few hilarious unexpected turns that worked out really well for him.
Do civilized people also use threats of violence when they don't get their way?
Maybe try using your words instead.
You can't be civilized on your own. The interaction proceeds without it.
> If you chose to violate the social contract anything goes.
Sounds like they never agreed to your version of this "contract", so they're not violating anything, you're just making excuses.
(A social contract is not the same thing as a legal contract, but you seem to be treating it closer to the latter, which requires explicit agreement)
I didn't agree to their version either. What follows is a negotiation to figure out how to progress. You could do that verbally but since they aren't interested in what you have to say.
> but since they aren't interested in what you have to say
"i just resort to violence! it's funny!"
You guys realize he’s writing fan fiction about himself right?
“I live in a world where I regularly threaten strangers with violence and don’t get my ass kicked and people still talk to me. I look exactly like Fabio but with a bigger penis. I drive the original Mustang from Bullitt around the race track on my mega yacht I won by beating Gabe Newell in every video game on Steam. I have eleven girlfriends and they are all Jessica Alba.”
Econ is (I’m guessing) ~12 years old, plus or minus a year or two. These sorts of fantasies are pretty common during puberty.
On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog
I asked one time why I was excluded from some behavioral statistics. The guy said with a straight face that it was because I'm not real. You are a figment of my imagination.
I asked, an outlier? No no you actually don't exist. I discovered this when I noticed the data made perfect sense if I removed you. People like you don't exist. Period
I like to think of it as playing ball. Sometimes people are just bad players. Sometimes people are in a bad mood.
Just consider that physical intervention is not appropriate for most cases.
"You're not that guy pal" energy
I bet you're getting plenty of downvotes from the Yanks.
Do elaborate on that first paragraph though please, I'm bursting with curiosity about what makes you see it that way.
The part I didn't say?
I see quite a few US TV shows where people make an effort to prevent others from talking.
The most interesting conversation to be had is with someone you disagree with. These people are completely missing out. In stead they are focused on shaping an uninformed narrative.
Maybe the downvotes are because of the jokes about assault?
You've got to be kidding. The couple of times someone tried this with me I stopped and asked what the F are you doing?
It's very obviously fake. Seriously you can't see that?
Nope, I don't see that. As a therapist, this is a big part of our training. Using it in a business context, there's more emphasis on ideas, whereas in therapy, you do ask people how it makes them feel. Often because people don't know how they feel, and that's important in intimate relationships.
It can land as awkward, un-natural, yeah even 'fake' when it's being used by somebody who is just learning it and is practicing, though after time it will lose those qualities. If people you know are using this on you, they might need to own that they're trying something different to get you into a comfort zone before pressing on.
No kidding here.
> Using it in a business context, there's more emphasis on ideas
No. It's a cheap trick to make me trust the interlocutor. Since it's not only cheap but effective, it's entirely my choice whether I submit to it and "open up".
In business the other side is anything but your therapist.
"It's a cheap trick to make me trust the interlocutor".
Hmmm. Different interlocutors can have different intentions. Some are going to have the intention to understand. Echoing what you believe the person said is not a 'cheap trick' when it comes to discussing ideas. I've been on both ends of conversations about singing, engineering and sailing, and one person says "what your saying is this" and the other person says: "No, that's not what I'm saying", with a correction that follows, and the chance for two-way understanding.
I'm sure one can get better at pretending to care with practice.
There are many roads to birthday parties from people you don't like who also don't like you. There will be many uninspired gifts.
if somewhat is doing it poorly, it does feel really slimy
totally, it’s the worst