I don't doubt that there are teams out there filled with these types of people who magically understand each other and are always on the same page as if they had some sort of hive mind. I've heard of them, and it gets described as "good chemistry". I've just never experienced one of those teams myself where everyone can read the minds of other team members. For more average people, communication is a really important skill, and that includes not being annoyed by simple questions. Mind you, I can easily be annoyed by simple questions too. It's not like I'm good at this stuff either.
All of these things come under the general heading of 'active listening' and overall it just boils down to "actually be involved in the conversation and interested in the topic."
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: Thanks, that was really helpful.
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—as if that added any novel information.
Doc: "well, when we see this thing, we're concerned it might be <1 min worth of big scary thing description>... but he doesn't have that."
Me: "Phew... so..."
Doc: "So then we're worried about <2 min worth of big scary #2>... but he doesn't have that."
Me: "Phew. hrmmm, so..."
Doc "So then we're worried about <big scary thing #3>..."
At which point I interrupted:
Me: "Doc, I realize there's a lot of big scary things. Does he have any of them?"
Doc: "No, I think he's fine, he just has a big head."
I think your version of that conversation was probably a lot more reassuring than mine.
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.
pause
endless aeons wheel and pass
negative."
Not that I'd ever had any contact with it, but wow, way to leave me hanging.
People understandably don't appreciate if you're parroting back to them what they said (even paraphrased) so that you can appear to be an "active listener".
The reason to repeat what someone said exactly (useful in case you legitimately just missed an important phrase) or paraphrase is because you didn't fully understand what they said and you genuinely want to understand the point. Asking follow-up questions to drive discovery and enjoyment is next.
Being a good listener is about being humble, respectful and present. Turns out that's easier said than done.
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.
(edit: added link)
With people who have thick accents, the reason is probably obvious; but with fast talkers sometimes it's needed to process what the talker said.
For example, yesterday I had to repeat back on the phone because the other guy had a very thick accent and was on a speaker phone.
Usually, the people who repeat back to me are people who aren't native English speakers; or people who aren't technical and need to make sure that they understand a point. I appreciate it.
If I am confident I understand what is being said, I will operate under the assumption of that understanding, and continue on the natural implications, or on occasion, rephrase what was said to verify if there are major consequences (especially something legally binding).
This approach highly depends on ability to trust (to a degree) though. If one is in a situation where one cannot trust the other person's intentions, then one must be on their guard and rely on their ability to parse a situation & come up with an approach (or delay immediate response before being able to conduct the necessary research in order to make a proper response or have a productive discussion if possible).
To borrow an idea from literature, it is generally better to show than to tell. There is utility to telling, but its utility is mostly in speedily conveying an idea (or ideas) in order to get to more important matters.
That's often the point of paraphrasing back what was said. I do this in cases of doubt, and often enough I learn my paraphrase was either incorrect or had the wrong emphasis.
I do it routinely enough that I often learn I was wrong when I had no doubts.
This technique does not seem to annoy people; quite the opposite. I'm sure it can be done badly - pure repetition rather than paraphrase would be senseless.l
Edit: upon further consideration, I think I do this when I notice there are multiple interpretations to a remark, or multiple factors at play (where I might think one is weighted 90%, but it could be 10%). I don't paraphrase things that are unambiguous.
Some people also believe that ambiguity and misunderstanding are not possible, and so checking on their meaning is a waste of time. They don't see the ambiguity, because they know what they mean. Even after several misunderstandings have occurred.
I've mostly had success with active listening, especially when someone is upset. It's reassuring to be given space.
On the other rare occasions... some people really do have issues. Or, maybe I'm doing it badly, not able to adjust to the situation, the specific words and the person. I honestly can't tell which predominates.
Finally, it makes a tremendous difference whether the participants have the same general background and specific context and perspective - on the same page. And whether they are aware of any differences.
paulsutter didn't include a single thought from the parent nor paraphrased it - but the question and probing clearly made him a good listener! His question elicited a 4-paragraph response from Bahamut (who I would venture to say felt he was being listened to) whereas the other comments (that actively responded to the thought he expressed) did not result in any conversation.