To listen well, get curious | Hacker News Reader

To listen well, get curious

benkuhn.net

185 pointsaxiomdata31637 comments

Although the author doesn't say it, he does come across as implying that books don't emphasize the curiosity aspect. While this is true for Nonviolent Communications (NVC), I have seen it in other books. Here is an example from Difficult Conversations (DC):

> There’s only one way to come to understand the other person’s story, and that’s by being curious. Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?” Instead of asking, “How can they be so irrational?” ask, “How might they see the world such that their view makes sense?” Certainty locks us out of their story; curiosity lets us in.

The heading of that section is Move From Certainty To Curiosity

I've always said that the NVC book is great on teaching the how but not the why, and that DC is the exact opposite. The latter gives you a lot of insight, but with a lot less practical guidance.

Similarly, the book Crucial Conversations specifies the following 4 ingredients to listening:

- Be sincere

- Show curiosity

- Stay curious (i.e. don't react)

- Be patient

Which book do you recommend more, Difficult conversations or Crucial conversations, or is it worth reading both? (I‘ve read NVC and love it)

Edit: oh, and there are a couple books with those names, so metioning the author would be nice :)

I would say both. If you had to pick one, go with DC. However, there were some things in CC that I didn't find elsewhere. As an example, it focuses on how a lot of people don't realize they're in a poor/tense conversation until it's too late, and it emphasizes the need to develop the skill to become aware of this.

OTOH, CC attempts to prescribe how to behave are pretty poor. I would not focus too much effort on emulating those.

At first read, all 3 sound like fairly different books. A year after I read them, I was going over all the notes I had made for them, and was surprised to find out that all 3 are mostly saying the same things.

As for the authors:

Difficult Conversations: https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-...

Crucial Conversations: https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...

I would argue that NVC emphasizes curiosity because the aim is to understand the feelings and needs (what is alive) in the other person. This requires a deep curiosity and being present in the current moment so that one can connect with what is going on in the other person.

NVC does not encourage immediately asking questions to increase your intellectual understanding of the situation when someone is hurt/upset and it is not yet clear what that person wants from the interaction.

For example, take the author's example sentence: "I’m furious with my husband. He’s never around when I need him.". I would say that it's pretty clear that the person is feeling furious because their need for support isn't being met. What is less clear is what the person wants from me right now. My guess would be that the person wants empathy and understanding of their pain, but it may also be that they want some advice on how to solve the problem they're having with their husband.

Now this is where NVC says it's better to err on the side of the other person wanting empathy by guessing their feelings and needs (and this doesn't have to be done in the "classical" NVC way or even verbally at all depending on the situation). And if it turns out they actually wanted advice then of course it's fine to start asking questions to get a better intellectual understanding of the situation, but jumping immediately to "fixing" mode when the other person hasn't yet received sufficient empathy can be very hurtful.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that NVC doesn't want you to be curious. Just that the book focuses on getting you practice curiosity without telling you that the point of these questions is to spark curiosity, which leads to empathy.

The problem the author had with the example is the response has a little too much mirroring. Your response:

> I would say that it's pretty clear that the person is feeling furious because their need for support isn't being met.

Is better as it is rephrased, and mentions support.

“Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?”

Not being facetious at all, but that heuristic doesn’t work for anti-maskers. The information they have is widely viewable on Trump’s Twitter feed and Newsmax. I know what they know and I still have trouble understanding how they can think the way they do.

It's still possible to understand, although not condoning toleration of lies:

https://theconversation.com/why-hard-core-trump-supporters-i...

It is often a facet of populists and underdogs, that they do not understand what is required of power. Also, if intimidation and lies have been tolerated in school and working lives without reprecussions, it may be part of the conditioning creeping up into seats of power. Look at it as a mirror of consequences.

Stay curious.

Honestly, how would you know what they know, from skimming a few articles or watching a few videos? Can you genuinely not see the flaw in this thinking?

I read and watch their media all the time: Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, Drudge, NY Post, Trump's Twitter, etc. I used to lurk /r/the_donald on reddit and /pol/ on 4chan back in the day.

I'm fiscally moderate and socially liberal, but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWjJlErBPX4

I was referring to this:

> that heuristic doesn’t work for anti-maskers.

> I still have trouble understanding how they can think the way they do.

Indeed you have watched some media, and you have observed some behavior, but you are extrapolating that into a confident perception of knowing what an entire group of people comprehensively think and believe, are you not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

If you were to observe someone else doing the same but with a different logical grouping, say, by ethnicity or certain religions, would you consider that acceptable?

You: You've probably only skimmed a few articles.

Me: I read their media frequently and in-depth.

You: No, what I meant was the theory of the mind....

Me: Sure, pal.

It's funny because you write as if you can read people's minds, but you're playing it off as if it's me who's being ridiculous.

Examples of mind reading:

- Not being facetious at all, but [that heuristic doesn’t work] for anti-maskers.

- [the information they have] is widely viewable on Trump’s Twitter feed and Newsmax.

- [I know what they know] and I still have trouble understanding how they can [think the way they do].

The amount of people who seem to have this self-perception is starting to look like a fairly substantial percentage of the userbase here. Will be interesting to see if this changes in 2021.

What is missing is the information on why they choose to believe one camp and not the other. What led a particular person down that path?

Ask yourself this: When an anti-vaxxer speaks to another anti-vaxxer, what is different compared to when they speak to you? Are they more guarded with you? Why?

The other point, which is often not emphasized enough: It's not enough to be something, you have to show it. You may know everything about why the person is an anti-vaxxer, but he doesn't know that. Asking open ended, nonconfrontational and nonjudgmental questions often signals to others that your goal is to listen, and not to change their mind.

Of course, if your goal is to change their mind, you'll make little progress.

Thanks for the recommendation! Sounds like I may have just been reading the wrong books :)

> - Be sincere

my issue is that 90% of the time, my sincerity would mean leaving the convo

"Good listeners do often reflect words back—but not because they read it in a book somewhere. Rather, it’s cargo cult advice: it teaches you to imitate the surface appearance of good listening, but misses what’s actually important, the thing that’s generating that surface appearance. The generator is curiosity."

Interesting. What are other examples where the commonplace advice is just a symptom of the root behavior/attitude you want to cultivate?

When you reflect words back, the speaker feels like you get where they are coming from and feel comfortable sharing more details. My understanding is that reflecting words back is a passive way of making the speaker get into more details whereas asking questions is an active way of getting into details. Hence, acc to me the author did not truly understand the consequences of reflecting words back and is getting the same result through a different method.

I'd say that true of almost all good advice. Good advice should probably usually be interpreted as "try to be the kind of person that would do this thing naturally."

On reflecting back, in some cultures it is not accepted as a good listening. It has rather seen as "stating the obvious". Some Eastern cultures, being a good listener is understanding the meaning behind the words. These cultures tend to have more shared life style between community members instead of common individualism in Western cultures. However being curious is somehow different and it helps in both Western and Eastern cultures.

Not sure this applies only to eastern cultures, when someone does this to me I think they're more concerned about making me feel heard than actually hearing me. If I'm saying something I assume you're listening, if suddenly you show me that your first order concern in the conversation is to show you're listening rather than immediately engage, it generally comes across as calculating. Just engage directly with the subject and apologise if you misunderstand.

Most self-help advice about interacting with people is pointing out ways that get some desired interaction effect. They may be true in that they are pointing out those real characteristics which lead to those effects, the result of putting them in a book and studying them makes the reader a student of manipulation. Depending on the student and the target of the trained interaction, it may work as intended or it may label the student as a manipulator to the target.

In less abstract terms, it is not hard to learn the “tricks” and notice when people are using them on you, and it becomes incredibly irritating being around people who interact with you on that level.

Basically, if you’re interacting with people because you were told to do it that way, it’s probably manipulation. Teaching people to be empathetic and interested isn’t very easy and the more popular methods of faking it are pretty transparent.

This seems on point, having curiosity (and potentially summarising what they're saying) is a good way to demonstrate understanding. Much more believable than saying "I understand".

Chris Voss (author of Never Split the Difference) recommends a similar strategy. He often says that having the mindset of genuine curiosity is a great hack for having emotional control during a negotiation and potentially getting into flow state.

Chris Voss is great. I find if you are having a conversation and you are asking the questions, getting long answers, and then asking related questions, you are doing things right.

The other person loves talking about themselves or their opinions. You are learning by paying attention enough ask more questions.

If you are negotiating silence can be your friend when the other party is feeling good talking about themselves

> But I think that’s actually too nice to the helper, and uncharitable to the complainer (in that it assumes they weirdly don’t care about solving their problem).

Yes, actually! Sometimes people don't have the energy to face and solve a problem _right now_, but are still feeling overwhelmed by it and seek validation from others that, yes, the feeling they're experiencing is real and acceptable.

> What’s really going on is probably that your advice is bad, because you didn’t really listen, because you weren’t curious enough.

Or maybe providing you with all the little details and context about their problem is taking _even more energy_ when they specifically turned to vent to you because they don't have the energy to solve their problem right now.

Some people need someone to vent and feel better when the listener confirms that what they experienced sucks. Just delivering a solution does not give them a feeling of being okay feeling bad, while confirming does. One guy wrote somewhere, that when his wife complains, he asks: "Red wine or boiler suit?" i.e. Shall i listen or do you want a solution.

Related, I’ve often thought that good listening involves becoming—in some small way—the person you are listening to. That is, your brain and your “self” are temporarily loaned to the person.

Such empathy is a sort of self-expansion, as you learn to see the world from their point of view. And the speaker, in turn, can learn from your observations of what it’s like to inhabit their life for a time.

As far as I can tell, there are also situations where people (usually women) who talk to you about their problems don’t really need or want help with problem-solving, but would appreciate you showing empathy and solidarity with their situation.

For example, my wife cooks a lot and complains about it, but she’s not interested to engage in brainstorming about how to throw money at the problem (which we have the budget to do). So I believe the best thing I can do when she brings it up is to express empathy and appreciation.

Being curious so as to “listen better” may be a good technique, but doesn’t seem like the central insight needed to best navigate this scenario.

One book i can recommend on the topic is People Skills by Robert Bolton. He lists 12 Barriers to communication in it, divided in 3 categories:

Judging: - Criticizing - Name-calling - Diagnosing - Praising Evaluatively

Sending Solutions: - Ordering - Threatening - Moralizing - Excessive/Inappropriate Questioning - Advising

Avoiding the other's concern: - Diverting - Logical Argument - Reassuring

I was shocked how many of them i "used" to sabotage my communication.

To expand on some of these:

Judging: The NVC book refers to it as evaluating, but yes, it is high up on things not to do. What surprises many, but I found to be quite refreshing, is the inclusion of "praising evaluatively". People don't realize how often their praise can be a turn off to the one they are praising. Praising non-evaluatively is underappreciated.

For the advising portion of "sending solutions", I once had a miserable job where everyone was an expert, and I was just a junior non-expert who was working on an unusual side project for the team. It was very common that I'd be stuck somewhere and I'd get a lot of "help" (solicited and unsolicited) in solving my problem. About 50% of the times, their help was useless because they never understood my problem correctly! They would always transform the problem into something that fit into their expertise and suggest something else. It would always take a gigantic effort to convince them that they are not solving the problem I had - often more effort than if I hadn't asked at all. It got to the point that I had to be very careful not to mention my blockers in front of certain coworkers so that my time wouldn't be derailed. As I was the junior non-expert, it was always assumed that I was the one who didn't understand the problem.

This would have been solved had they practiced basic "reflecting back" to ensure that they understood my problem correctly.

> but these sound like a 1970s-era chatbot. HA! Sums up my feelings about the reflect back advice crap I've been reading for years.

> Rather, it’s cargo cult advice: it teaches you to imitate the surface appearance of good listening, but misses what’s actually important, the thing that’s generating that surface appearance.

Ok. seriously guys, this is actually a good article.

Color me very surprised!

> The generator is curiosity.

> When I’ve listened the most effectively to people, it’s because I was intensely curious—I was trying to build a detailed, precise understanding of what was going on in their head.

And how does one get that kind of curiosity?

Easy: Don’t talk to people about things you aren’t interested in. Find something you can be curious about together.

What if my own interests aren't an option?

Ask yourself why you want to be a better listener when you don’t have any actual interest in what they have to say.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, with this advice you run the risk of shutting down some converstaions which may be important to one person, but not particularly to the other.

We should probably distinguish conversations that are about just something in general, and examples in the post, which are about potentially crucial/difficult challenges a person is having.

I may not be particularly interested in a problematic situation that someone may be having at work, but I know that by listening and showing genuine curiosity, I may be able to help them in their own understandin and reaching a potential positive outcome.

"Make mistakes and learn! Being wrong isn't a bad thing like they teach you in school. It is an opportunity to learn something." --Feynman (b. 1918)

Yes! Also, "You will never lose. You will only ever win or learn."

- seen on a basketball inscription (from a father to his son)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com