Hacker News Reader

Comment by noud | Hacker News Reader

When someone tries explaining something to me, I try to summarize what this person said when they are finished. E.g., "So you're saying that <summary here>" or "It seems like <summary here>". This forces me to actively listen and remember what the other person has said. Afterwards, I'm looking for a response in the lines of "That's correct!" or "That's right!", or a correction and explanation that I haven't heard it correctly. Even if I don't agree with the other persons believes, this seems to build good relationships.

View on HN

That is what is called active listening, and is a good way to do it.

Verbal Aikido with Fred Kofman is right up that alley.

https://youtu.be/O6N9nvk8bvE

Reminds me of the interview with Jordan Peterson, where the interviewer said "so you're saying that <some invented bullshit that J.P. never actually said>".

So I agree with you as long as you don't fall into that trap of putting false words in the other mouth.

It is also useful if the other person won't accept any other phrasing that word-by-word quoting, even if in good faith, and accurate. It shows they are not willing to compromise.

In situations where someasks "so you're saying that..." followed by something they didn't say it might very well be on purpose, but in other cases being explicit about how you understood someone can allow them to elaborate and correct your understanding.

It's much better than just continuing the conversation under a false assumption.

I agree - especially in an interview situation where many of us still have a vestigial instinct that an interviewer is not biased and is informed, we can assume that what they say is an objective interpretation.

In that instance, doing that actually exposed it quite well. Jordan Peterson is able to respond off the cuff, so a reasonable percentage of the audience didn't walk away having assimilated the interviewer's version of his position.

The subsequent Joe Rogan interview of Jordan Peterson was illuminating. Joe Rogan is, against the odds, a good interviewer, because he listens and engages, and only occasionally challenges.

Always found it funny how admitting that Joe is a good interviewer is some type of a concession.

He’s probably the highest paid interviewer on the planet, of course he’s good at what he does! If he hadn’t found the ire of the online progressive crowd by letting on some unsavories, he’d probably be regarded super positively across the board. It’s crazy how many times I’ve seen web-activists go for blood with this guy and come up empty handed. Why is it hard for people to admit he’s just a really good podcaster?

I don't know. I didn't "admit" it; I just said it.

Yes my apologies - that wasn't aimed at you specifically, just a poorly phrased observation.

No worries!

He is a good podcaster, but he has a habit of publishing misinformation also, which his audience seem not to scrutinise.

Interviews, especially televised ones, are a performance. You're explicitly not trying to convince the interviewer of anything, you're trying to give a good interview, ostensibly for the benefit of whoever is watching. Politicians, for example, are famous for doing whatever they can, in more and less elegant ways, to talk about the things that they are interested in conveying (the "talking points") and not about whatever it is the interviewer is asking.

This is not the point of this technique. This technique is about actually talking to a person, one-on-one, and trying to understand what they mean. No one else is watching, or at least the interview isn't being recorded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com