How to be a good listener
tomblog.rip
tomblog.rip
Reading about how to be a good listener can only get someone so far - watching someone demonstrate it and talking about it is the surest way to understand what it means.
Specifically, Reflective listening[1], Clean language[2], and the approach used by Eugene Gendlin[3], jump-started my own skill of practicing being a good listener. You may also hear the term "holding space" as a sort of umbrella term for this as well.
You would be amazing at how far these go toward creating a safe, non-judgemental, space for people. Simple, open-ended, genuine questions worded in their own language, has afforded me the opportunity to hear people open up from the very bottom of their souls. It's absolutely amazing that the simple act of listening can do that, but it does.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_listening
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_language
3. Wiki reference, but best seen, of course, on Youtube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Gendlin
Do you happen to have links to any example videos demonstrating this or are you referring to in person examples
003 on E=Empathy
014 on The Five Secrets of Effective Communication
066 on The Five Secrets part 2 - Disarming people (by showing that you hear them)
029 and 030 a recording of a therapy session with Mark
049 recording of a therapy session with Marilyn
other 'live sessions'
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.
In this context, wouldn't manipulation be where you don't listen then say some words which try to (falsely) communicate that you did listen?
(Contrast: not listening, and showing that with "I ain't reading all that. I'm happy for u tho. Or sorry that happened". Contrast: actually did listen but they think you didn't, leading to "I'm so angry about X!" / "How come X is bothering you?" / "I am not bothered by it, I am angry about it!, weren't you listening?!" poor communication. Where "what about X is making you angry?" instead reflects the feelings they said, showing you heard what they said, but does not seem manipulative).
One of resources I watched (a therapist) described therapy as 90% active listening. It's important to be aware of that proportion and the tendency of people to really open up when someone is truly listening.
For example, I was at a bar talking to a stranger when they had to take a break. They were on the brink of tears because they were talking about something that was so deeply meaningful to them[1]. I missed the flag and will always think back to my responsibility - just to pick up on those signs and ask the person if they're doing ok. There's a vulnerability index which I like to reference that conceptualizes some of this.
The difference between open inquiry and probing/drilling is an important distinction to keep in mind when listening too. Laying some of these skills on too thickly can come across as more of an interview than a conversation.
1. Palestine
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 clean language. Personally, I struggle the most with trying to avoid labeling something as "good" or "bad" for the other person. They're full human beings with their own ability to decide how they feel about something and the best way, in my experience, to decide how you feel about something is to put it into words and notice the feelings that come up as the words are said.
If someone is interjecting their own takes, it gets in the way of that noticing.
I'm really curious what you think about manipulation when you envision yourself listening this way.
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.
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 author implies, the world is not good at listening.
"And then, wow, I met the rest of the world."
I notice it happening at home too. Sometimes you'll talk with a friend for 30+ minutes, then think "I'm fine too, thanks for asking".
I was lucky to meet good listeners early on and learn from them. I wish more people's first partner told them "you should return the question sometimes".
They don't ask me any questions about me at all. Like, not even one.
I ask myself if it's because they're like that on any date with any person, or because they realized at first sight they weren't interested in me, so it doesn't matter to them if they learn anything at all about me during the date, since they don't expect to see me again either way.
Sometimes I've tested this by doing a second date. They show up and talk about themselves non-stop.
But then I ask myself the same question as before.
Is it possible many otherwise neurotypical people can get into their 30s and 40s without ever having learned how to carry on a two-way conversation?
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 model, it might seem like the difference between talking at someone vs talking with someone? I might have to think about that a bit more. Do you have any insight here?
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 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?
My being there in person doesn’t materially affect what the other person experiences from me anyway.
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.
What if your date finds you attractive already? Could be because of real or perceived popularity or high "status" in you? (I'm guessing you're a man?) And maybe you're ok handsome?
Then, what does it matter what you do during the days?
If you're high status enough already -- what do the reasons for that matter?
And so she'd rather talk about herself and her interests.
When you mentioned you tried a second date, I thought, I bet she'll show up.
(I suppose there are men who date cute women and they (the men) talk only about themselves and cars and soccer. What does it matter what she does during the days? When she's good looking already)
Imagine a friend tells you about a situation where their dad is starting to show signs of dementia and the strain it's putting on them as a caretaker.
Level 1 listening (you're focused on yourself): - "Oh my dad had dementia, too. It's awful."
Level 2 listening (you're focused on them, but parroting): - "caring for a parent with dementia must be a huge burden; I can hear the toll it's taking in your voice"
Level 3 listening (a focus on what's not being said): - "when you were telling me about your dad's dementia noticed that you smiled a little bit when you said 'strain'. What was that?"
Listening is a muscle that needs to be trained.
Part of it was learning what it feels like to be -listened to-, too. Feeling heard is 80% of the way to a deep connection with another person. It's amazing how safe and trusting someone can seem if they simply, truly, hear you.
Roughly it comes down to:
1. Listening but focussed on yourself, interjecting with own experiences and sometimes in the process take over the conversation with your own experiences.
2. Focussed listening but on a factual level. Asking clarifications about events, etc.
3. Focussed not only on what is being told, but the emotions behind it. Asking about how certain things impacted the person sharing something with you.
I am hugely oversimplifying here, of course. But for point 1 it doesn't mean that you can't briefly let someone know you have a shared experience. It does mean that you shouldn't make your experience take over and then dominate the conversation.
Level 2, nice human
Level 3, therapist
The conscious analysis of tone and body language is obviously important for many people to get by socially, especially for neurodiverse people or people outside the norm of the situation. However, I think it is important to avoid remarking directly on body language.
You can still let these non-verbal observations guide a conversation, of course. Rather than remarking on someone's smile when they mention a subject, you might ask them to elaborate on the subject.
Unless they've asked to be psychoanalyzed, most people do not like the feeling of being analyzed.
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.
If you told me "ugh today was a really hard day at work" and I said "why don't you quit? then you wouldn't have hard days at work anymore!" would you feel heard?
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 the focus over to the "relater"?
Overall I think we talk way too much about getting better at listening and not nearly enough at getting better at talking.
EDIT: OK, I can get better at listening/reading lol, as the author said the following:
> One reason is this myth: that the good listener just listens. This egregious misunderstanding actually leads to a lot of bad listening, and I’ll tell you why: because a good listener is actually someone who is good at talking.
But thinking about it, it highly depends on the situation and the way someone phrases it. The example used in the article is exaggerated. Relation creates a sense of shared feelings only if you are trying to approximate the other person's feeling and thoughts and if you disengaged directly after you said "i also stubbed my toe once". Most of the time, people don't stop there and keep on telling THEIR story and how they felt, instead of just being an interjection. This is not the fault of people, but a normal way of most people doing conversation. I guess the author is thinking about these persons.
IMO relating does a lot better when it serves a purpose useful to the listener. A few that I have found:
1. when you're validating how they've already expressed how they feel. sometimes people doubt their own feelings and so you can use your own related experience to show them that you felt a very similar way when you were in a similar situation. caveat: dont ever tell them how they should feel, only validate what they've already expressed. also, if theyre not doubting their emotions, dont do this either...its not useful at best
2. when you're trying to understand how they're feeling (e.g. one time my dog died and I would just always expect to see her around the corner, but she was never there...is that like what you're feeling?)
3. when you're helping out with things that need to be done: (e.g. my parents passed away too, do you want help with sending out funeral invitations / finding a cemetery / etc)
4. if they dont know what to do / what options are and you relate different experiences about how you may have dealt with a similar situation.
1. Relating without a purpose will come off as a comparison, dont do it.
2. Not every purpose is valid for every person. A lot of these reasons require that the person trust you to an extent. E.g. offering to help a stranger with their funeral obligations will come off very poorly.
3. You have to have actual relevant experience with something, trying to shoehorn something tangentially related comes off very poorly.
4. You have to know how to deliver the related experience
5. They have to be ready to hear it: if someone is talking, dont interrupt. dont change the topic. only use the solutions above if the person seems like they are looking for it.
6. tons more.
I think I just make a connection with what they’re saying and then share my experience to commiserate, and to find wisdom/learnings from that experience to see if they apply.
That’s my conscious assessment anyway. But I feel like I shouldn’t do it.
Anyone have tips to avoid this? How do I prevent myself from relating their experience to my own?
I feel that being able to completely ignore your own experience (or even opinion) and adapt purely to what they need at this moment is true selflessness, and it’s something I’ve always struggled with.
(Ironic comment I know).
It just seems to be a pretty constant (if not always there) comparison and harmonization.
In other words, how are we supposed to understand the world without relating it to our experience?
I find it a lot easier to empathise with things that I've experienced, and it feels natural to me to share that. It would also console me better if someone "related to me", for example, sharing a few words about a common experience. Given that I don't think I'm too deviant, I'll assume enough other people would feel the same.
If I know someone else prefers a different approach I am probably able to deploy reason and correct course.
Sometimes people want validation in numbers and it's fine to relate. "Ha! I've been there too. My kid did the same last week. Children am I right?"
Sometimes they want to process something by talking about it and you should let it happen. "Oh man that must suck. How did it play out?"
Besides, relating can feel like one-upping. For example someone tells you about their trip to Paris and you mention how you've stopped there on your unicycle trip around the world. Oh well guess their trip is nothing to celebrate then. Use your experience to relate to their feelings, not to diminish them.
Usually, you can relate while keeping your anecdote to yourself. "Oh it's a beautiful city isn't it? How did you like it?"
The contact section on your site emphatically states that you're on vacation and not answering emails, so I have to ask, would you mind if I contact you briefly by some means that works for you, at a time/date that you find convenient? I promise to be brief and not to release a flood of correspondence verbiage. Also, in case I might be giving the impression, this is not a sales pitch of any kind. Thanks!
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 some of their own thoughts and experiences. I absolutely do not feel heard when they completely remove themselves and their life from the conversation, and hit me with lifeless "open-ended questions" and "that sounds tough" platitudes that could have come from a blog post.
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.
Autistic people are usually great relaters, which gets them disliked as conversation partners when the other side tries to confess something or talk about some personal issue they have.
If we feel something while listening to those types of conversation, experiencing a physiological emotionally-driven output, we can "relate" to the feeling through things that have happened to us personally. We may want to say, "I felt that before!" by explaining why, but it's likely enough to just say, "I feel" without changing the subject to our own personal experience.
Empathy, which is what many types of listening is about, is a whole other factor in good listening skills. If we simply note we understand the emotional output, that's not real empathy. It takes understanding it, feeling it in body, and then maybe taking a compassionate action to really hear and feel someone.
(Maybe "if they're crying, don't relate" would be a more focused heuristic.)
In an everyday "you've met someone and want to get to know them better" situation, relating sounds like a good thing all round: they share something about themselves, you share back with something related about yourself.
At the same time, I cannot stand "it must be hard" or similar platitudes, which can be given without any context; these would not even need ChatGPT but can be generated by a simple Python script.
However, I do think it seems like the right advice for the orthogonal goal of being supportive to someone, either in a professional support setting (therapy, mentoring, coaching, etc.) or just if you can notice in the context of personal relationships when that's what the other person needs or would benefit from in that particular setting.
Like, if I'm just out for a normal drink date with a friend or my spouse, just chatting and shooting the shit, it would be ridiculous to never relate back to them. But if they texted me and said "hey can we meet up? I'm really struggling with my dad's illness and want to talk", then yeah, keeping myself out of it is the way to go. (Which I don't often do a good job of though... so maybe doing that more often in more situations would be good as practice.)
What if it turned out to be a world much worse than what we have? There is perhaps some evolutionary advantage to people that suck it up and carry on?
For my part, I'll point to research that suppressing emotions increases risk of suicide[1] and that many more men die from suicide than women[2]. I'm willing to hear out an argument that the world would be worse if these tragic deaths hadn't happened but it requires extraordinary evidence and argumentation IMO.
In a macabre way, maybe suicidal ideation due to suppressed emotions is nature's way of managing male populations? What if men stopped killing themselves because they felt safe sharing their feelings? What if that led to testosterone fueled "musth" rages where men started to go on rampages just to let off steam? That world would be worse for everyone involved.
They probably get far more stuff done relative to the ones that are emotionally closer to females and live longer. Just spit balling here.
I think one of the largest conflicts that I've encountered with this work is that a lot of culture, philosophy, religion, etc., seems to advocate for more emotional suppression. That the goal is to detach and have a quiet, steady, peaceful existence, absent of conflict, but also absent of too much connection.
And if those groups advocate for more suppression, to start to express more can create some deep conflict and possibility of ostracism or excommunication. For example, many people consider it to be an emotional affair if you say how you honestly feel to someone who is not your exclusive romantic partner. Many families consider it the ultimate betrayal to share family secrets with those outside the family. Etc.
So when I think of more men doing it, I worry that if not all men did, then culture could have that strong clash. Maybe we already have it. Some advocating to open up more, to be more aware of how we're feeling, and some advocating to go in the opposite direction.
I would love to talk about this more and I worry this post is already long enough for now :-)
I don't think the world would be worse if men started sharing their feelings, but I do believe there are societal factors that force men into stoicism, and that it's not feasible for change to start with men alone.
During some rough patches of my life, I found solace in being vulnerable with my friends and speaking about how I felt.
At other times, taking a more stoic approach worked wonders. Learning to notice feelings and emotions without them leading you into a spiral of debilitating self-pity or self-loathing, for me, is the ultimate life skill. And to be honest, I only could really progress with such a skill in relative solitude.
The way I have it now, the approach of reaching out for help with mental space is more like going to a doctor. There's a certain threshold of suffering that needs to be reached, for you to take deliberate actions. Practising mindfulness and all the stoic narratives is more like doing fitness. It helps with the ongoing, everyday, low-key pain, as well as prepares you for the bigger issues in the future.
sharing simply amplified the negative content within, it's like there is a negative thread in my hand, the more you share and put it into words the more you are following that thread going into a state where you shouldn't be
same goes for complaining how the life is unfair
and when it came to positive feelings, it seemed much better to do "little things" than sharing the feelings
However, I think I found a kind of "be super sensitive", let things come out article... unfortunately that behavior, in my experience, does not help the other part.
Sometimes we should tell the truth or give good advice or warn of the consequences of a bad decision. Yes we should listen, but not fooling the other part with "fake-positive" stuff, I am not sure I am expressing myself well. What I kean is, stay positive as much as possible, do not create unnecessary negativity, but keep it honest.
But according to this article, it seems that those should be disregarded.
Everything looks so soft in the article, at least from the point of view of my culture.
I must also say I was often classified as aggressive in the sense of being too direct. But if you are listening to someone and have a cinversation, I'd rather take the truth of what's wrong better than having compliments from the other side when they are not actually thinking that even themselves. That would just be being fake.
Also, dealing with children, which are still forming their personality, should be treated a bit differently and I can agree with the tips given in the article.
However, if someone comes and tells she is sad, my most likely reaction would be to ask why, do an analysis, try to stay positive BUT not lying about it so that it ends up genuinely helping that person. Same for many other situations.
Depending on the context, yes.
You are coming into this from a perspective of "listening to fix" and not "listening to understand" which are two different things.
Even if your intent is to help people by listening, you first might want to get the entire picture and understand the entire context. Because if you don't, what change do you really have of meaningfully helping someone?
I mean that the kind of "I hear you", "yes, blabla" seems nice but it is the same thing anyone would tell you. Someone that does not know you maybe would react the same.
For me it is better (as in valuable) to get a: "because you fail to see you are doing it wrong? Don't you see that..." or something that tells you why you are being dumb and you should not be sad. For example: I am sad bc... the reason is important. If it is bc your father passed away there is nothing I can help with but if you just lost your job or did not get the marks you wanted, there is good advice to make people feel better and try to suggest to analyze what went wrong instead of saying: "oh poor you, I feel you" which does not help except to make that person feel better at that very moment and nothing else.
That "negative" information is more valuable to correct something.
If ehat you have is always people who just listen and let it go, you will end up without any helpful information and maybe even thinking that the problem is elsewhere.
Your assumption here is that people did something "wrong". This isn't always the case, you certainly can't decide that without actually having listened to them.
Other than that, all I can say is that you seem to be jumping from one extreme end to the other and by doing so missing the important middle ground by a huge margin.
I'd even go as far as saying that you also did that while reading this article. Because it feels like to me that you didn't read it with the intention of understanding it, but the intention to have an opinion on it.
You're missing the point - it's about whether you should "listen to fix" at all. In my experience, when most people are "sharing", they don't want you to solve their problems - chances are they know everything you're about to say anyway - and if they did, they'll more specifically ask for your help
What people want is just someone to listen, to feel heard. This relates to the oft-repeated advice of not trying to solve your partner's daily problems, but just to respond with "That sucks". It's also why responding with your own experiences all the time doesn't make you a great listener
> which does not help except to make that person feel better at that very moment and nothing else.
Not sure why you're implying this is some sort of bad thing.
Listening is disjoint from giving advice. In fact you need to first listen to be able to give advice.
And yes, some people just want to be listened. I am not against it as such
I usually talk actionable stuff more than not actually but I understand that some people might not be like me.
Yes, my last quote there means that making someone feel just better for a moment while keeping something for which there could be something about is probably suboptimal. Idk if bad, just suboptimal. The honest feedback in a conversation is critical to solve our own problems.
Sometimes I found out things noone would have ever told me by people that really appreciate me and that is a good thing that improves me, not a bad thing that should make me angry or annoyed.
I have the feeling that we are doing something wrong with this kind of advice. The generation that comes 20 years after me or 30 (I am 40) are mentally way softer than before and I think this kind of behavior promoted by the article promotes this kind of feedback.
The biggest difference I have seen compared to Europe from living in Vietnam (for 12 years) is that they have a much stronger mind.
They have better and worse things, as every culture. But I relate this kind of advice as a fundamental mistake.
We need positive listening, we need things like that, sure. But we also need to deal with frustration, with failure and with negative feedback.
Those things teach us to deal with fristration, to naturalize it and to be able to deal with it as well.
So my advice would be more, without being a therapist, train your kids as Toni Nadal trained Rafa Nadal. Hard minds are ready for good and bad times.
Soft minds only for the good ones.
So I would be wary of promoting that kind of "everything's cool let's be positive never mind". I'd rather promote "be careful, this is the problem, can we deal with it?" If so, how? If not, we cannot win all the time which is also a lesson that humbles us.
I also see, if you are american, at least from my perception (I could be wrong!), that many attitudes from the younger generations are the result of overprotection.
Something I do not see in Asia to the level I see in developed countries in the westerner countries.
People who think that happens to them often turn out to just talk a lot of irrelevant and useless drivel (very much exactly like a LLM; just keep generating stuff no one wants to hear as part of the conversation); they talk just to talk with the excuse that they think they are very smart. They might be if they would shut up and use the listening time to actually form a better return. Not saying this is you, but saying ‘accumulates information very fast’ about yourself is a somewhat red flag imho.
It is rarely the case, even for famous smart people; most listen and then take a bit of time to come back with an answer; interrupting is terrible, more so when it’s not really relevant to what the actual point was (just hanging on to the first sentence and not listening to anything else until you can make your point about that sentence even though that was not the point of the discussion, at all). Or say they have to ponder it somewhat longer instead of having an instant response. Of course it depends on the subject; in political talks it seems more normal to blatantly step on someone talking, but then again, not all talks are political.
The guide is useful in a way, but it's useful for a particular situation: when you want to help someone emotionally. This is not a (good) general listening guide, however. Actually, it's a terrible, toxic guide.
These "obvious" things are so unnatural for me that doing them consumes so much of my attention that I don't actually hear anything the person is saying.
Have you found that over time there have been some things you feel more and more comfortable doing?
Is it this[1] person, perhaps?
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?
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).
On a philosophical level this sounds true. On a practical level evaluating correctness has costs.
If you tell me the James Webb Space Telescope detected this and that i won’t launch my own space telescope to verify it. I need to figure out if I trust you as a source. There if you are a crackpot journalist with seemingly no connection to JWST my trust will decrease, at least until i find independent sources.
And that is a hard scientific claim where in theory one can conduct an independent experiment and judge the facts for certain.
The kind of claim this one is on about is much harder to verify. It is of the form “live by these rules and you will have a better life”. There both the interpretation of the “rules” and the “better life” is fuzzy. And even if you get it right in your own experiment it will take years until you see results.
Just on a practical level. Imagine that a thin and sporty person tells you that the secret of them maintaining their healty weight is starting every day by eating two scoops of ice cream. Now imagine that the same statement is said by an obese person. In both cases it takes the same amount of effort to evaluate the correctness of their statement but which case is going to make you want to investigate it more deeply?
First paragraph of the OP and I knew in my bones it was written by someone with a personality disorder. Since her death, her husband published his memoir in 2023. The serial cheating, open suicide ideation, unresolved childhood trauma and general toxicity to herself and others is completely consistent with the tone of the article.
These are clinical standards for self-absorption and toxic personality traits. In their relationships, cluster-Bs select for supplicants who will love them despite their toxicity. What you're saying about the memoir is consistent with this.
Her mental health conditions aren't a reason to disregard everything she says, but she is providing social and interpersonal advice here, in a way that is likely to encode the dysfunctional schema and disordered thinking she suffered from in life.
For an opinion piece that is about how to empathize with other people, I think it is relevant information that the author probably had a clinical impairment in their own ability to empathize with and understand others.
and yes, one of my best friends has BPD and i dated somebody who had it, and listening to them and their subjective experience and tips on how to communicate with them was the best thing i could ever do.
I'm interested in how you concluded the advice was so beneficial. Was it a reduction in conflict and fewer emotional outbursts from your BPD partner? A feeling that you're better able to soothe them and manage their feelings?
Being conditioned by your BPD partner to excessively validate and center them is not the same as empathy.
edit: it appears we're talking past each other. i like this piece of writing and you don't. that's fine. do you have any suggestions for me to read about how to listen, written by one of your favorite writers or poets? this will help me better understand how to listen to you.
if you enjoyed this, then you might like http://thefanzine.com/how-not-to-apologize/
also, search around for her poem "molly brodak" by molly brodak.
Each time I’ve been brigaded by people who say that’s a “neurodiverse” trait and I’m being an insensitive clod.
The people in autism research these days, at least on the sociological end of things, well tell you about the "double empathy problem" (after Milton, 2012 - it's enough of a "thing" now that it has its own wikipedia page). The idea is that if you put one autistic person in a group of "neurotypicals", it'll seem as if they are bad at relating to people - but in a group of (sufficiently high-functioning) autistic people, sometimes everyone gets on just fine, and if you put a single non-autistic person in a group of autistic people, an observer might conclude that they are the one having difficulty "reading the room" and relating to the unspoken norms of the group. It's as if, to make an analogy, autistic people are not worse at picking up "signals" from other people, they're just signalling on a slightly different wavelength.
And certainly, relating to others by sharing your own simliar stories is a big thing in some neurodiverse groups, where it is often experienced as a positive. But that then intersects with other cultural aspects, for example the stiff-upper-lib Brits versus outgoing Americans stereotype, with neurodiverse people acting as their own subculture if you like.
Sharing your own story is hardly a uniquely autistic trait though: imagine you meet a new co-worker, share that you like Nightwish, and they go "oh, I love them too! I saw them live in Helsinki back in 2022!" and before you know it, you've made a new friend over shared taste in music even if what they did is technically story-topping.
But, if you are line-managing a "neurotypical" person and they're in your office crying because of some bad thing that happened to them, it's an essential skill for your job to know that you don't make the story about you. Same if you're training to be a therapist.
This is actually one of my favourite aspects of HN. People chiming in with their own experience and stories.
On the other hand I'm not exactly a neurotypical person, so there's that.
The funny thing is that being quickly opinionated is highly valued in tech, so my maladaptive behavior (in part) got me accolades and promotions. I actually think this tendency to have a hot take on everything immediately is a large portion of why engineers rub non-engineers the wrong way
I don’t really agree with this in the context you seem to put it. It’s not that it’s completely wrong, it’s just that engineers who rub non-engineers the wrong way are most certainly also rubbing engineers the wrong way. That being said, tech teams are often rather “quiet” and having that crude loudmouth is often better than having nobody speak their opinions at all.
I wouldn’t say it’s valued though. At least not in my experience. What is valued is engineers who can voice their opinions in an assertive and friendly manner. This is because that unlike the crude loudmouth, these people lead to the quiet people joining in. Which can lead to actual discussion and at the very least put forward more opinions from the team, without you having to be the elementary school teacher picking the quiet student in order to hear what they have to contribute.
I guess being a crude loudmouth can lead to promotions, but it’s probably also a quick way to become one of those managers/architects which are called hot-air balloons or the emperors new clothes behind their backs.
* mirroring * labelling
Anyone else had positive or negative experiences in this area?
After many times of this occurring with one family member in particular, I’ve sort of passive aggressively started responding “Sorry, I didn’t mean for the middle of my sentence to interrupt the beginning of yours.” But sometimes they don’t even hear that because they’re still talking right on over me.
??????????????????
How is this not toxic? If I'm talking to someone I want to know what they think.
If they have, then you should be careful to consider their position regarding this decision.
But if they haven't actually asked, then probably best to not advise which decision to make. I would think that trying to help _them_ make the decision would be a good thing to do, though.
“There are two reasons a person redirects the conversation/attention back to himself: (1) the person is deeply self-centered and incapable of processing information about anyone unless it relates to him. It’s likely this person is cripplingly insecure, and therefore his worry about himself has turned into his only functioning pathway to the world. Or possibly this person is a sociopath.”
I know the author goes on to state a more benign reason as the second reason.
But opening with the possibility that someone is a sociopath for over-relating is wild. I’d expect the child of a therapist would choose their words with more purpose and with their intended meaning.
I don't agree with this piece at all, and I don't like the vibe of the author. The very first paragraph has a narcissism in it that rubs me the wrong way. Like the whole world let her down for not centering her in conversations the way her therapist caretaker did.
> Some simple and powerful phrases to use when someone is feeling feels: “I hear you.” “I bet it is hard.” “That makes sense.”
All three of these seriously suck to hear. IMO these are actually worse than the phrases the author says to never say. Someone telling you "You have no reason to feel that way" can easily be challenged. Someone disingenuously saying "I hear you" like a robot can't be.
The entire idea that there are boilerplate "powerful phrases" you can drop to make someone feel heard is nonsense. These generic phrases are determined ahead of hearing someone speak, so they can not reflect the act of hearing.
There's a reason why this brand of non-communication is so popular in HR circles. What this author is advocating is that we import patronizing HR speak into every day conversation. No thanks.
>Replace all of the shocking, mean, hateful, incorrect, ignorant, offensive, cruel things coming out of this person’s mouth with “I’m hurt! I’m hurt! I’m hurt! I’m hurt. I’m hurrrrt.”
This is narcissistic logic. When people are angry at you, and attacking you - and they do not have a clinical mood or personality disorder - you must accept that there may be a reason behind it. Things said in the heat of the moment are not always fair or measured, but they are rarely meaningless. When you decide that nothing someone is saying is valid because they are hurt, you will probably just invalidate and hurt them further.
The idea that the most important thing in a situation like this is to not be upset yourself is also narcissistic logic. Although presented as practical advice to not escalate, it's really just the authors need to "win" the interaction. It says "I'm the level-headed and rational one, while the other person is crazy and flying off the handle." Acting this way can escalate the situation even more than becoming angry yourself, but it will do so in a way that allows you to avoid taking any personal responsibility for that escalation.
I have to wonder what situations and interpersonal relationships the author is in that she finds this to be such a relevant piece of advice. These experiences don't sound like a model for healthy communication.
>5. Don’t relate.
This entire section is deeply narcissistic. The one-upmanship thing does happen, for sure. But it's not the reason people share their own experiences in the course of you sharing yours. Her conception of why people share reflects a deeply disconnected view of other people. Reads as "sometimes I'm talking to someone who is so self-absorbed they don't understand the conversation is 100% about me!"
Of the whole article, this section was most reminiscent of the cognitive style of diagnosed NPDs I've known.
>6. Ask questions.
This is the only decent advice in here, and I can't really fault it. But there is still something off here. It's like the goal of asking these questions is to "make someone feel heard" rather than to actually hear them.
How to listen to someone: if someone is angry, don't listen to him at all and just imagine that he says he's hurt. Sorry, but that's just idiotic.
Also, I hope I'll be forgiven for doubting that someone is an expert on empathy when they write something like this:
> Then, try this: look at the person in the eyes. If you can’t stop thinking about yourself, know that you have a problem. Your self-centeredness renders you incapable of intimacy. Get help.
This is narcissistic logic. When people are angry at you, and attacking you - and they do not have a clinical mood or personality disorder - you must accept that there may be a reason behind it. Things said in the heat of the moment are not always fair or measured, but they are rarely meaningless. When you decide that nothing someone is saying is valid because they are hurt, you will probably just invalidate and hurt them further."
I understand your point but I think there's actually merit to that part. Sometimes people are just mad for no reason. My mother would release her frustrations on me when I was a child whenever things weren't going well in a marriage, and I don't think whatever I did deserved that.
There is a good point in saying that there's sometime a real greviance let out in a bad form but sometimes there is nothing to this and nothing you can do or say to change their mind.
The thing that gives me such a bad vibe from the OP is that this type of behavior is presented as normal in a listening scenario to such an extent that learning to dismiss it is a core listening skill. I think she was either abusive towards the people she expected to listen to her, or the BPD/NPD hypersensitivity to criticism caused her to habitually mistake feedback and boundary setting as cruel and hateful attacks.
Either way, the model of human relationships presented in the OP is completely dysfunctional. It deeply pains me to see it presented as advice.
My family member with BPD isn't really capable of connecting with other people in a reciprocal way...she only understands relationships in which she is the caretaker or she is the one being taken care of emotionally, so she sees all relationships through the lens of that dynamic. That's the vibe I get from this author as well.
You're replacing what the person is saying with what you think the person means. Surely if you could just go with what you think they mean, listening would be easy. In fact this sounds like the opposite of listening.
Then I must be really good as listening, because I always believe I know what people are going to say.
Good at listening means "understanding what they meant" (not necessarily, or even usually, what they said) and also "make them feel heard".