>worded in their own language
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.
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.
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.
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