Couple of tweaks though, try to avoid the same call for response, '..is that right?' or whatever. Patterns in speech become REALLY old REALLY quickly.. It can start to create a picture in their head that this is staged (and it kinda is) which then starts to cause them to raise walls up. Keep to the context of the question using whatever words you're comfy with 'X...? I got that right?', or 'soooooo... X yeah?' and they'll spot the pattern but because of the conversational nature of it their hackles will take a lot longer to raise.
The other thing is putting pauses in. Yes pauses are remarkably powerful, actual dead air forces the other side to fill it, but it also creates a pressure vacuum, it FEELS like minor bullishness and can start causing combativeness. For me if I want the conversation to feel level between two equals I'll instead fill the pauses with word-salad appropriate to whatever the context is with a couple of words in there to ping reactions. 'Oh wow, yeah the more I think about this the more I'm just... wow. Yeah that's annoying', where 'the more I think' is reflecting back that I agree there's something to what they are saying and 'annoying' to cause them to reflect on the irritation, trying to draw out that feeling more so they can then talk about the next layer down, but it's still basically a pause, it quietly says 'I hear you, I don't have anything to say right now, so go on...'
Imo, your suggestions are more for intermediate/advanced active listeners that need to interact with folks in their job (e.g. bartenders, reporters, middle managers...).
Still, I feel being repetitive (e.g. 'It sounds like XYZ...is that right?') is better than nothing. Sometimes, training wheels aren't bad when learning how to ride a bike.
E.g.
"I think Trumps approach to immigration will help increase jobs for Amercians and help the economy"
"OK sounds like you are for stricter immigration enforcement. I actually disagree for various reasons, but I am interested in knowing why you see this as helping the economy. Maybe I am missing something in my analysis"
Polite doesn't mean acting in good faith. People seem to forget that.
It's very obviously fake. Seriously you can't see that?
It can land as awkward, un-natural, yeah even 'fake' when it's being used by somebody who is just learning it and is practicing, though after time it will lose those qualities. If people you know are using this on you, they might need to own that they're trying something different to get you into a comfort zone before pressing on.
No kidding here.
No. It's a cheap trick to make me trust the interlocutor. Since it's not only cheap but effective, it's entirely my choice whether I submit to it and "open up".
In business the other side is anything but your therapist.
Hmmm. Different interlocutors can have different intentions. Some are going to have the intention to understand. Echoing what you believe the person said is not a 'cheap trick' when it comes to discussing ideas. I've been on both ends of conversations about singing, engineering and sailing, and one person says "what your saying is this" and the other person says: "No, that's not what I'm saying", with a correction that follows, and the chance for two-way understanding.
There are many roads to birthday parties from people you don't like who also don't like you. There will be many uninspired gifts.
No offense. However, this response from the first example feels robotic to me. It feels like I am talking with some kind of artificial intelligence. I guess we have to make it sounds more natural. In fact, the following examples feel more smooth to me.
If someone used that conversation template with me I'd wouldn't interpret it as an authentic discussion. At best I'd think it was therapy speak or they'd read some self-help "how to influence people" book.
Like any tool though, knowing when and how to use it is the way to get the most out of it.
"It sounds like you're feeling fed up" --> "Fed up?"
Eventually you develop your own conversational template that is authentic and effective.
But really the difficult part for most people is the listening itself. Actually getting your head around what is going on for someone else.
I don't think I've ever applied it as described in the article or those sessions, but there were a few things from then that I've found to improve how I engage with people (when I remember).
- ask questions regularly
- make sure your questions are open-ended and can't be answered with a yes/no
- avoid saying stuff like "you are like this" or "this is like that". It's safer to say things, particularly difficult things, from one's own perspective, e.g. "I think that".
I usually work in analogies when trying to share my understanding of what they said, whether it is a story or a question.
I may be misunderstanding this a bit, but the inverse or active listening seems to be someone who is distracted and not actually listening to another person? For example: “Wow, yeah, thats crazy” when someone is rambling.
For example, Kids are great at rambling off information for attention. Active listening is a skill and isn't the default.
Even if someone is listening, active listening is hearing what the partner says and attempting to intuit why they would think that and what assumptions they are making that may be different from your own.
And lowercase active listening, IMHO is genuinely being interested in the experiences of the person talking that your line of questioning disarms the subject into sharing stories that add personal, “cultural” context to their choices which could be considered taboo.
I give a head's up to the candidate of what I'm going to do, right at the top after introducing myself. During the interview proper, I'll ask a question, and while the candidate is speaking, I'll make notes about what they've said. Then I read back to the candidates the notes I've written, asking clarifying questions, and seeing if there's anything that I've misunderstood or anything they'd like to expand on. I make it clear at the outset, and usually mention later on, that any mistake in the notes is on my part and that they should feel free to correct me. I've been surprised about how comfortable people have been to correct my misunderstandings. From time to time, I've even shared my screen so they can see what notes I've made. Once the interview is complete, I flesh out the notes with any impressions above and beyond the content, while I consider if I see them as a hire or no hire, and at what level.
This has resulted in much more positive experiences all round in interviews. Candidates seem to relax quicker, and get into the flow of things more readily. They're able to talk more freely without fear of being misunderstood, knowing they've got a chance to correct any misunderstanding later on in the loop.
i'll usually just tell them why i'm trying to manipulate them into thinking about the problem in the way i want (in kid friendly language) and they're perfectly fine with it. people don't really seem to mind being manipulated like that, they really just hate not understanding what's going on or being lied to.
I guess that is less manipulative than other communication approaches...
Who wants details in Agile/Scrum anyway? Flush them out! /s
From your own words, to flesh out implies to me as a non-native that I remove flesh from said thing, when in reality the expression is to mean that you "add" flesh to bones. Very confusing.
I once said that a person seemed pretty "turned on" when I meant "switched on". Luckily it was on a private conversation with a friend who laughed and took the mickey out of me but then explained the situation so no harm done.
You need to work hard to maintain these unusual rules. Your partner will try to give you a turn"
This unwritten rule is not understood by many. There are plenty of people out there that are completely happy to drain you of your energy by talking endlessly about themselves. What I try to do in those situations is to assert my speaking time and if that doesn't change their attitude, it's bye bye, fuck off, go drain someone else.
From my personal experience people who are angry about interruptions are typically arogant and non empathic.
I love heated debates. (Adhd, INTP, Central Europe)
First, let me describe myself. I'm not always great at explaining my thoughts to others in a meeting. The output peripheral bus has a lower clock speed than the CPU, if you catch my drift. If I'm not the one driving the meeting, I try to wait until I have a decent amount of context before offering my own thoughts. Most critically: I don't speak unless I have something important to say, because time is scarce and talking AT ALL is a very high effort activity for me.
I really don't mind the occasional interruption or clarifying question. But if someone is constantly interrupting me every other sentence, it seems obvious to me that they either think their opinion is more important than mine, or they just like to hear themselves talk. In either case, the constant interruptions mean they don't actually care what I have to say, so there's no value in me trying to say it, and I just stop talking until they are done and let the conversation end naturally.
Let be clear tho: I'm talking about positive mindset discussion and NOT shunning someone into silent submission. (That would be awful!)
I also see interruptions as going hand in hand with collaboration and engagement. I guess it’s a personality thing. I’m adhd, INTJ, family hails from a part of the US northeast that is known to be direct and blunt.
layer8•3mo ago
The instructions sound a lot like what Weizenbaum programmed into ELIZA. :)
lcuff•3mo ago
hshdhdhehd•3mo ago