On Listening - A Minor Treatise
Person 1: "I really like talking to [X]. It feels as though he is really listening to what I say instead of..."
Person 2: "... instead of waiting for his turn to speak."
(I forget the source for this, but I think I remember hearing some approximation of it once in a movie)
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." - Walden, Henry David Thoreau
Sometimes, people just need to talk. Recognizing that need and satisfying it is something that I think I am good at. I did have some training in this regard. I've been in proximity to people who experience this and received both positive and negative 'rewards' as a result of how well I was able to provide what was needed. When I failed, I increased frustration levels in the person seeking stress relief, and frayed nerves on both sides. When I've succeeded, I like to think I've helped someone out a little. By saying that I consider myself good at this, you may have noticed, I have drawn a distinction between myself and others, placing most in the category of "not as good at this as me". In my experience this seems to be the case. I find myself occasionally shocked at just how poorly someone will "listen" to someone else.
It's not always easy. I still manage to fail (and spectacularly so, at times). I like to think, that at the very least, I recognize when I fail to listen more often than others do. The things people usually want to talk about are their problems, and most people are of the opinion that their problems are complex enough that they require a full explanation. Even if you feel as though you completely understand all the things that a person will say, it is absolutely paramount that you do not cut them off and offer a solution to their problem, pausing to bask in your own brilliance at having provided the answer to the problem.
To the person you are supposedly "listening" to, what just happened? You didn't listen to them. You cut them off before they could finish explaining the complex thing. Then, you had the nerve to tell them it was easy to solve if they just did what you told them. Most times, the person talking has already considered that option. In fact, they're probably considered the problem in far more depth than you with a better understanding of the nuances, and have risen and discarded many options including your choice. They aren't talking to you because they want you to tell them what to do. They're talking about their problem so they can feel understood and, most times, have you validate them for feeling the way they do while also condoning the course of action they took. Since they did it, it was obviously the best option.
Often, this mistake is further compounded by the ostensible listener nudging the conversation in a different direction. This is the wrong decision to make. Now, you have 1) not listened (else you would have waited to hear everything), 2) insulted their intelligence by not considering the entire situation while arriving at your own conclusion and then recommending it to them, and 3) displayed a lack of interest in hearing about the thing they wanted to talk about. Most people who you are "listening" to at that point will let it slide, resentfully. Instead of letting the person say what's on their mind, you have done the three things above, and furthermore, added number 4. 4) People who displayed an interest in "listening" to you were completely unhelpful and only made you more angry/anxious/upset. Vicious cycle time! Reluctance to speak increases with each iteration and suddenly they don't want to hang out with you anymore.
One might, upon reading this, remark, "Oughtn't we not take such a mechanical approach to people who we listen to in our lives?" (I wonder/worry about it myself). To that I reply, it isn't nearly as mechanical in it's application as it sounds. Now that I've made it a habit of sorts to listen actively and with a leaning toward enouraging others to speak, it doesn't feel quite like that. I act for their sake out of respect and desire for good. If I have to restrain myself with reminders of a vague list of rules I have arrived at through trial and error, then so much the better that I can do for them what most would not who act on their first instinct rather than on principles arrived at empirically. Looking back at the Thoreau quote, I think that when people feel as though others in their life are actually listening to them, that "quiet desperation" becomes a little less quiet and a little less desperate.
No offense to those of you I know IRL (in real life, for those not familiar with the slang), but that's part of why I maintain this blog. It's not your fault. I think that I'm perhaps too aware of the listener/listenee dynamic and unwilling to force good listening on other people. It's work to listen properly, and when it's not done right, it tends to make things worse. So, as I've mentioned before, I have my blog. It's convenient in that respect. People can take it or leave it, and reply if they feel they have something of import to add or a tangent to explore. I get to vent in a manner that better fits my style of expression that allows me to fully develop my case/idea/etc. without fear of "bad listening". I can have bad readers, but that's a simpler thing to deal with and one not as fraught with emotional landmines. Crafting nasty retorts takes more effort online and usually by the time it has been finished, the emotions have cooled and the retort loses its immediacy.
Person 2: "... instead of waiting for his turn to speak."
(I forget the source for this, but I think I remember hearing some approximation of it once in a movie)
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." - Walden, Henry David Thoreau
Sometimes, people just need to talk. Recognizing that need and satisfying it is something that I think I am good at. I did have some training in this regard. I've been in proximity to people who experience this and received both positive and negative 'rewards' as a result of how well I was able to provide what was needed. When I failed, I increased frustration levels in the person seeking stress relief, and frayed nerves on both sides. When I've succeeded, I like to think I've helped someone out a little. By saying that I consider myself good at this, you may have noticed, I have drawn a distinction between myself and others, placing most in the category of "not as good at this as me". In my experience this seems to be the case. I find myself occasionally shocked at just how poorly someone will "listen" to someone else.
It's not always easy. I still manage to fail (and spectacularly so, at times). I like to think, that at the very least, I recognize when I fail to listen more often than others do. The things people usually want to talk about are their problems, and most people are of the opinion that their problems are complex enough that they require a full explanation. Even if you feel as though you completely understand all the things that a person will say, it is absolutely paramount that you do not cut them off and offer a solution to their problem, pausing to bask in your own brilliance at having provided the answer to the problem.
To the person you are supposedly "listening" to, what just happened? You didn't listen to them. You cut them off before they could finish explaining the complex thing. Then, you had the nerve to tell them it was easy to solve if they just did what you told them. Most times, the person talking has already considered that option. In fact, they're probably considered the problem in far more depth than you with a better understanding of the nuances, and have risen and discarded many options including your choice. They aren't talking to you because they want you to tell them what to do. They're talking about their problem so they can feel understood and, most times, have you validate them for feeling the way they do while also condoning the course of action they took. Since they did it, it was obviously the best option.
Often, this mistake is further compounded by the ostensible listener nudging the conversation in a different direction. This is the wrong decision to make. Now, you have 1) not listened (else you would have waited to hear everything), 2) insulted their intelligence by not considering the entire situation while arriving at your own conclusion and then recommending it to them, and 3) displayed a lack of interest in hearing about the thing they wanted to talk about. Most people who you are "listening" to at that point will let it slide, resentfully. Instead of letting the person say what's on their mind, you have done the three things above, and furthermore, added number 4. 4) People who displayed an interest in "listening" to you were completely unhelpful and only made you more angry/anxious/upset. Vicious cycle time! Reluctance to speak increases with each iteration and suddenly they don't want to hang out with you anymore.
One might, upon reading this, remark, "Oughtn't we not take such a mechanical approach to people who we listen to in our lives?" (I wonder/worry about it myself). To that I reply, it isn't nearly as mechanical in it's application as it sounds. Now that I've made it a habit of sorts to listen actively and with a leaning toward enouraging others to speak, it doesn't feel quite like that. I act for their sake out of respect and desire for good. If I have to restrain myself with reminders of a vague list of rules I have arrived at through trial and error, then so much the better that I can do for them what most would not who act on their first instinct rather than on principles arrived at empirically. Looking back at the Thoreau quote, I think that when people feel as though others in their life are actually listening to them, that "quiet desperation" becomes a little less quiet and a little less desperate.
No offense to those of you I know IRL (in real life, for those not familiar with the slang), but that's part of why I maintain this blog. It's not your fault. I think that I'm perhaps too aware of the listener/listenee dynamic and unwilling to force good listening on other people. It's work to listen properly, and when it's not done right, it tends to make things worse. So, as I've mentioned before, I have my blog. It's convenient in that respect. People can take it or leave it, and reply if they feel they have something of import to add or a tangent to explore. I get to vent in a manner that better fits my style of expression that allows me to fully develop my case/idea/etc. without fear of "bad listening". I can have bad readers, but that's a simpler thing to deal with and one not as fraught with emotional landmines. Crafting nasty retorts takes more effort online and usually by the time it has been finished, the emotions have cooled and the retort loses its immediacy.