18 ms·

How to listen when you disagree

483 points by taheris 10y ago

BigDaddyD 10y ago
That was hard to read! I mean that literally, the spacing was weird.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
woodandsteel 10y ago
This is excellent. I think if there is one thing that might actually happen that could make the world a better place, it would be if people listened to each other more. A couple of hints. One is that I think the easiest way to start doing this is to practice active listening, which is just saying back to the other person the main ideas and feelings they are expressing. This a simple rule, though it can be hard to follow. Active listening forces you to pay attention, and it shows the other person you are understanding, plus if you get something wrong they can correct you. The other is that when you are arguing disagreeing with someone and they won't listen to you, try listening to them until they feel understood, and they will probably be more interesting in listening to you. Or perhaps the two of you could first reach an agreement that both of you will listen to the other until they feel understood, and then decide which of you will be the first talker.
- emcrazyone 10y ago
  agreed.. I live by a motto that goes: First, seek to understand and then seek to be understood. Active listening definitely works for me!
  - austinjp 10y ago
    That's excellent. So succinct, so valuable. Thank you.
    - js2 10y ago
      FYI, https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php
    - Ended 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_of_Saint_Francis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_of_Saint_Francis
  - flukus 10y ago
    Before you can lead you must learn to follow, John Snow.
zzalpha 10y ago
Eh, perhaps I'm cynical, but listening to someone, and coming to understanding regarding how they might have developed there beliefs, sounds nice, and it's very compassionate, but I question if it's actually a step toward compromise, or simply understanding. After all, for an increasing number of issues, in the end, the beliefs themselves are so polarized they leave no room for compromise. To this woman, it doesn't matter that someone had to make the painful choice to have an abortion. They don't care why. The act itself is morally unjustifiable. That is their belief. There is no room for compromise in a belief system like that. The same is true when you look at debates about gun control, climate change, etc. So, sure, listening and understanding is an important first step. But in a world where we are actively encouraged to conflate facts and beliefs (see: Trumpiness), and where beliefs are so starkly polarized into black-and-white, good-and-evil, how can we have productive conversations on level ground that lead to compromise? We can't even decide which facts are actually facts!
- throwanem 10y ago
  So hey, why bother trying, right?
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    Or you could provide a counter-argument so we can have a discussion. Kinda making my point for me. :)
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Just like you're making mine, and the article author's. Listening is a lot harder than contempt, but you might think about trying it some time all the same.
      - zzalpha 10y ago
        Who wasn't listening? Did anything in either of my comments imply I wasn't? I read the author's post. I digested it. I provided my counterpoint. Your initial response was essentially dismissal. I prompted you to provide a more substantial response (admittedly rather sarcastic, though I hope it wasn't viewed as hostility... probably a bad decision, that), and you once again come back with a pithy response. It's almost as though you feel I've offended you by providing my viewpoint, which I find odd since I haven't personally attacked anyone, certainly not you, whom I don't know from Adam.
jakecraige 10y ago
Great read. Reminds me of a book I read recently, Difficult Conversations, where my key takeaway was to do everything I can to understand the other person, and make sure they understand me. Then we can work together towards a resolution. The authors uses the term "Learning conversation" which I really liked. To highlight that you're there to first and foremost, understand them, before judging or criticizing or whatever else.
- stefanwlb 10y ago
  Thank you for your contribution to the thread. I will look into acquiring the book.
seangrant 10y ago
This format was very hard to read for me
ploxiln 10y ago
So you're saying, basically, we should "put words in their mouth".
- wrsh07 10y ago
  You might be making a joke about active listening, but it's actually really effective. Try it out next time you disagree with someone -- it is a good tool to prevent you from talking over or past someone.
  - hexane360 10y ago
    Just not like this: https://youtu.be/65GbpVZTgAk https://youtu.be/65GbpVZTgAk Or god forbid: https://youtu.be/TChRv8m79zs https://youtu.be/TChRv8m79zs
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Watched the first video, and I am now irrationally angry with an urge to violence. I think I'll skip the second.
  - Esau 10y ago
    I once attended some training that discussed communication skills and one of the things they asked us was: when talking to someone, are you listening to what they are saying or are you merely waiting for your chance to talk? I have to admit to frequently doing the latter.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      For me, I know I've listened when I can make their argument for them. This also has the important point of testing what I believe in an honest way and allows for modifying of what I believe or solidifying it with better ways to explain it to others. Sadly, many people are in the "chance to talk" side with a rather large sprinkling of "people who disagree with them never get to talk".
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Mz 10y ago
I generally agree with the points made, but I think it is rather poorly written. Plus, like others here, I found the formatting a problem. I repeatedly wondered if I had reached the end only to find I had not.
nornagon 10y ago
Fantastic essay. Listening in this way is an important part of Nonviolent Communication[1], which I'd highly recommend as further reading if this resonated with you. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
- js2 10y ago
  I've recently started reading Nonviolent Communication[1]. I am in awe of some of the examples in the book. It must take years of practice to be such an effective communicator. 1. https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Life-Changing-Relationships/dp/189200528X/ https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Lif...
  - stefanwlb 10y ago
    Thank you for sharing the book, looks really interesting!
- stefanwlb 10y ago
  Awesome!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
smcl 10y ago
I'm sorry, it's possible that I am too cynical for this world, but this sounds embellished if not entirely fictional like the precocious toddlers* waxing lyrical on free speech and Donald Trump. After the author asked a single question the stranger poured their heart out on a deeply personal issue, conveniently vindicating the presence of a "free listening" booth at the RNC and giving an all-too-perfect story for the author to write up on his return home. The advice that (I think?) the author was trying to convey is fine - listen, empathise, understand, withhold judgement - but the story is nonsense. * = What I mean is summarised nicely here: http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/woke-fake-kids-repudiate-donald-trump http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/woke-fake-kids-repudiate-don... - stuff like 'my 3 year old daughter caught a glimpse of todays trump rally shut down and starting crying "daddy why do they want free speech to die?"'
- clessg 10y ago
  Well... not disagreeing, but... when I turned on CNN at my sister's house, her 4-year-old toddler said "Donald Trump?! He's gonna kill the world!" And then when Trump said he's gonna Make America Great Again™, "He's gonna make America killed again!" My sister doesn't care about the news, or watch it, or anything of that nature, and she's Canadian, so... hmm! If only Canadian toddlers could vote
- qntty 10y ago
  Consider that he probably listened to dozens of people, and maybe this was the only incident worth writing about.
Snargorf 10y ago
I've actually found it works a lot better if both people just allow the contentious statements. Just let each person say, "Oh that's ridiculous because..." and the other replies with "You're totally missing this point..." Even if people raise their voice or scoff, it's fine. The key is to just keep going. If you go on long enough, the points do start sinking in. Too many people assume that acrimony means that the discussion must end immediately. But that's not true at all. It's exceptionally hard, sometimes, to meet clashing beliefs with entirely soft voices and polite manners. You don't have to suppress everything you want to say. You can let it out. So can the other person. It's good. (Obviously it shouldn't raise to a degree where people are screaming continuously or acting violent). Maturity doesn't just mean always speaking softly. It can also mean being able to make and reject points forcefully, and not wilt like a delicate flower if the other person does the same. The real key is that people need to not be so delicate. Accept the natural difficulties of clashing belief systems. Just stick in there, let the acrimony happen, don't give up. Eventually - 10 or 20 or 30 minutes later - you'll get to something meaningful simply because there's no way to talk that long without both people having a lot of time to make real points.
- smcl 10y ago
  I hit "vouch" here as your post was marked as "Dead" even though it was pretty reasonable. I don't necessarily agree that people should be so eager to lock horns on contentious issues, but you're certainly not saying anything that should be hidden or censored or anything.
  - Snargorf 10y ago
    Thanks. It seems I have been censored, however. My new posts no longer show up when I'm logged out. No reason given. I also can't create another account. My guess is it's because I said IQ was hereditary? Hard to tell which of my posts violated which unwritten rule. I'm very disappointed at the blatant exercise of power to silence me here. I said nothing against any individual, thought through my points, and have always been civil. And the under-handed shadowban methodology - ugh. I was hoping for better from HN.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mVChr 10y ago
I think there's even more value to it than this. Consider the whole pursuit of philosophy. You must be able to leverage your intellect to deeply contemplate things you don't believe are actually true in order to determine the root foundations for what you believe, if in fact you still do believe them after honest and critical analysis. If you close your ears to anything you disagree with then you may miss a small but important detail that in overlooking has lead you to a premature and incorrect conclusion. Or on the other hand be able to further whittle away to the true core of your beliefs. Whether for this cause or the one in the article the result is probably the same however, understanding and love.
mindslight 10y ago
I wholeheartedly agree with this article's premise (to listen and truly understand conflicting ideas), but its specific approach seems like just subjecting oneself to emotional warfare. Listening to someone's story will get you an understanding of why they believe something, but not necessarily an understanding of the actual belief. What if this woman didn't have a compelling personal narrative (infertility) driving her viewpoint, but had instead just copied the advice from a culture with only 2 kyr of success? I'm guessing the author would have likely concluded something less empathetic like the woman was just a victim of backwards thinking. I think this phase we're going through is mainly people who rely on peer-scoped emotional reasoning having to come to terms with a wider communication scope and get used to the left-brain verbal communication engendered by the Internet. In order to truly understand something, your intellectual gamut must be able to describe it. If you wish to understand a different point a view, you must work at expanding your own logical framework to be able to express the new idea simultaneously with what you already believe. This is not a skill most people have developed, so instead of working to understand, they give in to their gut and treat the differing idea as a threat.
ellyagg 10y ago
It takes a lot of forgiveness, compassion, patience, and courage to listen in the face of disagreement. I can't help but find this condescending. Listening should only take a small bit of intellectual humility. On controversial subjects, people with whom you disagree almost certainly have valid points. It's not heroic to acknowledge them. It's a sign of maturity to be able to admit where your opponent's arguments are strong and, on the other hand, admit the weaknesses in your own position.
- kaybe 10y ago
  They might not be talking about the opposed option itself but the way controversial viewpoints are often presented: Full of emotion, and in a full-frontal attack if you're perceived to be not on their side. It can be hard to dissipate that and actually get to the quiet earnest exploration part.
- vacri 10y ago
  I think it's sad that you think that "a lot of forgiveness, compassion, patience, and courage" is the hallmark of a hero, rather than the hallmark of a mature person. The article never said anything about heroism.
zw123456 10y ago
I love the sentiment that the author was trying to convey. The example that was provided was beautiful. It is really important to realize that usually it does not work out as beautifully as was presented in this particular example. My experience in active listening is that perhaps 1 out of 20 times do you get a good outcome as was the case in this example. Generally, the person will simply yell things at you about the Bible so something like that. However I have had one similar experience a long time ago. When I first came out, almost all my family members were accepting, except for one sister who had a lot of trouble with it. It took a long time to get her into a situation where she would even talk to me about it. When she finally did, it had a lot more to do with her failed marriage and something about how hard she tried to make it work and how it was not fair that she tried to live according to the Christian way (my family is super religious, I am not, I am an atheist, all other family is evangelical). She seemed to think I was getting away with something. It did not really change a lot but it did seem like she softened a little perhaps just being able to bitch at me about it helped I guess. I am not convinced the listening approach actually changes much, but it certainly can be interesting.
- hashkb 10y ago
  If you keep your mouth shut most of the time, and listen, as the article suggests... you'd have better outcomes. Although you may have to redefine "good outcome"... if you're hoping that by listening more you'll be more effective at persuasion, that's missing the point (but true).
  - zw123456 10y ago
    Yes, not saying anything is the key for sure. In my case a good outcome was just having my sister not hate me. So, you are right, it worked in that case. But it was hard. I probably have more to learn.
    - hashkb 10y ago
      Totally, me too. I always thought empathy was a magical quality of empathetic people; now I understand it's a thing you do and a skill you practice like any other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication got me started. Everything in it is super obvious... but also hard to remember in the moment.
rababa 10y ago
In poker your hand is what it is whether you realize it or not. It doesn't matter if you say 'I have two pairs of aces' because you still actually have four of a kind. I do the same with arguments. I try very hard to 'steel man' opposing views in total sincerity. This doesn't take any kind of kindness or humility at all, just a desire to actually be right and not delude oneself.
gumby 10y ago
For a tech reference: this is the function of "Hearing Aid" in John Brunner's prescient novel The Shockwave Rider from 1975. A novel that also introduced us to the computer network worm, the Bay Area as a tech mecca, the current social anomie reflected in the current election, etc. Part of a triplet of loosely related novels along with The Sheep Look Up and Stand on Zanzibar. Many accurate predictions of the last 15 years, 25 years before. It was a lovely article by the way. I used to work on a crisis line and I was surprised how many people simply needed someone to talk to.
polynomial 10y ago
harder. When you disagree, listen harder, past the point you find yourself in disagreement, to the underlying agreement you share. This is the place where your mutual understanding will let you engage in real dialogue, and not just taking turns listening.
ycombinatorMan 10y ago
I think this is childish.
ppod 10y ago
This is a really well written piece, so its petty to pick on an aspect of the style, but:I hate the trend of writing really short sentences and starting a new paragraph after almost every sentence. When you hear it in your head it's supposed to sound like a grave and wise and worldly narrator over a poignant montage or something. It's cheap and corny.
bcoates 10y ago
"Hear the Biography, not the ideology" This is just another way of attacking someone else's position, with the added bonus of letting you be intolerably smug while you do it. You're not communicating in good faith unless you're willing to concede the possibility that the other person is actually right about something. At the very least you need to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. This, on the other hand, is a way of reconciling the fact that you obviously don't have a good reason to believe the things you do (otherwise, you wouldn't be threatened by the mere fact that someone disagrees with you) with your preference to believe that your views are in some meaningful way correct: obtain ammunition against the other by "discovering" the real reason they believe such obviously wrong things, then being the superior person by empathizing with this poor benighted creature.
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  Yes and no... you can easily turn this technique around on yourself. People often hold abstract beliefs for concrete reasons, and it's often more important to get to those concrete things as it's a much more powerful basis to understand them. It might get you somewhere in understanding why other people hold the opposing view (allowing you to argue more effectively) or you might learn something. Regardless, you're more likely to make a friend even if you continue to disagree.
- hashkb 10y ago
  I think you may have read into this too far and/or protected a bit much onto it. How do you figure the OP is helping you attack an opposing position?
  - joslin01 10y ago
    The point parent is making is that the one's own stubbornness (that they are indeed correct) forces them to skip a step -- is what they are saying true and/or what is their logical positioning? Instead, OP says "first find out how they got to that position in life" which you gotta understand does come across pretty smug since it implies superiority of opinion/belief and degenerates the disagreer as if they are merely using emotion in their logic. I think ideally you first want to let the battle of logic fly then get into biography details if it's a very sharp disagreement. It may be worthwhile for both sides to hear each other's upbringing and catalyst -- though you might not take the other's lens as your own, it nevertheless will add a little wisdom
mgraczyk 10y ago
"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand, disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that person has experienced that resulted in that point of view." This is great advice for getting along with people and treating others politely. However, I don't think it provides any insight into actually improving public policy or improving one's own beliefs. Of course we all "pick sides" based on our own experiences in debates like these. There will never be any way to systematically remove all bias in a debate. Rather than try to dig up and fully understand the causes of every bias in every individual, we should take the simpler route: Examine just your own biases, judge everyone else's viewpoints based on facts and data alone, and never take strong positions on any point without an abundance of objective justification. You will end up agreeable, epistemically cautious, and continuously learning.
- mpartel 10y ago
  Examining your own biases is certainly useful, but why not do both? I think the main value of the approach in the article is not to immediately arrive at answers but to promote a better culture of discussion. It may be slow going on a larger scale, and I may be overly optimistic, but I feel that a person does not need very many instances of being genuinely listened to before permanently "converting" into a more accepting and empathetic human being, possibly even one that goes on to pay it forward.
- groby_b 10y ago
  I'm curious - if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", how will you know all the facts? How will you know you did not miss some data? Sure, for some debates, there is a preponderance of evidence that a specific view is right. For many things in the public light, the debate is not that simple, though. Many of our hotbutton political issues are very complex and nuanced. To stay with the article's example, there is no "correct" answer to "should abortion be legal". It is, at its core, a choice about ethics, and personal values. And any decision on the topic is a compromise. We will never compromise if we don't hear the other person. And even if they have outmoded or irrational beliefs, how will we ever get in agreement if we just say "you are wrong"?
pklausler 10y ago
There's an important distinction to be made between disagreement on the facts and disagreement on their implications. I find that the best conversations can be had by figuring out which points of disagreement are on questions of fact and then asking "how do you know X?". Repeat respectfully as necessary. Peter Boghossian calls this technique "street epistemology".
- stefanwlb 10y ago
  Excellent point!
drudru11 10y ago
This is beautiful.
__s 10y ago
It isn't just facebook feeds. Google's automatic per user tailoring of search results, & even Google being the primary search provider, furthers this echo chamber concept (as an aside, I remember when we were all referring to this as the hivemind instead of an echo chamber..)
eClass 10y ago
Nice post, so do you remember anything that Donald Trump said?
endgame 10y ago
What the actual shit. Before I could read the text, I got hit with a "sign up for our bullshit newsletter" pop-up. Then after dismissing that I hit space to page down and got shown a SquareSpace login that I couldn't get out of.
kennethcwilbur 10y ago
Those with deepest insights on this topic are least likely to post.
Mendenhall 10y ago
If I really want to convince someone of something, its the last thing I do. The first thing I do is befriend them. They could have wildly different opinion on a subject that I think is dangerous, and its the last thing I would talk about,if we even got that far. I establish first the common ground,not even touching on hot button topics. I find anything we can agree upon "those are cool shoes" and start up a normal conversation void of any intent. If people have their guard up "convincing" is never gonna happen. Too many want to try and force their opinion on others through weight of logic and debate. I find that very lacking and unfruitful. I get to know them,make them laugh,listen to them,ask questions,actually care to get to know them. The little personality traits they display will help establish a raport and know your angle of approach. They will see I am funny and want to make them laugh and have things in common. No rush to convince them of anything. Its like you dont rush trying to get someone to sleep with you by pressuring them. You make the experience pleasant and make them want to engage while you pick up little things about them that will help you get your point across. Its easier to convince a friend to do something than an enemy. Rush nothing and let things play out, if the correct opportunity doesnt arrive then let it pass. When or if you see them again they will remember you in a positive light and you can continue in that way. When the time is right start with the smallest of things to get them to agree with you. Something or anything you know they will like "those are cool shoes arent they?". Them agreeing with you on the smallest of things primes the pump for them to agree on larger. Their mind is already agreeing with you and sees you as friendly. Then ever so slowly start to build on that, all while being content to walk away having "proved" nothing yet always building towards it. As some would say, be wise as a serpent.
known 10y ago
Insulate yourself from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
z3t4 10y ago
Can't stress enough that only listening to the ones with the same view is very dangerous.
- z3t4 10y ago
  Only surrounding yourself with like-minded will create a biased world view.
brhsiao 10y ago
While I agree with the overall sentiment, people ought to have to earn the privilege of being listened to by meeting a higher standard of reasonableness, self-awareness, and intellectual responsibility than that. The woman was unable herself to have children, so she latches onto the view that those who are able but choose termination are unethical killers. She manufactures further rationalization: "it's not right to go out and sleep with whoever, then just vacuum away the result like it never happened." This is just word salad. She openly throws out, "it's just not right! it's just wrong!" like that's somehow sufficient. Her view is driven by a preadolescent's petulant self-absorption and she takes no responsibility for self-correction. I reject wholesale the idea that personal suffering gives people an excuse, a warrant, to hold petty, juvenile views that inhibit the freedom of others. Life itself consists largely of suffering. People who insist on throwing an eight year old's intellectual tantrum don't need the megaphone they're already given. If the author's merely saying that open listening and compassion, in and of themselves, are valuable, then certainly: it's important to be open to foreign views. But petulant self-absorption isn't a view. It's not a window into any meaningful aspect of the universe. It's outright condescending to extend it sympathy.
- eyelidlessness 10y ago
  This story seems to be a bit of a rorschach test. It seems that the primary rejection of what the author observed and described is preoccupied with correctness of ideas, while those of us who it touched are preoccupied with understanding why people think the way that they do. I too reject all manner of irrational and harmful views, but I'm concerned with why so many of those views prevail. Understanding why people come to hurt one another is at the center of my attention, because I think that understanding is ammunition in reducing those tendencies. Simply demilitarizing disagreement can go a long way toward reducing the kinds of friction that prevent people from learning and growing when they're wrong. And more importantly, being correct is not the same as not being subject to personal growth. It's a tremendous waste to go through life knowing information that could be valuable to others and to be unable or unwilling to communicate that information to others who don't share it. Empathy is how politics and people move together.
  - 10y ago
ThomPete 10y ago
I have always hated the idea that it's the communicators job to make sure people understand them. This is of course true in any professional setting like advertising, PR etc. But in a debate between two parties this insistence and demand is killing most possibilities of actually having a debate. The first problem is that if someone is arguing from a position we have predujize against we will be interpreting the worst possible intent of what is being said while if it's something we agree with we are much more forgiving when interpreting. So we are biased either against hearing the argument or from hearing the flaws depending on whether we agree with the original stance of the argument. So much potential for actually learning something is lost because of the idea that it's only up to the communicator to make sure they are understood. So many insights are lost from demanding other people make themselves understandable rather than trying to understand what they are trying to say.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Of course communication is the responsibility of both involved, but you can only ever control one side of it, so you might as well do the best you can.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Thats my point though. Its not only the communicators job to be understandable since even if they are the other side is biased against what they say.
stared 10y ago
From Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and influence people": ''' "I don't blame you one iota for feeling as you do. If I were you I would undoubtedly feel just as you do." An answer like that will soften the most cantankerous old cuss alive. And you can say that and be 100 percent sincere, because if you were the other person you, of course, would feel just as he does. Take Al Capone, for example. Suppose you had inherited the same body and temperament and mind that Al Capone had. Suppose you had had his environment and experiences. You would then be precisely what he was - and where he was. For it is those things - and only those things - that made him what he was. The only reason, for example, that you are not a rattlesnake is that your mother and father weren't rattlesnakes. '''
- cvs268 10y ago
  Not only does it soothe the other person, this approach is ACTUALLY helpful in improving oneself i.e. how one approaches an argument or a difference of opinion. Once you say this and mean it, you are no longer thinking about how wrong or stupid the other person is. You are no longer frustrated by someone else's apparent incompetence. Instead you start thinking how to share with the other person, the influential thoughts and experiences which you have already had. The sooner you are successful in letting the other person experience the same thoughts and experiences that you already have, the better the chances that the other person can now see your point of view.
  - stared 10y ago
    I agree. The general tone of this books is not "how to trick people" but "how to realize what is important for them, that they are important, and act accordingly".
callesgg 10y ago
This is a very good attitude i try to use it myself, it is often hard to phrase the questions to be subtle enough to not be rude. But the one he used here was actually very good, and fairly generic.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jld89 10y ago
This is a great article. We don't need to be always right or prove others wrong, choose carefully the battles and aim for compromise, you don't have to agree to a solution, you just have to approve it.
username3 10y ago
Alan Kay quoted, "Forget about trying to win an argument -- use argumentation to try to understand the issues better and from more perspectives ..." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11941417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11941417
rachkovsky 10y ago
The best on the topic is How To Disagree by Paul Graham http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Rachine 10y ago
"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand, disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that person has experienced that resulted in that point of view." True
AlexTes 10y ago
Beautiful, thank you for your story.

483 points by taheris 10y ago

BigDaddyD 10y ago

That was hard to read! I mean that literally, the spacing was weird.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

woodandsteel 10y ago

This is excellent. I think if there is one thing that might actually happen that could make the world a better place, it would be if people listened to each other more. A couple of hints. One is that I think the easiest way to start doing this is to practice active listening, which is just saying back to the other person the main ideas and feelings they are expressing. This a simple rule, though it can be hard to follow. Active listening forces you to pay attention, and it shows the other person you are understanding, plus if you get something wrong they can correct you. The other is that when you are arguing disagreeing with someone and they won't listen to you, try listening to them until they feel understood, and they will probably be more interesting in listening to you. Or perhaps the two of you could first reach an agreement that both of you will listen to the other until they feel understood, and then decide which of you will be the first talker.

emcrazyone 10y ago
agreed.. I live by a motto that goes: First, seek to understand and then seek to be understood. Active listening definitely works for me!
- austinjp 10y ago
  That's excellent. So succinct, so valuable. Thank you.
  - js2 10y ago
    FYI, https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php
  - Ended 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_of_Saint_Francis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_of_Saint_Francis
- flukus 10y ago
  Before you can lead you must learn to follow, John Snow.

zzalpha 10y ago

Eh, perhaps I'm cynical, but listening to someone, and coming to understanding regarding how they might have developed there beliefs, sounds nice, and it's very compassionate, but I question if it's actually a step toward compromise, or simply understanding. After all, for an increasing number of issues, in the end, the beliefs themselves are so polarized they leave no room for compromise. To this woman, it doesn't matter that someone had to make the painful choice to have an abortion. They don't care why. The act itself is morally unjustifiable. That is their belief. There is no room for compromise in a belief system like that. The same is true when you look at debates about gun control, climate change, etc. So, sure, listening and understanding is an important first step. But in a world where we are actively encouraged to conflate facts and beliefs (see: Trumpiness), and where beliefs are so starkly polarized into black-and-white, good-and-evil, how can we have productive conversations on level ground that lead to compromise? We can't even decide which facts are actually facts!

throwanem 10y ago
So hey, why bother trying, right?
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Or you could provide a counter-argument so we can have a discussion. Kinda making my point for me. :)
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Just like you're making mine, and the article author's. Listening is a lot harder than contempt, but you might think about trying it some time all the same.
    - zzalpha 10y ago
      Who wasn't listening? Did anything in either of my comments imply I wasn't? I read the author's post. I digested it. I provided my counterpoint. Your initial response was essentially dismissal. I prompted you to provide a more substantial response (admittedly rather sarcastic, though I hope it wasn't viewed as hostility... probably a bad decision, that), and you once again come back with a pithy response. It's almost as though you feel I've offended you by providing my viewpoint, which I find odd since I haven't personally attacked anyone, certainly not you, whom I don't know from Adam.

jakecraige 10y ago

Great read. Reminds me of a book I read recently, Difficult Conversations, where my key takeaway was to do everything I can to understand the other person, and make sure they understand me. Then we can work together towards a resolution. The authors uses the term "Learning conversation" which I really liked. To highlight that you're there to first and foremost, understand them, before judging or criticizing or whatever else.

stefanwlb 10y ago
Thank you for your contribution to the thread. I will look into acquiring the book.

seangrant 10y ago

This format was very hard to read for me

ploxiln 10y ago

So you're saying, basically, we should "put words in their mouth".

wrsh07 10y ago
You might be making a joke about active listening, but it's actually really effective. Try it out next time you disagree with someone -- it is a good tool to prevent you from talking over or past someone.
- hexane360 10y ago
  Just not like this: https://youtu.be/65GbpVZTgAk https://youtu.be/65GbpVZTgAk Or god forbid: https://youtu.be/TChRv8m79zs https://youtu.be/TChRv8m79zs
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Watched the first video, and I am now irrationally angry with an urge to violence. I think I'll skip the second.
- Esau 10y ago
  I once attended some training that discussed communication skills and one of the things they asked us was: when talking to someone, are you listening to what they are saying or are you merely waiting for your chance to talk? I have to admit to frequently doing the latter.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    For me, I know I've listened when I can make their argument for them. This also has the important point of testing what I believe in an honest way and allows for modifying of what I believe or solidifying it with better ways to explain it to others. Sadly, many people are in the "chance to talk" side with a rather large sprinkling of "people who disagree with them never get to talk".
AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Mz 10y ago

I generally agree with the points made, but I think it is rather poorly written. Plus, like others here, I found the formatting a problem. I repeatedly wondered if I had reached the end only to find I had not.

nornagon 10y ago

Fantastic essay. Listening in this way is an important part of Nonviolent Communication[1], which I'd highly recommend as further reading if this resonated with you. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

js2 10y ago
I've recently started reading Nonviolent Communication[1]. I am in awe of some of the examples in the book. It must take years of practice to be such an effective communicator. 1. https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Life-Changing-Relationships/dp/189200528X/ https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Lif...
- stefanwlb 10y ago
  Thank you for sharing the book, looks really interesting!
stefanwlb 10y ago
Awesome!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

smcl 10y ago

I'm sorry, it's possible that I am too cynical for this world, but this sounds embellished if not entirely fictional like the precocious toddlers* waxing lyrical on free speech and Donald Trump. After the author asked a single question the stranger poured their heart out on a deeply personal issue, conveniently vindicating the presence of a "free listening" booth at the RNC and giving an all-too-perfect story for the author to write up on his return home. The advice that (I think?) the author was trying to convey is fine - listen, empathise, understand, withhold judgement - but the story is nonsense. * = What I mean is summarised nicely here: http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/woke-fake-kids-repudiate-donald-trump http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/woke-fake-kids-repudiate-don... - stuff like 'my 3 year old daughter caught a glimpse of todays trump rally shut down and starting crying "daddy why do they want free speech to die?"'

clessg 10y ago
Well... not disagreeing, but... when I turned on CNN at my sister's house, her 4-year-old toddler said "Donald Trump?! He's gonna kill the world!" And then when Trump said he's gonna Make America Great Again™, "He's gonna make America killed again!" My sister doesn't care about the news, or watch it, or anything of that nature, and she's Canadian, so... hmm! If only Canadian toddlers could vote
qntty 10y ago
Consider that he probably listened to dozens of people, and maybe this was the only incident worth writing about.

Snargorf 10y ago

I've actually found it works a lot better if both people just allow the contentious statements. Just let each person say, "Oh that's ridiculous because..." and the other replies with "You're totally missing this point..." Even if people raise their voice or scoff, it's fine. The key is to just keep going. If you go on long enough, the points do start sinking in. Too many people assume that acrimony means that the discussion must end immediately. But that's not true at all. It's exceptionally hard, sometimes, to meet clashing beliefs with entirely soft voices and polite manners. You don't have to suppress everything you want to say. You can let it out. So can the other person. It's good. (Obviously it shouldn't raise to a degree where people are screaming continuously or acting violent). Maturity doesn't just mean always speaking softly. It can also mean being able to make and reject points forcefully, and not wilt like a delicate flower if the other person does the same. The real key is that people need to not be so delicate. Accept the natural difficulties of clashing belief systems. Just stick in there, let the acrimony happen, don't give up. Eventually - 10 or 20 or 30 minutes later - you'll get to something meaningful simply because there's no way to talk that long without both people having a lot of time to make real points.

smcl 10y ago
I hit "vouch" here as your post was marked as "Dead" even though it was pretty reasonable. I don't necessarily agree that people should be so eager to lock horns on contentious issues, but you're certainly not saying anything that should be hidden or censored or anything.
- Snargorf 10y ago
  Thanks. It seems I have been censored, however. My new posts no longer show up when I'm logged out. No reason given. I also can't create another account. My guess is it's because I said IQ was hereditary? Hard to tell which of my posts violated which unwritten rule. I'm very disappointed at the blatant exercise of power to silence me here. I said nothing against any individual, thought through my points, and have always been civil. And the under-handed shadowban methodology - ugh. I was hoping for better from HN.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mVChr 10y ago

I think there's even more value to it than this. Consider the whole pursuit of philosophy. You must be able to leverage your intellect to deeply contemplate things you don't believe are actually true in order to determine the root foundations for what you believe, if in fact you still do believe them after honest and critical analysis. If you close your ears to anything you disagree with then you may miss a small but important detail that in overlooking has lead you to a premature and incorrect conclusion. Or on the other hand be able to further whittle away to the true core of your beliefs. Whether for this cause or the one in the article the result is probably the same however, understanding and love.

mindslight 10y ago

I wholeheartedly agree with this article's premise (to listen and truly understand conflicting ideas), but its specific approach seems like just subjecting oneself to emotional warfare. Listening to someone's story will get you an understanding of why they believe something, but not necessarily an understanding of the actual belief. What if this woman didn't have a compelling personal narrative (infertility) driving her viewpoint, but had instead just copied the advice from a culture with only 2 kyr of success? I'm guessing the author would have likely concluded something less empathetic like the woman was just a victim of backwards thinking. I think this phase we're going through is mainly people who rely on peer-scoped emotional reasoning having to come to terms with a wider communication scope and get used to the left-brain verbal communication engendered by the Internet. In order to truly understand something, your intellectual gamut must be able to describe it. If you wish to understand a different point a view, you must work at expanding your own logical framework to be able to express the new idea simultaneously with what you already believe. This is not a skill most people have developed, so instead of working to understand, they give in to their gut and treat the differing idea as a threat.

ellyagg 10y ago

It takes a lot of forgiveness, compassion, patience, and courage to listen in the face of disagreement. I can't help but find this condescending. Listening should only take a small bit of intellectual humility. On controversial subjects, people with whom you disagree almost certainly have valid points. It's not heroic to acknowledge them. It's a sign of maturity to be able to admit where your opponent's arguments are strong and, on the other hand, admit the weaknesses in your own position.

kaybe 10y ago
They might not be talking about the opposed option itself but the way controversial viewpoints are often presented: Full of emotion, and in a full-frontal attack if you're perceived to be not on their side. It can be hard to dissipate that and actually get to the quiet earnest exploration part.
vacri 10y ago
I think it's sad that you think that "a lot of forgiveness, compassion, patience, and courage" is the hallmark of a hero, rather than the hallmark of a mature person. The article never said anything about heroism.

zw123456 10y ago

I love the sentiment that the author was trying to convey. The example that was provided was beautiful. It is really important to realize that usually it does not work out as beautifully as was presented in this particular example. My experience in active listening is that perhaps 1 out of 20 times do you get a good outcome as was the case in this example. Generally, the person will simply yell things at you about the Bible so something like that. However I have had one similar experience a long time ago. When I first came out, almost all my family members were accepting, except for one sister who had a lot of trouble with it. It took a long time to get her into a situation where she would even talk to me about it. When she finally did, it had a lot more to do with her failed marriage and something about how hard she tried to make it work and how it was not fair that she tried to live according to the Christian way (my family is super religious, I am not, I am an atheist, all other family is evangelical). She seemed to think I was getting away with something. It did not really change a lot but it did seem like she softened a little perhaps just being able to bitch at me about it helped I guess. I am not convinced the listening approach actually changes much, but it certainly can be interesting.

hashkb 10y ago
If you keep your mouth shut most of the time, and listen, as the article suggests... you'd have better outcomes. Although you may have to redefine "good outcome"... if you're hoping that by listening more you'll be more effective at persuasion, that's missing the point (but true).
- zw123456 10y ago
  Yes, not saying anything is the key for sure. In my case a good outcome was just having my sister not hate me. So, you are right, it worked in that case. But it was hard. I probably have more to learn.
  - hashkb 10y ago
    Totally, me too. I always thought empathy was a magical quality of empathetic people; now I understand it's a thing you do and a skill you practice like any other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication got me started. Everything in it is super obvious... but also hard to remember in the moment.

rababa 10y ago

In poker your hand is what it is whether you realize it or not. It doesn't matter if you say 'I have two pairs of aces' because you still actually have four of a kind. I do the same with arguments. I try very hard to 'steel man' opposing views in total sincerity. This doesn't take any kind of kindness or humility at all, just a desire to actually be right and not delude oneself.

gumby 10y ago

For a tech reference: this is the function of "Hearing Aid" in John Brunner's prescient novel The Shockwave Rider from 1975. A novel that also introduced us to the computer network worm, the Bay Area as a tech mecca, the current social anomie reflected in the current election, etc. Part of a triplet of loosely related novels along with The Sheep Look Up and Stand on Zanzibar. Many accurate predictions of the last 15 years, 25 years before. It was a lovely article by the way. I used to work on a crisis line and I was surprised how many people simply needed someone to talk to.

polynomial 10y ago

harder. When you disagree, listen harder, past the point you find yourself in disagreement, to the underlying agreement you share. This is the place where your mutual understanding will let you engage in real dialogue, and not just taking turns listening.

ycombinatorMan 10y ago

I think this is childish.

ppod 10y ago

This is a really well written piece, so its petty to pick on an aspect of the style, but:I hate the trend of writing really short sentences and starting a new paragraph after almost every sentence. When you hear it in your head it's supposed to sound like a grave and wise and worldly narrator over a poignant montage or something. It's cheap and corny.

bcoates 10y ago

"Hear the Biography, not the ideology" This is just another way of attacking someone else's position, with the added bonus of letting you be intolerably smug while you do it. You're not communicating in good faith unless you're willing to concede the possibility that the other person is actually right about something. At the very least you need to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. This, on the other hand, is a way of reconciling the fact that you obviously don't have a good reason to believe the things you do (otherwise, you wouldn't be threatened by the mere fact that someone disagrees with you) with your preference to believe that your views are in some meaningful way correct: obtain ammunition against the other by "discovering" the real reason they believe such obviously wrong things, then being the superior person by empathizing with this poor benighted creature.

SapphireSun 10y ago
Yes and no... you can easily turn this technique around on yourself. People often hold abstract beliefs for concrete reasons, and it's often more important to get to those concrete things as it's a much more powerful basis to understand them. It might get you somewhere in understanding why other people hold the opposing view (allowing you to argue more effectively) or you might learn something. Regardless, you're more likely to make a friend even if you continue to disagree.
hashkb 10y ago
I think you may have read into this too far and/or protected a bit much onto it. How do you figure the OP is helping you attack an opposing position?
- joslin01 10y ago
  The point parent is making is that the one's own stubbornness (that they are indeed correct) forces them to skip a step -- is what they are saying true and/or what is their logical positioning? Instead, OP says "first find out how they got to that position in life" which you gotta understand does come across pretty smug since it implies superiority of opinion/belief and degenerates the disagreer as if they are merely using emotion in their logic. I think ideally you first want to let the battle of logic fly then get into biography details if it's a very sharp disagreement. It may be worthwhile for both sides to hear each other's upbringing and catalyst -- though you might not take the other's lens as your own, it nevertheless will add a little wisdom

mgraczyk 10y ago

"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand, disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that person has experienced that resulted in that point of view." This is great advice for getting along with people and treating others politely. However, I don't think it provides any insight into actually improving public policy or improving one's own beliefs. Of course we all "pick sides" based on our own experiences in debates like these. There will never be any way to systematically remove all bias in a debate. Rather than try to dig up and fully understand the causes of every bias in every individual, we should take the simpler route: Examine just your own biases, judge everyone else's viewpoints based on facts and data alone, and never take strong positions on any point without an abundance of objective justification. You will end up agreeable, epistemically cautious, and continuously learning.

mpartel 10y ago
Examining your own biases is certainly useful, but why not do both? I think the main value of the approach in the article is not to immediately arrive at answers but to promote a better culture of discussion. It may be slow going on a larger scale, and I may be overly optimistic, but I feel that a person does not need very many instances of being genuinely listened to before permanently "converting" into a more accepting and empathetic human being, possibly even one that goes on to pay it forward.
groby_b 10y ago
I'm curious - if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", how will you know all the facts? How will you know you did not miss some data? Sure, for some debates, there is a preponderance of evidence that a specific view is right. For many things in the public light, the debate is not that simple, though. Many of our hotbutton political issues are very complex and nuanced. To stay with the article's example, there is no "correct" answer to "should abortion be legal". It is, at its core, a choice about ethics, and personal values. And any decision on the topic is a compromise. We will never compromise if we don't hear the other person. And even if they have outmoded or irrational beliefs, how will we ever get in agreement if we just say "you are wrong"?

pklausler 10y ago

There's an important distinction to be made between disagreement on the facts and disagreement on their implications. I find that the best conversations can be had by figuring out which points of disagreement are on questions of fact and then asking "how do you know X?". Repeat respectfully as necessary. Peter Boghossian calls this technique "street epistemology".

stefanwlb 10y ago
Excellent point!

drudru11 10y ago

This is beautiful.

__s 10y ago

It isn't just facebook feeds. Google's automatic per user tailoring of search results, & even Google being the primary search provider, furthers this echo chamber concept (as an aside, I remember when we were all referring to this as the hivemind instead of an echo chamber..)

eClass 10y ago

Nice post, so do you remember anything that Donald Trump said?

endgame 10y ago

What the actual shit. Before I could read the text, I got hit with a "sign up for our bullshit newsletter" pop-up. Then after dismissing that I hit space to page down and got shown a SquareSpace login that I couldn't get out of.

kennethcwilbur 10y ago

Those with deepest insights on this topic are least likely to post.

Mendenhall 10y ago

If I really want to convince someone of something, its the last thing I do. The first thing I do is befriend them. They could have wildly different opinion on a subject that I think is dangerous, and its the last thing I would talk about,if we even got that far. I establish first the common ground,not even touching on hot button topics. I find anything we can agree upon "those are cool shoes" and start up a normal conversation void of any intent. If people have their guard up "convincing" is never gonna happen. Too many want to try and force their opinion on others through weight of logic and debate. I find that very lacking and unfruitful. I get to know them,make them laugh,listen to them,ask questions,actually care to get to know them. The little personality traits they display will help establish a raport and know your angle of approach. They will see I am funny and want to make them laugh and have things in common. No rush to convince them of anything. Its like you dont rush trying to get someone to sleep with you by pressuring them. You make the experience pleasant and make them want to engage while you pick up little things about them that will help you get your point across. Its easier to convince a friend to do something than an enemy. Rush nothing and let things play out, if the correct opportunity doesnt arrive then let it pass. When or if you see them again they will remember you in a positive light and you can continue in that way. When the time is right start with the smallest of things to get them to agree with you. Something or anything you know they will like "those are cool shoes arent they?". Them agreeing with you on the smallest of things primes the pump for them to agree on larger. Their mind is already agreeing with you and sees you as friendly. Then ever so slowly start to build on that, all while being content to walk away having "proved" nothing yet always building towards it. As some would say, be wise as a serpent.

known 10y ago

Insulate yourself from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

z3t4 10y ago

Can't stress enough that only listening to the ones with the same view is very dangerous.

z3t4 10y ago
Only surrounding yourself with like-minded will create a biased world view.

brhsiao 10y ago

While I agree with the overall sentiment, people ought to have to earn the privilege of being listened to by meeting a higher standard of reasonableness, self-awareness, and intellectual responsibility than that. The woman was unable herself to have children, so she latches onto the view that those who are able but choose termination are unethical killers. She manufactures further rationalization: "it's not right to go out and sleep with whoever, then just vacuum away the result like it never happened." This is just word salad. She openly throws out, "it's just not right! it's just wrong!" like that's somehow sufficient. Her view is driven by a preadolescent's petulant self-absorption and she takes no responsibility for self-correction. I reject wholesale the idea that personal suffering gives people an excuse, a warrant, to hold petty, juvenile views that inhibit the freedom of others. Life itself consists largely of suffering. People who insist on throwing an eight year old's intellectual tantrum don't need the megaphone they're already given. If the author's merely saying that open listening and compassion, in and of themselves, are valuable, then certainly: it's important to be open to foreign views. But petulant self-absorption isn't a view. It's not a window into any meaningful aspect of the universe. It's outright condescending to extend it sympathy.

eyelidlessness 10y ago
This story seems to be a bit of a rorschach test. It seems that the primary rejection of what the author observed and described is preoccupied with correctness of ideas, while those of us who it touched are preoccupied with understanding why people think the way that they do. I too reject all manner of irrational and harmful views, but I'm concerned with why so many of those views prevail. Understanding why people come to hurt one another is at the center of my attention, because I think that understanding is ammunition in reducing those tendencies. Simply demilitarizing disagreement can go a long way toward reducing the kinds of friction that prevent people from learning and growing when they're wrong. And more importantly, being correct is not the same as not being subject to personal growth. It's a tremendous waste to go through life knowing information that could be valuable to others and to be unable or unwilling to communicate that information to others who don't share it. Empathy is how politics and people move together.
- 10y ago

ThomPete 10y ago

I have always hated the idea that it's the communicators job to make sure people understand them. This is of course true in any professional setting like advertising, PR etc. But in a debate between two parties this insistence and demand is killing most possibilities of actually having a debate. The first problem is that if someone is arguing from a position we have predujize against we will be interpreting the worst possible intent of what is being said while if it's something we agree with we are much more forgiving when interpreting. So we are biased either against hearing the argument or from hearing the flaws depending on whether we agree with the original stance of the argument. So much potential for actually learning something is lost because of the idea that it's only up to the communicator to make sure they are understood. So many insights are lost from demanding other people make themselves understandable rather than trying to understand what they are trying to say.

aninhumer 10y ago
Of course communication is the responsibility of both involved, but you can only ever control one side of it, so you might as well do the best you can.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Thats my point though. Its not only the communicators job to be understandable since even if they are the other side is biased against what they say.

stared 10y ago

From Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and influence people": ''' "I don't blame you one iota for feeling as you do. If I were you I would undoubtedly feel just as you do." An answer like that will soften the most cantankerous old cuss alive. And you can say that and be 100 percent sincere, because if you were the other person you, of course, would feel just as he does. Take Al Capone, for example. Suppose you had inherited the same body and temperament and mind that Al Capone had. Suppose you had had his environment and experiences. You would then be precisely what he was - and where he was. For it is those things - and only those things - that made him what he was. The only reason, for example, that you are not a rattlesnake is that your mother and father weren't rattlesnakes. '''

cvs268 10y ago
Not only does it soothe the other person, this approach is ACTUALLY helpful in improving oneself i.e. how one approaches an argument or a difference of opinion. Once you say this and mean it, you are no longer thinking about how wrong or stupid the other person is. You are no longer frustrated by someone else's apparent incompetence. Instead you start thinking how to share with the other person, the influential thoughts and experiences which you have already had. The sooner you are successful in letting the other person experience the same thoughts and experiences that you already have, the better the chances that the other person can now see your point of view.
- stared 10y ago
  I agree. The general tone of this books is not "how to trick people" but "how to realize what is important for them, that they are important, and act accordingly".

callesgg 10y ago

This is a very good attitude i try to use it myself, it is often hard to phrase the questions to be subtle enough to not be rude. But the one he used here was actually very good, and fairly generic.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jld89 10y ago

This is a great article. We don't need to be always right or prove others wrong, choose carefully the battles and aim for compromise, you don't have to agree to a solution, you just have to approve it.

username3 10y ago

Alan Kay quoted, "Forget about trying to win an argument -- use argumentation to try to understand the issues better and from more perspectives ..." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11941417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11941417

rachkovsky 10y ago

The best on the topic is How To Disagree by Paul Graham http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Rachine 10y ago

AlexTes 10y ago

Beautiful, thank you for your story.