4 ms·

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

by ploxiln 10y ago

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
That is very much not what woodandsteel is saying. Instead, it's "put their ideas in your words in your mouth". I recall someone's rule for argument (though I don't remember whose rule it was): Once you can restate someone's position to their satisfaction, then you can disagree with them as much as you please - but not before. This rule eliminates the disputes that are a total waste, because one side is arguing against a position that the other side doesn't actually hold.
munificent 10y ago
Oh, dear. I hope you're kidding with this comment. But on the off chance that you aren't, no, that's not what the commenter is saying. You don't put words in their mouth, you put your interpretation of their words in their ears. Active listening, and reflecting back what the speaker says to you in your own words is the human equivalent of an ACK and checksum in networking. It gives them an opportunity to validate that you correctly understood what they were trying to tell you. In practice it goes beyond that. Often, even though all you're trying to do is say the same thing in your words, the unintended color of your own perspective is enough to give them a new way of looking at their own situation. It can be a powerful tool to change someone's thinking.
btilly 10y ago
No. What you do is echo back to them what you understood from what they said for them to correct. After several rounds you arrive at a point where they have said their piece, and you're able to describe it in your words well enough that they believe you understood them. Doing this exercise has three huge benefits: 1. Being listened to in this way is often an emotional release for the speaker. Which takes a lot of emotion out of whatever comes next. 2. As a listener, it is common to add a layer of color on what was said without realizing that this happened. This gets past that tendency so you hear what was actually said. 3. The process tends to bring out details that the speaker didn't present clearly, but are crucial to whatever they believe. All of this sets the stage for a much better future round of responses. Try it. It is hard, but worthwhile.
woodandsteel 10y ago
I said in the OP: "if you get something wrong they can correct you" So the idea is the other person says something, and you say back what you think they are saying. If you got it right, they see you understand them and can move on to the next point they want to say. If you got it wrong, they can correct you. I think this process or something like it is essential for good communication when emotions are high or ideas are complicated.
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12228618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12228618 and marked it off-topic.
- ploxiln 10y ago
  hilarious response to the most on-topic reply in the thread, doing exactly what the parent suggests, and seeing the results EDIT: Frankly, I'm fine with being down-voted, that's to be expected when trying to engage in a logical meta-example, in a touchy-feely thread about being nice in an argument. But I'm a bit put-off by an official HN mod detaching the thread. That's inappropriate. Obviously.
r00fus 10y ago
That's an argumentation anti-pattern called "distorted active listening" (search page) [1] http://vandruff.com/art_converse.html http://vandruff.com/art_converse.html

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

by ploxiln 10y ago

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

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

That is very much not what woodandsteel is saying. Instead, it's "put their ideas in your words in your mouth". I recall someone's rule for argument (though I don't remember whose rule it was): Once you can restate someone's position to their satisfaction, then you can disagree with them as much as you please - but not before. This rule eliminates the disputes that are a total waste, because one side is arguing against a position that the other side doesn't actually hold.

munificent 10y ago

Oh, dear. I hope you're kidding with this comment. But on the off chance that you aren't, no, that's not what the commenter is saying. You don't put words in their mouth, you put your interpretation of their words in their ears. Active listening, and reflecting back what the speaker says to you in your own words is the human equivalent of an ACK and checksum in networking. It gives them an opportunity to validate that you correctly understood what they were trying to tell you. In practice it goes beyond that. Often, even though all you're trying to do is say the same thing in your words, the unintended color of your own perspective is enough to give them a new way of looking at their own situation. It can be a powerful tool to change someone's thinking.

btilly 10y ago

No. What you do is echo back to them what you understood from what they said for them to correct. After several rounds you arrive at a point where they have said their piece, and you're able to describe it in your words well enough that they believe you understood them. Doing this exercise has three huge benefits: 1. Being listened to in this way is often an emotional release for the speaker. Which takes a lot of emotion out of whatever comes next. 2. As a listener, it is common to add a layer of color on what was said without realizing that this happened. This gets past that tendency so you hear what was actually said. 3. The process tends to bring out details that the speaker didn't present clearly, but are crucial to whatever they believe. All of this sets the stage for a much better future round of responses. Try it. It is hard, but worthwhile.

woodandsteel 10y ago

I said in the OP: "if you get something wrong they can correct you" So the idea is the other person says something, and you say back what you think they are saying. If you got it right, they see you understand them and can move on to the next point they want to say. If you got it wrong, they can correct you. I think this process or something like it is essential for good communication when emotions are high or ideas are complicated.

sctb 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12228618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12228618 and marked it off-topic.

ploxiln 10y ago
hilarious response to the most on-topic reply in the thread, doing exactly what the parent suggests, and seeing the results EDIT: Frankly, I'm fine with being down-voted, that's to be expected when trying to engage in a logical meta-example, in a touchy-feely thread about being nice in an argument. But I'm a bit put-off by an official HN mod detaching the thread. That's inappropriate. Obviously.

r00fus 10y ago

That's an argumentation anti-pattern called "distorted active listening" (search page) [1] http://vandruff.com/art_converse.html http://vandruff.com/art_converse.html