6 ms·

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 n

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.
Udo 10y ago
I also found it interesting that this article is hugely concerned with making someone feel loved for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion. I think at some point, the severity of an ideology has to outweigh the desire to accept a person as who they are. We have been somewhat culturally conditioned by the common tropes of storytelling that biography excuses, and in fact makes acceptable, any ideology. We are expected to love characters who are even downright evil, just because they suffered a personal loss. In other cases, we're expected to grant special allowances to people just because they are very offended. A bad idea is a bad idea. Making it immune to criticism on account of the personal circumstances of the person expressing that idea is a really destructive mechanism, especially when that idea affects other people.
- tempestn 10y ago
  The thing is, even if you take as a given that someone's idea is inherently bad, criticizing them for it will accomplish less than nothing. This is perhaps more clear than ever in the world today. Only by actually listening to a person, and treating them as a person worthy of respect, can you have any chance of having a meaningful dialogue, and perhaps, in some cases, allowing them to change their opinion. (Also of course in some cases you may find yourself reconsidering your own opinion, or recognizing some new nuance you had previously disregarded, or similar.) I actually had a conversation kind of like this with my Dad recently. We tend to agree on most things, but we were discussing a question from the political compass[1] - one of the few we disagreed strongly on. It asked, essentially, whether a person should be required to work, if able, in order to receive support from society. Our initial positions were pretty strongly opposite, and we were both surprised by the other's thoughts. We each sort of explained our thinking, and listened to the other's. I understood where he was coming from, but still disagreed with his conclusions, and that's where we left it. The next day he called me up and said that he'd been thinking a lot about what I'd said, and that he'd come to change his opinion nearly 180 degrees. What's funny was that I'd been thinking about the conversation too, and had actually moderated my opinion a bit too (although not as much), and came to agree with a couple of his points. It was really cool, because neither of us changed the other's mind; we changed our own minds after the fact. Now sure, we have a good relationship to begin with, and were having a good-natured discussion. It's going to be more difficult when you vehemently disagree with someone about nearly everything. But at least by listening it's possible that you'll accomplish something. [1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/
taneq 10y ago
Likewise. The last time I properly tried to understand someone with whom I disagreed, it was a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked on my door. I was respectful, and gave them a solid chance to explain why they believed as they did, and the guy did open up a bit about the way that his existential fears during the Cuban missile crisis lead him back to the church for comfort, but it fairly rapidly came down to their dogma. They seemed very genuine, so maybe I just didn't ask the right questions at the right time.
falcolas 10y ago
Someone quoting the Bible at you is actually a very useful output from such a conversation, since it gives you a pretty good reference point on the framework for many of their beliefs. It also naturally segues into "what lead to your belief in the Bible?" The output from that question can be very interesting sometimes.

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.

Udo 10y ago

I also found it interesting that this article is hugely concerned with making someone feel loved for expressing a desire to literally have everybody killed who had an abortion. I think at some point, the severity of an ideology has to outweigh the desire to accept a person as who they are. We have been somewhat culturally conditioned by the common tropes of storytelling that biography excuses, and in fact makes acceptable, any ideology. We are expected to love characters who are even downright evil, just because they suffered a personal loss. In other cases, we're expected to grant special allowances to people just because they are very offended. A bad idea is a bad idea. Making it immune to criticism on account of the personal circumstances of the person expressing that idea is a really destructive mechanism, especially when that idea affects other people.

tempestn 10y ago
The thing is, even if you take as a given that someone's idea is inherently bad, criticizing them for it will accomplish less than nothing. This is perhaps more clear than ever in the world today. Only by actually listening to a person, and treating them as a person worthy of respect, can you have any chance of having a meaningful dialogue, and perhaps, in some cases, allowing them to change their opinion. (Also of course in some cases you may find yourself reconsidering your own opinion, or recognizing some new nuance you had previously disregarded, or similar.) I actually had a conversation kind of like this with my Dad recently. We tend to agree on most things, but we were discussing a question from the political compass[1] - one of the few we disagreed strongly on. It asked, essentially, whether a person should be required to work, if able, in order to receive support from society. Our initial positions were pretty strongly opposite, and we were both surprised by the other's thoughts. We each sort of explained our thinking, and listened to the other's. I understood where he was coming from, but still disagreed with his conclusions, and that's where we left it. The next day he called me up and said that he'd been thinking a lot about what I'd said, and that he'd come to change his opinion nearly 180 degrees. What's funny was that I'd been thinking about the conversation too, and had actually moderated my opinion a bit too (although not as much), and came to agree with a couple of his points. It was really cool, because neither of us changed the other's mind; we changed our own minds after the fact. Now sure, we have a good relationship to begin with, and were having a good-natured discussion. It's going to be more difficult when you vehemently disagree with someone about nearly everything. But at least by listening it's possible that you'll accomplish something. [1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/

taneq 10y ago

Likewise. The last time I properly tried to understand someone with whom I disagreed, it was a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked on my door. I was respectful, and gave them a solid chance to explain why they believed as they did, and the guy did open up a bit about the way that his existential fears during the Cuban missile crisis lead him back to the church for comfort, but it fairly rapidly came down to their dogma. They seemed very genuine, so maybe I just didn't ask the right questions at the right time.

falcolas 10y ago

Someone quoting the Bible at you is actually a very useful output from such a conversation, since it gives you a pretty good reference point on the framework for many of their beliefs. It also naturally segues into "what lead to your belief in the Bible?" The output from that question can be very interesting sometimes.