3 ms·

The article is freely interchanging the concepts "being a good listener" and "being perceived as being a good listener" from one sentence to the next. That's w

The article is freely interchanging the concepts "being a good listener" and "being perceived as being a good listener" from one sentence to the next. That's worse than arbitrarily changing the definition (but being consistent with it).

johnfn 10y ago
I don't understand there to be any difference between the two. There's no objective judge of listening. There's only the other person, and how well they feel heard.
- morgante 10y ago
  There can definitely be separate concepts. Someone could be perceived as a good listener because they put on a good show of listening and even ask questions in real time—but when you ask them about the conversation afterwards, they might have very little understanding of what was actually discussed. Likewise, someone could be listening intently while doing a very poor performance of listening.
- xyzzy4 10y ago
  There's definitely a difference. You could be perceived as a good listener, while actually not understanding or remembering what the other person is saying. On the other hand, you could appear to not be listening, but if later quizzed on the words spoken you would ace it.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Try describing the concepts without using the word "listen". Most likely you agree and are fighting about irrelevant definitions.
    - cellularmitosis 10y ago
      I'm not so sure. johnfn claims "There's no objective judge of listening". Why not? Students are familiar with the idea of a standardized reading comprehension test. Is it impossible to imagine that we could construct a listening comprehension test? If so, you could then demonstrate that its possible to flunk the "perceived as good listener" test while acing the "listening comprehension" test -- underscoring that notion that these are distinct concepts.
woodandsteel 10y ago
The meanings of words are determined by usage. If this is what people mean by the term "good listener," then that is what it means.

johnfn 10y ago

I don't understand there to be any difference between the two. There's no objective judge of listening. There's only the other person, and how well they feel heard.

morgante 10y ago
There can definitely be separate concepts. Someone could be perceived as a good listener because they put on a good show of listening and even ask questions in real time—but when you ask them about the conversation afterwards, they might have very little understanding of what was actually discussed. Likewise, someone could be listening intently while doing a very poor performance of listening.
xyzzy4 10y ago
There's definitely a difference. You could be perceived as a good listener, while actually not understanding or remembering what the other person is saying. On the other hand, you could appear to not be listening, but if later quizzed on the words spoken you would ace it.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Try describing the concepts without using the word "listen". Most likely you agree and are fighting about irrelevant definitions.
  - cellularmitosis 10y ago
    I'm not so sure. johnfn claims "There's no objective judge of listening". Why not? Students are familiar with the idea of a standardized reading comprehension test. Is it impossible to imagine that we could construct a listening comprehension test? If so, you could then demonstrate that its possible to flunk the "perceived as good listener" test while acing the "listening comprehension" test -- underscoring that notion that these are distinct concepts.

woodandsteel 10y ago

The meanings of words are determined by usage. If this is what people mean by the term "good listener," then that is what it means.