12 ms·

Environmentalist didn't speak for 17 years to learn how to listen to opponents

174 points by colinprince 8y ago

mabbo 8y ago
John Francis's talk[0] was one of the very early TED online videos to go viral- definitely the first one I remember watching, introducing me to the entire TED format. Pretty powerful speaker. That said, having studied ASL for a few years in University I find the view of "not talking" pretty simple. So much can be communicated without your vocal chords, so much can be "said" without speaking. Though, maybe that was part of his point. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/john_francis_walks_the_earth?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/john_francis_walks_the_earth?langu...
- gridlockd 8y ago
  > Pretty powerful speaker. Ironic.
- ysavir 8y ago
  > Though, maybe that was part of his point. As the article states, that was not his point. The point of the experiment was for him to stop saying and to start listening to what others are saying, even if its not a perspective or argument he himself supports.
  - minikites 8y ago
    >even if its not a perspective or argument he himself supports This assume all perspectives/arguments are valid. Should we listen to the arguments put forth by someone who believes the Earth is flat?
    - klank 8y ago
      > This assume all perspectives/arguments are valid Not at all. It only assumes that an understanding of an argument is necessary to engage with it properly.
      - minikites 8y ago
        I disagree, by engaging a bad faith argument in good faith, you are playing their game and are going to lose by definition: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
        burfog 8y ago
        Dismissing your opponents as "bad faith" and "completely unaware of the absurdity" and "frivolous" is a good indication that your own beliefs may be so. You are completely blocking out any consideration of your opponents. This suggests that you fear becoming convinced that they are right. You fear being forced to confront the fact that your own beliefs have not come about by a rational decision-making process.
        minikites 8y ago
        What rational decision making process results in believing that people with darker skin are sub-human?
        nostrademons 8y ago
        People don't make decisions rationally. If you want to change peoples' minds, you have to engage with the emotions underneath their rationalizations.
        ordu 8y ago
        > by engaging a bad faith argument in good faith, you are playing their game and are going to lose by definition What does it mean to lose in a communication? You said "by definition", but what is the definition of losing?
    - KeepFlying 8y ago
      I'm the most cynical interpretation possible: You need to listen to them in order to be able to refute them. So if you want to change their minds you need to listen to understand what their belief is founded on so you know what you need to convince them of. But in a more open way of seeing it: It's important to understand where their beliefs are coming from to understand why they believe what they do. Maybe their belief is based on a fear of government and government influence on their lives. So maybe there is merit in talking about where that fear comes from. The flat Earth portion of their beliefs is not valid. But their reasoning for it might include some interesting points to discuss that can help everyone be able to work together better.
      - SkyBelow 8y ago
        >You need to listen to them in order to be able to refute them. So if you want to change their minds you need to listen to understand what their belief is founded on so you know what you need to convince them of. I agree, but I don't think you will get this just by listening to them. My own cynical interpretation is that people are often driven by more selfish desires which are the reasons they are attracted to certain positions, which they then find more palatable justifications for. The person arguing for free college and paying off existing college debt has many arguments, but the one that actually matters is that they are paying $1,000 a month on a student loan and highly prefer any solution that leaves them with that money back. Even a solution that increases taxes, as long as the taxes aren't more than $1,000, is preferable to their current state. The person arguing for a reduces/removed minimum wage, while having a lot of argument as to the negative impacts of minimum wage, personally thinks that prices will go up if minimum wage goes up and is against it because of the loss of purchasing power. (Consider that this outcome actually happening or not is irrelevant, only the belief it will happen matters when judging why a person takes the stance they want.) When I've argued for lowering the drinking age to 18, people will often assume I'm someone under 21 who wants the ability to legally drink. When I've argued for lowering the voting age below 18, people often assume I have political leanings that will be bolstered by under 18 voters. Both cases are false, but personally I cannot fault the people from assuming such based on how often it appears those assumptions are true.
    - tialaramex 8y ago
      Sure, if you have spare bandwidth it can be useful to understand why they're wrong.
    - ysavir 8y ago
      > This assume all perspectives/arguments are valid. It assumes no such thing. > Should we listen to the arguments put forth by someone who believes the Earth is flat? Listening does not imply joining in belief. Listening is the act of developing an understanding of another's perspective and why they hold to that perspective. The keyword being understanding, not agreeing. What we should learn from John Francis is to always be willing to listen; that if we want to live in a world where people listen to us, we have to be willing to listen to those people as well. If we want a society that uses civil discourse as a means of growing, we are obligated to learn how to listen and understand. We are under no obligation to agree with what we hear, but we do owe it to others to understand where they are coming from, and why they hold the belief they have. And on the fortunate occasions, perhaps to learn from what they have to say.
    - lhorie 8y ago
      You are not required to listen to anything anyone says, but if your goal is to get through to a flat earther/creationist/etc, it helps to understand their mental framework, or you'll just end up wasting time talking past each other. An interesting exercise I did way back in the day for fun was to try to debate some of those topics using only arguments within _their_ mental framework (e.g. if X pro-flat-earth argument is true, then why does the Bible contradictorily says Y). If anything, I ended up getting something out of it, as doing my own research to try to formulate these arguments taught me about topics I wasn't nearly as familiar w/ (e.g. history of religious documents)
      - balabaster 8y ago
        Another way is to learn to debate the merit of their arguments even though you don't believe them. For you can only argue your case when you understand theirs.
    - dang 8y ago
      Not all arguments are valid, but all people are valid. That's the reason for listening.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Listening is itself a form of communication, and a very powerful one.
- eindiran 8y ago
  ASL and other sign languages are literally languages. There are linguists that study how subfields in linguistics that traditionally only applied to spoken languages (e.g. phonology) have analogues in sign languages[0], so its now widely appreciated that anything expressible in spoken languages as a class is expressible in sign languages. All of that to say "not talking" has nothing to do with talking in a sign language. John Francis took a vow of silence. He wasn't talking in a non-spoken language; he was not talking. There is a lot you can do with non-verbal communication (i.e. non-linguistic communication, through your body), but that isn't nearly the same thing as speaking a sign language. [0] See Diane Brentari's research for example: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/prosodic-model-sign-language-phonology https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/prosodic-model-sign-language-...
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    This: > so its now widely appreciated that anything expressible in spoken languages as a class is expressible in sign languages doesn't follow from this: > There are linguists that study how subfields in linguistics that traditionally only applied to spoken languages (e.g. phonology) have analogues in sign languages at all. For example, phonology is the study of what sounds can be produced in a language, what equivalence classes they belong to, and in what contexts they can occur. That doesn't apply directly to silent languages, but it's straightforward to say that the "phonology" of a sign language would be the gestures that it uses, which gestures are considered equivalent or distinct, and the contexts in which any given gesture can occur. But the question of what it's possible to express doesn't need to be analogized. It applies just as directly to sign languages as it does to spoken languages. The conclusion that sign languages have the same expressive power as spoken languages would be equally true or false regardless of whether anyone was studying the analogue of sound production in soundless languages.
    - eindiran 8y ago
      The point there is that it's not necessarily obvious that sign languages would have phonology or morhphology or syntax, but once you've realized that that's true it absolutely does follow that they are as expressive (in the technical sense) as spoken languages. I don't want to get into an argument about linguistic relativity and the Minimalist program on Hacker News, but the Minimalists believe that the expressiveness of languages stem from their syntax: once a language has two syntactic operations (called "merge" and "move", that all natural languages have[0]), it becomes as expressive as every other natural language. Where you hide the complexity of this expressiveness depends a lot on the language: some put it in the lexicon, others in the morphology, etc. But at the end of the day, if sign languages have a syntax, they fall into the same class of expressiveness as spoken languages. As linguists started studying how something that looked like phonology, morphology and syntax might manifest in sign languages, it became clear that sign languages did have a syntax. You can see something that imo looks like the "move" operation going on with topicalization in ASL and something like "merge" going on with negations and numerical incorporation, although I don't actually know enough about ASL to say for sure. [0] Again, I really don't want to argue about this but one linguist named Daniel Everett doesn't think this is true (he believes that a language called Piraha does not have recursion or, by implication, a merge operation). But he's probably wrong, and Andrew Nevins and David Pesetsky at MIT have a very compelling argument about why that is.
mistrial9 8y ago
.. while the learned and wise hone wisdom, kleptocrats in Washington DC write gag orders and cheap leases
jtbayly 8y ago
Silent protest is hardly the same thing as not speaking in order "to learn how to listen to opponents."
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  Agreed. It seems like it was more of an outcome than a cause.
- tjbiddle 8y ago
  If you watched the video, you'd realize this has nothing to do with any sort of protest. He originally decided to be silent for a day simply for being tired of arguing and wanted to rest - and then realized he began listening more as a result.
minikites 8y ago
Many opponents of environmentalism aren't arguing their points in good faith and acting as if they are cedes victory to them. To many opponents of environmentalism, it's not about saving/destroying the Earth, it's about spite. Spite for "liberals", spite for "the nanny state", spite for anyone who isn't on "their side". https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme... >“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt... >Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.
- Frondo 8y ago
  It is hard to characterize anti-environmental behaviors as anything other than spiteful; there's never a conversation about how to appropriately account for externalities, never talk about trade-offs. This is what you get instead: https://youtu.be/rYPMbLO4pAY https://youtu.be/rYPMbLO4pAY The comments on that video are all mean-spirited, too, and that's just one of many...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - otvsh 8y ago
    There it doesn't look like either side is trying to debate anything, it's just a funny video.
  - burfog 8y ago
    That ("anything other than spiteful") sounds like dehumanizing an opponent. Are you sure that you yourself are willing to consider trade-offs and account for externalities? Consideration would include the possibility of "no regulation". It would include a recognition that regulation often just pushes the jobs out to China, with the pollution blowing back across the ocean and an added helping of pollution from container ships burning bunker fuel.
sunkenvicar 8y ago
Canadian taxpayers give a billion dollars to the CBC every year. In return we get American-centric stories on the front page that seem to reflect our governing party’s ideology.
- all2 8y ago
  Gee, a state funded news outlet turns out to be the political mouthpiece of the ruling party? Who'd have thought this could happen? As it stands, though, many news outlets in the USA demonstrate that they don't need to be state funded to be political mouthpieces. I see real journalism happening at the state and local level at this point. It seems mostly the big players that can afford to not do their jobs.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  Conservatives always strike me as cheap. Always complaining about money, tax dollars this tax dollars that. Like if you went to dinner at their house they'd make six people share a box of craft dinner. Money is just paper, so why don't we spend it on making each other's lives better and happier?
  - rocky_rock 8y ago
    A new car would make my life better. Will you buy one for me with your paper money?
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    That's an unfair characterization - either side can make the easy insult that their opponents are greedy/stingy. Imagine if someone characterized the left-leaning side as "always complaining" of how there is a new medical innovation here, new real estate development there, wringing their hands about how they don't get instant free service from all the people who made it happen. Money is not just paper, it is a direct representation of time and labor. The non-consenting seizure of one's property and labor can also be considered theft, serfdom, or slavery, depending on the circumstances. Inserting layers of indirection, good intentions, bureaucracy, and limiting it to 40% of your year's crop does not make it less serious of a subject. You can argue that some of it may always be necessary, and I would agree. But it shouldn't be treated lightly.
modzu 8y ago
im curious to know how he got through the oral defence of his phd. would they grant an exception for these circumstances? pretty cool
- michaelcampbell 8y ago
  How would ANY other non-speaker do it? Presumably there are plenty of deaf PhD's about who have never, nor have the ability, to speak.
  - modzu 8y ago
    accommodating a disability is different than a vow, though, right? it just strikes me as interesting.
    - zupzupper 8y ago
      True, though I imagine most universities would also honor a candidates religious needs in this sort of situation, which would fall more under a personal choice rather than a physical impairment.
ravenstine 8y ago
I naturally don't make small talk as much as people usually do, and came up with a saying when people tell me that I'm "so quiet": If you're always talking, you can't hear what's going on.
- balabaster 8y ago
  I say this to my kids all the time! They never stop talking... in fact, half of the people around me never stop talking. It's astounding they ever manage to learn anything, honestly.
  - philipov 8y ago
    They don't.
  - dmix 8y ago
    Some people just need to voice every thought in their head. The best is when two of these people start rambling to each other, they can go on for hours. I used to date someone who always read everything out loud and talked things out verbally while writing. Which they claimed helped them think but I'm not convinced.
    - not_kurt_godel 8y ago
      > The best is when two of these people start rambling to each other, they can go on for hours A phenomenon otherwise known as "conversation".
      - mwfunk 8y ago
        No, that's just people talking at each other. Conversation is when they listen to each other too.
      - smhenderson 8y ago
        I know what you’re saying but when I read the parent comment I couldn’t help but think of an episode of Star Trek where Data and some commander are introduced to each other and they begin to talk for seemingly hours about nothing but trivia. Rather than conversation I think the more appropriate moniker for what the parent comment was describing would be “small talk”.
jasaloo 8y ago
Anyone who found this story intriguing should immediately go buy "Climate: A New Story" by Charles Eisenstein. He explores how we use "war language" when talking about environmental issues and how that undercuts our efforts... then he proposes how we get out of that conversational rut, with allies, people on the fence, and even climate change deniers.
- Vagantem 8y ago
  Read it for free here: https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/ https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Panino 8y ago
This article is very short but does a good job touching on an aspect of his life. To anyone interested in John Francis, consider reading his book Planetwalker. It's beautiful, unique, and inspiring. Think I'll read it again soon.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Long term vows of silence actually seem like they can produce pretty unhealthy result also - this is a story of a situation where a couple of people died during a long term vow of silence. https://info-buddhism.com/geshe_michael_roach-Death-and-Madness-at-Diamond-Mountain.html https://info-buddhism.com/geshe_michael_roach-Death-and-Madn... Edit: grammar + I'd note even many practices that involve asceticism give some warning about extreme asceticism - the "middle way" of Buddhism is middle between ordinary life and extreme practices.
- hvs 8y ago
  That's a pretty broad statement drawn from one strange case.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    Meditation broadly is known for having both risks and rewards[1] (edit: studying qigong I heard occasionally of the dangers of qigong psychosis[2], a related problem). Extreme meditation can produce greater discipline, clarity and so-forth. But it stands to reason it can produce more problematic results too. [1] https://qz.com/993465/theres-a-dark-side-to-meditation-that-no-one-talks-about/ https://qz.com/993465/theres-a-dark-side-to-meditation-that-... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336217 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336217
    - drb91 8y ago
      I don’t subscribe to asceticism in the least, but the perceived benefits and dangers are subjective and unlikely to be shared with health professionals. What you are referencing sounds like a similar situation. I believe the least painful life is lived on the middle path so I broadly agree, but not all will.
      - wahern 8y ago
        I don't think it's controversial that meditation practices can be problematic for some people with or predisposed to certain mental health issues. Some people just can't be left to their thoughts. If thoughts are unhealthy and a disorder effects self-regulation of and responses to one's thoughts, meditation may only make things worse, and has proven to do so.
robbrit 8y ago
Does a vow of silence include texting or email? He says in the video that he wrote mail, so I'm wondering where one would draw a line.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  His vow ended in 1990, so no texting, and likely no email. He completed a doctorate, so clearly he wrote manuscripts / his dissertation, but I'd have to imagine that he regularly used written communication with his advisor. Probably lots of letters, overall.
- zupzupper 8y ago
  I think a vow of this sort is a very personal one, so I'd guess the rules are sort of up to him, it sounds like he stopped speaking, but communicated in other ways. The article mentions he earned his PhD during his 'vow' so I would guess he'd have done at least a bit of writing in addition to mail.
codr7 8y ago
I did 3 months hard core full time Yoga in an ashram some years ago. As part of the program; I didn't speak, read or write for a month. Or cut nails or hair, but that's another story :) As an added bonus; the entire group followed the same program, which meant that I didn't have to listen to them either. The main take home for me was that most of the things that I feel are really important to say in my daily life aren't. Once it was over, being expected to speak felt like a burden.
- keyle 8y ago
  Wow. Thinking about this, I think I could take on the "not speaking part" fairly easily. Although I'd still exclaim stuff out loud about my own performance at whatever I'm doing (e.g. foot tripping, "nice work dhead!"). Giving up writing is also possible given I'd have no devices around or paper. But giving up reading would be the toughest. Trapped in my own mind for a month, I'd need LONG forest walks. I'd basically have to walk all the time. Were you allowed humming?
  - codr7 8y ago
    I know, I've unfortunately been slipping back into that nasty habit. But I realize that it's a show my ego puts on for other egos; because that's just part of what egos do, mock any sign of being human. Fortunately, the ashram is located in the middle of nowhere with plenty of wild nature to explore. We were encouraged to not make any sounds at all, or gestures/miming; beyond what was absolutely critical.
- throwaway082729 8y ago
  Where was this ashram?
  - codr7 8y ago
    Southern Sweden, surprisingly enough :) https://www.yogameditation.com/retreats/the-3-month-sadhana-retreat/ https://www.yogameditation.com/retreats/the-3-month-sadhana-...
- 8y ago
volkisch 8y ago
Wow. Powerful.
dondawest 8y ago
Sounds like he wasn’t doing much “active listening”

174 points by colinprince 8y ago

John Francis's talk[0] was one of the very early TED online videos to go viral- definitely the first one I remember watching, introducing me to the entire TED format. Pretty powerful speaker. That said, having studied ASL for a few years in University I find the view of "not talking" pretty simple. So much can be communicated without your vocal chords, so much can be "said" without speaking. Though, maybe that was part of his point. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/john_francis_walks_the_earth?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/john_francis_walks_the_earth?langu...

gridlockd 8y ago
> Pretty powerful speaker. Ironic.
ysavir 8y ago
> Though, maybe that was part of his point. As the article states, that was not his point. The point of the experiment was for him to stop saying and to start listening to what others are saying, even if its not a perspective or argument he himself supports.
- minikites 8y ago
  >even if its not a perspective or argument he himself supports This assume all perspectives/arguments are valid. Should we listen to the arguments put forth by someone who believes the Earth is flat?
  - klank 8y ago
    > This assume all perspectives/arguments are valid Not at all. It only assumes that an understanding of an argument is necessary to engage with it properly.
    - minikites 8y ago
      I disagree, by engaging a bad faith argument in good faith, you are playing their game and are going to lose by definition: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
      - burfog 8y ago
        Dismissing your opponents as "bad faith" and "completely unaware of the absurdity" and "frivolous" is a good indication that your own beliefs may be so. You are completely blocking out any consideration of your opponents. This suggests that you fear becoming convinced that they are right. You fear being forced to confront the fact that your own beliefs have not come about by a rational decision-making process.
        minikites 8y ago
        What rational decision making process results in believing that people with darker skin are sub-human?
        nostrademons 8y ago
        People don't make decisions rationally. If you want to change peoples' minds, you have to engage with the emotions underneath their rationalizations.
      - ordu 8y ago
        > by engaging a bad faith argument in good faith, you are playing their game and are going to lose by definition What does it mean to lose in a communication? You said "by definition", but what is the definition of losing?
  - KeepFlying 8y ago
    I'm the most cynical interpretation possible: You need to listen to them in order to be able to refute them. So if you want to change their minds you need to listen to understand what their belief is founded on so you know what you need to convince them of. But in a more open way of seeing it: It's important to understand where their beliefs are coming from to understand why they believe what they do. Maybe their belief is based on a fear of government and government influence on their lives. So maybe there is merit in talking about where that fear comes from. The flat Earth portion of their beliefs is not valid. But their reasoning for it might include some interesting points to discuss that can help everyone be able to work together better.
    - SkyBelow 8y ago
      >You need to listen to them in order to be able to refute them. So if you want to change their minds you need to listen to understand what their belief is founded on so you know what you need to convince them of. I agree, but I don't think you will get this just by listening to them. My own cynical interpretation is that people are often driven by more selfish desires which are the reasons they are attracted to certain positions, which they then find more palatable justifications for. The person arguing for free college and paying off existing college debt has many arguments, but the one that actually matters is that they are paying $1,000 a month on a student loan and highly prefer any solution that leaves them with that money back. Even a solution that increases taxes, as long as the taxes aren't more than $1,000, is preferable to their current state. The person arguing for a reduces/removed minimum wage, while having a lot of argument as to the negative impacts of minimum wage, personally thinks that prices will go up if minimum wage goes up and is against it because of the loss of purchasing power. (Consider that this outcome actually happening or not is irrelevant, only the belief it will happen matters when judging why a person takes the stance they want.) When I've argued for lowering the drinking age to 18, people will often assume I'm someone under 21 who wants the ability to legally drink. When I've argued for lowering the voting age below 18, people often assume I have political leanings that will be bolstered by under 18 voters. Both cases are false, but personally I cannot fault the people from assuming such based on how often it appears those assumptions are true.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    Sure, if you have spare bandwidth it can be useful to understand why they're wrong.
  - ysavir 8y ago
    > This assume all perspectives/arguments are valid. It assumes no such thing. > Should we listen to the arguments put forth by someone who believes the Earth is flat? Listening does not imply joining in belief. Listening is the act of developing an understanding of another's perspective and why they hold to that perspective. The keyword being understanding, not agreeing. What we should learn from John Francis is to always be willing to listen; that if we want to live in a world where people listen to us, we have to be willing to listen to those people as well. If we want a society that uses civil discourse as a means of growing, we are obligated to learn how to listen and understand. We are under no obligation to agree with what we hear, but we do owe it to others to understand where they are coming from, and why they hold the belief they have. And on the fortunate occasions, perhaps to learn from what they have to say.
  - lhorie 8y ago
    You are not required to listen to anything anyone says, but if your goal is to get through to a flat earther/creationist/etc, it helps to understand their mental framework, or you'll just end up wasting time talking past each other. An interesting exercise I did way back in the day for fun was to try to debate some of those topics using only arguments within _their_ mental framework (e.g. if X pro-flat-earth argument is true, then why does the Bible contradictorily says Y). If anything, I ended up getting something out of it, as doing my own research to try to formulate these arguments taught me about topics I wasn't nearly as familiar w/ (e.g. history of religious documents)
    - balabaster 8y ago
      Another way is to learn to debate the merit of their arguments even though you don't believe them. For you can only argue your case when you understand theirs.
  - dang 8y ago
    Not all arguments are valid, but all people are valid. That's the reason for listening.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Listening is itself a form of communication, and a very powerful one.
eindiran 8y ago
ASL and other sign languages are literally languages. There are linguists that study how subfields in linguistics that traditionally only applied to spoken languages (e.g. phonology) have analogues in sign languages[0], so its now widely appreciated that anything expressible in spoken languages as a class is expressible in sign languages. All of that to say "not talking" has nothing to do with talking in a sign language. John Francis took a vow of silence. He wasn't talking in a non-spoken language; he was not talking. There is a lot you can do with non-verbal communication (i.e. non-linguistic communication, through your body), but that isn't nearly the same thing as speaking a sign language. [0] See Diane Brentari's research for example: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/prosodic-model-sign-language-phonology https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/prosodic-model-sign-language-...
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  This: > so its now widely appreciated that anything expressible in spoken languages as a class is expressible in sign languages doesn't follow from this: > There are linguists that study how subfields in linguistics that traditionally only applied to spoken languages (e.g. phonology) have analogues in sign languages at all. For example, phonology is the study of what sounds can be produced in a language, what equivalence classes they belong to, and in what contexts they can occur. That doesn't apply directly to silent languages, but it's straightforward to say that the "phonology" of a sign language would be the gestures that it uses, which gestures are considered equivalent or distinct, and the contexts in which any given gesture can occur. But the question of what it's possible to express doesn't need to be analogized. It applies just as directly to sign languages as it does to spoken languages. The conclusion that sign languages have the same expressive power as spoken languages would be equally true or false regardless of whether anyone was studying the analogue of sound production in soundless languages.
  - eindiran 8y ago
    The point there is that it's not necessarily obvious that sign languages would have phonology or morhphology or syntax, but once you've realized that that's true it absolutely does follow that they are as expressive (in the technical sense) as spoken languages. I don't want to get into an argument about linguistic relativity and the Minimalist program on Hacker News, but the Minimalists believe that the expressiveness of languages stem from their syntax: once a language has two syntactic operations (called "merge" and "move", that all natural languages have[0]), it becomes as expressive as every other natural language. Where you hide the complexity of this expressiveness depends a lot on the language: some put it in the lexicon, others in the morphology, etc. But at the end of the day, if sign languages have a syntax, they fall into the same class of expressiveness as spoken languages. As linguists started studying how something that looked like phonology, morphology and syntax might manifest in sign languages, it became clear that sign languages did have a syntax. You can see something that imo looks like the "move" operation going on with topicalization in ASL and something like "merge" going on with negations and numerical incorporation, although I don't actually know enough about ASL to say for sure. [0] Again, I really don't want to argue about this but one linguist named Daniel Everett doesn't think this is true (he believes that a language called Piraha does not have recursion or, by implication, a merge operation). But he's probably wrong, and Andrew Nevins and David Pesetsky at MIT have a very compelling argument about why that is.

mistrial9 8y ago

.. while the learned and wise hone wisdom, kleptocrats in Washington DC write gag orders and cheap leases

jtbayly 8y ago

Silent protest is hardly the same thing as not speaking in order "to learn how to listen to opponents."

stronglikedan 8y ago
Agreed. It seems like it was more of an outcome than a cause.
tjbiddle 8y ago
If you watched the video, you'd realize this has nothing to do with any sort of protest. He originally decided to be silent for a day simply for being tired of arguing and wanted to rest - and then realized he began listening more as a result.

minikites 8y ago

Many opponents of environmentalism aren't arguing their points in good faith and acting as if they are cedes victory to them. To many opponents of environmentalism, it's not about saving/destroying the Earth, it's about spite. Spite for "liberals", spite for "the nanny state", spite for anyone who isn't on "their side". https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme... >“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt... >Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.

Frondo 8y ago
It is hard to characterize anti-environmental behaviors as anything other than spiteful; there's never a conversation about how to appropriately account for externalities, never talk about trade-offs. This is what you get instead: https://youtu.be/rYPMbLO4pAY https://youtu.be/rYPMbLO4pAY The comments on that video are all mean-spirited, too, and that's just one of many...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- otvsh 8y ago
  There it doesn't look like either side is trying to debate anything, it's just a funny video.
- burfog 8y ago
  That ("anything other than spiteful") sounds like dehumanizing an opponent. Are you sure that you yourself are willing to consider trade-offs and account for externalities? Consideration would include the possibility of "no regulation". It would include a recognition that regulation often just pushes the jobs out to China, with the pollution blowing back across the ocean and an added helping of pollution from container ships burning bunker fuel.

sunkenvicar 8y ago

Canadian taxpayers give a billion dollars to the CBC every year. In return we get American-centric stories on the front page that seem to reflect our governing party’s ideology.

all2 8y ago
Gee, a state funded news outlet turns out to be the political mouthpiece of the ruling party? Who'd have thought this could happen? As it stands, though, many news outlets in the USA demonstrate that they don't need to be state funded to be political mouthpieces. I see real journalism happening at the state and local level at this point. It seems mostly the big players that can afford to not do their jobs.
gerbilly 8y ago
Conservatives always strike me as cheap. Always complaining about money, tax dollars this tax dollars that. Like if you went to dinner at their house they'd make six people share a box of craft dinner. Money is just paper, so why don't we spend it on making each other's lives better and happier?
- rocky_rock 8y ago
  A new car would make my life better. Will you buy one for me with your paper money?
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  That's an unfair characterization - either side can make the easy insult that their opponents are greedy/stingy. Imagine if someone characterized the left-leaning side as "always complaining" of how there is a new medical innovation here, new real estate development there, wringing their hands about how they don't get instant free service from all the people who made it happen. Money is not just paper, it is a direct representation of time and labor. The non-consenting seizure of one's property and labor can also be considered theft, serfdom, or slavery, depending on the circumstances. Inserting layers of indirection, good intentions, bureaucracy, and limiting it to 40% of your year's crop does not make it less serious of a subject. You can argue that some of it may always be necessary, and I would agree. But it shouldn't be treated lightly.

modzu 8y ago

im curious to know how he got through the oral defence of his phd. would they grant an exception for these circumstances? pretty cool

michaelcampbell 8y ago
How would ANY other non-speaker do it? Presumably there are plenty of deaf PhD's about who have never, nor have the ability, to speak.
- modzu 8y ago
  accommodating a disability is different than a vow, though, right? it just strikes me as interesting.
  - zupzupper 8y ago
    True, though I imagine most universities would also honor a candidates religious needs in this sort of situation, which would fall more under a personal choice rather than a physical impairment.

ravenstine 8y ago

I naturally don't make small talk as much as people usually do, and came up with a saying when people tell me that I'm "so quiet": If you're always talking, you can't hear what's going on.

balabaster 8y ago
I say this to my kids all the time! They never stop talking... in fact, half of the people around me never stop talking. It's astounding they ever manage to learn anything, honestly.
- philipov 8y ago
  They don't.
- dmix 8y ago
  Some people just need to voice every thought in their head. The best is when two of these people start rambling to each other, they can go on for hours. I used to date someone who always read everything out loud and talked things out verbally while writing. Which they claimed helped them think but I'm not convinced.
  - not_kurt_godel 8y ago
    > The best is when two of these people start rambling to each other, they can go on for hours A phenomenon otherwise known as "conversation".
    - mwfunk 8y ago
      No, that's just people talking at each other. Conversation is when they listen to each other too.
    - smhenderson 8y ago
      I know what you’re saying but when I read the parent comment I couldn’t help but think of an episode of Star Trek where Data and some commander are introduced to each other and they begin to talk for seemingly hours about nothing but trivia. Rather than conversation I think the more appropriate moniker for what the parent comment was describing would be “small talk”.

jasaloo 8y ago

Anyone who found this story intriguing should immediately go buy "Climate: A New Story" by Charles Eisenstein. He explores how we use "war language" when talking about environmental issues and how that undercuts our efforts... then he proposes how we get out of that conversational rut, with allies, people on the fence, and even climate change deniers.

Vagantem 8y ago
Read it for free here: https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/ https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Panino 8y ago

This article is very short but does a good job touching on an aspect of his life. To anyone interested in John Francis, consider reading his book Planetwalker. It's beautiful, unique, and inspiring. Think I'll read it again soon.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Long term vows of silence actually seem like they can produce pretty unhealthy result also - this is a story of a situation where a couple of people died during a long term vow of silence. https://info-buddhism.com/geshe_michael_roach-Death-and-Madness-at-Diamond-Mountain.html https://info-buddhism.com/geshe_michael_roach-Death-and-Madn... Edit: grammar + I'd note even many practices that involve asceticism give some warning about extreme asceticism - the "middle way" of Buddhism is middle between ordinary life and extreme practices.

hvs 8y ago
That's a pretty broad statement drawn from one strange case.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Meditation broadly is known for having both risks and rewards[1] (edit: studying qigong I heard occasionally of the dangers of qigong psychosis[2], a related problem). Extreme meditation can produce greater discipline, clarity and so-forth. But it stands to reason it can produce more problematic results too. [1] https://qz.com/993465/theres-a-dark-side-to-meditation-that-no-one-talks-about/ https://qz.com/993465/theres-a-dark-side-to-meditation-that-... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336217 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336217
  - drb91 8y ago
    I don’t subscribe to asceticism in the least, but the perceived benefits and dangers are subjective and unlikely to be shared with health professionals. What you are referencing sounds like a similar situation. I believe the least painful life is lived on the middle path so I broadly agree, but not all will.
    - wahern 8y ago
      I don't think it's controversial that meditation practices can be problematic for some people with or predisposed to certain mental health issues. Some people just can't be left to their thoughts. If thoughts are unhealthy and a disorder effects self-regulation of and responses to one's thoughts, meditation may only make things worse, and has proven to do so.

robbrit 8y ago

Does a vow of silence include texting or email? He says in the video that he wrote mail, so I'm wondering where one would draw a line.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
His vow ended in 1990, so no texting, and likely no email. He completed a doctorate, so clearly he wrote manuscripts / his dissertation, but I'd have to imagine that he regularly used written communication with his advisor. Probably lots of letters, overall.
zupzupper 8y ago
I think a vow of this sort is a very personal one, so I'd guess the rules are sort of up to him, it sounds like he stopped speaking, but communicated in other ways. The article mentions he earned his PhD during his 'vow' so I would guess he'd have done at least a bit of writing in addition to mail.

codr7 8y ago

I did 3 months hard core full time Yoga in an ashram some years ago. As part of the program; I didn't speak, read or write for a month. Or cut nails or hair, but that's another story :) As an added bonus; the entire group followed the same program, which meant that I didn't have to listen to them either. The main take home for me was that most of the things that I feel are really important to say in my daily life aren't. Once it was over, being expected to speak felt like a burden.

keyle 8y ago
Wow. Thinking about this, I think I could take on the "not speaking part" fairly easily. Although I'd still exclaim stuff out loud about my own performance at whatever I'm doing (e.g. foot tripping, "nice work dhead!"). Giving up writing is also possible given I'd have no devices around or paper. But giving up reading would be the toughest. Trapped in my own mind for a month, I'd need LONG forest walks. I'd basically have to walk all the time. Were you allowed humming?
- codr7 8y ago
  I know, I've unfortunately been slipping back into that nasty habit. But I realize that it's a show my ego puts on for other egos; because that's just part of what egos do, mock any sign of being human. Fortunately, the ashram is located in the middle of nowhere with plenty of wild nature to explore. We were encouraged to not make any sounds at all, or gestures/miming; beyond what was absolutely critical.
throwaway082729 8y ago
Where was this ashram?
- codr7 8y ago
  Southern Sweden, surprisingly enough :) https://www.yogameditation.com/retreats/the-3-month-sadhana-retreat/ https://www.yogameditation.com/retreats/the-3-month-sadhana-...
8y ago

volkisch 8y ago

Wow. Powerful.

dondawest 8y ago

Sounds like he wasn’t doing much “active listening”