6 ms·
It almost as if your definition of ‘hear me’ really means ‘silently agree with me and acquiesce to all remedies that I alone propose’.
by pinkfoot 6y ago
It almost as if your definition of ‘hear me’ really means ‘silently agree with me and acquiesce to all remedies that I alone propose’.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- neonate 6y agoNot at all. I mean hear as in really listen and take in what the other is saying. That's harder than it sounds. It's painful and frightening and almost no one is willing to do it, but I think it's the only way forward. Otherwise we're just going to get more violence and justification of violence, because no matter how deeply we try to suppress them, the grievances of the past will just keep reexploding.
- MockObject 6y agoInteresting that you seem to be assuming a particular result from "hearing", excluding the reaction of "I hear you, and I just don't care." which is surely a possibility?
- neonate 6y agoI'm talking about hearing from the heart and not just in the technical sense that might say "Ok, you said your piece and I heard it, now can we just move on". I believe that most people won't respond dismissively to the suffering of others, if the conditions for hearing each other, really listening and acknowledging, are in place. But it's painful and we avoid those conditions as much as possible. For example, I heard a story about a little girl at one of the residential schools in Canada where the teacher would stick a pin through her tongue when she was caught speaking her native language. It's really hard to hear something like that. Much easier to say "I don't care", although we normally put it that in more self-serving language. And underlying "I don't care" is something more like, "I can't bear this".
- pinkfoot 6y ago“Hearing from the heart” This is just undefined, non-falsifiable, linguistic drivel that allows you - and you alone - to dismiss any response you dont like. Which you do.
- nepeckman 6y agoThe concepts of empathy and active listening are well defined. Calling those concepts "undefined, non-falsifiable, linguistic drivel" is completely unsubstantiated.
- pinkfoot 6y agoOk, let’s test that. So how do you decide if someone on a forum who you have never met has either: 1) listened with empathy, but still disagrees 2) ignored your argument, but replied with the same answer. You cannot. So its just a linguistic device to bully other people in a conversation until they agree with you.
- nepeckman 6y agoIt's harder to do over a text forum than in person, but it's not strictly impossible. The low hanging fruit is checking to see if a person is responding specifically to the arguments in your post, or just arguing against a strawman. You can take that a step further and try to determine if their response indicates they understood your argument. This is more error prone, but still a possible method of determining good faith.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoI think the problem is when the speaker gets to be the sole determinant of sufficient empathy and listening. It leaves no room for disagreement. >If you truly empathize with me and understood my position, surely you would agree with me. If you disagree, then you have not listened with sufficient empathy.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
- baddox 6y agoI think it's reasonable to infer that "hearing" in this context doesn't literally mean only the act of perceiving sound. It's clearly referring to listening in good faith.
- pinkfoot 6y agoYou failed to presume that the OP did that and thereafter still came to their conclusion. Instead, once you realised that the OP had not capitulated to your point of view, you belittled and dismissed it as not listening/hearing How else does one hear you and then answer: ‘nah you are wrong, and here is why...’