5 ms·

Interesting 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 po

Interesting 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 ago
I'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 ago
    The concepts of empathy and active listening are well defined. Calling those concepts "undefined, non-falsifiable, linguistic drivel" is completely unsubstantiated.
    - pinkfoot 6y ago
      Ok, 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 ago
        It'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 ago
      I 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
  how do you differentiate "hearing from the heart" and "agree with me and acquiesce to all remedies that I alone propose"?
  - neonate 6y ago
    To me that question sounds like asking how I differentiate "eating a pizza" and "petting a cat". They're obviously not the same.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Is one allowed to hear from the heart and then disagree, or is disagreement evidence that someone didn't try hard enough?
      - neonate 6y ago
        I don't like the word "allowed", as if there's some authority here, but if you want my opinion, certainly there is no obligation to agree about anything at all. However, that doesn't mean that listening from the heart is easy. Really hearing what other humans have gone through is not easy. There is a strong temptation to react with denial, because otherwise it's too painful. There is an obligation, I believe, to acknowledge what actually happened, on all sides.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        First off, thanks for continuing to engage despite our clear difficulties understanding one another. When I say, allowed, I mean under the moral and social system you are advancing. You propose that there is an obligation to acknowledge and "hear" what has happened. The problem for me is that you seem to believe that it is impossible to acknowledge and hear without caring, or care without suffering. It seems that you believe people have a moral obligation to share another's suffering. My first problem is that you claim to be in a position to judge if this obligation has been met. My second problem is that being heard is not sufficient for the speakers to turn the page on the grievances of the past.
baddox 6y ago
I 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.

Interesting 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 ago

I'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 ago
  The concepts of empathy and active listening are well defined. Calling those concepts "undefined, non-falsifiable, linguistic drivel" is completely unsubstantiated.
  - pinkfoot 6y ago
    Ok, 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 ago
      It'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 ago
    I 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
how do you differentiate "hearing from the heart" and "agree with me and acquiesce to all remedies that I alone propose"?
- neonate 6y ago
  To me that question sounds like asking how I differentiate "eating a pizza" and "petting a cat". They're obviously not the same.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Is one allowed to hear from the heart and then disagree, or is disagreement evidence that someone didn't try hard enough?
    - neonate 6y ago
      I don't like the word "allowed", as if there's some authority here, but if you want my opinion, certainly there is no obligation to agree about anything at all. However, that doesn't mean that listening from the heart is easy. Really hearing what other humans have gone through is not easy. There is a strong temptation to react with denial, because otherwise it's too painful. There is an obligation, I believe, to acknowledge what actually happened, on all sides.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        First off, thanks for continuing to engage despite our clear difficulties understanding one another. When I say, allowed, I mean under the moral and social system you are advancing. You propose that there is an obligation to acknowledge and "hear" what has happened. The problem for me is that you seem to believe that it is impossible to acknowledge and hear without caring, or care without suffering. It seems that you believe people have a moral obligation to share another's suffering. My first problem is that you claim to be in a position to judge if this obligation has been met. My second problem is that being heard is not sufficient for the speakers to turn the page on the grievances of the past.

baddox 6y ago

I 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.