4 ms·
“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. W
by 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.