4 ms·

Did you read the article? In Japanese culture, those sorts of exclamations are an integral part of good listening. Its probably pretty hard to just switch that

Did you read the article? In Japanese culture, those sorts of exclamations are an integral part of good listening. Its probably pretty hard to just switch that off when you're put in a context with a language barrier

hombre_fatal 4y ago
Well, they aren't wrong. Nonconfrontation + mimed politeness are better descriptions than "good listening" when you bluff your way in a convo you don't understand. Reminds me of the "Place, Japan" meme (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/place-japan https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/place-japan). The first panel can have an American not understanding a foreign language next to a disgusted soyjack, and the second panel has a Japanese guy smiling while he doesn't understand a word next to a "clap clap" retard soyjack screaming "amazing listener!"
iherbig 4y ago
You and antihero are talking about two different kinds of "good listening," though. "Being a good listener" has both a practical and a social component. You are referring to the social component ("in Japanese culture..."). The tenets of social interactions in Japanese culture which have been ingrained in speakers of the language to one extent or another. The performance aspect of the act of listening. antihero is talking about the practical form of "good listening" when they say "that makes you a terrible listener though." That is, what is the function of "listening" in a social interaction? I would hazard a guess that they believe the function of listening is to understand what another person is saying. And by that benchmark, an individual who is not actually reaching any sort of understanding is a "bad listener" irrespective of how successful they are at performing the cultural/social component of the act of listening. There's the additional implication that because signaling you are understanding when you are not leads to misunderstanding (which is the antithesis of the intended function of listening), it makes the listener an even worse quality listener than if they were not performing.
- hasdha 4y ago
  I agree, they are using two different definitions of "good listening". I'd say the "fit in with the social interaction" one is usually the most relevant. This reminds me of Wittgenstein's "language games"[1]. Maybe I'm butchering Wittgenstein's thought, but my understanding is that language works in a social situation as a game, as an activity where things "work ok" or don't work ok. It's not about me communicating my inner mental state and you making sure you're understanding my inner mental state (Wittgenstein's argument is that this is not generally possible, but also maybe it's not even what we usually care about) Of course, when you're in a specific setting (such as doing science or a police investigation) the other definition can be more relevant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)#:~:text=A%20language%2Dgame%20(German%3A,the%20%22game%22%20being%20played https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)#:~:....

hombre_fatal 4y ago

Well, they aren't wrong. Nonconfrontation + mimed politeness are better descriptions than "good listening" when you bluff your way in a convo you don't understand. Reminds me of the "Place, Japan" meme (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/place-japan https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/place-japan). The first panel can have an American not understanding a foreign language next to a disgusted soyjack, and the second panel has a Japanese guy smiling while he doesn't understand a word next to a "clap clap" retard soyjack screaming "amazing listener!"

iherbig 4y ago

You and antihero are talking about two different kinds of "good listening," though. "Being a good listener" has both a practical and a social component. You are referring to the social component ("in Japanese culture..."). The tenets of social interactions in Japanese culture which have been ingrained in speakers of the language to one extent or another. The performance aspect of the act of listening. antihero is talking about the practical form of "good listening" when they say "that makes you a terrible listener though." That is, what is the function of "listening" in a social interaction? I would hazard a guess that they believe the function of listening is to understand what another person is saying. And by that benchmark, an individual who is not actually reaching any sort of understanding is a "bad listener" irrespective of how successful they are at performing the cultural/social component of the act of listening. There's the additional implication that because signaling you are understanding when you are not leads to misunderstanding (which is the antithesis of the intended function of listening), it makes the listener an even worse quality listener than if they were not performing.

hasdha 4y ago
I agree, they are using two different definitions of "good listening". I'd say the "fit in with the social interaction" one is usually the most relevant. This reminds me of Wittgenstein's "language games"[1]. Maybe I'm butchering Wittgenstein's thought, but my understanding is that language works in a social situation as a game, as an activity where things "work ok" or don't work ok. It's not about me communicating my inner mental state and you making sure you're understanding my inner mental state (Wittgenstein's argument is that this is not generally possible, but also maybe it's not even what we usually care about) Of course, when you're in a specific setting (such as doing science or a police investigation) the other definition can be more relevant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)#:~:text=A%20language%2Dgame%20(German%3A,the%20%22game%22%20being%20played https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)#:~:....