HN Reader

If people are talking about important personal matters, one might fall into the trap of thinking that one can understand another fully by asking more questions. Some authors argued that love and empathy starts precisely once you hit this boundary of your ability to perceive and understand another - it is a strange lived experience of living with the facts that something active and free and incomprehensible exists outside oneself, and still profoundly affects you.

That was excellent!

Couple of tweaks though, try to avoid the same call for response, '..is that right?' or whatever. Patterns in speech become REALLY old REALLY quickly.. It can start to create a picture in their head that this is staged (and it kinda is) which then starts to cause them to raise walls up. Keep to the context of the question using whatever words you're comfy with 'X...? I got that right?', or 'soooooo... X yeah?' and they'll spot the pattern but because of the conversational nature of it their hackles will take a lot longer to raise.

The other thing is putting pauses in. Yes pauses are remarkably powerful, actual dead air forces the other side to fill it, but it also creates a pressure vacuum, it FEELS like minor bullishness and can start causing combativeness. For me if I want the conversation to feel level between two equals I'll instead fill the pauses with word-salad appropriate to whatever the context is with a couple of words in there to ping reactions. 'Oh wow, yeah the more I think about this the more I'm just... wow. Yeah that's annoying', where 'the more I think' is reflecting back that I agree there's something to what they are saying and 'annoying' to cause them to reflect on the irritation, trying to draw out that feeling more so they can then talk about the next layer down, but it's still basically a pause, it quietly says 'I hear you, I don't have anything to say right now, so go on...'

I've been using active listening approaches for about 6 years now, when I interview candidates, to great effect.

I give a head's up to the candidate of what I'm going to do, right at the top after introducing myself. During the interview proper, I'll ask a question, and while the candidate is speaking, I'll make notes about what they've said. Then I read back to the candidates the notes I've written, asking clarifying questions, and seeing if there's anything that I've misunderstood or anything they'd like to expand on. I make it clear at the outset, and usually mention later on, that any mistake in the notes is on my part and that they should feel free to correct me. I've been surprised about how comfortable people have been to correct my misunderstandings. From time to time, I've even shared my screen so they can see what notes I've made. Once the interview is complete, I flesh out the notes with any impressions above and beyond the content, while I consider if I see them as a hire or no hire, and at what level.

This has resulted in much more positive experiences all round in interviews. Candidates seem to relax quicker, and get into the flow of things more readily. They're able to talk more freely without fear of being misunderstood, knowing they've got a chance to correct any misunderstanding later on in the loop.

I’m confused. Isn't this more or less just listening to someone when they speak? I guess seeing it from their perspective isn’t a default for some people?

I usually work in analogies when trying to share my understanding of what they said, whether it is a story or a question.

I may be misunderstanding this a bit, but the inverse or active listening seems to be someone who is distracted and not actually listening to another person? For example: “Wow, yeah, thats crazy” when someone is rambling.

> The active listening formula is simple: […]

The instructions sound a lot like what Weizenbaum programmed into ELIZA. :)

I agree with the author that trying to empathize while listening is a powerful thing, but IMO this format is far too rigid. In general you can spot people doing this sort of thing a mile away and it just feels weird. Really, any sort of intentional modifications to a conversation are obvious (see also: Dale Carnegie, therapy speak, etc...)

It requires some practice to pull this off correctly. I have met quite some people who followed the instructions but it felt very scripted. And often it’s clear that they have ulterior motives and just use this as a tool.

> Me: It sounds like you’ve got mixed emotions at the moment. On the one hand, you’re happy that your boss says you’re doing a good job. But you’re questioning that, given the problems you’re having with Legal. Did I get that right?

No offense. However, this response from the first example feels robotic to me. It feels like I am talking with some kind of artificial intelligence. I guess we have to make it sounds more natural. In fact, the following examples feel more smooth to me.

This works only under some assumptions about the context, who is talking and who is listening. Observe a heated debate between two adversaries. The more listening you do, the more you lose out. It's all about who got the mike for most of the time, not about who is listening and whether it is active listening or not.

Active listening isn’t just a skill, it’s a little act of kindness that makes people feel seen and understood.

"The technique works by subverting standard social etiquette. The normal rules dictate that we take turns. I talk about myself, then you talk about yourself, etc. Active listening changes that. You are listening, they are talking. We do not take turns.

You need to work hard to maintain these unusual rules. Your partner will try to give you a turn"

This unwritten rule is not understood by many. There are plenty of people out there that are completely happy to drain you of your energy by talking endlessly about themselves. What I try to do in those situations is to assert my speaking time and if that doesn't change their attitude, it's bye bye, fuck off, go drain someone else.

Listening and responding is just like singing. If you are "thinking about it while doing it" it feel off to everyone. Like how singing is best when you embody the lessons and move your focus away from "getting it right". It has to feel like you and not you playing a character.

Funny, for me active discussion and interruptions are sign of ENGAGEMENT and I respect that a lot.

From my personal experience people who are angry about interruptions are typically arogant and non empathic.

I love heated debates. (Adhd, INTP, Central Europe)

You've got to be kidding. The couple of times someone tried this with me I stopped and asked what the F are you doing?

It's very obviously fake. Seriously you can't see that?