Right Listening

11/3/09
Right listening
It was funny reading this article because I had been thinking about most of Mark Brady's points all through the week before I had even read the article. Every time I meet someone new and initiate the getting-to-know-you conversation, I try to refrain from interrupting, hijacking he story, focusing on I, verbal attacks, defense systems, and misinterpretation. These are all things I practice daily. When start a conversation with someone by asking a question, very often the person does not give a full answer, or they answer answer the literal question without delving into the truth of the matter and revealing their thoughts. Usually I do not want my question to go to waste, I asked it for a reason, and I want to know the answer. Using a combination of all the techniques mentioned in the article, I persist until the final truth comes to the surface, and the emotional content is revealed.

The problem with becoming a skilled listener as Mark Brady describes it occurs when you meet someone else who is also a good listener. If both speakers are simultaneously avoiding the use of the word "I," asking repetitive questions, and refraining from focus changes, then the conversation con reach a stalemate very quickly. Just as you trust the speaker to disclose his emotions to you, you must also be prepared to disclose you emotions to him. Offering him all the same opportunities for listening that he gave you. The best listening will always occur along side a good speaker, someone who does not holdback. Skilled listening only takes you halfway. If both parties are practicing good listening and open speaking, great conversation will result. Sometimes a speaker will become uncomfortable with the level of disclosure or else feel that he is dominating the conversation. Knowing when to take up the mantle and give the other person something to listen to is what separates a good listener from a great conversationalist. One of the most effective ways of proving that one has thoroughly digested another's speech, is to make a joke involving the content just disclosed. If one can create a humorous or ironic scenario that causes the speaker to laugh, he now knows that you have understood the nuance of what he has explained. And he gets the satisfaction of a good joke.

Today I spoke with two of my room mates, Dan and Ryan, about their classes and their days. I asked them about upcoming assignments and past classes, what they enjoyed and disliked, what they were interested in and what bored them. I asked questions until I got answers, checking with them occasionally to make sure I understood, but never saying anything about myself until I was asked to. In about ten minutes I got Ryan to explain to me all the concepts he had covered in his film theory class, complete with examples and nuances. Afterwords, we made jokes about how to use pretext, intertext, and meta-autonomism in film. Then I told Ryan about this class, and the exercise I had just done. He listened well, as he always does.

When I spoke to Dan, he very reserved as he always is. One always has to read between the lines. He is typically bound by politeness and good manners and never wishes to offend anyone regardless of their physical presence or lack thereof. When I asked him how his PolySci class was going he gave the usual "Fine," which meant that it was unsatisfactory and he wished it was more interesting. Upon interrogation he supplied that his class today seemed somewhat pointless and that the prompts for his essay do not interest him in the least, though he didn't exactly come right out and say that. I've noticed that whenever Dan wants me to question him further, he pauses for a second and looks straight at me for a moment after he's finished his sentence. When he does this, even if he's told me he doesn't want to talk about it, he wants me to question him further. Complaining without provocation is something Dan tries never to do. I think he finds it much easy to speak his mind and complain when someone else is demanding it of him