Have We Lost Our Ability to Listen?

[Pilgrim]

But is it possible the interviewee was not engaging or compelling enough, that his answers to your questions were simply not particularly interesting or relevant?

 

In this case, I was very interested in what the interviewee had to say, but he is from Arkansas, and they don't seem to be in any hurry to get their words out. But it was me wanting to interview him, and not vice versa, so I should have anticipated that.

 

Ahhh, yes, southern girls. They talk so slow that by the time they tell you they won't, they already did. ('scuse me; I couldn't help myself, having been partly raised in Arkansas.)

 

Pilgrim

[Matts_12GS]

but he is from Arkansas, and they don't seem to be in any hurry to get their words out.

 

thanks for your California bigotry toward the south...

 

We is our own culture here you know...

[Lets_Play_Two]

 

"I think...," I feel...," and "I believe...."

Sorry. Tell me what you know, how you know it, and why it's important for me to understand it.

 

 

Ignore these at your own risk if you are married. But a very typical response for a Martian!!

[tallman]

No.

The ability to communicate?

Yes.

Someone can listen and not understand.

So, no communication.

Communication can happen w/out listening, IMO.

Picture an argument between two individuals that you can't hear, you're watching through a window.

The argument escalates, behavior becomes animated, physical contact ensues.

You understand, probably more than if you actually were listening to the verbal exchange.

 

Try telling your significant other that you're up for a bit of

social intercourse and see what the reaction is.

 

If they are listening, the reaction will depend on whether they understand what you mean.

Chances are they may listen to your words but misconstrue your meaning.

If you say "I want to really try to communicate with you. I'll listen, and ask for clarification if needed, to what you have to say." This might engender a different reaction.

When we "listen" it depends on whether we are listening over the phone, reading a post, or face to face.

With the first, we hear inflections that color our perception.

With the second, we may miss the subtle message of the writer.

In the latter, we have visual cues, body language, and auditory input to compile as we "listen".

I don't think we've lost the ability to listen.

I think some do it quite well.

I do think we are losing the ability to communicate, which I find ironic given the myriad methods and opportunites we have to do so.

Sign language is a beautiful form of cummincation.

One must truly "listen" to "hear" what the other person says.

Perhaps there is a lesson about volume and communication there.

 

BTW, I ran a cross age grouped, developmentally based, individualized school for 20 years.

It works.

Best wishes.

 

Leslie,

"food for thought", clever.

 

[Ken H.]

I’ve been intentionally not replying to specific posts, been listening (hee-hee); absolutely some fascinatingly interesting replies.

 

There does though seems to be an increase in social discourse these days and a more dramatic polarization of society. (Sorry if the word “society” sets off your BS meter pbbeck, but it is a valid term to describe a collection of people functioning together.) Maybe my original question should be modified to, “Have We Lost Our Desire to Listen?"

 

[Harry_Wilshusen]

"That said, if it were up to me there would be no tests and no grades at all."

 

I'm with Jan.

 

Even I could be a PHD with those standards.

 

Harry

[EffBee]

Maybe my original question should be modified to, “Have We Lost Our Desire to Listen?"

 

Nope. My level of interest in listening to ideas that have proven historical failures, and to those who espouse them, hasn't change one iota. I will, however, listen to someone who is offering something proven, something with a track record of success, something that is at the root of greatness. And when THEY have something new to add to the discussion, I'm all ears for one simple reason. . .they've EARNED it.

[smiller]

If all new ideas had to be proven with a track record of success then there wouldn't be any new ideas.

[beemerman2k]

If all new ideas had to be proven with a track record of success then there wouldn't be any new ideas.

 

I think EffBee is simply saying that he always "questions the source" of those ideas. Credible source? Credible ideas. Uncredible source?...

 

[Whip]

Ken

 

Please give me an example of what you are talking about.

 

.

 

Global Cooling???

 

 

.

 

Middle East???

 

.

 

 

 

Health care???

 

.

 

 

 

Marriage???

 

.

 

 

 

Sex????

 

.

 

 

Religion???

 

.

 

 

Torrey vs BRR???

 

.

 

 

 

UN???

 

.

 

 

 

Killer's son????

 

 

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Whip...Dude...we already covered most of these topics already. We have to speak in vaguaries and generalizations lest this thread get locked! For instance, EffBee finally moved the discussion to Killer's son with his post about credibility.

 

C'mon man, get with the program :smile:

[EffBee]

If all new ideas had to be proven with a track record of success then there wouldn't be any new ideas.

I think James got most of it, Seth. More than a credible source, credible history or credible foundation gets my attention. When something has a proven history of failure, even if it's dressed up in purty words like "new," it's still based on proven failure and I'm not interested in listening to it, however tarted up.

 

We all have limited time. We either contribute to what has historically shown to work, or we spin our wheels in the hopes that we might possibly come up with something different (quite often worse, and so far never "better"), and at the end of life we find that we've either been a contributor or a dreamer, a giver or a taker, a tool for the continued growth and prosperity of society or a load upon it. I will lend an ear to the former in each of those dichotomies and I personally strive to be the former in each.

[Whip]

Whip...Dude...we already covered most of these topics already. We have to speak in vaguaries and generalizations lest this thread get locked! For instance, EffBee finally moved the discussion to Killer's son with his post about credibility.

 

C'mon man, get with the program :smile:

 

Alright....Alright!!!

 

I'll leave you folks alone and go back to work.

 

I still have no idea what Ken is talking about??????

 

I listen to talk radio everyday??????

 

[Boffin]

Whip...Dude...we already covered most of these topics already. We have to speak in vaguaries and generalizations lest this thread get locked! For instance, EffBee finally moved the discussion to Killer's son with his post about credibility.

 

C'mon man, get with the program :smile:

 

Alright....Alright!!!

 

I'll leave you folks alone and go back to work.

 

I still have no idea what Ken is talking about??????

 

I listen to talk radio everyday??????

 

 

So we can count you as a yes then?

 

 

[smiller]

If all new ideas had to be proven with a track record of success then there wouldn't be any new ideas.

I think EffBee is simply saying that he always "questions the source" of those ideas. Credible source? Credible ideas. Uncredible source?...

I understand what you're saying Fernando, but you're presupposing that the characteristics you mention are somehow absolute when they are actually very much in the eye of the beholder. Concepts of proof, track records, questioning the source, etc. are all very subjective filters that can serve to obstruct true listening and understanding.

[Whip]

Whip...Dude...we already covered most of these topics already. We have to speak in vaguaries and generalizations lest this thread get locked! For instance, EffBee finally moved the discussion to Killer's son with his post about credibility.

 

C'mon man, get with the program :smile:

 

Alright....Alright!!!

 

I'll leave you folks alone and go back to work.

 

I still have no idea what Ken is talking about??????

 

I listen to talk radio everyday??????

 

 

So we can count you as a yes then?

 

 

I'm there for ya Andy.

 

Whatever you need.

 

 

 

[EffBee]

If all new ideas had to be proven with a track record of success then there wouldn't be any new ideas.

I think EffBee is simply saying that he always "questions the source" of those ideas. Credible source? Credible ideas. Uncredible source?...

I understand what you're saying Fernando, but you're presupposing that the characteristics you mention are somehow absolute when they are actually very much in the eye of the beholder.

Well of course they are. But I can only go by what MY filters have taught me over the years are valid concepts worth listening to. YMMV.

 

Concepts of proof, track records, questioning the source, etc. are all very subjective filters that can serve to obstruct true listening and understanding.

Huh? Seth, please tell me that upon review you see the massive conflict in that statement.

 

Proof as a subjective filter?

Track records as a subjective filter?

A credible source as a subjective filter?

 

And then all of those somehow being "obstructive" to true listening and understanding? Listening to something that has a history of failure is somehow worthy of my limited time? Trying to understand something that has a history of failure is somehow worthy of my time? No, this is why we develop filters, or we'd spend our lives listening to idealized blatherings instead of focusing on making forward progress and building upon what has worked.

[smiller]

Huh? Seth, please tell me that upon review you see the massive conflict in that statement.

 

Proof as a subjective filter?

Track records as a subjective filter?

A credible source as a subjective filter?

 

And then all of those somehow being "obstructive" to true listening and understanding? Listening to something that has a history of failure is somehow worthy of my limited time? Trying to understand something that has a history of failure is somehow worthy of my time? No, this is why we develop filters, or we'd spend our lives listening to idealized blatherings instead of focusing on making forward progress and building upon what has worked.

I see no conflict whatsoever in my statement. I'm not talking about the Webster definition of proof or credibility but rather the fact that what constitutes proof or credibility in a human context is extremely subjective. Not to turn this to a religious debate but only as an example, is there any proof of religious concepts? Is science successful in proving itself to be true? Even in what many consider to be a clear-cut case 'proof' is an entirely subjective concept, and the same is true for most sociological/economic/you name it theories as well.

 

If you can't see that using an ideological filter to determine in advance what 'blatherings' are worthy of consideration is almost the very definition of subjective, well, I don't know what else to say.

[Twisties]

Track records as a subjective filter?

 

Whip see's the postal service as huge failure, an example of why government is bad. I see it as pivotal success that drove the country to prosperity and a prime example of exactly why government needs to do major undertakings like that.

 

Obviously then the evaluation of the PS's track record is quite subjective.

 

The same with proof. Let's not get into the evolution debate, or the age of the earth debate (4, billion years or so), but there would two prime examples. Scientists claim these are "facts", others claim not. Proof is obviously subjective.

 

Credible source. Good grief I don't even want to mention Olbermann and O'Rielly.... Let's definitely not go into that debate... but surely you can see that some folks differ on whom they find credible. Nuff said.

[EffBee]

Huh? Seth, please tell me that upon review you see the massive conflict in that statement.

 

Proof as a subjective filter?

Track records as a subjective filter?

A credible source as a subjective filter?

 

And then all of those somehow being "obstructive" to true listening and understanding? Listening to something that has a history of failure is somehow worthy of my limited time? Trying to understand something that has a history of failure is somehow worthy of my time? No, this is why we develop filters, or we'd spend our lives listening to idealized blatherings instead of focusing on making forward progress and building upon what has worked.

I see no conflict whatsoever in my statement. I'm not talking about the Webster definition of proof or credibility but rather the fact that what constitutes proof or credibility in a human context is extremely subjective.

Well, then, you may have touched on the crux of many philosophical differences. I believe in certain absolutes. There are those who don't ( you may or may not be among them). But for me, certain things are finite, right/wrong, black/white. It keeps me from wasting my time trying to infinitely parse the hypothetical minutiae and allows me to move forward and be productive.

[Dave McReynolds]

But I can only go by what MY filters have taught me over the years are valid concepts worth listening to. YMMV.

 

That works pretty well, unless a paradigm shift like the Copernican revolution comes along; then you'll get left behind. Of course, they don't come along all that often. I can't function if I question everything that I do every day, but I've found that if I leave a certain part of my mind open to questions, it helps me to progress in life.

[smiller]

But for me, certain things are finite, right/wrong, black/white. It keeps me from wasting my time trying to infinitely parse the hypothetical minutiae and allows me to move forward and be productive.

If you believe that these characteristics are the hallmark of a good listener then we indeed have some pretty significant differences in understanding.

[beemerman2k]

smiller: IF the person/topic in question is worthy of EffBee's time, he is an excellent listener. Trust me, I know.

 

All he is saying is that he doesn't have the time or interest to apply such concentration to everything he hears everyday, and he uses his own time-honored filter to decide what he's going to focus on and what he will ignore. You are looking at the standards of his filter to determine whether he is a good listener or not. He isn't a good listener to that which doesn't pass his filter -- none of us are.

 

OK, back to the hidden meanings of this thread. Where's Whip?!

[smiller]

You are looking at the standards of his filter to determine whether he is a good listener or not. He isn't a good listener to that which doesn't pass his filter -- none of us are.

No, I'm not considering the standards of Fernando's particular filter set nor whether it enables a particular input to be worthy of his time. I'm pointing out that such a system is not only obviously subjective but seems to actually embrace subjectivity as some kind of positive attribute. A good listener is not one who only listens to ideas that get past their filter, in fact that's the very definition of a bad listener.

 

All of us have filters as a basic part of our humanity, but if one wants to consider themselves a good listener this is a factor to be worked around, not celebrated for it's time efficiency. I mean, really... are we seriously debating this? Perhaps we can change the title of the thread yet again to 'Does the intentional application of a subjective filter enhance our ability to listen?'

 

[Dave McReynolds]

'Does the intentional application of a subjective filter enhance our ability to listen?'

 

Coincidentally, I just finished an analysis for a client who lost about $1.8 million from their business over the last year due to a trusted employee's loss of the ability to intentionally apply a subjective filter to his decisions.

 

This employee has apparently suffered from a mental disorder which has rendered him incapable of making subjective value judgements. As you know, I'm a CPA, not a psychiatrist, so my diagnosis is suspect.

 

However, these are the facts: The employee had the responsibility for building and leasing a real estate development, using funds provided by investors and banks. He had the authority to spend funds for this purpose as needed. He had done this many times before, and was trusted to be able to accomplish this task.

 

At some point during the last year, he thought it would be a good idea to invest in a scheme to purchase uncut US currency being held in the Phillipine Islands since WW II. He used funds from this project to do that, carefully documenting what he was doing on the company's books. He was not stealing the funds; he was making this "investment" on behalf of the company. As soon as word got around, crackpots began coming out of the woodwork promoting all the schemes you've no doubt heard of on the internet, and some you probably haven't heard about. As far as we can tell, he fell for all of them.

 

If you would interview this person today, you would find that he is optimistically awaiting the huge profits he expects to be made for the investors in these schemes. If you had a new "opportunity" for him, he would no doubt write you a check (if he still had access to the funds).

 

How do we know, when we get an opportunity to invest in uncut US currency in the Phillipines, that it is bogus? Do we do an objective analysis? I don't have time for that; I just say "no!" which I would assume is a subjective response.

 

I agree that setting your subjective listening filter too high stifles discussion and will cause you to miss opportunities, but setting it too low also poses risks....

[smiller]

I agree that setting your subjective listening filter too high stifles discussion and will cause you to miss opportunities, but setting it too low also poses risks....

Of course. I was just kind of thinking that 'finite, right/wrong, black/white' filters fall just a tad on the 'missing opportunities' side of the equation...

 

 

[EffBee]

'Does the intentional application of a subjective filter enhance our ability to listen?'

 

Coincidentally, I just finished an analysis for a client who lost about $1.8 million from their business over the last year due to a trusted employee's loss of the ability to intentionally apply a subjective filter to his decisions.

 

This employee has apparently suffered from a mental disorder which has rendered him incapable of making subjective value judgements. As you know, I'm a CPA, not a psychiatrist, so my diagnosis is suspect.

 

However, these are the facts: The employee had the responsibility for building and leasing a real estate development, using funds provided by investors and banks. He had the authority to spend funds for this purpose as needed. He had done this many times before, and was trusted to be able to accomplish this task.

 

At some point during the last year, he thought it would be a good idea to invest in a scheme to purchase uncut US currency being held in the Phillipine Islands since WW II. He used funds from this project to do that, carefully documenting what he was doing on the company's books. He was not stealing the funds; he was making this "investment" on behalf of the company. As soon as word got around, crackpots began coming out of the woodwork promoting all the schemes you've no doubt heard of on the internet, and some you probably haven't heard about. As far as we can tell, he fell for all of them.

 

If you would interview this person today, you would find that he is optimistically awaiting the huge profits he expects to be made for the investors in these schemes. If you had a new "opportunity" for him, he would no doubt write you a check (if he still had access to the funds).

 

How do we know, when we get an opportunity to invest in uncut US currency in the Phillipines, that it is bogus? Do we do an objective analysis? I don't have time for that; I just say "no!" which I would assume is a subjective response.

 

I agree that setting your subjective listening filter too high stifles discussion and will cause you to miss opportunities, but setting it too low also poses risks....

 

Dave, I don't often find myself agreeing with you, but I always appreciate your well-presented perspective.

 

I could parse and comment on many of your statements above, but I think your last one really strikes home with me.

 

"How do we know, when we get an opportunity to invest in uncut US currency in the Phillipines, that it is bogus? Do we do an objective analysis? I don't have time for that; I just say "no!" which I would assume is a subjective response.

 

I agree that setting your subjective listening filter too high stifles discussion and will cause you to miss opportunities, but setting it too low also poses risks.... "

 

We all have life experiences and we interpret them differently based on a variety of sociological factors which have brought each of us to where we are today. Subjective filters are in place throughout our lives, or we'd just spend our time in objective analysis of the same things over and over and over, and never accomplish a thing. Objective analysis forms subjective filters. And we use those filters to expedite many decisions, so we don't dawdle and are able to move forward with the tasks we all have each day.

 

Yes, setting filters too high can stifle discussion, assuming it's a discussion you haven't already had and one in which you're interested. Obviously, in your example, your pre-knowledge of uncut U.S. currency in the Phillipines has created pretty much of an absolute position which helps you move on. I have those as well. And setting them too low also poses risks. As a young man, I might have been more willing to listen to everybody about everything. But over the years we (hopefully) learn what's worth listening to and what isn't. Thus, I'm now living with the benefit of that experience and I have decided to reduce my risks.

 

Perhaps the Dalai Lama can ponder his navel all day and wonder about the meaning of the universe. I've got a lawn that needs mowing.

[smiller]

You could always ponder the meaning of the Universe while mowing your lawn.

 

[David]

You could always ponder the meaning of the Universe while mowing your lawn.

 

Yes, you could, of course. But that would predispose you to conclude that life is meaningless.

[Pilgrim]

You could always ponder the meaning of the Universe while mowing your lawn.

 

Yes, you could, of course. But that would predispose you to conclude that life is meaningless.

 

Well, then, Mr. Baker, if life is not meaningless, what is the meaning of life? Ohhh, wait; we better start another thread for that. I'll be watching for it.

 

Pilgrim

[pbbeck]

I wonder if the one-percenters have discussions like this in their clubhouse? :-)

[Huzband]

...it’s easier to jump on the back of someone else’s band wagon than to think something through for ourselves?

 

Shirley you jest.

[vizhip]

Well, then, Mr. Baker, if life is not meaningless, what is the meaning of life?

 

42...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[vizhip]

Nope. My level of interest in listening to ideas that have proven historical failures, and to those who espouse them, hasn't change one iota. I will, however, listen to someone who is offering something proven, something with a track record of success, something that is at the root of greatness. And when THEY have something new to add to the discussion, I'm all ears for one simple reason. . .they've EARNED it.

 

Hope you don't mind if I disagree here...

 

There are a number of ideas that have not yet been proven or disproven that when presented come off as sounding way off base... but then when you actually put it to work, it is amazing...

 

Think of where Edison would be if he had taken that stance...

 

For that manner... think of where the founders of our country would be...

 

Some ideas that present a risk are well worth it... and the potential benefits for that work are beyond conceptual thinking at the time...

 

Of course, this is just my opinion... and having had a similar situation where one employer was not willing to take the chance on one of my ideas, but the next was... and we saw a major savings in money for the idea once it was implemented... but it presented a risk up front...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[Ken H.]

Ken

 

Please give me an example of what you are talking about.

Sorry, no. As I started out with, my intention/interest in this subject is non-topic specific. It's our ability, interest, and willingness (or lack there of any of those) toward other points of view that intrigues me. Open or closed mindedness. Objectivity or subjectivity. Consider or out-of-hand dismiss. Skills necessary to be a good listener, and give consideration diminishing or improving?

[Ken H.]

Well, then, Mr. Baker, if life is not meaningless, what is the meaning of life?

 

42...

 

Regards -

-Bob

Dang, that’s what I was going to say, but you beat me to it Ford Perfect.

 

But remember – Don’t Panic

 

[tallman]

You could always ponder the meaning of the Universe while mowing your lawn.

 

Yes, you could, of course. But that would predispose you to conclude that life is meaningless.

 

Not quite.

If you are the grass, you have a well ordered and purposeful life with various species dedicated to your care and survival.

In return you offer yourself as a willing sacrifice to some species survival and another species vanity.

 

I'm off to the Cathederal of St. Augustine now...