Although the author doesn't say it, he does come across as implying that books don't emphasize the curiosity aspect. While this is true for Nonviolent Communications (NVC), I have seen it in other books. Here is an example from Difficult Conversations (DC):
> There’s only one way to come to understand the other person’s story, and that’s by being curious. Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?” Instead of asking, “How can they be so irrational?” ask, “How might they see the world such that their view makes sense?” Certainty locks us out of their story; curiosity lets us in.
The heading of that section is Move From Certainty To Curiosity
I've always said that the NVC book is great on teaching the how but not the why, and that DC is the exact opposite. The latter gives you a lot of insight, but with a lot less practical guidance.
Similarly, the book Crucial Conversations specifies the following 4 ingredients to listening:
I would argue that NVC emphasizes curiosity because the aim is to understand the feelings and needs (what is alive) in the other person. This requires a deep curiosity and being present in the current moment so that one can connect with what is going on in the other person.
NVC does not encourage immediately asking questions to increase your intellectual understanding of the situation when someone is hurt/upset and it is not yet clear what that person wants from the interaction.
For example, take the author's example sentence: "I’m furious with my husband. He’s never around when I need him.". I would say that it's pretty clear that the person is feeling furious because their need for support isn't being met. What is less clear is what the person wants from me right now. My guess would be that the person wants empathy and understanding of their pain, but it may also be that they want some advice on how to solve the problem they're having with their husband.
Now this is where NVC says it's better to err on the side of the other person wanting empathy by guessing their feelings and needs (and this doesn't have to be done in the "classical" NVC way or even verbally at all depending on the situation). And if it turns out they actually wanted advice then of course it's fine to start asking questions to get a better intellectual understanding of the situation, but jumping immediately to "fixing" mode when the other person hasn't yet received sufficient empathy can be very hurtful.
“Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?”
Not being facetious at all, but that heuristic doesn’t work for anti-maskers. The information they have is widely viewable on Trump’s Twitter feed and Newsmax. I know what they know and I still have trouble understanding how they can think the way they do.
"Good listeners do often reflect words back—but not because they read it in a book somewhere. Rather, it’s cargo cult advice: it teaches you to imitate the surface appearance of good listening, but misses what’s actually important, the thing that’s generating that surface appearance. The generator is curiosity."
Interesting. What are other examples where the commonplace advice is just a symptom of the root behavior/attitude you want to cultivate?
I'd say that true of almost all good advice. Good advice should probably usually be interpreted as "try to be the kind of person that would do this thing naturally."
Most self-help advice about interacting with people is pointing out ways that get some desired interaction effect. They may be true in that they are pointing out those real characteristics which lead to those effects, the result of putting them in a book and studying them makes the reader a student of manipulation. Depending on the student and the target of the trained interaction, it may work as intended or it may label the student as a manipulator to the target.
In less abstract terms, it is not hard to learn the “tricks” and notice when people are using them on you, and it becomes incredibly irritating being around people who interact with you on that level.
Basically, if you’re interacting with people because you were told to do it that way, it’s probably manipulation. Teaching people to be empathetic and interested isn’t very easy and the more popular methods of faking it are pretty transparent.
When you reflect words back, the speaker feels like you get where they are coming from and feel comfortable sharing more details.
My understanding is that reflecting words back is a passive way of making the speaker get into more details whereas asking questions is an active way of getting into details.
Hence, acc to me the author did not truly understand the consequences of reflecting words back and is getting the same result through a different method.
On reflecting back, in some cultures it is not accepted as a good listening. It has rather seen as "stating the obvious". Some Eastern cultures, being a good listener is understanding the meaning behind the words. These cultures tend to have more shared life style between community members instead of common individualism in Western cultures.
However being curious is somehow different and it helps in both Western and Eastern cultures.
This seems on point, having curiosity (and potentially summarising what they're saying) is a good way to demonstrate understanding. Much more believable than saying "I understand".
Chris Voss (author of Never Split the Difference) recommends a similar strategy. He often says that having the mindset of genuine curiosity is a great hack for having emotional control during a negotiation and potentially getting into flow state.
Chris Voss is great. I find if you are having a conversation and you are asking the questions, getting long answers, and then asking related questions, you are doing things right.
The other person loves talking about themselves or their opinions. You are learning by paying attention enough ask more questions.
If you are negotiating silence can be your friend when the other party is feeling good talking about themselves
> But I think that’s actually too nice to the helper, and uncharitable to the complainer (in that it assumes they weirdly don’t care about solving their problem).
Yes, actually! Sometimes people don't have the energy to face and solve a problem _right now_, but are still feeling overwhelmed by it and seek validation from others that, yes, the feeling they're experiencing is real and acceptable.
> What’s really going on is probably that your advice is bad, because you didn’t really listen, because you weren’t curious enough.
Or maybe providing you with all the little details and context about their problem is taking _even more energy_ when they specifically turned to vent to you because they don't have the energy to solve their problem right now.
Some people need someone to vent and feel better when the listener confirms that what they experienced sucks. Just delivering a solution does not give them a feeling of being okay feeling bad, while confirming does. One guy wrote somewhere, that when his wife complains, he asks: "Red wine or boiler suit?" i.e. Shall i listen or do you want a solution.
Related, I’ve often thought that good listening involves becoming—in some small way—the person you are listening to. That is, your brain and your “self” are temporarily loaned to the person.
Such empathy is a sort of self-expansion, as you learn to see the world from their point of view. And the speaker, in turn, can learn from your observations of what it’s like to inhabit their life for a time.
As far as I can tell, there are also situations where people (usually women) who talk to you about their problems don’t really need or want help with problem-solving, but would appreciate you showing empathy and solidarity with their situation.
For example, my wife cooks a lot and complains about it, but she’s not interested to engage in brainstorming about how to throw money at the problem (which we have the budget to do). So I believe the best thing I can do when she brings it up is to express empathy and appreciation.
Being curious so as to “listen better” may be a good technique, but doesn’t seem like the central insight needed to best navigate this scenario.
Judging: The NVC book refers to it as evaluating, but yes, it is high up on things not to do. What surprises many, but I found to be quite refreshing, is the inclusion of "praising evaluatively". People don't realize how often their praise can be a turn off to the one they are praising. Praising non-evaluatively is underappreciated.
For the advising portion of "sending solutions", I once had a miserable job where everyone was an expert, and I was just a junior non-expert who was working on an unusual side project for the team. It was very common that I'd be stuck somewhere and I'd get a lot of "help" (solicited and unsolicited) in solving my problem. About 50% of the times, their help was useless because they never understood my problem correctly! They would always transform the problem into something that fit into their expertise and suggest something else. It would always take a gigantic effort to convince them that they are not solving the problem I had - often more effort than if I hadn't asked at all. It got to the point that I had to be very careful not to mention my blockers in front of certain coworkers so that my time wouldn't be derailed. As I was the junior non-expert, it was always assumed that I was the one who didn't understand the problem.
This would have been solved had they practiced basic "reflecting back" to ensure that they understood my problem correctly.
> but these sound like a 1970s-era chatbot.
HA! Sums up my feelings about the reflect back advice crap I've been reading for years.
> Rather, it’s cargo cult advice: it teaches you to imitate the surface appearance of good listening, but misses what’s actually important, the thing that’s generating that surface appearance.
Ok. seriously guys, this is actually a good article.
> When I’ve listened the most effectively to people, it’s because I was intensely curious—I was trying to build a detailed, precise understanding of what was going on in their head.
[+] [-] BeetleB|5 years ago|reply
> There’s only one way to come to understand the other person’s story, and that’s by being curious. Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?” Instead of asking, “How can they be so irrational?” ask, “How might they see the world such that their view makes sense?” Certainty locks us out of their story; curiosity lets us in.
The heading of that section is Move From Certainty To Curiosity
I've always said that the NVC book is great on teaching the how but not the why, and that DC is the exact opposite. The latter gives you a lot of insight, but with a lot less practical guidance.
Similarly, the book Crucial Conversations specifies the following 4 ingredients to listening:
- Be sincere
- Show curiosity
- Stay curious (i.e. don't react)
- Be patient
[+] [-] kalind|5 years ago|reply
NVC does not encourage immediately asking questions to increase your intellectual understanding of the situation when someone is hurt/upset and it is not yet clear what that person wants from the interaction.
For example, take the author's example sentence: "I’m furious with my husband. He’s never around when I need him.". I would say that it's pretty clear that the person is feeling furious because their need for support isn't being met. What is less clear is what the person wants from me right now. My guess would be that the person wants empathy and understanding of their pain, but it may also be that they want some advice on how to solve the problem they're having with their husband.
Now this is where NVC says it's better to err on the side of the other person wanting empathy by guessing their feelings and needs (and this doesn't have to be done in the "classical" NVC way or even verbally at all depending on the situation). And if it turns out they actually wanted advice then of course it's fine to start asking questions to get a better intellectual understanding of the situation, but jumping immediately to "fixing" mode when the other person hasn't yet received sufficient empathy can be very hurtful.
[+] [-] nfin|5 years ago|reply
Edit: oh, and there are a couple books with those names, so metioning the author would be nice :)
[+] [-] benkuhn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|5 years ago|reply
my issue is that 90% of the time, my sincerity would mean leaving the convo
[+] [-] cainxinth|5 years ago|reply
Not being facetious at all, but that heuristic doesn’t work for anti-maskers. The information they have is widely viewable on Trump’s Twitter feed and Newsmax. I know what they know and I still have trouble understanding how they can think the way they do.
[+] [-] arduanika|5 years ago|reply
Interesting. What are other examples where the commonplace advice is just a symptom of the root behavior/attitude you want to cultivate?
[+] [-] grahamburger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|5 years ago|reply
In less abstract terms, it is not hard to learn the “tricks” and notice when people are using them on you, and it becomes incredibly irritating being around people who interact with you on that level.
Basically, if you’re interacting with people because you were told to do it that way, it’s probably manipulation. Teaching people to be empathetic and interested isn’t very easy and the more popular methods of faking it are pretty transparent.
[+] [-] imheretolearn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] candost|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] francis-li|5 years ago|reply
Chris Voss (author of Never Split the Difference) recommends a similar strategy. He often says that having the mindset of genuine curiosity is a great hack for having emotional control during a negotiation and potentially getting into flow state.
[+] [-] Cancan82|5 years ago|reply
The other person loves talking about themselves or their opinions. You are learning by paying attention enough ask more questions.
If you are negotiating silence can be your friend when the other party is feeling good talking about themselves
[+] [-] Osmose|5 years ago|reply
Yes, actually! Sometimes people don't have the energy to face and solve a problem _right now_, but are still feeling overwhelmed by it and seek validation from others that, yes, the feeling they're experiencing is real and acceptable.
> What’s really going on is probably that your advice is bad, because you didn’t really listen, because you weren’t curious enough.
Or maybe providing you with all the little details and context about their problem is taking _even more energy_ when they specifically turned to vent to you because they don't have the energy to solve their problem right now.
[+] [-] scns|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wanderingstan|5 years ago|reply
Such empathy is a sort of self-expansion, as you learn to see the world from their point of view. And the speaker, in turn, can learn from your observations of what it’s like to inhabit their life for a time.
[+] [-] Liron|5 years ago|reply
For example, my wife cooks a lot and complains about it, but she’s not interested to engage in brainstorming about how to throw money at the problem (which we have the budget to do). So I believe the best thing I can do when she brings it up is to express empathy and appreciation.
Being curious so as to “listen better” may be a good technique, but doesn’t seem like the central insight needed to best navigate this scenario.
[+] [-] scns|5 years ago|reply
Judging: - Criticizing - Name-calling - Diagnosing - Praising Evaluatively
Sending Solutions: - Ordering - Threatening - Moralizing - Excessive/Inappropriate Questioning - Advising
Avoiding the other's concern: - Diverting - Logical Argument - Reassuring
I was shocked how many of them i "used" to sabotage my communication.
[+] [-] BeetleB|5 years ago|reply
Judging: The NVC book refers to it as evaluating, but yes, it is high up on things not to do. What surprises many, but I found to be quite refreshing, is the inclusion of "praising evaluatively". People don't realize how often their praise can be a turn off to the one they are praising. Praising non-evaluatively is underappreciated.
For the advising portion of "sending solutions", I once had a miserable job where everyone was an expert, and I was just a junior non-expert who was working on an unusual side project for the team. It was very common that I'd be stuck somewhere and I'd get a lot of "help" (solicited and unsolicited) in solving my problem. About 50% of the times, their help was useless because they never understood my problem correctly! They would always transform the problem into something that fit into their expertise and suggest something else. It would always take a gigantic effort to convince them that they are not solving the problem I had - often more effort than if I hadn't asked at all. It got to the point that I had to be very careful not to mention my blockers in front of certain coworkers so that my time wouldn't be derailed. As I was the junior non-expert, it was always assumed that I was the one who didn't understand the problem.
This would have been solved had they practiced basic "reflecting back" to ensure that they understood my problem correctly.
[+] [-] gHosts|5 years ago|reply
> Rather, it’s cargo cult advice: it teaches you to imitate the surface appearance of good listening, but misses what’s actually important, the thing that’s generating that surface appearance.
Ok. seriously guys, this is actually a good article.
Color me very surprised!
[+] [-] h-1|5 years ago|reply
> When I’ve listened the most effectively to people, it’s because I was intensely curious—I was trying to build a detailed, precise understanding of what was going on in their head.
And how does one get that kind of curiosity?
[+] [-] Swizec|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisweekly|5 years ago|reply
- seen on a basketball inscription (from a father to his son)