The Art of Listening

[GMDino]

(07-31-2019, 06:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Active talking = none or very little listening

I disagree.  The good interviewer is engaged with their guest.

Active talking = drawing out the other person's words.  While that can come from an "agenda" (trying to "trick" someone into a mistake or saying something YOU want) it also comes from being a good listener.  Reacting to what the other person says and NOT just what you want to get across to them.

Asking my deceased BIL if he worked with any of these "lazy n******" is as loaded as asking "they weren't ALL lazy, were they?" becuase he DID work with some (one, five, who knows) and they are the ones he uses to defend his "belief" that they are lazy.  Seeing other examples of hard working black people didn't change that.  Why?  Because those examples were not WHY he was racist...they were just what he used to defend his racism.  "I've seen it" is the racist "I have a black friend" for people who want to say they AREN'T racist.  Speaking with him, even just listening to his stories only reinforced that what he "saw" reinforced what he "knew"...that blacks are lazy, welfare collecting good for nothings.  Without any other outside influence, say from someone questioning that "knowledge" with some outside facts and experiences, those will not change no matter how well anyone listened to him.

Once again, I am all for listening versus accusing and screaming,  I just have an issue with the never offering any kind of challenge.  At some point it must be presented to begin the change...if there will ever be one.

[Bengalzona]

(08-01-2019, 09:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: I disagree.  The good interviewer is engaged with their guest.

Active talking = drawing out the other person's words.  While that can come from an "agenda" (trying to "trick" someone into a mistake or saying something YOU want) it also comes from being a good listener.  Reacting to what the other person says and NOT just what you want to get across to them.

Asking my deceased BIL if he worked with any of these "lazy n******" is as loaded as asking "they weren't ALL lazy, were they?" becuase he DID work with some (one, five, who knows) and they are the ones he uses to defend his "belief" that they are lazy.  Seeing other examples of hard working black people didn't change that.  Why?  Because those examples were not WHY he was racist...they were just what he used to defend his racism.  "I've seen it" is the racist "I have a black friend" for people who want to say they AREN'T racist.  Speaking with him, even just listening to his stories only reinforced that what he "saw" reinforced what he "knew"...that blacks are lazy, welfare collecting good for nothings.  Without any other outside influence, say from someone questioning that "knowledge" with some outside facts and experiences, those will not change no matter how well anyone listened to him.

Once again, I am all for listening versus accusing and screaming,  I just have an issue with the never offering any kind of challenge.  At some point it must be presented to begin the change...if there will ever be one.

Interviewing is a skill, a skill which requires a combination listening and speaking if done correctly. I think you and I could agree with that statement. At least as far as the profession of journalism.

When I think of an "active talker", I see someone like Rush who I would not consider to be an "interviewer". More like a Goebbles-style propagandist. In this example, the talker's need to express their agenda overrides any true listening to a contrary point of view. At best you get 'faux listening', feigning listening for dramatic purpose while waiting to express the agenda in the form of an attack.

Going back to the example of BiL, I would probably state that my experiences with working with black people were different and quickly follow-up with another question. And, yes, I know that is not "why" he is racist. He sees the world through racist lens that color it a certain way. But directly pointing that out to him is doomed to failure anyway, right? And, once again, this is all assuming the he already would know how you feel about this. Is that a correct assumption? You had discussed this before over the years, right? In that case, you are already "the challenge". You represent the ideology he does not want to see. I'm not talking about feigning to be "on someone's side" here. I don't see anything wrong with telling someone you don't feel that same way or your opinions are different in active listening. It is more about when you feel compelled to tell them "why they are wrong" in the process. That makes a disagreement of views into an adversarial situation. And that kills communication.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-01-2019, 12:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Interviewing is a skill, a skill which requires a combination listening and speaking if done correctly. I think you and I could agree with that statement. At least as far as the profession of journalism.

When I think of an "active talker", I see someone like Rush who I would not consider to be an "interviewer". More like a Goebbles-style propagandist. In this example, the talker's need to express their agenda overrides any true listening to a contrary point of view. At best you get 'faux listening', feigning listening for dramatic purpose while waiting to express the agenda in the form of an attack.

Going back to the example of BiL, I would probably state that my experiences with working with black people were different and quickly follow-up with another question. And, yes, I know that is not "why" he is racist. He sees the world through racist lens that color it a certain way. But directly pointing that out to him is doomed to failure anyway, right? And, once again, this is all assuming the he already would know how you feel about this. Is that a correct assumption? You had discussed this before over the years, right? In that case, you are already "the challenge". You represent the ideology he does not want to see. I'm not talking about feigning to be "on someone's side" here. I don't see anything wrong with telling someone you don't feel that same way or your opinions are different in active listening. It is more about when you feel compelled to tell them "why they are wrong" in the process. That makes a disagreement of views into an adversarial situation. And that kills communication.

I'm certainly a fanboy, but Howard Stern is a master at the interview process.  He engages while he talks and listens.  I'm sure many still think of him as just having porn stars on and throwing baloney at women (which wasn't true even back in the 90's) but the guy can literally take any person and make an interesting interview out of them.  If you haven't done so, listen to his interview of Conan O' Brian, Paul McCartney or basically anyone.  His David Spade interviews are always great as well.

[GMDino]

(08-01-2019, 02:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm certainly a fanboy, but Howard Stern is a master at the interview process.  He engages while he talks and listens.  I'm sure many still think of him as just having porn stars on and throwing baloney at women (which wasn't true even back in the 90's) but the guy can literally take any person and make an interesting interview out of them.  If you haven't done so, listen to his interview of Conan O' Brian, Paul McCartney or basically anyone.  His David Spade interviews are always great as well.

We agree on this.  My wife would see is show on E! and focus on the boobs and course stuff but he's a master interviewer.

And he challenges his guests.  He probes them to get them to answer the questions...not to change their minds to his point of view necessarily...but to get them to talk about it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-01-2019, 02:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: We agree on this.  My wife would see is show on E! and focus on the boobs and course stuff but he's a master interviewer.

And he challenges his guests.  He probes them to get them to answer the questions...not to change their minds to his point of view necessarily...but to get them to talk about it.

His interview of Jennifer Lawrence literally got ripped off whole-cloth by several tabloids in the UK because he got things out of her that no one ever had.  I would really like the Dem challenger for POTUS to go on his show.  I think they're extremely wary given the misperception of Howard by many, but he humanizes people.  I've literally gone from not liking someone to being a bit of a fan after a good interview with Howard.  I think it would be a huge win for them.

[Bengalzona]

(08-01-2019, 02:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm certainly a fanboy, but Howard Stern is a master at the interview process.  He engages while he talks and listens.  I'm sure many still think of him as just having porn stars on and throwing baloney at women (which wasn't true even back in the 90's) but the guy can literally take any person and make an interesting interview out of them.  If you haven't done so, listen to his interview of Conan O' Brian, Paul McCartney or basically anyone.  His David Spade interviews are always great as well.

Yes. He's not the shock jock he was hyped as back in the nineties. He is capable of getting real deep in his interviews. As far as politics, he strikes me as apolitical.

[Belsnickel]

(08-01-2019, 03:44 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yes. He's not the shock jock he was hyped as back in the nineties. He is capable of getting real deep in his interviews. As far as politics, he strikes me as apolitical.

I wouldn't say he's apolitical. His political ideology is rooted in the importance of free speech, which both parties can tend to cause problems for. So I would say he isn't partisan, but he is political.

[Bengalzona]

(08-01-2019, 04:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wouldn't say he's apolitical. His political ideology is rooted in the importance of free speech, which both parties can tend to cause problems for. So I would say he isn't partisan, but he is political.

STFU...I'm talking here, buster!!!!

js kidding! (Thought that would be humorous in a thread about 'listening')

[Dill]

(07-31-2019, 07:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The quote sort of stuck with me. I thought back on my school days growing up. As I mentioned, my community was very multi-ethnic and multi-racial. I didn't know it at that time, but back in the late 60's early 70's, that was sort of a new thing for most of America. We were also all at pretty much at the same socio-economic ladder (i.e. there weren't any truly rich or truly poor kids around). We would engage in this type of 'casual racism' for fun among ourselves. And people didn't take it seriously. When my friend would tease me, "Hey, man! You can't dance. Everybody knows white boys can't move their hips!", I'd laugh and say, "We all know you ain't no James Brown, bro!". They would laught too. Because we knew each other for years, we knew there was no bad intent with such comments. We also knew through experience where to draw a line. And engaging in such diatribe actually tended to make us feel a bit closer. Someone one not in our group hearing such comments might not take those comments the same way. So, were our comments racist? Is it in the eye of the beholder?

And at the same time, other types of racism do exist. Slavery in the U.S. was certainly based upon formal or institutionalized racism. And, as in the example of the reservation you noted before, racism based upon stereotypes or prejudices certainly exists. But what is the relationship between the different manifestations of racism? Where are the cutoffs between them?

I don't think racism is in the eye of the beholder. But it may seem that way because people hold to different definitions, which may create the illusion everyone has his own definition. Also, social circumstances are changing. You were among the first to experience inter-racial fraternization as "normal." People who weren't mixing weren't experiencing the definitional challenges mentioned earlier. I remember in the 60s African-and native-Americans were more willing to express solidarity with liberal whites. In the 70s I noticed that went to pot. And yet, people are more socially integrated than at any previous time in Us history.

Anyway, a couple more thoughts on "racisms." It is not possible to create and demarcate useful definitions without thinking of how they might be applied, how they might be tested, made consistent and accountable.  Some definitions seem suited to moral leveraging on message boards, but not much more ("B-zona said "white"!  HE'S the REAL racist!").

I look to people who are doing historical and social research on race issues (historians, sociologists, critical race theorists), whose goal is to understand these issues first. Their definitions develop and change as new information emerges and they are tested by logical consistency and application to events past and present.

In the US, right now, definitions seem to be moving in primarily two directions: 1) racism is individualized, tied individual performance and responsibility, and 2) racism is tied to dominance, to history of institutional and personal control. These definitions fit different purposes, solve different problems. The former is frequently deployed to dispute claims that institutional racism continues. The latter to affirm them.

So when one is "listening" to others, one may be listening through, and listening to, racial tensions and shaped and experienced primarily through one of these definitions.

[Bengalzona]

(08-02-2019, 04:09 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't think racism is in the eye of the beholder. But it may seem that way because people hold to different definitions, which may create the illusion everyone has his own definition. Also, social circumstances are changing. You were among the first to experience inter-racial fraternization as "normal." People who weren't mixing weren't experiencing the definitional challenges mentioned earlier. I remember in the 60s African-and native-Americans were more willing to express solidarity with liberal whites. In the 70s I noticed that went to pot. And yet, people are more socially integrated than at any previous time in Us history.

Anyway, a couple more thoughts on "racisms." It is not possible to create and demarcate useful definitions without thinking of how they might be applied, how they might be tested, made consistent and accountable.  Some definitions seem suited to moral leveraging on message boards, but not much more ("B-zona said "white"!  HE'S the REAL racist!").

I look to people who are doing historical and social research on race issues (historians, sociologists, critical race theorists), whose goal is to understand these issues first. Their definitions develop and change as new information emerges and they are tested by logical consistency and application to events past and present.

In the US, right now, definitions seem to be moving in primarily two directions: 1) racism is individualized, tied individual performance and responsibility, and 2) racism is tied to dominance, to history of institutional and personal control. These definitions fit different purposes, solve different problems. The former is frequently deployed to dispute claims that institutional racism continues. The latter to affirm them.

So when one is "listening" to others, one may be listening through, and listening to, racial tensions and shaped and experienced primarily through one of these definitions.

Very academically written,my friend.

But that last line would seem to support the "Eyes (or, more appropriately, ears) of the Beholder" concept.

Also, is it possible for someone to make a "racist" comment and not really be a racist? Certainly the opposite is true: Racists can and do make non-racist comments. I ask the question, but I'm not sure that anyone can really answer definitively because, as we have seen, the scope of the term 'racist' is pretty wide. You give the two common definitions above, which loosely seem to align with the more base terms of 'casual racism' and 'formal racism' that I mentioned before.