The Art of Listening

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I think a lost point, to some, is that it's a very rare thing for someone to have an epiphany because of one conversation or statement. For most people change is a gradual thing brought about by consistent persuasiveness, i.e. it's a marathon not a sprint. For those of us with less intellectual or moral fortitude this seems like a waste of time. For those of use with logic and long term purpose every conversation is a step towards a final goal. Sadly, the former almost never seem to grasp this point, hence our current circumstances.

[Dill]

(07-29-2019, 05:56 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: But why would the topics discussed have to start with the 'beaten dead horse' ? And why would Dino necessarily have to bring up the 'dead horse'? Maybe after talking about the Thanksgiving dinner and the recent Steelers loss, brother-in-law could make some racist comment and there is an opening for a line of questions:

BiL: "Man them ******* sure are lazy! Just like O-bummer!"

Dino: "Is that what you have seen at work?"

BiL: "Yeah! They don't do sh*t!. And I'll tell you something else, that Kenyan ran this country into the ground!"

Dino: "Do you mean because of Obama Care?"

BiL: "Hell yeah! We are all turning into a bunch of pansy Socialists! Trump will straighten that out, man! What's wrong with you? You usually take up for O-bummer?"

Dino: "Just thought I'd actually listen to what you wanted to say for a change. Maybe I don't know everything."

DiL: "That's for sure! Supportin' O-bummer! You don't know anything!"

Dino: "Maybe knowing things is a little over-rated at times.But I don't get Trump. What do you like about him?"

etc.

I mean, it isn't pretty. You forego the instant gratification of making sure your voice is heard in order to let the other person speak their mind unopposed. Eventually after speaking long enough, they get tired of talking. Not in one conversation. Over time. Particularly if they are just regurgitating rhetoric they have heard somewhere else. And eventually, if given an open floor and some gently leading questions, they will want to talk about everyone's favorite topic: themselves. Humans do that.

Ha ha, well done. Excellent illustration of how to ignore the bait and keep the larger goal in mind.

Don't count on me to try this after a Steeler loss, though.

[Bengalzona]

(07-30-2019, 12:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Then he goes out and votes for Trump because of the immigrants and Hillary killing all those people.

Great talk!  LOL!

Did you ever think he was not going to vote for Trump? Did you think one conversation would change everything?

That doesn't seem realistic to me.


And since we are discussing Trump, I talked in depth with a lot of my friends who voted for him. Almost to a person, they stated the same things:
1) They did not like him.
2) They liked Hillary less.
3) If they had been offered a better choice than Hillary, they would have voted for that person.
3) They felt they were not being 'heard' by the Democrat Party. With this in mind, Trump is sort of a "taste-of-you-own-medicine" in their minds (Democrats don't listen to them = Trump doesn't listen to Democrats).
While I feel my friends were sincere about all of these points, I feel the fourth point had a particular resonance among them based upon how much active listening I had to do to reach that information. It was also a point that was hard for them to articulate (and a lot of these people are college educated). What this revolves around is a fear of being persecuted (like being called a racist, or a chauvanist, etc.) in public places for expressing certain thoughts or ideas.

[GMDino]

(07-30-2019, 04:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Did you ever think he was not going to vote for Trump? Did you think one conversation would change everything?

That doesn't seem realistic to me.


And since we are discussing Trump, I talked in depth with a lot of my friends who voted for him. Almost to a person, they stated the same things:
1) They did not like him.
2) They liked Hillary less.
3) If they had been offered a better choice than Hillary, they would have voted for that person.
3) They felt they were not being 'heard' by the Democrat Party. With this in mind, Trump is sort of a "taste-of-you-own-medicine" in their minds (Democrats don't listen to them = Trump doesn't listen to Democrats).
While I feel my friends were sincere about all of these points, I feel the fourth point had a particular resonance among them based upon how much active listening I had to do to reach that information. It was also a point that was hard for them to articulate (and a lot of these people are college educated). What this revolves around is a fear of being persecuted (like being called a racist, or a chauvanist, etc.) in public places for expressing certain thoughts or ideas.

To the bold first:  Just to look back at this thread I have agreed that listening is a good strategy.  My point has been that you can't "just" listen forever.  Soon or later you must get them to think beyond their own beliefs.  Yes Jim was going to vote for Trump no matter what.  So what would my conversation or ten conversations or 1000 conversations do if I just said "I always wondered why you thought the way you do."

I am totally on board with civil conversations.  I don't buy that it can happen with "no agenda" most of the time.

The people who voted for Trump because they didn't feel "heard" what are we do to do?  Listen to them say they wanted a different candidate?  We know that.  Now what?  

I'll accept the premise of listening as a general rule...but it will not bring change like is being presented.

That doesn't mean you call every Trump support a racist.  But you can show them how racist he can be and ask why they support that.

I apologize if that hurts their feelings and makes them not like Democrats for "not listening to them".

My best friend voted for Trump and he HATES him as a man.  He didn't rust Clinton and is an avowed conservative.  We can talk for hours about our differences of opinions and reach compromises or change our minds because we present arguments for why that should happen...not just passively listen.  People that are full entrenched like my BIL aren't GOING to change.  Period.  Listen, dont, doesn't matter.

Are your friends sorry they voted for DJT?  Will they vote for hm again if they don't like the Democratic nominee because THEY aren't being heard?  If that's the case then listening does nothing but reinforce what they already believe.


Change comes from challenge.  External or internal.

[Dill]

(07-30-2019, 04:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: 3) If they had been offered a better choice than Hillary, they would have voted for that person.
3) They felt they were not being 'heard' by the Democrat Party. With this in mind, Trump is sort of a "taste-of-you-own-medicine" in their minds (Democrats don't listen to them = Trump doesn't listen to Democrats).
While I feel my friends were sincere about all of these points, I feel the fourth point had a particular resonance among them based upon how much active listening I had to do to reach that information. It was also a point that was hard for them to articulate (and a lot of these people are college educated). What this revolves around is a fear of being persecuted (like being called a racist, or a chauvanist, etc.) in public places for expressing certain thoughts or ideas.

(07-30-2019, 09:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: The people who voted for Trump because they didn't feel "heard" what are we do to do?  Listen to them say they wanted a different candidate?  We know that.  Now what? 

1. I am suspicious when I hear Hillary appeared "worse" than Trump. Seriously, what are the criteria for determining better or worse?

2.  And I am suspicious of the claim people were not "heard" by the Democratic party. The party tacked towards the center to keep them in the '90s. Then those people complain about the results and vote for the party of outsourcing and tax cuts for the rich?

But the guy who wanted a Muslim ban and the wall was listening to them?

3. What sort of "thoughts or ideas" tend to elicit charges of racism or chauvinism, and "persecution"? Could these be what the Democratic party was not listening to?

1. and 2. suggest to me that while we are listening to Trump voters, they are listening to Rush and Fox and Drudge and World Net Daily.

I say this while granting that the points I am making here are absolute conversation killers with the people in question, likely to be perceived as more evidence of the elitism Fox warns them of everyday.

[Bengalzona]

(07-30-2019, 09:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold first:  Just to look back at this thread I have agreed that listening is a good strategy.  My point has been that you can't "just" listen forever.  Soon or later you must get them to think beyond their own beliefs.  Yes Jim was going to vote for Trump no matter what.  So what would my conversation or ten conversations or 1000 conversations do if I just said "I always wondered why you thought the way you do."

I am totally on board with civil conversations.  I don't buy that it can happen with "no agenda" most of the time.

The people who voted for Trump because they didn't feel "heard" what are we do to do?  Listen to them say they wanted a different candidate?  We know that.  Now what?  

I'll accept the premise of listening as a general rule...but it will not bring change like is being presented.

That doesn't mean you call every Trump support a racist.  But you can show them how racist he can be and ask why they support that.

I apologize if that hurts their feelings and makes them not like Democrats for "not listening to them".

My best friend voted for Trump and he HATES him as a man.  He didn't rust Clinton and is an avowed conservative.  We can talk for hours about our differences of opinions and reach compromises or change our minds because we present arguments for why that should happen...not just passively listen.  People that are full entrenched like my BIL aren't GOING to change.  Period.  Listen, dont, doesn't matter.

Are your friends sorry they voted for DJT?  Will they vote for hm again if they don't like the Democratic nominee because THEY aren't being heard?  If that's the case then listening does nothing but reinforce what they already believe.


Change comes from challenge.  External or internal.

A talented listener can change someone's opinion just by leading the person to listen to and consider their own words they are speaking.  Dill pointed this out earlier. The more outrageous a person's position is, the more likely this is to happen. But that only happens when they trust the person they are speaking to.

Some of my friends are sorry that they voted for Trump.

You say change only comes from challenge. Perhaps. But don't you think the way the challenge is presented has merit? Has Rush Limbaugh's challenges to your beliefs been effective?

[Bengalzona]

(07-30-2019, 10:37 AM)Dill Wrote: 1. I am suspicious when I hear Hillary appeared "worse" than Trump. Seriously, what are the criteria for determining better or worse?

2.  And I am suspicious of the claim people were not "heard" by the Democratic party. The party tacked towards the center to keep them in the '90s. Then those people complain about the results and vote for the party of outsourcing and tax cuts for the rich?

But the guy who wanted a Muslim ban and the wall was listening to them?

3. What sort of "thoughts or ideas" tend to elicit charges of racism or chauvinism, and "persecution"? Could these be what the Democratic party was not listening to?

1. and 2. suggest to me that while we are listening to Trump voters, they are listening to Rush and Fox and Drudge and World Net Daily.

I say this while granting that the points I am making here are absolute conversation killers with the people in question, likely to be perceived as more evidence of the elitism Fox warns them of everyday.

Personally, I have never been a big fan of the Clintons. So when my friends say they don't like Hillary, I tend to sympathize with them a bit.

The criteria for someone deciding they like one candidate over another is subjective, as it always has been. And that criteria may be logic and facts, or gut feelings and instincts, or emotions, etc.

I think many people on the Right feel it is more of a societal trend during the past fifty years towards things like political correctness. I think they feel these things have gone a bit too far. I feel that way myself sometimes. I also think that the minority with extreme Right Wing ideologies have piggy-backed on this growing discomfort and tailored their messages to that.

My friends tell me they have been criticized for not knowing what to call black people as a group or someone with gender dysphoria. For example, one of my friends told me he used to collectively call black people 'blacks', and then he was publicly called out for saying that. So he changed to 'African Americans'. He was also publicly called out for that ("not all black people are from Africa"). Then he chose to call them 'people of color'. He was publicly called out for that ("all people have a color"). In his mind, this seems to be some kind of game just meant to belittle hm in conversations.

[GMDino]

(07-30-2019, 04:41 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Personally, I have never been a big fan of the Clintons/ So when my friends say they don't like Hillary, I tend to sympathize with them a bit.

The criteria for someone deciding they like one candidate over another is subjective, as it always has been. And that criteria may be logic and facts, or gut feelings and instincts, or emotions, etc.

I thinmwhat many people on the Right feel is more of a societal trend during the past fifty years towards things like political correctness. I think they feel these things have gone a bit too far. I feel that way myself sometimes. I also think that the minority with extreme Right Wing idologies have piggy-backed on this growing discomfort and tailored their messages to that.

My friends tell me they have been criticized for not knowing what to call a black people as a group or someone with gender dysphoria. For example, one of my friends told me he used to collectively call black people 'blacks', and then he was publicly called out for saying that. So he changed to 'African Americans'. He was also publicly called out for that ("not all black people are from Africa"). Then he chose to call them 'people of color'. He was publicly called out for that ("all people have a color"). In his mind, this seems to be some kind of game just meany to belittle hm in conversations.

Why are your friends talking about groups of black people so often and why do they care if they get "called out"?  If someone I'm talking to says they don't like how I said something I might change it while I'm talking to them, but I don't take it personally and I might not say it that way when talking to others.

[GMDino]

(07-30-2019, 04:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: A talented listener can change someone's opinion just by leading the person to listen to and consider their own words they are speaking.  Dill pointed this out earlier. The more outrageous a person's position is, the more likely this is to happen. But that only happens when they trust the person they are speaking to.

Some of my friends are sorry that they voted for Trump.

You say change only comes from challenge. Perhaps. But don't you think the way the challenge is presented has merit? Has Rush Limbaugh's challenges to your beliefs been effective?

I already said it doesn't matter how the change is presented...but there must be change presented.

Has 30 years of listening to callers agree with him changed anything about Limbaugh?

[Bengalzona]

(07-30-2019, 04:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I already said it doesn't matter how the change is presented...but there must be change presented.

Has 30 years of listening to callers agree with him changed anything about Limbaugh?

And how many non-fans do you think have tuned in to Rush and had their opinions changed by what he said?

[Bengalzona]

(07-30-2019, 04:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why are your friends talking about groups of black people so often and why do they care if they get "called out"?  If someone I'm talking to says they don't like how I said something I might change it while I'm talking to them, but I don't take it personally and I might not say it that way when talking to others.

Considering the community I grew up in is multi-ethnic and multi-racial, speaking of ethnic or racial groups was (is) not uncommon, usually while they are present also.

[GMDino]

(07-30-2019, 08:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: And how many non-fans do you think have tuned in to Rush and had their opinions changed by what he said?

So passive listening changes nothing.

That's about it.

[Dill]

(07-30-2019, 04:41 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Personally, I have never been a big fan of the Clintons. So when my friends say they don't like Hillary, I tend to sympathize with them a bit.

The criteria for someone deciding they like one candidate over another is subjective, as it always has been. And that criteria may be logic and facts, or gut feelings and instincts, or emotions, etc.

I think many people on the Right feel it is more of a societal trend during the past fifty years towards things like political correctness. I think they feel these things have gone a bit too far. I feel that way myself sometimes. I also think that the minority with extreme Right Wing ideologies have piggy-backed on this growing discomfort and tailored their messages to that.

My friends tell me they have been criticized for not knowing what to call black people as a group or someone with gender dysphoria. For example, one of my friends told me he used to collectively call black people 'blacks', and then he was publicly called out for saying that. So he changed to 'African Americans'. He was also publicly called out for that ("not all black people are from Africa"). Then he chose to call them 'people of color'. He was publicly called out for that ("all people have a color"). In his mind, this seems to be some kind of game just meant to belittle hm in conversations.

Agree here, especially with the bolded.

Let me advance the discussion a notch. I am a white person too. People of color/blacks/African-Americans have also sought to correct my views on the proper labels over the years, and on what counts on racism as well.  So this doesn't only happen to people who become Trump supporters. Also, I spent part of my adolescence growing up on an Indian reservation where I was always called "white boy." Sometimes I was physically attacked. I was never especially offended, never took it personally, even where offense was intended, because of the powerlessness of the non-whites so addressing me. I never thought of this as reverse racism, or its partner, "racism plain and simple."

But I am not all confused about this, wondering what I am supposed to call "them," those non-white minorities.  "They" are a mixture of different outlooks and ideologies, just like us. So that guy calling me out for saying "African-American," or the other guy insisting I say "blacks," or someone totally different years later in a different state who wants me to say "people of color,"--I don't see these all as speaking for their "race."  I don't see a unified problem confronting my "race." 

Sometimes this sort of "correction" comes from young folks who have been watching online videos or reading excerpts of Malcom X in a HS class.  No doubt there are some people who see this as an easy way to gain some kind of momentary moral leverage.  I am comfortable reducing the leverage by raising the issue of 1st-world privilege (which benefits ALL Americans, regardless of color) if it looks like the discussion might be worth it, or asking them for the rationale for the correction.

So far, though, nothing in my experience of inter-racial discussion/conflict has led me to think there is a problem here worth my vote. I don't see a threat, personal or national. "They" are not taking over. So I am curious as to how this minimal friction begins to define the experience of so many white Americans, gets channeled into the kind of national ground swell which brought a grifter into the presidency. 

We often talk about people's political choices as if they come from some deeply private, mysterious place wholly unique to each individual. But I think that such choices are largely constructed within a world view depending on friends, family, schooling, and selected information sources. Some such sources work actively to connect the dots for people, to link their otherwise minimal frictions with other races to more serious economic/political issues.(Check out the thread "Iraq Veteran Fired Due To Skin Color" for illustration of this will to amplify.)

Dino and a number of other white boys on this thread also don't get all bent out of shape over "unfairness" to whites.  Why do some whiteys break one way, some another?  This is a question which generally interests me. Why the urgency to reverse charges of racism when Trump and other whites are accused of it, arguably for legitimate reasons? To separate questions of racism from questions of power? To defend by finding "real racism" in those who challenge racism and the like?

[Bengalzona]

(07-31-2019, 12:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: So passive listening changes nothing.

That's about it.

Passive listening = active talking?

[GMDino]

(07-31-2019, 12:57 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Passive listening = active talking?

Active talking = challenging

[Bengalzona]

(07-31-2019, 12:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Agree here, especially with the bolded.

Let me advance the discussion a notch. I am a white person too. People of color/blacks/African-Americans have also sought to correct my views on the proper labels over the years, and on what counts on racism as well.  So this doesn't only happen to people who become Trump supporters. Also, I spent part of my adolescence growing up on an Indian reservation where I was always called "white boy." Sometimes I was physically attacked. I was never especially offended, never took it personally, even where offense was intended, because of the powerlessness of the non-whites so addressing me. I never thought of this as reverse racism, or its partner, "racism plain and simple."

But I am not all confused about this, wondering what I am supposed to call "them," those non-white minorities.  "They" are a mixture of different outlooks and ideologies, just like us. So that guy calling me out for saying "African-American," or the other guy insisting I say "blacks," or someone totally different years later in a different state who wants me to say "people of color,"--I don't see these all as speaking for their "race."  I don't see a unified problem confronting my "race." 

Sometimes this sort of "correction" comes from young folks who have been watching online videos or reading excerpts of Malcom X in a HS class.  No doubt there are some people who see this as an easy way to gain some kind of momentary moral leverage.  I am comfortable reducing the leverage by raising the issue of 1st-world privilege (which benefits ALL Americans, regardless of color) if it looks like the discussion might be worth it, or asking them for the rationale for the correction.

So far, though, nothing in my experience of inter-racial discussion/conflict has led me to think there is a problem here worth my vote. I don't see a threat, personal or national. "They" are not taking over. So I am curious as to how this minimal friction begins to define the experience of so many white Americans, gets channeled into the kind of national ground swell which brought a grifter into the presidency. 

We often talk about people's political choices as if they come from some deeply private, mysterious place wholly unique to each individual. But I think that such choices are largely constructed within a world view depending on friends, family, schooling, and selected information sources. Some such sources work actively to connect the dots for people, to link their otherwise minimal frictions with other races to more serious economic/political issues.(Check out the thread "Iraq Veteran Fired Due To Skin Color" for illustration of this will to amplify.)

Dino and a number of other white boys on this thread also don't get all bent out of shape over "unfairness" to whites.  Why do some whiteys break one way, some another?  This is a question which generally interests me. Why the urgency to reverse charges of racism when Trump and other whites are accused of it, arguably for legitimate reasons? To separate questions of racism from questions of power? To defend by finding "real racism" in those who challenge racism and the like?

What do you think of the difference between 'casual racism' and 'formal racism'?

[Dill]

(07-31-2019, 01:11 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: What do you think of the difference between 'casual racism' and 'formal racism'?

I don't use either of those terms. The first is pretty fuzzy.  Not sure what you mean by "formal" in the second.

What I do recognize is that current divisions over what counts as "racism" are largely divisions over how so-called "racist" actions are socially embedded. Is racism something that occurs between individuals at an individual level, or is it tied to larger social structures/institutions in turn embedded in a history of one race's dominance over another? If the latter, then it could be hard for an Aboriginal Australian to be "racist" no matter how much he hated white Australians.  If the former, then there is no "reverse" or "internalized" or "horizontal" racism. There is only "just plain racism." 

In the context of your thread and its challenge to listen, I am trying right now to rethink how "casual racism" might help sort out listenee responses.

PS just as an experiment, I would urge everyone to stick to B-zona's theme and its challenge.
Would hate to see a thread about listening spiral down into accusation and insulting quips.

[Bengalzona]

(07-31-2019, 01:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: Active talking = challenging

Active talking = none or very little listening

[Bengalzona]

(07-31-2019, 12:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't use either of those terms. The first is pretty fuzzy.  Not sure what you mean by "formal" in the second.

What I do recognize is that current divisions over what counts as "racism" are largely divisions over how so-called "racist" actions are socially embedded. Is racism something that occurs between individuals at an individual level, or is it tied to larger social structures/institutions in turn embedded in a history of one race's dominance over another? If the latter, then it could be hard for an Aboriginal Australian to be "racist" no matter how much he hated white Australians.  If the former, then there is no "reverse" or "internalized" or "horizontal" racism. There is only "just plain racism." 

In the context of your thread and its challenge to listen, I am trying right now to rethink how "casual racism" might help sort out listenee responses.

Frankly, I had never heard the terms before until I was watching "Orange is the New Black" the other day. From what they explain and what I gather from other sources, 'formal racism' is racism based upon a belief of racial superiority/inferiority whereas 'casual racism' is more rooted in an ignorance about another race and prevailing prejudices and stereotypes in a society.

In the show, one inmate chastises another saying her comments were racist. The second inmate corrects here by saying her comments were casual racism, not formal, and then proceeds to explain the difference. She ends by saying something like, "I occasionally engage in casual racism even though I know better because it is fun." Definitely dark humor, eh (no racist pun intended).

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?

[Bengalzona]

(Putting on mod/admin hat)

You'll note some of the posts have disappeared. Let's keep the conversation focused on ideas and not each other. Thank you.