The Art of Listening

[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.