On the art of listening
December 21st 2006 02:15
"One ought therefore to strip off the superfluity and inanity from the style, and to seek after the fruit itself, imitating not women that make garlands, but the bees." -- Plutarch, "Peri tou akouein"
"From Alexander the grammarian: to avoid fault-finding and not to censure in a carping spirit any who employ an exotic phrase, a solecism, or harsh expression, but oneself to use, neatly and precisely, the correct phrase, by way of answer or confirmation or handling of the actual question -- the thing, not its verbal expression". -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 1.10
So most people believe listening to speech is passive and comes naturally, whereas Plutarch wants to claim that listening is a skill requiring mastery.
"On listening to lectures" gives the following advices:
-- Keep your eye on the ball. Focus on what, not how. Concern yourself with truth, not arguing. Don't be clouded by emotion or inner dialogue. Actually hear and retain what the speaker is saying.
-- Be polite. Discourse demands graciousness and friendliness. Compliment properly -- not too much or too little. (And perhaps the rationales include: that a receptive frame of mind is required to derive maximum benefit; that politeness will allow speakers to speak at their best, which is also to your benefit; and that you need such a general atmosphere for a productive community of speech.)
-- Ask the right questions (not nitpicking questions, not irrelevant questions, not questions whose answers you can easily find yourself, not questions simply to show off, and don't NOT ask out of fear of being laughed at -- be clear on the meaning of the lecture).
-- Analyse afterwards. Begin by examining with your own state of mind -- listen to yourself. Extract what is useful from the lecture (and there is always something useful, even when the speaker fails). Cultivate independent thought.
"Right listening is the beginning of right living" -- partly because, says Plutarch, you've finished school, and in the big bad world you're going to hear all manner of arguments, and it's up to you to decide right from wrong and to educate yourself.
But this initial step, keeping your eye on the ball, working out what the hell the speaker is saying in the first place -- this seems to me far easier said than done.
Lilla tells the story of a family conversation about school and pupils. Lilla's daughter listens in, then later exclaims, "Mum, I am not an eye".
-- She lacks linguistic knowledge, but she also lacks listening knowledge. And the skills she hasn't yet learnt aren't straightforward. The operating mistake is something to do with holding meanings as fixed and assumptions as uncorrectable, and being insufficiently sensitive to context.
And perhaps there is no such thing as good swimming, but only good swimming in choppy waters, good speed swimming in a pool, good distance breaststroke...
You can speak, generally, of the amount of information you extract, the amount you don't miss, the amount you retain. You can speak of the ability, at any moment in time, to state the point, and the inability to be thrown.
But perhaps there is no good listening in the abstract, but only good listening in terms of various purposes and practicalities.
To take in a speech and retain it, seems to involve:
-- good hearing;
-- a good memory;
-- ability to keep track of disagreement and ambiguity and unclarity;
-- linguistic sensitivity, to unravel nuances;
-- somatic sensitivity, for all the meanings of body and tone;
-- context sensitivity (including the context of the particular speaker's style), and general knowledge, because these tell you what words mean, what the important points are, how they relate to the whole, why they're worth saying at all, what's not said, what's trying to be said;
-- ability to extract "secondary" information -- information about good and bad lecturing, about language, about the form and pattern of arguments, about the speaker's personality and thinking and culture, etc;
-- flexibility in your own beliefs, so you're unthrown when the speaker uses "pupil" for "student", or operates on an entirely different set of assumptions -- you can still appreciate what they're saying in terms of where they're coming from (and -- who knows? -- you might later agree with their assumptions after all);
-- psychology; for instance, knowing, including in a behaviour-sensitive Meisner way, what beliefs or emotional state or mindset could have caused those words, because these affect what meanings the words have, and allow you to extrapolate what they entail or imply;
-- being able quickly to structure content, for ease of grasping argument, and so you can appreciate the effect of the whole;
-- being able quickly to relate content to your own beliefs and arguments;
-- being able to analyze (in terms of whatever system and purpose).
But something like "openness to correction", and sensitivity towards which assumptions are the most dubious -- how can this be reduced to a set of rules?
How can you systematically instruct people in discerning what is trying to be said, or what isn't said?
How, in fact, can all the skills of listening be reduced to a list?
The traditional training seems to have been to throw them in the deep end, and let 'em sink or swim. You develop the skills or you don't, and you're forced continually to practise, use, hone them. The best way to learn French is to live in France.
Barristers, CEOs, and mob bosses tend to be excellent listeners.
Foucault notes: "In the philosophical movements of Stoicism in the imperial period... we see the disappearance of dialogue and the increasing importance of a new pedagogical relationship -- a new pedagogical game where the master-teacher speaks and does not ask questions, and the disciple does not answer but must listen and keep silent. A cultivation of silence becomes more and more important. In Pythagorean cultivation, disciples kept silent for five years as a pedagogical rule."
And even today, some teachers will insist their students not take notes -- "If you're writing, you're not listening."
The matter turns out to be part of two broader questions: what does it mean to understand? and what do you have to do to understand efficiently, or at all?
And listening is only one part of the more complex art of answering.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia commons, and from the Wikipedia article Vito Corleone.
The Plutarch quote was from a 1960 translation by Frank Cole Babbit.
The Aurelius quote was from a 1944 translation by ASL Farquharson.
The Foucault quote was from: "Technologies of the self" in Ethics: subjectivity and truth (1994), edited by Paul Rabinow, translated by Robert Hurley and others.
There is a course on listening at the University of Iowa. "Practical activities will include in-class exercises and a 'listening journal' which will help us hone our own listening skills. Finally we will get a chance to test our acquire[d] knowledge with a visit to the famous audiology program at The University of Iowa, where the pathology of listening (or more precisely hearing) survives today as a scientific discipline." The website includes a bibliography.
"From Alexander the grammarian: to avoid fault-finding and not to censure in a carping spirit any who employ an exotic phrase, a solecism, or harsh expression, but oneself to use, neatly and precisely, the correct phrase, by way of answer or confirmation or handling of the actual question -- the thing, not its verbal expression". -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 1.10
***
So most people believe listening to speech is passive and comes naturally, whereas Plutarch wants to claim that listening is a skill requiring mastery.
"On listening to lectures" gives the following advices:
-- Keep your eye on the ball. Focus on what, not how. Concern yourself with truth, not arguing. Don't be clouded by emotion or inner dialogue. Actually hear and retain what the speaker is saying.
-- Be polite. Discourse demands graciousness and friendliness. Compliment properly -- not too much or too little. (And perhaps the rationales include: that a receptive frame of mind is required to derive maximum benefit; that politeness will allow speakers to speak at their best, which is also to your benefit; and that you need such a general atmosphere for a productive community of speech.)
-- Ask the right questions (not nitpicking questions, not irrelevant questions, not questions whose answers you can easily find yourself, not questions simply to show off, and don't NOT ask out of fear of being laughed at -- be clear on the meaning of the lecture).
-- Analyse afterwards. Begin by examining with your own state of mind -- listen to yourself. Extract what is useful from the lecture (and there is always something useful, even when the speaker fails). Cultivate independent thought.
"Right listening is the beginning of right living" -- partly because, says Plutarch, you've finished school, and in the big bad world you're going to hear all manner of arguments, and it's up to you to decide right from wrong and to educate yourself.
***
But this initial step, keeping your eye on the ball, working out what the hell the speaker is saying in the first place -- this seems to me far easier said than done.
Lilla tells the story of a family conversation about school and pupils. Lilla's daughter listens in, then later exclaims, "Mum, I am not an eye".
-- She lacks linguistic knowledge, but she also lacks listening knowledge. And the skills she hasn't yet learnt aren't straightforward. The operating mistake is something to do with holding meanings as fixed and assumptions as uncorrectable, and being insufficiently sensitive to context.
***
And perhaps there is no such thing as good swimming, but only good swimming in choppy waters, good speed swimming in a pool, good distance breaststroke...
You can speak, generally, of the amount of information you extract, the amount you don't miss, the amount you retain. You can speak of the ability, at any moment in time, to state the point, and the inability to be thrown.
But perhaps there is no good listening in the abstract, but only good listening in terms of various purposes and practicalities.
***
To take in a speech and retain it, seems to involve:
-- good hearing;
-- a good memory;
-- ability to keep track of disagreement and ambiguity and unclarity;
-- linguistic sensitivity, to unravel nuances;
-- somatic sensitivity, for all the meanings of body and tone;
-- context sensitivity (including the context of the particular speaker's style), and general knowledge, because these tell you what words mean, what the important points are, how they relate to the whole, why they're worth saying at all, what's not said, what's trying to be said;
-- ability to extract "secondary" information -- information about good and bad lecturing, about language, about the form and pattern of arguments, about the speaker's personality and thinking and culture, etc;
-- flexibility in your own beliefs, so you're unthrown when the speaker uses "pupil" for "student", or operates on an entirely different set of assumptions -- you can still appreciate what they're saying in terms of where they're coming from (and -- who knows? -- you might later agree with their assumptions after all);
-- psychology; for instance, knowing, including in a behaviour-sensitive Meisner way, what beliefs or emotional state or mindset could have caused those words, because these affect what meanings the words have, and allow you to extrapolate what they entail or imply;
-- being able quickly to structure content, for ease of grasping argument, and so you can appreciate the effect of the whole;
-- being able quickly to relate content to your own beliefs and arguments;
-- being able to analyze (in terms of whatever system and purpose).
***
But something like "openness to correction", and sensitivity towards which assumptions are the most dubious -- how can this be reduced to a set of rules?
How can you systematically instruct people in discerning what is trying to be said, or what isn't said?
How, in fact, can all the skills of listening be reduced to a list?
The Don rises from his sickbed to end the violence. He calls a meeting of the heads of the families. He stands up to talk, and the other dons fall silent. Mario Puzo writes that they might have differed in many ways, but they were all of them good listeners.
Barristers, CEOs, and mob bosses tend to be excellent listeners.
Foucault notes: "In the philosophical movements of Stoicism in the imperial period... we see the disappearance of dialogue and the increasing importance of a new pedagogical relationship -- a new pedagogical game where the master-teacher speaks and does not ask questions, and the disciple does not answer but must listen and keep silent. A cultivation of silence becomes more and more important. In Pythagorean cultivation, disciples kept silent for five years as a pedagogical rule."
And even today, some teachers will insist their students not take notes -- "If you're writing, you're not listening."
***
The matter turns out to be part of two broader questions: what does it mean to understand? and what do you have to do to understand efficiently, or at all?
***
And listening is only one part of the more complex art of answering.
***
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia commons, and from the Wikipedia article Vito Corleone.
The Plutarch quote was from a 1960 translation by Frank Cole Babbit.
The Aurelius quote was from a 1944 translation by ASL Farquharson.
The Foucault quote was from: "Technologies of the self" in Ethics: subjectivity and truth (1994), edited by Paul Rabinow, translated by Robert Hurley and others.
There is a course on listening at the University of Iowa. "Practical activities will include in-class exercises and a 'listening journal' which will help us hone our own listening skills. Finally we will get a chance to test our acquire[d] knowledge with a visit to the famous audiology program at The University of Iowa, where the pathology of listening (or more precisely hearing) survives today as a scientific discipline." The website includes a bibliography.
| 117 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Oblivion
One of the things I especially like to point out is your comments on 'analyze afterwards' and 'flexibility in your own beliefs' as advice not only for listening but for life. As Epictetus once said, "It is impossible to being to learn that which one thinks one already knows."
Your last two questions seem epistemological in nature... consider what Ambrose Bierce wrote in his book "The Devil's Dictionary" about the MIND.... "a mysterious form of matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with." Spoken like a true pessimist.... it seems like their only meaning of life is to subdue us into their own depressive state. How lamentful....
Comment by Damo
Listening is possibly the hardest social skill to master. Listening when you want is easy, listening when you don't is hard.
Listening to people I like is easy, listening to those I don't is hard.
The filter of the human mind can drown out important words.
Yet listening, even to an enemy is sometimes worth more than a clever rebuttle. Listening shows that despite differences of opinion we see the speaker as a human equal to ourselves.
Comment by Deorre
Stress Alive
Man Lessons
It reminds me that true and perhaps deep listening has many a superficial barrier to surpass. People, to really listen, may need to be involved in their own personal work and introspection so that they can become aware of what prevents substantial dialogue.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Adrain, thanks for the link, and really interesting feedback...for my own part, I feel that people stop listening when their buttons are pushed - the point when we shift from calm reflection to violent reaction - often the proof that we are all works in progress...?
ps I firmly believe we were given a ratio of two ears for one mouth for a reason and should use them in that order, accordingly...
Lilla...
Comment by Damo
'Ratio of 2 ears for one mouth.' That has to be the quote of the week.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
It's interesting that Damo, Deorre and Lilla (and Oblivion too, I think) emphasize the internal noise and resistance that can block out listening. Plutarch does as well. And this idea is also important if one wants to extend talk of listening beyond lectures to listening to counselling, to communicating with your boss or partner ("I want a man who's a good listener"), etc.
I think it's true, and ridiculous, that a lot of people (most people?) don't even make the effort to even hear all the words others are saying, let alone understand them -- they're tripped at the first hurdle...
I'd want to add the rider, though, that even if the student is keen, the lesson can fail -- there's a lot more to listening than hearing the words in the first place, and not blocking their meaning in the second.
Dear Oblivion -- I agree that speaking is a harder art than listening, and thanks for the Bierce quote! -- haven't yet read the dictionary, and his definition of mind is amusing.
Dear Damo -- Your final comment, "Listening shows that despite differences of opinion we see the speaker as a human equal to ourselves." is quite striking. I was having a discussion on Thursday about whether it is immoral to interrupt people in certain contexts. And it's interesting that you here introduce the theme of it being a moral obligation to hear people (similar to the idea that in certain political and legal contexts, everyone should have the right to have a say).
One possible extension of your idea is that it's counter to self-interest not to listen to yourself.
And a religious person might add that it's both immoral and counter to self-interest not to listen, through prayer, to God.
Dear Deorre -- I wonder, though, if there is a time to shut out the noise of people...
Dear Lilla -- Plutarch notes: "And it is a common saying that nature has given to each of us two ears and one tongue, because we ought to do less talking than listening."
Regarding perceived reality and understanding, I don't have much to say. But I think that there are different types of "understanding", and that different subjective experiences needn't be a barrier to all types.
For instance, it's quite possible that you have "inverted qualia" with respect to me (or I do with respect to you). The sensation I get from blue is the same sensation you get from red.
This needn't mean that we fail to understand each other in every way. In fact, we'd probably go through life without the different perception ever making a functional difference.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Damo
My site banned from your work?
Must be I am too radical. Then again from my experience with self activating firewalls they often get it wrong. You don't work at an educational institute do you?
Comment by Always Eighteen
Always Eighteen
It's interesting to know that great leaders are great listeners. At church, there are several sermons discussing how we should be "sheep" and follow. In the context of religion, I like your concluding question: what does it mean to understand?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I think your comments concluding question is also interesting: "In the context of religion... "
So, just to expand on what you might mean...
I think it's probably true that all religions are full of "holy mysteries" that followers are asked to accept on faith, or that make sense in some non-rational way.
And perhaps the religious synonym for "understanding" is "enlightenment".