I am not a therapist or the like. I opened the article bc I really think I should be a better listener (specifically with my tendency to interrupt, which I even do unconscuously, not bc I want to not listen, just my mind accumulates information like very fast and things pop up quickly).
However, I think I found a kind of "be super sensitive", let things come out article... unfortunately that behavior, in my experience, does not help the other part.
Sometimes we should tell the truth or give good advice or warn of the consequences of a bad decision. Yes we should listen, but not fooling the other part with "fake-positive" stuff, I am not sure I am expressing myself well. What I kean is, stay positive as much as possible, do not create unnecessary negativity, but keep it honest.
But according to this article, it seems that those should be disregarded.
Everything looks so soft in the article, at least from the point of view of my culture.
I must also say I was often classified as aggressive in the sense of being too direct. But if you are listening to someone and have a cinversation, I'd rather take the truth of what's wrong better than having compliments from the other side when they are not actually thinking that even themselves. That would just be being fake.
Also, dealing with children, which are still forming their personality, should be treated a bit differently and I can agree with the tips given in the article.
However, if someone comes and tells she is sad, my most likely reaction would be to ask why, do an analysis, try to stay positive BUT not lying about it so that it ends up genuinely helping that person. Same for many other situations.
> But according to this article, it seems that those should be disregarded.
Depending on the context, yes.
You are coming into this from a perspective of "listening to fix" and not "listening to understand" which are two different things.
Even if your intent is to help people by listening, you first might want to get the entire picture and understand the entire context. Because if you don't, what change do you really have of meaningfully helping someone?
In order to listen to fix first you must understand...
I mean that the kind of "I hear you", "yes, blabla" seems nice but it is the same thing anyone would tell you. Someone that does not know you maybe would react the same.
For me it is better (as in valuable) to get a: "because you fail to see you are doing it wrong? Don't you see that..." or something that tells you why you are being dumb and you should not be sad. For example: I am sad bc... the reason is important. If it is bc your father passed away there is nothing I can help with but if you just lost your job or did not get the marks you wanted, there is good advice to make people feel better and try to suggest to analyze what went wrong instead of saying: "oh poor you, I feel you" which does not help except to make that person feel better at that very moment and nothing else.
That "negative" information is more valuable to correct something.
If ehat you have is always people who just listen and let it go, you will end up without any helpful information and maybe even thinking that the problem is elsewhere.
> you just lost your job or did not get the marks you wanted, there is good advice to make people feel better and try to suggest to analyze what went wrong
Your assumption here is that people did something "wrong". This isn't always the case, you certainly can't decide that without actually having listened to them.
Other than that, all I can say is that you seem to be jumping from one extreme end to the other and by doing so missing the important middle ground by a huge margin.
I'd even go as far as saying that you also did that while reading this article. Because it feels like to me that you didn't read it with the intention of understanding it, but the intention to have an opinion on it.
My point actually is not even abt wrong. It was just an example. The point is that saying "yes, yes I listen" without further feedback can be more counterproductive than not. There is nothing write about being sad probably. But giving advice about how to rationalize your feelings can be helpful.
> In order to listen to fix first you must understand...
You're missing the point - it's about whether you should "listen to fix" at all. In my experience, when most people are "sharing", they don't want you to solve their problems - chances are they know everything you're about to say anyway - and if they did, they'll more specifically ask for your help
What people want is just someone to listen, to feel heard. This relates to the oft-repeated advice of not trying to solve your partner's daily problems, but just to respond with "That sucks". It's also why responding with your own experiences all the time doesn't make you a great listener
> which does not help except to make that person feel better at that very moment and nothing else.
Not sure why you're implying this is some sort of bad thing.
True, they might know, but a push is probably what they need.
Listening is disjoint from giving advice. In fact you need to first listen to be able to give advice.
And yes, some people just want to be listened. I am not against it as such
I usually talk actionable stuff more than not actually but I understand that some people might not be like me.
Yes, my last quote there means that making someone feel just better for a moment while keeping something for which there could be something about is probably suboptimal. Idk if bad, just suboptimal. The honest feedback in a conversation is critical to solve our own problems.
Sometimes I found out things noone would have ever told me by people that really appreciate me and that is a good thing that improves me, not a bad thing that should make me angry or annoyed.
I have the feeling that we are doing something wrong with this kind of advice. The generation that comes 20 years after me or 30 (I am 40) are mentally way softer than before and I think this kind of behavior promoted by the article promotes this kind of feedback.
The biggest difference I have seen compared to Europe from living in Vietnam (for 12 years) is that they have a much stronger mind.
They have better and worse things, as every culture. But I relate this kind of advice as a fundamental mistake.
We need positive listening, we need things like that, sure. But we also need to deal with frustration, with failure and with negative feedback.
Those things teach us to deal with fristration, to naturalize it and to be able to deal with it as well.
So my advice would be more, without being a therapist, train your kids as Toni Nadal trained Rafa Nadal. Hard minds are ready for good and bad times.
Soft minds only for the good ones.
So I would be wary of promoting that kind of "everything's cool let's be positive never mind". I'd rather promote "be careful, this is the problem, can we deal with it?" If so, how? If not, we cannot win all the time which is also a lesson that humbles us.
Not with the emotional or tolerance (tied to emotional) ones at least in my country.
I also see, if you are american, at least from my perception (I could be wrong!), that many attitudes from the younger generations are the result of overprotection.
Something I do not see in Asia to the level I see in developed countries in the westerner countries.
> just my mind accumulates information like very fast and things pop up quickly
People who think that happens to them often turn out to just talk a lot of irrelevant and useless drivel (very much exactly like a LLM; just keep generating stuff no one wants to hear as part of the conversation); they talk just to talk with the excuse that they think they are very smart. They might be if they would shut up and use the listening time to actually form a better return. Not saying this is you, but saying ‘accumulates information very fast’ about yourself is a somewhat red flag imho.
It is rarely the case, even for famous smart people; most listen and then take a bit of time to come back with an answer; interrupting is terrible, more so when it’s not really relevant to what the actual point was (just hanging on to the first sentence and not listening to anything else until you can make your point about that sentence even though that was not the point of the discussion, at all). Or say they have to ponder it somewhat longer instead of having an instant response. Of course it depends on the subject; in political talks it seems more normal to blatantly step on someone talking, but then again, not all talks are political.
However, I think I found a kind of "be super sensitive", let things come out article... unfortunately that behavior, in my experience, does not help the other part.
Sometimes we should tell the truth or give good advice or warn of the consequences of a bad decision. Yes we should listen, but not fooling the other part with "fake-positive" stuff, I am not sure I am expressing myself well. What I kean is, stay positive as much as possible, do not create unnecessary negativity, but keep it honest.
But according to this article, it seems that those should be disregarded.
Everything looks so soft in the article, at least from the point of view of my culture.
I must also say I was often classified as aggressive in the sense of being too direct. But if you are listening to someone and have a cinversation, I'd rather take the truth of what's wrong better than having compliments from the other side when they are not actually thinking that even themselves. That would just be being fake.
Also, dealing with children, which are still forming their personality, should be treated a bit differently and I can agree with the tips given in the article.
However, if someone comes and tells she is sad, my most likely reaction would be to ask why, do an analysis, try to stay positive BUT not lying about it so that it ends up genuinely helping that person. Same for many other situations.