100. Listening to Understand Versus Listening to Win
Highlights
- The Limits of Naive Realism
Key takeaways:
- Naive realism is a version of the idea that we are the hero of our own story and that other people have a biased view.
- It is not true that by giving a patient our data about antibiotics and viral respiratory infections, they will come to see the world the way we see it.
- This is because the patient's view is not reality, and different people will see the world in different ways.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Tell me about naive realism and how that connects with this. That was a new term for me. Yeah.
Speaker 1
So naive realism is a version of, you know, we're all the hero of our own story. And the idea behind it is that each of us believes that our view is reality and that other people have a bias view. And if they just could see and know the things that we see and know, they would actually come to exactly the same conclusion that we have. And the reason why it's naive is because it's just not true. It's not true that by giving a patient our data about antibiotics and viral respiratory infections, will they come to see the world the way we see it? (Time 0:18:02)
- The Cost of Listening for the Wrong Reasons
Key takeaways:
- One common refrain that marriage counselor John will bring up in sessions is about listening. He asks his clients when he sees these events happening and they're talking to each other to say, "Are you listening to understand?" or "Are you just reloading your response?".
- Listening for what's wrong in what somebody else is saying is often a mistake, instead of trying to understand their point of view.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
I was listening to our marriage counselor being interviewed about some of the core aspects of his job. And I can imagine that he is seeing a lot of people being the hero of their own story. And he said that one common refrain that he will bring up in sessions has to do with listening. I mean, clearly, I mean, in your relationships, in your foundational relationships, is anything more critical? Is anything more critical? He asks his clients when he sees these events happening and they're talking to each other to say, Hey, are you listening to understand? Or are you just reloading your response?
Speaker 1
The reloading is such a great idea. I tend to think that there's kind of two modes of listening that we can be in. This wasn't my idea, but it really resonated with me. One is listening to understand and we can unpack that a little bit. But the other one is listening to win. And so a lot of times we listen for what's wrong in what somebody else is saying, instead of trying to understand their point of view (Time 0:19:10)
- How to Listen to Win
Key takeaways:
- Listening to win is important in order to understand what the other person is trying to say.
- It is important to clarify any disagreements that may exist between the two parties.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Yeah, well, I think the most common place for listening to win to be effective is actually when somebody is trying to teach you how to do something. In those moments, you are looking for what is it that you see differently. And so you're doing this like analysis, let's say they're trying to teach you how to put a center line in, and they tell you, you really want to pull the skin tight. And you might say, well, yeah, but my experience when I pull the skin tight is that that can occlude the vein a little bit. So if it's an IJ, do I really want to pull the skin tight or do I want to just put just enough pressure where I can see with the ultrasound, whatever, whatever the case may be. So that's a place where you're really trying to get at the details and you're trying to pick apart the details so you can understand them better.
Speaker 2
Wait a second. We're talking about listening to win, that point got you to understanding.
Speaker 1
Well, what I'm doing is in that moment, I'm trying to make sure that every single detail that you're saying, I end up agreeing with at the end. And so we are going to struggle with those details together. I'm not looking for what emotion you're displaying when you're trying to teach me how to put the center line in. I'm looking to make sure that I have clarified all of the parts that we disagree.
Speaker 2
Does that make sense? It makes sense, sort of, because I also see that there's getting to a common ground of understanding rather than positing your viewpoint, that here will be the dominant viewpoint that takes the day. (Time 0:22:43)
- Naming the Emotion: Separating It from the Person
Key takeaways:
- When negotiating, it is important to name the emotion that is being felt, rather than just referring to the person as frustrated.
- This can help to distance the negotiator from the emotion, and make it easier to examine the situation objectively.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
When you're in these situations, these emotive situations, to avoid you language. Mm. It's at least when you're saying no. I don't know if it's fully analogous. So when you're saying no to something, you're saying no to the question, not the person. And because when you say you, when someone says you, I think immediately you have a natural defense come up, right? You can't even control it. But when you say V, right, it's kind of disarming. So what I would like to say in those situations rather than I see that you're frustrated, that's all chips down. And then I'm not frustrated. What I would say is I'm sensing frustration. Or I'm sensing some anxiety, what's going on rather than I'm sensing that you're anxious. Because then that is judgmental versus I'm sensing some anxiety. I feel more discerning.
Speaker 1
I love it. I think that's an upgrade.
Speaker 2
I got a set-neck upgrade.
Speaker 1
Yeah, no, I think that is an upgrade. I think maybe a different conversation around this negotiation idea. Strong suggestion on Chris Voss' book, he has some just amazing tips. I kind of think that the idea of naming the emotion, but separating it from the person is a really great idea. Because it's not all that they are, right? There is frustration. But they are a person. Who's in this situation? And so I think it's like trying to take their ideas and move it away from them and then examine them. You also want to take their emotion and move it away from them and examine them as well. (Time 0:48:46)
- How to be an Effective Listener
Key takeaways:
- Active listening is a good start, but it's not enough.
- You need to include the emotion and not use the speaker's words.
- This forces you to understand them better.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
The reason why I don't think active listening is enough is because active listening doesn't force you to involve the emotional paying attention as well. So usually active listening, you're rephrasing what the person said. I would like to make that a little better by adding to it. If you can incorporate the emotion behind what they said as well, behind the content. So it's both content and emotion. This is sometimes called empathic listening. When I reflect, I include the emotion. So it's something like, so I'm hearing you say that you have been coughing for three weeks and you're frustrated by it. So it's both the content and the emotion behind it. You do that the best when you don't use any of the words that they used. So if you force yourself to say what they said without any of the words that they used, then you have to internalize it in that process. And so I think active listening, it's a great start, but you want to include these other two parts which are include the emotion and don't use any of the words that they use. And that forces you to up your game in terms of leaning into making sure you're understanding them.
Speaker 2
Listen to understand and get to that point with the person communicates to you that you got it.
Speaker 1
That's exactly right. (Time 0:52:23)