I agreed for the most part with this description of the Gates arrest being about civil liberties, though I disagree with the writer that the case doesn't also involve race.

Henry Louis Gates Arrest Case 

Are you listening?

I read an article (linked above) about the concept of what it takes to be perceived as a good listener.
I guess I thought it was pretty awesome because it goes beyond just the self reflective "I think I'm a good listener" to considering if the person you're talking to has the same perception.  Basically, the concept is that you can listen intently and hear precisely what someone is saying and still be perceived as a poor listener.

The examples the author came up with made good sense to me.
Most people fall short in directly acknowledging what a speaker has said before moving on in the conversation.  Providing this kind of feedback in an interaction is crucial to the speaker feeling understood.

In the article she mentions that most of the time an interaction happens this way, the listener actually means no ill will... and points out that there's nothing wrong in approaching a conversation this way per se.  The only time you may want to consider your approach is if you have a goal to be perceived as a good listener.

It's interesting to see it all laid out the way this article lays it out, actually.  To me these concepts were taught to me growing up in the concept of consideration.  It was later reinforced in speech class when considering the role of a listener, and then later in marketing class on how to become an effective speaker.

I'm realizing there are a lot of things that I do in a conversation without really even thinking about them, which can be summed up in a simple rule of "what is the first step I should take when I react to someone speaking with me".

> Express concern, or an opinion, or provide an information seeking response.<

I've noticed in the past I've had a pretty strong and negative judgemental reaction to people who do not "Express concern, or an opinion, or provide an information seeking response" when I've attempted to communicate.  I realized that this was an extreme reaction that needed some tweaking.

I've spent a great deal of time reflecting on my definition of the word "consideration" as it applies above and how it might affect my expectations in any given conversation, because I wondered whether my expectations were unreasonable.  I'm realizing that this may have been the wrong approach.

In fact, what I think I'm figuring out is that my negative reaction was more about a presumption that if a person failed to be considerate, that I assumed it was on purpose.  Once you interject the possibility that it may not have been on purpose, I've found I don't get angry about stuff like this anymore.  However, that does nothing to address the lack of feedback or input in a situation/conversation like this.  I have to admit there was still something missing in my resolution of this issue.

What this article pointed out to me rather clearly, is that things like moving on too quickly in a conversation without directly addressing what the initial speaker said, leaves the feedback completely on a subtextual level and it creates a situation where the speaker has to make their best guess about why something was not said by the listener.  It doesn't even matter whether the presumptions are positive or negative.  What happens is that by providing no solid feedback, you're allowing the speaker to shape your identity in the conversation, and that picture may or may not be accurate.

      Person A: I fell off my treadmill on Tuesday. Ouch, did that hurt!
      Person B: I once dropped a three-pound weight on my foot.

Person A could think Person B is empathizing and feel comforted.
Person A could also reasonably think Person B has no opinion about Person A hurting their foot.
It could go a million places, but Person A is left to define was Person B really meant in this progression.

I'm realizing that the simple rules of a conversation that I follow in providing feedback are not simply about being courteous, considerate, or compassionate, but they are also about being clear in the messages that I send.

It's important to me to be perceived as a good listener.  That is why my "rule/method" is important to me, but other people may not have the same goals and that's not necessarily bad. 

I've noticed that my expectations of the way a conversation "should proceed" are conditional upon what the listener claims their goals are as well.  I think that's the way it's supposed to be.  From there, if the listener's goal is the same as mine but the method is different I don't have to take that personally either; but I can analyze whether or not this alternate approach is more or less effective than mine and either take it or leave it without having to make excuses or justifications for a personal rule.   I allow the listener to define and explain themselves, as I make a point to define and explain myself.  I think fewer interpretive mistakes are made when you approach a communication this way.

Thanks for linking that article, DL--that was useful information, and very clearly presented.

I'm thinking about two of the points in particular--expressing concern, and an information seeking response--as they apply to my own conversational styles and feedback I've been given.  What's useful for me in making that analysis is that while those three points (expressing concern, or an opinion, or an information seeking response) are useful as general guidelines--maybe (at least I'm realizing from my experience), intent to pay attention to the other person rather than to find a guide for saying the right thing (more "me" focussed) might overall be more important.

If I give an illustration I think it'll help explain what I mean.  A long time ago (maybe 30 years?) I got feedback from several sources that I tended to ask a lot of questions of other people in response to their statements about themselves--particularly when people were stating something that had happened of the "I fell off the treadmill" variety.  It might go something like this:

I fell off the treadmill.

Oh, are you OK?  Can I get you an icepack?  Do you think the treadmill is defective?  Can you walk OK?  Should I get you a cane?  (I exaggerate--but you get the picture.)

So I was told that instead of worrying so much about "doing the right thing" it would be better to talk about my own similar experiences--kind of like Person B is doing in the above example.  And that's what I tend to do now--although I skip right to that step and kind of overbalanced in the direction of not asking questions at all.  So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what I like about the article is that it guides me toward being more thoughtful about my process, and thinking about whether I'm listening or not--but if I take up a guideline and start concentrating on the guideline and whether I'm performing it correctly or not, I'll be back to not listening so well; I'll be thinking more about my own performance.

The other part of what she suggests--expressing concern--I wonder if that's generally devalued because of it's "feminine" or emotive association.  And this again is something I think about in relation to my own process.  I'm remembering the article "Guys are clueless"  which I talked about in relation to Fred :-) -- and one reaction I had to that was that I think I'm generally not very good at reading those non-verbal cues.  And then fairly recently I sat in on a male colleague's class so that I could write up an evaluation for him for tenure and noticed one big difference in our teaching styles--he began by asking students how they felt about a story or about a character.   Did they like it?  Did they like her?  I generally steer clear of that kind of emotive discussion and go straight to the analysis.  I remember noticing the way that went counter to what you would expect as far as gender is concerned.  And that made me wonder if, especially being an academic, I have in some ways adopted a more masculine style just because I'm not a man.  And I wonder if that experience can be generalized--as women have moved into the more male sphere of business/politics/academia--I wonder if more personal expressions and listening skills that might be associated with femininity have dropped out of our skill set.

But then, it's interesting that you learned this both growing up, and in marketing.

Ah, you bring up an interesting and I think common complication with the "asking of too many questions" angle.  I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that a response like that is more about how to soothe your own concerns/personal goals, interestingly enough by trying to find a way to assist the other person.  It is really just another way to step into that interpretation role and anticipate an expectation instead of leaving the speaker in the position to define the situation themselves.  Instead of keeping the guesswork within your head you throw it out for evaluation/selection.

I think what I do in similar situations is try to focus my questions by first asking myself - now why would Person A bring up this treadmill example in the first place?  If I know them and have a probable answer, I forward the question that pertains to that concern.  If I do not know the person I'll say something like - "I don't follow you - what is significant about this event to you?"  ... ask questions to seek out their general goal in talking before I assume they're asking for me to help in some way.

I would hesitiate to classify the expression of "concern" or emotions as a predominantly female concept.  ...or the interpretation of non verbals being difficult for someone who is more "male".  (When I read the Fred conversation it seems to be a little tongue in cheek.)  I think this gender delineation is the real problem in this whole misunderstanding of how people operate.  The stereotypical difference between men and women to me is not that men do not emote or express concern, it's that stereotypically they process/handle their emotions differently.   Let's just apply that to all people and throw the stereotypes away.   People may process things differently on the emotional/analytical scale and we need to tolerate and accept that in order to figure it out and come to an understanding.  It's a lot easier than remembering one set of rules for the boys and another for the girls and coming up with "quid pro quos and addendums" for the exceptions to the rule.

Actually in every context that I learned it, "concern" was mentioned as a basic tool used to facilitate a specific response in another person whether it be for an emotive or an analytical goal.  Put that way it almost sounds insidious, because you can easily see how that could be used to manipulate, cheat, and/or lie.  However put it within the frame of "do unto others" and make the goal one that is common between self and other, and you create the "win-win" situation.    Marketing in my business school, believe it or not, stressed the "win-win" as the only kind of true marketing.  Use it for a manipulative goal and they labelled it simply "sales".   The way you use it says something about what you value.