Agnostic.com

12 12

"Ever had an argument that never ends? There's a reason for that. Esther Perel, the Belgian-born psychotherapist and author, posits that in order to be heard correctly you have to approach the other party as neutral. Too often, she says, people approach conversations with agendas and expectations. Because of this, arguments can easily fracture into two sides parroting what their talking points are without actually listening to each other. Esther says that the best way to communicate is to sincerely listen to the other person as you would want to be listened to. That might seem like simple advice, but the average person only truly listens to about three sentences or 10 seconds before preparing their own retort in their head, and blocking their conversation partner off."

Angelface 7 Mar 31
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

12 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Even better, listening and responding coherently to another argument can be a lot of fun. Providing both parties are doing it in good faith.

0

More listening, and with empathy, would be helpful for all of us, to be sure. And when listening, we need to focus on the "how" or "why" as much as the "what." But what if the person you're listening to drones on and on, and by the time they've finished their rant, you've not heard most of it, because of something they said early on that you found troublesome, needed to remember, and wanted to respond to?

A proper argument has a thesis, or main point, with supporting statements that can be analyzed for veracity. It is the supporting statements, or reasons, that must be unpacked before the thesis can be judged. Without a careful examination of the supporting statements, one might as well be engaging in a Monty Python skit: "This isn't an argument. It's just contradiction!"

0

I'm probably more guilty of this than I would like to believe althought I do try and listen to the other person's argument.

2

Of course listening is at least half of communication. Its also an interesting observation (it rings true) that the average person listens no more than 10 seconds before preparing a retort. However, when the argument goes on forever, there must be something more complicated happening. Presumably you eventually stop arguing and have time for analysis of what you heard.
As an example – with the current debate over guns. If you grew up with guns in your house, used them for hunting and never had a bad experience with an accident or a gun fired in anger, then you might feel emotionally attached to your guns to the point you ignore all the statistics that show guns are bad for society at large. On the other side, those of us who have never owned guns, who look at the statistics around the problems (e.g. who gets killed by assault rifles) simply get frustrated trying to reason with the other side. Communication is amazingly difficult in these situations.

@Beach_slim Your argument does not refute mine in any way shape or form. You have a point but why start with "False" Sorry I'm not impressed.

@irascible It is very hard to get past the NRA-brainwashed gun enthusiasts who often do not hear anything except that someone wants to limit guns in some way and they immediately jump to the fear that "they'll take away my guns!" Most rational gun owners understand and agree with many points such as enforcing stricter background checks or banning bump stocks, but even the most sensible regulation brings out the Faux-News believing radicals with their knee-jerk reactions. Not listening or thinking deeper than one single idea is a big problem with them. They are acting out of fear of losing control, which is why they so value their deadly toys.

@Beach_slim There are indeed people who never owned a gun who support gun rights – In fact I am one such. In addition, there are gun owners who would like to see restrictions on gun purchases. There are many such. (If I owned a gun I would be among them). Neither of these facts refute my example. If you are trying to say that there are NO gun owners who respond emotionally rather than rationally to attempts to restrict gun ownership than I suspect you are not listening to the debate very rationally yourself.

@Beach_slim Yes!!! Why is that so hard to understand? You have a right to drive a car -- but there are restrictions... you need to pass a test to get a license and you loose your right if caught driving drunk. I'm hardly the first to make this analogy.

1

I enjoy listening to Esther Perel on YouTube.

0

Sounds like the political spectrum. And a coworker.

1

Walk away 🙂

0

I disagree. The "arguments that never end" are the result of a person who wants to hold onto a problem or issue forever so that they have a aweapon to try to club you over the head with it.

2

This is often noticeable in people who barely let you finish sentence before giving their opinion on something, which, had they listened in the first instance, might have resulted in them giving a more appropriate or considered response or indeed a possible solution to a problem. If two people are yelling at each other or trying to talk over the top of one another, who is listening?

2

That is all true and verfy good advice but hard for most of us to follow. That's because most of us want to "have it our way." Life and ideas have to be more than one sided.

1

Depend on what they are arguing about. How fixed are they in their position or belief?

2

Trying to have a senseable discussion with some people is impossiable because after I listen they refuse to listen to my side sometimes after the first word.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:47213
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.