
What Great Listeners Actually Do - wallflower
https://hbr.org/2016/07/what-great-listeners-actually-do
======
woodandsteel
As someone who has taught and researched listening skills, I found this
article very insightful.

However, let me add that the simple skills they described at the beginning
(not interrupting, saying "um-hum," and being able to repeat back), are still
good to teach because they are better than what most people do much of the
time.

Here's another HN link on listening:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12228062](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12228062)

~~~
Bahamut
I despise the tactic of repeating back what other people said - it shows me
that the other person isn't really dwelling on what I said, or more often in
my experience, are using that to distort what I am saying in order to fit a
particular agenda. I rather someone not fake listening in that case and
wasting everyone's time.

~~~
taneq
I'm with you that repeating back word-for-word (or close to it) is not
helpful. I think it's better to paraphrase back to the person talking; the
closer the meaning of your paraphrase, the better it shows you've understood
their point. Likewise with asking questions, if you can ask a relevant
question that they haven't covered yet, it proves you're actually analyzing
what they say.

All of these things come under the general heading of 'active listening' and
overall it just boils down to "actually be involved in the conversation and
interested in the topic."

~~~
thaumasiotes
> I think it's better to paraphrase back to the person talking; the closer the
> meaning of your paraphrase, the better it shows you've understood their
> point.

I have found in the past that paraphrased repetition can be all the other
person is looking for out of the conversation. A stylized sketch:

A: Hey, I have this problem XXXX, I'm not sure what I should do about it.

B: Ok, the problem is YYYY [paraphrased]?

A: Thanks, that was really helpful.

~~~
munificent
When my second daughter was born, she had a huge head. We're talking 99th
percentile. This is cause for concern, so we took her to a doctor. The
conversation went like:

Me: What's up with my daughter's really big head?

Doctor: It's a condition called "macrocephaly".

Somehow, that was reassuring to me, despite realizing that all he did was
literally just transliterate my words to Latin—"macro" -> big, "ceph-" ->
head—as if that added any novel information.

~~~
karmajunkie
Funny, I had a very similar experience with my son's head, but it was that his
fontanella closed earlier than expected. My conversation went more like this:

Doc: "well, when we see this thing, we're concerned it might be <1 min worth
of big scary thing description>... but he doesn't have that."

Me: "Phew... so..."

Doc: "So then we're worried about <2 min worth of big scary #2>... but he
doesn't have that."

Me: "Phew. hrmmm, so..."

Doc "So then we're worried about <big scary thing #3>..."

At which point I interrupted:

Me: "Doc, I realize there's a lot of big scary things. Does he have any of
them?"

Doc: "No, I think he's fine, he just has a big head."

I think your version of that conversation was probably a lot more reassuring
than mine.

~~~
taneq
Urrgh, that reminds me of one time I was getting some routine blood test
results. Lady with a thick Indian accent saying "And you are... HIV...

 _pause_

 _endless aeons wheel and pass_

negative."

Not that I'd ever had any contact with it, but wow, way to leave me hanging.

------
pizza
The computational complexity varieties of listening:

Let n be the number of things the other is talking about (tricky to define a
"thing" but, whatever?, use a consistent thing metric)

\- O(1) listening: ignoring/may as well not be there - reading your phone
while the other talks to you

\- O(n) listening: loading their information into your brain while they talk -
e.g. repeating back to them, nodding to salient points

\- O(n log n) listening: sorting the information they've talked about -
talking about the most important bits (after hearing everything)

\- O(n^2) listening: cross-comparing all the things they've said for
informational pairings

\- O(|V|_n + |E|_n + |V|_m + |E|_m) listening: suppose your thoughts are laid
out in network form, |V|_x and |E|_x are the # vertices and edges for person
x. You are m. Then this is breadth-first search on both your idea-networks.

etc. Thoughts?

edit: I wonder how P and NP come into this! For instance, if someone asks you
a question that takes P work, you should be able to derive the answer from
what you've talked about alone. But if someone asks you something like, "Were
you at that party 25 years ago?" and you have since forgotten, but then your
other friend produces a photograph of you in a pair of silly glasses and a
clown afro, you can verify quickly that you were! The hardness of remembering
something might be classifiable by computational class?

~~~
solipsism
The brain is massively parallel, your analysis seems to assume 0 parallelism.

~~~
pizza
True; but one way I can get around this is that the strategies don't all
require the same underlying brain architecture requirements. For instance
number 1 doesn't even require a brain. Other than that, doesn't my analysis,
concerning only the order of steps that must occur in aggregate per algorithm,
sorta work out regardless of parallelism? Or do you mean that a multi-state
computational brain could do a collection of moves simultaneously, say a
vector of n linear actions as 1 brain vector-action?

~~~
andrepd
I think it's not even remotely productive to make these wild assumptions about
how the brain works. We know very little about the workings of the brain. It's
very probable that this sort of analysis has almost no correlation to what's
actually happening in the brain.

~~~
pizza
I get where you're coming from, but you're demanding too much rigor
prematurely for my nascent idea :P Which, come to think of it, probably is
related to my having browsed half of some Scott Aaronson paper on the
philosophy of computational complexity.. You know what they say - neurons that
fire together, wire together!

Just replace the "brains" in my post with "completely fictional abstract
mechanistic brains whose behavior a human brain can emulate, hopefully not so
far off from the qualia of The Real Thing." But I'm a big boy, and am all ears
to PubMed-and-the-ilk articles that go into why I'm wrong!

I guess the point is, if you can sort of recognize these patterns of
information process at a Very High Level Internal Logic and Monologue (tm?
lol) in your experiences with consciousness - i.e. how would you explain how
you thought internally from a premise to an answer - would it look much
differently than this?

I doubt that the most pragmatic answer would include descriptions of the
microsecond-level G-protein transactions, the millisecond tree diagram of
where each synapse released how many vesicle molecules, how these were
interpreted and then made sense of via an internal vocalization process, etc?

At the end of the day, how evidence based or proof based does arm-chair navel-
gazing really need to be? :P

All tongue in cheek, of course. But maybe this discussion gives some people
"intuition pumps" (ew, I just cited Dennett..) with which they'll make their
own falsifiable claims that may even hopefully be worth sharing themselves.

------
ptype
Most people prefer talking to listening, so just asking a few question can get
most conversations going. It's not unusual to hear someone say "we had such a
great chat" when really that person did most of the talking. A trick that is
used by many introverts, with great success.

~~~
ethanbond
"With great success" for the introvert. The person _doing_ the talking didn't
really gain anything.

And also when this happens to me I actually don't enjoy it. Propping up one
sided conversations sucks, and I doubt that nearly as many people enjoy it as
you're assuming.

~~~
Practicality
You're making the same mistake as the person you are criticizing: Assuming
that most people feel the same way you do about speaking vs listening.

As always, it depends on what the person needs. It seems like you are a person
who needs others to answer back and you feel like you are "giving" and the
other is "taking" if you are talking and they aren't.

Many feel the opposite. Listening is giving and talking is taking.

For a lot of people talking is much easier than listening. You just say
whatever comes into your head.

Neither of you are more correct. Personally, I hate it when either person
monologues. Both people talking is preferred. But that is just a preference.

------
hamhamed
This is why I come to HN..to find articles like this. This defies what you
learn at school, because I have been taught numerous times, to nod and stfu
when you're holding a convo.

Always interrupt if you have something constructive to say in a
casual/business conversation (unless you're in a debate), that's how you gain
trust and credibility.

~~~
taneq
I distinguish 'interject' (ie. to quickly add in your two bits' worth and then
allow the speaker to resume) from 'interrupt' (ie. to talk over them and keep
talking, often on a different topic).

~~~
ulucs
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as
listening, is in fact, listening/interjecting, or as I’ve recently taken to
calling it, listening plus interjecting. Listening is not a favorable method
unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning talking
system made useful by the functional eardrums, wave properties of matter and
the composition of the atmosphere comprising a full conversation as defined by
the societal standards.

(you can ban me now. I won't regret this)

------
neom
In my experience building organizations that have totaled over 275 humans:
it's a rare, rare person that can truly distinguish hearing from listening.
The key to being a good listener is simple: always, to the absolute best of
your cognition, meet the speaker in their place.

~~~
solipsism
You should come up with a better "key" \-- one which doesn't require
expansion. Wtf is meeting someone in their place?

~~~
z3t4
Like putting yourself in his shoes ... Imagine what it would be to be in his
position, considering his background (important). And sympathize (feel his
emotions).

------
namaemuta
After almost a year volunteering in 7cups.com as a listener, I can't agree
more with the article. When you show genuine interest for what other people
are telling you, they will talk openly for hours and will leave the
conversation feeling way better than they started it.

~~~
throwanem
> almost a year volunteering in 7cups.com as a listener

How have you found it? I've thought about doing that myself from time to time,
and I would value anything you'd like to share about your experience there.

~~~
namaemuta
In general is a very rewarding experience and in 7cups.com it's also very
comfortable to do it (I don't have experience in other similar services so I
can't talk about them). You don't have any pressure on when or how many times
you should do it and how much time you should spend. You volunteer whenever
you feel up to (and this is how it should be because your mood is very
important when you are dealing with these things).

People's problems can variate from light ones to very complex ones so it's
very important to have the adequate mindset, keeping in mind what you are
doing there (offering support by listening) and where are your limits. If not,
the frustration can overcome you.

It's not free of trolls but I have rarely found them there and the majority of
the people is very grateful just for boosting up their mood, which gives you a
good feeling after finishing a conversation :)

~~~
throwanem
This is exactly the sort of answer I was hoping for; on the strength of it, I
think I may very well decide to give it a try. Thank you very much! I really
appreciate you taking the time.

~~~
namaemuta
You are very welcome! I'm glad to hear that you are may give it a try. Good
luck and do your best!

------
AdieuToLogic
One of the easiest metrics I've found to determine whether or not oneself is a
good/great listener is to honestly assess:

Am I busy thinking about what I'm going to say when I get a chance?

The more the answer is "yes" the less listening a person is performing.

~~~
thirdsun
I don't think that's a very good metric. In fact easily coming up with follow
up questions that already come to one's mind while listening is a strong
indicator for an engaging conversation.

Or did you mean "being busy" as struggling to come up with anything worthwhile
to say? Then I'd agree.

~~~
AdieuToLogic
Assessment does not have to happen real-time. The intent is to reflect on
interactions at a later point to determine if one is actively listening.

    
    
      In fact easily coming up with follow up
      questions that already come to one's mind
      while listening is a strong indicator for
      an engaging conversation.
    

I completely agree that formulating follow-up questions are a key indicator of
active listening. The key point with the metric I presented is _when_ that
formulation transpires.

If it is while another is speaking, then the listener is not engaged in
listening due to considering their own response instead. IMHO, it's natural to
make a "mental note" regarding a thought/topic while another is speaking and
then present a considered response/question subsequently.

------
huuu
Good listeners are also well rested.

I'm a good listener, but not at the moment. After long days of programming and
some lack of sleep I notice that my listening is going down. I really dislike
this because I think now I'm faking to be a good listener.

As for a lot of things: rest and sleep is important.

------
GuiA
_" People’s appraisal of their listening ability is much like their assessment
of their driving skills, in that the great bulk of adults think they’re above
average."_

Well, the vast majority of people are actually above average drivers. If you
got into 0 accidents over the past year, then you are doing better than
average.

(Similarly, most people have more legs than the average human)

~~~
cellularmitosis
Sorry, I'm a little slow today. Can you elaborate on that last statement? Are
you invoking a trick meaning to the word "average"?

~~~
rfrey
Since some people have one leg, and some have none, but nobody has three legs,
the average number of legs is slightly less than two.

------
cammil
My take on listening:

[https://letmeexplainyou.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/how-to-
list...](https://letmeexplainyou.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/how-to-listen-well/)

TL;DR / Summary:

Listening is innate Listening is not an active skill. Practicing it as such
diminishes your ability to truly listen. Listening is improved through
improving your own peace of mind One’s peace of mind is improved by doing good
things. E.g. completing chores, being nice to people, doing things that reduce
your regrets / guilt, etc. DO NOT follow much of the incorrect advice given
around active listening and traits of a good listener. Listening is a special
case of all using any sense, and the above advice applies similarly

~~~
throwanem
I mean, I hear where you're coming from and I'm not going to say you're wrong,
but this is like saying that endurance training is unnecessary because humans
are innately able to run marathons.

~~~
cammil
I think metaphors and analogies are difficult to argue with. Of course I am
saying something which is hopefully falsifiable otherwise I am not really
saying anything at all.

The best way to test this is some kind of controlled experiment. But aint
nobody got time for that.

I would say however, there is absolutely no need to take my word for it. I
would actually recommend you don't. You can test this out for yourself. I
would certainly recommend that. After all, it's more about what works for you.

~~~
throwanem
> it's more about what works for you

No. It's about what works for the person to whom I'm listening, and my
experience suggests at best an extremely limited role for a personal zen,
however well polished.

~~~
cammil
Well then our experiences differ. That's okay.

Of course your experience is your evidence. And that is what I mean by "what
works for you".

------
z3t4
What I find hardest about listening is not to solve problems ... It's not
about the nail:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg)

------
DarkTree
Honestly, it seems as if the article is just bending the definition of
listening. It appears their idea of "the best listener" is the person who
engages you the most in conversation. Sure, that person might be a more
valuable person to talk to, but I fail to see why that has to be the
definition of a great listener.

~~~
woodandsteel
No, it is not arbitrarily changing the definition. They did a study where they
asked people to identify how good others were at listening, and then studied
what behaviors distinguished those who got the highest ratings.

~~~
cellularmitosis
The article is freely interchanging the concepts "being a good listener" and
"being perceived as being a good listener" from one sentence to the next.
That's worse than arbitrarily changing the definition (but being consistent
with it).

~~~
johnfn
I don't understand there to be any difference between the two. There's no
objective judge of listening. There's only the other person, and how well they
feel heard.

~~~
xyzzy4
There's definitely a difference. You could be perceived as a good listener,
while actually not understanding or remembering what the other person is
saying. On the other hand, you could appear to not be listening, but if later
quizzed on the words spoken you would ace it.

~~~
MichaelGG
Try describing the concepts without using the word "listen". Most likely you
agree and are fighting about irrelevant definitions.

~~~
cellularmitosis
I'm not so sure. johnfn claims "There's no objective judge of listening". Why
not? Students are familiar with the idea of a standardized reading
comprehension test. Is it impossible to imagine that we could construct a
listening comprehension test? If so, you could then demonstrate that its
possible to flunk the "perceived as good listener" test while acing the
"listening comprehension" test -- underscoring that notion that these are
distinct concepts.

------
hoodoof
My ex partner always said I didn't listen to her. I really want to be a better
listener.

It seems to me that the key to listening is to actually be present and not
half thinking about something else or what YOU want to say. Hard to do.

>> thus, if you’ve been criticized (for example) for offering solutions rather
than listening,

guilty

~~~
groby_b
>>> thus, if you’ve been criticized (for example) for offering solutions
rather than listening, >guilty

This is not necessarily a question of "guilty". There are two major directions
a conversation can go - "sympathy" or "solution". If your partner wants one,
and you give the other, you operate under wrong premises due to an unstated
assumption. On both sides.

(If your "guilty" was a request for sympathy, I'm currently failing majorly.
:)

You could do worse than ask people what they want out of a conversation when
you start the conversation.

~~~
PakG1
This is crucial. I've found that when I talk especially with people who reside
more on the emotional side of the spectrum (I myself seem to be more on the
logical side of the spectrum), I need to really clarify before the
conversation gets too deep that I'm good at expressing solutions, but I'm not
so good at expressing sympathy/empathy. I'm good at having sympathy (not
always empathy), but I'm not good at expressing it.

People who contact me frequently to talk about something have come to
understand this, and they just trust that I am being sympathetic, even if I am
not showing all the signs. But for people who are not used to talking with me,
they can sometimes find me unsettling and get upset at me. If someone could
explain to me how to appear sincerely sympathetic in a way that makes sense to
me, I'd love it. But nobody's ever been able to do that in a way that doesn't
make me feel like I'd be pretending, which is awkward and weird, because it's
not like I'm not sincerely sympathetic in my heart of hearts.

~~~
aidenn0
I'm also not naturally good at it, and the best I've come up with is that it's
basically letting them know (in a way that is natural for you) that you
believe that a world in which they have this problem is worse than a world in
which they don't have this problem.

In fact just switching my default response to someone presenting a problem to:
"that sucks" showed a marked improvement in interpersonal relationships for
me.

~~~
kaybe
What was your previous default response?

------
losteverything
Listening is a journey. Now I seek conversation with people usually
unaccustomed to being listened to. To give my trust as they give theirs, a
conversation can be a beautiful joyous thing.

------
dredmorbius
Listening, and the mode of listening, depends very much on the mode of
conversation.

If the case is someone issuing orders, particularly in a critical situation,
then _yes_ , you want people to follow attentively, acknowledge the
statements, and recall them, correctly, as they apply them.

If you're having a casual conversation with friends, you're looking to,
generally, build rapport and mutual cohesion. It's active listening (or more,
mutual conversation), but the focus is often lacking -- things can wander.

If you're hashing through (or reviewing) ideas with someone, or a small group,
then the highly focused form of interactive participation described is
appropriate. Where it's successful -- where people have sufficiently common
experience to follow the discussion, but sufficiently divergent to be able to
suggest _productive_ directions, _and the participants are engaged and
committed to supporting the conversation_ rather than scoring points,
torpedoing it, or bolstering some ideology, then that conversational magic can
happen.

I suspect an Anna Karenina principle is at play -- good conversations are all
good in the same (or at least strongly similar) ways. Bad conversations are
each bad in their own way.

I've had the experience of the mistaken interrupter -- the person who tries to
finish your thoughts ... but is always wrong (there's a YouTube video of this
I saw recently, it's very much as infuriating in real life as the video makes
out). I've known people who cannot follow a conversation at all -- it's
somewhat like leading a small child along, and prodding them. Not only do you
have to point them in the right direction every few feet, but they're
wandering off in some utterly incorrect (and inexplicable) direction when you
don't do so. In one case, this seems related to an inability to form a correct
model of what's happening in other people's minds (or having any idea that
such a model might be useful).

There's lack of familiarity with material, there's prior beliefs and knowledge
which aren't correct. There's inability to draw connections or inferences
(often accompanied by anger or frustration when prompted or coached to try
doing so).

Fascinating things, minds.

------
CurtMonash
A huge fraction of what I do for a living is as a consultant or an
interviewer. So I had better be an effective and in particular high-bandwidth
listener.

1\. I absolutely provide feedback about what I think I heard. One common
technique is versions of "I think I understood you to say X, Y and Z. But I
have question A, and whatever you said that sounded vaguely like B flew
totally over my head."

That kind of thing boosts my understanding in a hurry. And the other party
usually seems to appreciate it.

2\. It's a cliche' in consulting that whatever question the client asks isn't
the question they should be asking, or the most important one that's on their
mind. So you have to get somehow from the stated question to the real one. In
some consulting relationships, that can take days or weeks, and you'll still
have done a great job. But in others you need to do it pretty much on the
spot, in the same part of the same conversation that the question was
originally asked.

3\. If you feel you interrupted too much, then stop and invite the person to
repeat themselves uninterrupted. I believe that I am usually forgiven when I
do that.

------
vermooten
The article misses something important. It presents 'being a good listener' as
a way of tricking the other person into giving up information. OTOH a REALLY
good listener is genuinely interested in what the other person has to say.
It's not a mind-game or a piece of oneupmanship: you have to actually give
shit because this is a human being talking, not just an 'FTE'.

------
AnthonyNagid
One of my favorite listeners is the pianist Chick Corea. Sure he can dazzle
when the spotlight is on him but the support he provides as an accompanist is
also top notch. Interestingly his listening skills as a jazz pianist are
evident in his speech. In the same way that he helps his colleagues on the
band stand to realize their visions in the moment he also seems to help
channel the ideas of the people he talks with. There is an interview he did
with John Mayer that I think illustrates this well. IMO Corea is a better
listener than Mayer where as Mayer seems to be more involved with his own
thoughts.

[http://chickcoreamusicworkshops.com/podcast/04-john-
mayer/](http://chickcoreamusicworkshops.com/podcast/04-john-mayer/)

------
_Adam
Well yeah. If remaining silent was considered "good listening" then people
would talk to walls.

------
kijin
The six levels suggested in the article could also serve as a guide for
speakers.

If you're trying to convey important information and the listener just doesn't
seem to get it, ask yourself whether you are expecting them to engage in a
higher, more demanding level of listening than they are currently able to.

For example, the article says that 80% of what most people try to communicate
occur at Level 4: body language. But if you can convey at least some of that
information verbally, you'll be able to achieve similar results even if the
listener is only at Level 3. This is especially useful if the listener is on
the other side of a phone call or an internet forum.

------
marmot777
I totally agree with this:

"Good listening is much more than being silent while the other person talks.
To the contrary, people perceive the best listeners to be those who
periodically ask questions that promote discovery and insight."

------
eridius
I had a manager once who would say "mmm-hmm" _all the time_. It was really
distracting and actually made it seem like he wasn't listening at all, even if
he was actually hanging on my every word.

~~~
kaybe
Some Japanese carry their listening habits over to English when they learn it
as a second language. This involves a lot of these noises and small words like
'amazing', 'wow' etc even if the topic is mundane. I've been told they
consider that polite, but in English it's quite irritating.

~~~
eridius
Huh, that's kind of interesting, although in this case the person in question
was about as white as you can be.

------
mikmoila
"Good listening invariably included some feedback provided in a way others
would accept and that opened up alternative paths to consider."

This might be related to why group brainstorming doesn't result in good ideas
as often we think:

[https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-group-brainstorming-is-a-
waste-o...](https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-group-brainstorming-is-a-waste-of-
time)

------
wibr
"[...] other subtle body language signals. It is estimated that 80% of what we
communicate comes from these signals."

Sounded strange to me, so here's some background:
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-
words/201109/is-...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-
words/201109/is-nonverbal-communication-numbers-game)

------
gsmethells
Politeness + Insight + Empathy. It's easy as PIE!

~~~
dwaltrip
That is a great acronym. I'm going to hold onto that, thanks!

~~~
anbotero
I agree. So simple, so awesome. Well thought.

------
cmarschner
Years ago I found habit 5 of Steven Coveys "7 Habits of highly effective
people" a great ("idiot's") guide to listening. That book is often reduced to
habit "first things first", but said chapter was much more life changing for
me. Also to be applied when raising kids (Covey should have known, he and his
wife had 9 of them).

------
ysavir
It's almost like the word "listening" is being used instead of the more
appropriate word "supporting".

Can we just stop using the word "listening", which was never appropriate for
this context, instead of debating/evaluating its meaning?

------
bakhy
interesting research. i wasn't really that surprised by what they say about
suggestions - i always thought the problem with giving suggestions is not in
suggestions per se, but rather in the way they are given. people often suggest
solutions in a condescending way that sounds like they're saying "your
problems are so easy, here's the solution". or, the phrase "why don't you
just...". it's of course really easy to be objective about things that have
nothing to do with you personally. but when someone really listens well, i
think they will empathize more, respect the other person's feelings, and this
will be felt in their suggestions.

------
haddr
Side note: the hbr.org website is taking over 30% of the screen by showing
this thick upper gray bar, which the only function is to show you how far
you've already read. What a waste of space & UI.

------
caminante
Nothing but vague insights that shouldn't be surprising, IMHO.

~~~
nether
mhm

------
golergka
Doesn't level 6 sound like therapy, basically?

------
hysan
So great listeners do what great teachers often do. Especially when teaching
one-on-one or in discussions.

------
MrBlue
I've closed many a sale by simply just listening.

------
overcast
Are there any excellent books on this topic?

~~~
chairleader
I'll throw out Marshall Rosenberg's "Nonviolent Communication." Call it one
framework for listening centered around resolving conflict between individuals
and groups.

It provides examples of the kind of active listening and questioning mentioned
in the article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Four_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Four_components)
[https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-
Mar...](https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Marshall-
Rosenberg/dp/1892005034)

~~~
overcast
That's a good starting point, thank you!

------
elderdnyx
Great Listeners always use empathy.

------
MidnightRaver
They retrieve weekly contracts from the Night Mother diligently.

------
simbalion
You can't "perform" good listening skills. Listening to people is about caring
what they are saying.

This article appears to be written by people who are not capable or interested
in caring about what other people are saying. They techniques they described
are phony. Good listeners are never phony.

------
hclivess
Idiotic -.- "In fact, much management advice on listening suggests doing these
very things – encouraging listeners to remain quiet, nod and “mm-hmm”
encouragingly, and then repeat back"

------
andrewvijay
yess!!! finally I can show some valid points to long time nonsensical guys! :D
Its about time.

