
Silence: Because I talked so rarely, people took the time to listen to me - joshuacc
http://swombat.com/2011/8/13/silence
======
pohl
This is a great technique, and an excellent essay describing it. I found it
enjoyable to read.

I wonder, though, if the author failed to pinpoint the likely cause of this
effect. Yes, I believe that there is an element to it that involves signaling
alpha security in a non-verbal way, and another element to it where the sheer
rarity of your speech raises its perceived value.

But consider this, which I suspect may be the dominating force at play: if you
follow the author's algorithm and only speak if you feel as though saying
nothing will have greater cost in the future to put things back on the rails,
what are you doing if not filtering out the lower-quality, lower-urgency, and
lower-importance thoughts that you might otherwise utter. I believe that the
effect of this is that if you only utter the crème de la crème of your
thoughts, then people end up suspecting that you're more brilliant than you
actually are. At the very least, people will come to learn that if you have
something to say, it will likely be well worth their attention.

It's simply a matter of keeping your lower-quality thoughts as the part of an
iceberg submerged below the surface.

------
jseliger
I'm a grad student in English Lit, which means I teach freshmen comp to
undergrads, which in turn means they want to fight about grades at the end of
each semester. One former student, who'd read this essay before I posted it
([http://jseliger.com/2010/10/02/how-to-get-your-
professors%E2...](http://jseliger.com/2010/10/02/how-to-get-your-
professors%E2%80%99-attention-or-how-to-get-the-coaching-and-mentorship-you-
need/)) asked how often students actually win grade fights, and I relied,
"Never, with me."

I preface grade fights by saying, "I won't change your grade" and then talk
about the paper to the extent necessary. The right way to get better grades is
to do better work next time. Being on this side of the desk has definitely
made me more skeptical of the students who said, "So and so was a hard grader
/ mean / hated me," mostly because those things might be somewhat true but can
almost always be overcome by greater effort, at least at the undergrad level.

Also, grade fights can sometimes be won through silence, as James Fallows
describes:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2009/03/-quot-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2009/03/-quot-
when-you-apos-re-done-talking-stop-quot/9827/) . His post is titled, "When
you're done talking, stop," which might be slightly better advice than "rarely
talk." Since learning the silence trick, grade fights have plummeted in
length, since now I've learned to just sit there and give one sentence answers
once the substance of an issue has been covered.

~~~
angstrom
Obviously not a legal prof. :)

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
Really, what can you expect from an English grad student?

... Well, other than being a teacher?

------
onan_barbarian
Unfortunately, the poster chose to break his dignified silence by posting a
epic paean of fatuous self-praise on-line, interspersed with some quotations
from his fathers 'blog on wisdom'. Really.

It would be interesting to hear the other sides of the story:

"Yeah, when he finally spoke, we were all surprised he could still talk, it
was sort of weird. But I guess he was our manager so we had to listen to him".

"When he went silent in the middle of the negotiation I wondered what the hell
he was doing; is this some sort of new trick?"

Dispensing this kind of wisdom seems to be yet another popular form of
'premature victory lap' on HN, where fairly wet-behind-the-ears types with no
major runs on the board can puff themselves up by handing out the Keys to
Their Success.

~~~
Mz
_posting a epic paean_

I didn't think it was all that long. I often post things longer than that, in
email form or on blogs/websites I own (and probably even here as comments).
Seems like an ugly thing to say and not at all accurate.

~~~
phaker
The word "epic" can be used to describe tone, not only length.

~~~
Mz
Still not seeing it. Both the tone and length of the post I replied to seem
far more guilty of either interpretation (in context, given that blog posts
are frequently much, much longer than posts on a forum) than the blog post it
is basically smearing. The post seems uncalled for and contributes nothing of
value to HN. It is merely scathing, for no apparent reason. It amounts to a
personal attack rather than a critical analysis of the ideas put forth. Very
often, posts of that character are rooted in personal vendettas. I'm not aware
of some personal history between the two HN members in question, but the whole
tone of the post just rubs me completely the wrong way.

~~~
phaker
_the whole tone of the post just rubs me completely the wrong way_

I could say the same thing about the blog post. It's seems to me it's not
saying anything except "I'm a smart guy".

 _Very often, posts of that character are rooted in personal vendettas._

Now _THIS_ is uncalled for. As is saying his post is smearing, worthless, and
constitutes a personal attack, but _this_ is most uncalled for.

I think onan_barbarian just thought that the idea from this blog post isn't
really novel or interesting enough to be submitted here and that the author
stated it in a way that makes him sound a little full of himself. He was being
a little mean while making his point but people often react like that when
something "rubs them the wrong way", no?

~~~
Mz
I really don't get how you can defend his post and turn around and state that
mine is uncalled for. I am well aware that my posts are not "polite" and there
is no good way to rebut the remarks that were made -- that stating "that's a
personal attack" almost always ends up being a personal attack. It's a damned
if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Many people on HN come across as socially awkward, full of themselves and so
on. Hackers are not exactly known for their suaveness as a group. (Personally,
I have no fondness for suave people, but I imagine commenting on that would
really strike people as "uncalled for", personal attacks, sweeping
generalizations, and so on.) I don't see how sounding to someone else (not me)
like he was full of himself invalidates the point or makes it uninteresting. I
also don't see how even if it were guilty of such things that merits the
characterizations in onan_barbarians remarks of "fatuous self praise" and so
on. For me, it is good food for thought. I tend to be too talkative. I've had
to work on such issues. I rarely find good insights into the type of problems
that causes.

Anyway, it would probably be best to drop this. I'm quite tired, which is not
a good place from which to try to politely disagree or parse out such things.
And I strongly suspect that we are both merely putting out the fire with
gasoline (since I really don't think you intend to be ugly and I certainly
don't either), which really adds nothing of value any way you slice it.

Peace.

------
NathanKP
In this example I imagine part of the reason why his infrequent talking was
taken so seriously is because when he wasn't talking he was engaging in
active, serious listening. This gave him a better grasp of what was going on,
and it allowed him to make his own speech highly relevant and sensible.

I think this is a great lesson. Good speaking arises from good listening,
because only good listening will give you the best sense of what everyone else
is thinking and what you need to say to explain your own thoughts to them.

~~~
swombat
Absolutely. Remaining quiet and not constantly thinking "what can I say next
to 'contribute'?" was one of the reasons I could actually really pay attention
to what was going on and catch those key moments where I could actually say
something worthwhile.

------
troymc
This reminded me of a quote, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than to speak out and remove all doubt." It's attributed to Abraham Lincoln
(e.g. in the Yale Book of Quotations).

It's a humorous twist on a Bible verse: "Even a fool, when he holdeth his
peace, is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips [is esteemed] a man of
understanding." (King James Bible, Proverbs 17:28)

~~~
sjs
Thanks for posting the source. That's one of my favourite sayings and one I
would do well to remember more often.

------
boop
This is very true. I have repeatedly been called a great communicator which
surprises me as I find in group conversations I tend to listen 70% of the time
and talk only 30% of the time. I believe because I talk less, more weight is
given to what I say. Also, because I talk less, I choose my words wisely
instead of just blurting out anything that comes to mind.

~~~
troymc
It seems to me that the optimal percentage of time to spend listening should
depend on the number of people in the meeting.

~~~
5hoom
My dad had a saying, "you have two ears & one mouth. Use them in that
proportion".

------
keyle
In french we have a saying

    
    
        "Tourne ta langue 7 fois dans ta bouche avant de parler"
    

it means

    
    
        "Turn your tongue 7 times in your mouth prior to talking"
    

A metaphor, of course. A reminder, often used by my mum, to say that I was
speaking to say nothing.

Carefully crafting the flow of words is as important as the words themselves.
Same apply to writing.

~~~
suking
Especially if it's a tourist visiting Paris - in which case turn your tongue
until they leave you alone.

------
sankalpk
While this may be helpful for business people and politicians, I think this
isn't great advice for this demographic. A huge skill lacking within this
industry (and of course I'm generalizing) is that of verbal communication.
Wouldn't talking more, much like writing more, help that skill?

~~~
swombat
No, not at all.

Silence, like body language, is an essential part of "verbal communication
skills" - that's the point I'm making. You can no more learn "verbal
communication" without learning to use silence than you can learn "driving
skills" without learning to look in the rear-view mirror... (poor analogy, but
you get the idea)

~~~
pohl
"Music is the space between the notes." - Claude Debussy

------
6ren
I used a silence technique when tutoring (class size about 20): if you want
students to answer a question, give them space. 10 seconds of silence is quite
uncomfortable - 30 seconds is extraordinary, unbearable. Don't elaborate, or
coach; just ask the question, then total silence.

Nature deplores a vacuum, and silence will draw someone out. Counter-
intuitively, it also gives permission for people to speak who otherwise would
be too shy.

~~~
Mz
_Counter-intuitively, it also gives permission for people to speak who
otherwise would be too shy._

I'm wondering if that has to do with internal "speed"/timing issues. My ex was
a slow talking, quiet sort (and shy/introverted) and I tend to talk a lot and
talk fast. A big issue in our marriage was when we argued and I felt like I
took really huge pauses to try to get him to speak but he still wouldn't speak
so I would resume talking to fill the silence. His take on it was that I never
ever shut up and there was no way to get a word in edgewise. I imagine if we
had overcome this issue, the marriage would have gone a great deal more
smoothly. I had to actively teach our younger son, who is more like his father
in this regard, to simply "interrupt" me and his fast-talking older brother.
Otherwise, he feels like we don't "let" him talk. There is a big disconnect in
the internal timing here -- he seems to not be able to judge how/when to jump
in the way his brother and I do. So when he simply "interrupts" us, I defend
it if his brother gets irritated or something.

~~~
jamesbkel
Definitely can relate to this situation (of your ex). It definitely can be a
case of difficulty "judg[ing] how/when to jump in", I certainly am below-
average on that measure.

However, a separate but related trait is that I often find myself internally
running through several iterations of what I want to say, only to realize that
by the time I've winnowed it down to the relevant info and am ready to speak,
the conversation has moved on.

------
aorshan
I absolutely agree with this. I find that time and time again, when I refrain
from talking as much as possible, people tend to listen more and more when I
speak.

I have also found that silence can be very useful in an educational situation.
When I tutor kids in math and they are having trouble working through a
problem, the tend to look at me after 5 seconds of effort and expect me to
help them. I just stare at them until they go back and look at the problem
again. 75% of the time they figure it out. I'll admit, I got the idea from
Plikt (the tutor of Valentine's children in Speaker for the Dead)

------
davi
I think of certain quiet people I know as having high signal-to-noise. When
they start to emit, I listen carefully, because my attention will be rewarded
with lots of signal per unit time.

~~~
nanospider
On a per sample basis it is very difficult to distinguish between signal and
noise. So your lack of definition as to what 'per unit time' means leaves me
very confused.

~~~
fredoliveira
I like how this thread suddenly buzzes with science. ;-) Engineers doing some
engineering, I guess.

Isn't it impossible to distinguish signal and noise on a per-sample basis,
though? A sample has no context, only a frequency. By itself, it can be both -
no?

------
pepsi_can
I've heard something similar that sums up this way:

    
    
           "The more you're heard, the less you're listened to"

~~~
ctdonath
To the contrary, I find that those who speak from long silence are ignored out
of habit by those who won't shut up.

------
DasIch
The problem with this "silence" is that you are not actually silent, you never
are. If you can't back up silence with non-verbal communication skills you
will end up being that weird shy guy who never says anything and you really
don't want to be weird shy guy.

There is also a huge difference between silence in a group setting, which just
means letting others speak compared to silence in a 1-on-1 conversation in
which you are forcing someone else to make a move.

Whereas the first is relatively simple to pull off, it also just affects the
signal to noise ratio and might give others the impression that you are more
intelligent than you actually are. Once that intelligence is put to the test
this becomes anything but simple.

The second one can be a lot more difficult. Most people are not accustomed to
silence, they prefer noise, they live in noise and they hide in noise. If you
are not comfortable or confident enough in how you use silence it will
backfire and you end up in a situation that is just awkward.

------
Mz
Something of a twist: I used to post a lot on some topics/lists and people
tried to shout me down. Arguing with them wasn't effective in swaying opinion.
I began looking for other outlets for my need to "talk" and saying less on
certain topics and reserving more of what I did say for blogs/websites. I say
a lot less on those topics these days. But people are beginning to listen to
me and not count me so much a fruitcake. When I tried endlessly to explain,
thinking they just didn't understand, it hurt my credibility and convinced
people it was about ego and attention-mongering. I still feel there is a great
deal of information which needs to be conveyed on those topics, but I continue
to work at finding ways for my communication to be effective and not just so
much churn. Since I'm a huge blabbermouth, this just does not come naturally
to me at all.

------
analyst74
My father also drilled the same idea in me when I grew up. But as of late I
started to notice things that do not quite follow this golden rule.

Take following examples:

1, when in a group of friends engaging in casual conversation, staying quiet
tend to get you ignored. You will be labeled as "that quiet person" unless you
are already a respected member of the group.

2, in business meetings, the most important persons on the table will never
get ignored. And it's best for them to NOT dominate the meeting so the other
attendees can express their views.

3, The ability of commanding a conversation is highly valued in society, and
such skill cannot be gained by being quiet all the time. In fact, even
conveying your message across the table takes skills that can only be learned
after much practice.

------
noonespecial
I use an alternate of this as well. In almost never use profanity,
particularly as an intensifier. When I do, it's full-quieting, guaranteed to
rivet the attention of those who know me. Perfect for those rare times when I
absolutely must be heard.

------
mcantor
"We have two ears and one mouth for a reason."

I think one of the big reasons this is effective is because when you're not
_talking_ , you're _listening_ , and this lets you figure out which stuff
actually matters.

------
AndyJPartridge
Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer. \--Muhammad Ali

------
tobylane
It only works if the people who are listening to you don't need to be
corrected a lot. Some people in my class who are somewhere between chav and
decent IT student have a lot of theories that can instantly be proven wrong.
Otherwise yes, I've found this to work really well.

------
domhofmann
This is anecdotal, but I've heard Steve Jobs is notorious for doing this.

------
petervandijck
I would post a comment, but...

------
tingletech
an economy of words

------
georgieporgie
The following is not necessarily commentary on the poster's method of handling
meetings:

I had a manager who would do the say-something-then-sit-in-silence thing. It
was absolutely horrible. Basically, you had to be a sociopath in order to
_not_ feel perpetually uncomfortable around her. Every 'normal' person working
for her was absolutely miserable. I'm sure she thought she was being very
clever.

------
Qa8BBatwHxK8Pu
Is this Western ego-mass trying to adopt and assimilate emerging Asian
economies by embracing its cultural distinctiveness?

