~
M:
"There is a Toltec code that the task in a conversation is to listen - give full attention to listening and understanding the other person.
But I find this boring when people do it to me. I have friends who listen and focus on what I am saying completely, asking questions for further details etc. I find it creepy, as at the end all that has happened is that I have offered something and they have offered nothing. Not the kind of person I trust with the info I am speaking - I tend to feel they have nothing going on inside and are only interested in being entertained for awhile".
My question: Have you done this to others?
I see this method you mention above in a slightly different light...As in when I'm speaking or conversing or communicating with someone much better versed in something than I am. An example would be a conversation with Dr. Kenny on a medical malady that's I'm having trouble with. I know little on it, he knows much more; thus, at the current level of my knowledge and awareness it is going to be a bit of a lop-sided conversation, almost a lecture.
As to your last line, the 'straw dogs' who are seeking entertainment...is this bad to entertain them? Perhaps it's a bit of an opportunity for both parties to work on the conversational skills, not just communicating skills. This may be labeled, 'Stalking.'
M:
"What I personally prefer in a conversation is like a tennis match - the ball is passed back and forth, each person adding further vitality, insight or impetus to the thread of conversation. I enjoy the bouncing of an idea back and forth with creative and unexpected twists. This happens very rarely.”
Really? I’ve found this occurs [conversations like a tennis match] when a couple traits come in to play. First, finding an open minded audience, and second, which is much more difficult, is being open to this style of conversation ourselves. We obviously only have control over ourselves, so if we ‘guide’ the conversation, a little give and take, such as giving the one who wants to ‘lecture’ their due, then, propose open ended questions and answers, the ‘tennis match’ conversation can occur. Personally, I’ve found this much less complex in person, verbal communication, than on discussion boards. Especially on discussion boards that anything to do with Religion, Spirituality, etc., etc. As to your final line below, very, very few want to ‘give the other their due,’ first, then propose an alternative perspective. I cannot recall the last time I saw a reply such as, “Yes, I see your point, what do you think about this?”
M:
“However sometimes in a conversation someone will tell me something personal, and after they have given their first phase, it sparks something similar in my experience, so following the tennis principle I then offer my story of similar kind - showing I am alright to speak to about such matters and that I understand the complexities and dilemmas of such situations.
But then the other person goes quiet, and I get the feeling they didn't want a tennis conversation, they just wanted to let out some built up emotional energy, and it would have been better if I had drawn them out further.”
Agreed. As with the comments above and as you know, many factors can go into this. What’s the relationship we have with the individual we’re communicating with? What’s our role within that relationship? Where do we draw the line in the ‘drawing out’ of another or ourselves? Etc., etc….
M:
“Another part of me isn't happy playing councilor with others. People get themselves tied up in such emotional knots, that I enjoy sitting back some distance and looking humorously or with wonder at the bizarre nature of life. Others I sense are not so keen on that - they want to draw me down into their quagmire, and when I don't offer them the stage completely, they stuff their problem back under their jumper.”
Sure, yet that above sounds like judgment to me, which is Ok, as long as we’re aware of it and accept it as such. As Lori told me, “It’s easy to sit back and judge…” Also as mentioned above, many questions can arise from this: Who am I and what is my role in this conversation? What’s the point? Where is this leading us? Why are we even having this conversation? How are we going about it?
The tricky part I’ve found is to quickly answer all or most of these questions the moment the conversation begins, or, if we know we have a pre-determined meeting as such, prepare our state of mind for the conversation. Raise our level of awareness to quickly see who or what issue we’re dealing with, (hence getting to the REAL issue) then address appropriately based on all the questions and answers we received, above.
I think ‘getting to the real issue’ of the conversation is important. Most tend to run off on a wild goose chase, on some minor detail that tickles their fancy, and forget about the issue at hand. This responsibility, imho, is on both parties of the conversation.
M:
“Nonetheless, one of the best techniques to use is to say, "What you are saying is .... [Demonstrating you listened], however/and I have another side to tell on this."”
Agreed. This is where I was going with my initial reply to this thread; more importantly, how well can we do this on discussion boards with the written word?
What I’m truly getting at, is that are we taking the time to figure out the intent of those we converse or communicate with? Are they just looking for a reaction? Are they looking for further information? Are they looking for a debate or a conversation? Do we ourselves, or another person, even versed or understand the topic at hand? Are we looking to ‘school’ or lecture them on the topic? How are we replying to them? What are we looking to invoke in them with our reply?
K
