Ship of Fools: Reading for comprehension

Thread: Reading for comprehension Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026315

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

It really ticks me off when people (here, or anywhere really) say things like 'read for comprehension, duh' or 'you obviously didn't read what I said'.

Get a grip, people - if someone's misunderstood you it might not be totally their fault. You know, you might not have expressed yourself marvellous clearly. In fact, there's probably some responsibility on both sides.

It's this post that has prompted the thread, but I don't mean to pick on Zach82. It's just something that has been annoying me recently. So here we go. Feeblest Hell thread in several weeks?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Feeblest Hell thread in several weeks?

Clearly you haven't read the competition. Or if you have, you haven't comprehended it.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Feeblest Hell thread in several weeks?
Clearly you haven't read the competition. Or if you have, you haven't comprehended it.

True, it's not discussing reading the road rules for competition. Yet.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Feeblest Hell thread in several weeks?

No.

The driving and parking ones take that title easily.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Clearly you haven't read the competition. Or if you have, you haven't comprehended it.

Ha ha, very good!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If anyone wants to respond to a post, even here, it's up to them to acquaint themselves with the post to which they are responding and the rest of the thread. It's astonishing how much better posts are, and how much better the debate is, when that simple principle is followed.

There will always be those who try to score cheap points by asking people to read for comprehension and asserting that they have been misquoted or misunderstood but this is a written medium and, it pains me to say this as a Hellhost, we are not to offend easily nor easily take offence.

At this point Erin would have suggested we put our big girl panties on, and got over it.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
At this point Erin would have suggested we put our big girl panties on, and got over it.

Yeah, maybe so. It's just a frustration of mine that, both here and elsewhere, some people are very reluctant to acknowledge that a misunderstanding might be at least partly down to the way they expressed themselves. Simply saying 'read what I said' is just utterly unhelpful, IMO.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I'm with SCK on this.

Something that annoys me even more - and this doesn't happen that much on the Ship, but certainly elsewhere in Internetland - is when someone posts something like "Please read Isaiah chapters A to B" or "Please read what theologian X has to say about this in book Y".

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
At this point Erin would have suggested we put our big girl panties on, and got over it.
Yeah, maybe so. It's just a frustration of mine that, both here and elsewhere, some people are very reluctant to acknowledge that a misunderstanding might be at least partly down to the way they expressed themselves. Simply saying 'read what I said' is just utterly unhelpful, IMO.

To be fair, it is a fairly regular occurrence on here that somebody will try pretending another post was unclear, as a tacit admission that a good point was made and they don't have a reply of any substance.

[ 10. October 2013, 11:37: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
At this point Erin would have suggested we put our big girl panties on, and got over it.
Yeah, maybe so. It's just a frustration of mine that, both here and elsewhere, some people are very reluctant to acknowledge that a misunderstanding might be at least partly down to the way they expressed themselves. Simply saying 'read what I said' is just utterly unhelpful, IMO.

Personally I'm amazed that we communicate as well as we do.

If you ask four different people what they thought a sermon was saying - or what its main point was, you will often get four quite different answers.

Even reading or hearing the exact same words is absolutely no guarantee that you will understand the intent of the original speaker or writer.

And that's because we interpret what we read and hear and see according to our previous experience and understanding. We have innate assumptions about everything that colors everything we read, see or hear from others or in the world.

"Read what I said" is indeed a silly thing to say when you take into account how fallible human communication really is.

Background is certainly important (as Sioni points out) but it's still quite easy to completely misunderstand the original speakers voice.

And that can be through no fault of the speaker or the hearer - that's just the nature of communication.

That's why we have four different gospels on the one man. And that's why we have so many different denominations in Christianity.

Here endeth the lesson on communication theory and hermeneutics.

[ 10. October 2013, 12:19: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm with SCK on this.

Something that annoys me even more - and this doesn't happen that much on the Ship, but certainly elsewhere in Internetland - is when someone posts something like "Please read Isaiah chapters A to B" or "Please read what theologian X has to say about this in book Y".

You have a point there: if all people want to do is quote and instruct you to read then that is plain lazy as well as being all too reminiscent of school and college. We don't come here to be lectured (not even by tetchy hosts) but to engage in debate. If they haven't the balls to comment to suit the subject for debate, WTF are they doing here?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It's this post that has prompted the thread, but I don't mean to pick on Zach82. It's just something that has been annoying me recently.

Zach82 is responding to Croesos. I've never seen any evidence that Croesos is interested in understanding what people he disagrees with are actually trying to say. At which point, one just has to call him on it as Zach82 did.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

And that's because we interpret what we read and hear and see according to our previous experience and understanding. We have innate assumptions about everything that colors everything we read, see or hear from others or in the world.

Very true. A few times I've had to cease engaging with particular posters because it doesn't matter what I say - they've already decided on what I meant . And that voice in their head will shout down any attempt at correction.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

And that's because we interpret what we read and hear and see according to our previous experience and understanding. We have innate assumptions about everything that colors everything we read, see or hear from others or in the world.

Very true. A few times I've had to cease engaging with particular posters because it doesn't matter what I say - they've already decided on what I meant . And that voice in their head will shout down any attempt at correction.

Or when they play the "yes but" game with people making prefectly valid points:

Q: Why have you joined a contemporary worship group when you hate that shit?

A: But they need me! But I don't like the songs the leader has choosen.

Q: If you don't like the songs, why are you still there?

A: But they need me! But I should only be expected to sing things that I like and agree with.

Q: This isn't a reasonable expectation, why would you think it is?

A: Oh let's not make this about me ... Let's talk about the wider leadership issues?

Q: If this isn't about you, then why is each and every thread you start about you then?!

A: ...

And breathe ....

Tubbs

[ 10. October 2013, 13:26: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Zach82 is responding to Croesos. I've never seen any evidence that Croesos is interested in understanding what people he disagrees with are actually trying to say. At which point, one just has to call him on it as Zach82 did.

I have to say that's been my experience too. Croesos is very well read, very knowledgeable, and often posts fascinating links, but there are times when he seems to wilfully misinterpret what people have said, putting words in their mouths in the process (often with a sarcastic put-down), which can be incredibly frustrating. So I have a lot of sympathy with Zach in this instance.

That said, I also agree with SCK's general point. Communication is tricky at the best of times, and misunderstandings occur easily. Both sides need to have patience with each other where that happens, and take the time and effort to actually try to both communicate clearly, and listen clearly.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
A few times I've had to cease engaging with particular posters because it doesn't matter what I say - they've already decided on what I meant . And that voice in their head will shout down any attempt at correction.

I know how you feel.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Zach82 is responding to Croesos. I've never seen any evidence that Croesos is interested in understanding what people he disagrees with are actually trying to say. At which point, one just has to call him on it as Zach82 did.
I have to say that's been my experience too. Croesos is very well read, very knowledgeable, and often posts fascinating links, but there are times when he seems to wilfully misinterpret what people have said, putting words in their mouths in the process (often with a sarcastic put-down), which can be incredibly frustrating. So I have a lot of sympathy with Zach in this instance.

What happens not infrequently is that someone posts a tendentious comment and they are then called on it. The first poster then either flatly denies the plain reading of the first post or contradicts it while claiming that his two posts actually say the same thing. Both of these approaches are forms of dishonesty.

Croesos is very good at skewering such attempts at evasion. It is not surprising the skewered squirmer gets upset.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Bull pocky. Croesos accused me of saying something I didn't even vaguely imply. He didn't call me on shit.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Sigh. I was responding to Dafyd's and goperryrevs's general attacks on Croesos rather than commenting on your particular little spat.

Not that I think you were the innocent, put-upon little flower that you would have us believe.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Sigh. I was responding to Dafyd's and goperryrevs's general attacks on Croesos rather than commenting on your particular little spat.

Not that I think you were the innocent, put-upon little flower that you would have us believe.

Does "innocent" have a definition in your mind besides "Not guilty of the charge?"

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Interruption/
To the OP,

I am on the fence about this. SCK's example certainly happens. However, so does the case when the person being responded to truly hasn't read for comprehension. Or at least shows no sign of having done so.
/interruption
Sorry for stepping in, back to your slap fight.

[ 10. October 2013, 17:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am on the fence about this. SCK's example certainly happens. However, so does the case when the person being responded to truly hasn't read for comprehension. Or at least shows no sign of having done so.

I'm sure you're right! My moan, though, is that simply saying 'read for comprehension' isn't at all helpful. Either your verbal sparring partner is already arguing in less than good faith and being snarky back will just make things worse, or they've genuinely misunderstood you and might well have responded positively if you had found another way of expressing your point.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It's this post that has prompted the thread, but I don't mean to pick on Zach82. It's just something that has been annoying me recently.
Zach82 is responding to Croesos. I've never seen any evidence that Croesos is interested in understanding what people he disagrees with are actually trying to say. At which point, one just has to call him on it as Zach82 did.

I would agree with that. Croesus often imposes his own interpretation on what others post. Sometimes it may be an honest misunderstanding. Sometimes I think he is just playing a game of gotcha. In any event, Croesus will maintain you meant what he says you meant for the rest of the thread. I don't know why. Perhaps, Croesus has a mental block that prevents him from seeing words can be read more than two ways. Perhaps, Croesus is just a pedantic jerk. Either way, the best practice is just to ignore him entirely. He is either incapable or refuses to argue in good faith.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Where as you are frequently unable to engage in a debate without being unpleasantly sarcastic - which doesn't add much to developing a shared understanding either.

I do wish posters in purg would post the majority of the time with an assumption of good faith on the part of the people they are conversing with.

It is often, though not in your case I grant you BA, that people are really unpleasant / passive aggressive because they refuse to use hell when really pissed off because they feel it is beneath them - so carry on wrangling in purg just making the atmosphere really toxic in the process.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I do wish posters in purg would post the majority of the time with an assumption of good faith on the part of the people they are conversing with.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Preach, Doublethink.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

It is often, though not in your case I grant you BA, that people are really unpleasant / passive aggressive because they refuse to use hell when really pissed off because they feel it is beneath them - so carry on wrangling in purg just making the atmosphere really toxic in the process.

I will take a bombastic newbie flashing their feathers over a veteran shipmate pressing their butt cheeks against the 10C window any day. One is exasperating, the other is infuriating.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
or "Please read what theologian X has to say about this in book Y".

There is a place for that. Sometimes there is just too much information/argumentation to be fitted into a post, and someone's set it all out in a book (or a chapter of a book), and it seems silly to duplicate all their work anyway. Then "read this" is a reasonable reply, even if it will inevitably mean that people have to go to some effort and expense to get the level of detail they want on the topic they're asking about.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Where as you are frequently unable to engage in a debate without being unpleasantly sarcastic - which doesn't add much to developing a shared understanding either.

This is just "wit", like the moronic thread titles in Purg. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is often, though not in your case I grant you BA, that people are really unpleasant / passive aggressive because they refuse to use hell when really pissed off because they feel it is beneath them - so carry on wrangling in purg just making the atmosphere really toxic in the process.

So call them here for being passive-aggressive bastards.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
or "Please read what theologian X has to say about this in book Y".
There is a place for that.

I disagree. I am to purchase a book/hunt it down in library because someone else has not the intellectual power to summarise?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

I do wish posters in purg would post the majority of the time with an assumption of good faith on the part of the people they are conversing with.

But what fun is there in this?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

It involves seeing the debate as an attempt to develop a shared understanding rather than a fight you are trying to win. Which is somewhat counter-cultural.

Isn't being counter-cultural supposed be fun ?

[ 10. October 2013, 19:43: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is often, though not in your case I grant you BA, that people are really unpleasant / passive aggressive because they refuse to use hell when really pissed off because they feel it is beneath them - so carry on wrangling in purg just making the atmosphere really toxic in the process.
So call them here for being passive-aggressive bastards.

Then they'll come down here, post a few times about how they don't "do Hell," mince about a little, and then go right back to being toxic in Purgatory. If they come down here at all.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It involves seeing the debate as an attempt to develop a shared understanding rather than a fight you are trying to win. Which is somewhat counter-cultural.

Isn't being counter-cultural supposed to be fun ?

That shared understanding (or even the fight) needs to be fuelled by the arguments put forward by all parties, and I don't consider an instruction to consider the entire contents of some learned tome to help towards that.

Others may disagree, but I'd like us to deal with what goes on the page, or is at any rate closely referenced by it. Trying to move a discussion forward when people have to take a day or two out to study additional material dragged in to support a point of view, isn't really on.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I tend to agree with that, summary with link to source for the more interested / obsessive reader seems more reasonable.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
or "Please read what theologian X has to say about this in book Y".
There is a place for that.
I disagree. I am to purchase a book/hunt it down in library because someone else has not the intellectual power to summarise?

Some issues defy summarization beyond generalities (I'm thinking principally of questions of authorship of Biblical books, discussions of which are inevitably extremely cursory or extremely detailed, with little room in between). If someone isn't satisfied with the generalities, they are essentially asking for something far exceeding message board post in length. And if the relevant information/argumentation has been covered in a readily-available book, then it does them a service to mention it.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is often, though not in your case I grant you BA, that people are really unpleasant / passive aggressive because they refuse to use hell when really pissed off because they feel it is beneath them - so carry on wrangling in purg just making the atmosphere really toxic in the process.
So call them here for being passive-aggressive bastards.
Then they'll come down here, post a few times about how they don't "do Hell," mince about a little, and then go right back to being toxic in Purgatory. If they come down here at all.

Isn't there a button you can press so they can only see Hell until you're satisfied? Or am I just too mean? [Devil]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think the standard internet forum is not generally the best medium for discussions that require reading lengthy, scholarly tomes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Perrin
I think Doublethink responded with the best response to your thought.

[ 10. October 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
or "Please read what theologian X has to say about this in book Y".
There is a place for that.
I disagree. I am to purchase a book/hunt it down in library because someone else has not the intellectual power to summarise?

Agree with lilBuddha. I've got a lot of things going in my life, and discussions on SOF are not the sorts of things I am so heavily invested in that I'm going to spend my scarce book-buying and/or book-reading resources just to understand the argument of some person who is too intellectually challenged to make their own arguments.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
A few times I've had to cease engaging with particular posters because it doesn't matter what I say - they've already decided on what I meant . And that voice in their head will shout down any attempt at correction.
I know how you feel.

I'm sure you meant to say something else there.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
A few times I've had to cease engaging with particular posters because it doesn't matter what I say - they've already decided on what I meant . And that voice in their head will shout down any attempt at correction.
I know how you feel.
I'm sure you meant to say something else there.

You'd like to think that.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Perrin
I think Doublethink responded with the best response to your thought.

Yes, he's totally right. I saw it afterwards. But this thread's now sounding disappointingly Stygian...

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

He ! He ! [Eek!]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Dude, chill.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

I think the term you were looking for there was "chillax". As was obvious from the context of the post, if you were reading for comprehension.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
He ! He !

Honest mistake, especially if you look at the last word in your sig.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Nice recovery. And good for reading for comprehension too.

(You mean to say doublethink isn't a short bloke?)

[ 11. October 2013, 07:38: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Wonders what the devil is going on ....... are these Northern Hemisphere in-jokes?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
He ! He !

What's so funny then?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

btw, welcome back Mustard.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Wonders what the devil is going on

Hooves in most depictions.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
btw, welcome back Mustard.

False cognate by the way. Thanks.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I think the term you were looking for there was "chillax". As was obvious from the context of the post, if you were reading for comprehension.

Ever the fucking pedant.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Ever the fucking pedant.

As opposed to what? The celibate pedant?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I read it as fucking pendant, the first time.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Ever the fucking pedant.
As opposed to what? The celibate pedant?

Obviously he's a fucking pedant. He has offspring, yeah? I suppose he could be a celibate pedant now, though I truly do not care to know.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think the shutdown is making everybody loopy.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I read it as fucking pendant, the first time.

Google Images is definitely not your friend. NSFW.

I did warn you...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(mopping soda off monitor)

Don't tell me white boys can't dance.

I can just hear the director-- "Keep your hands clenched, Rick, that's so hot. Ok, pretend like you are working maracas. Beautiful, baby!"

[ 12. October 2013, 03:50: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I did warn you...

Yes, but as a Host I have to look. Bastard.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I have not stopped laughing since I last posted. My face hurts. Pissy, you are such a tool.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Feeblest Hell thread in several weeks?
No.

The driving and parking ones take that title easily.

Couldn't agree more .

I know actual Hell is supposed to be all about taking skinny dips in burning lakes and all that -- but being forced for all eternity to listen to a continuous liturgy on how to park a car ?

Now that's bonafide torment that is .

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Amen brother.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

we couldn't see the link that made you laugh, Kelly, blocked our country. Now that's torment....

I'm joining in this fight because, despite knowing it's not even slightly what the OP meant, I am sick to the back teeth of people who don't listen properly. They hear a sentence or two and guess the rest. Even if you choose your sentences carefully. Even if you speak slowly and look at the person.

[ 12. October 2013, 10:52: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
. . . . . I am sick to the back teeth of people who don't listen properly. They hear a sentence or two and guess the rest. Even if you choose your sentences carefully. Even if you speak slowly and look at the person.

Ah, the traditional English response to the inability of Johnny Foreigner to comprehend God's Own language.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Foreigners? You don't get out much, do you?

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
. . . . . I am sick to the back teeth of people who don't listen properly. They hear a sentence or two and guess the rest. Even if you choose your sentences carefully. Even if you speak slowly and look at the person.
Ah, the traditional English response to the inability of Johnny Foreigner to comprehend God's Own language.

Cymraeg, wrth gwrs (Welsh, of course)

Or am I not reading carefully enough?

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

You're joking, right? I tried to write your name and predictive text turned it into dinosaurs, which I can t fight just now [Smile]

I lived in Palastine for 6 weeks, and found everyone would check out what they'd heard, to make sure they got it right. Wonderful.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
. . . . . I am sick to the back teeth of people who don't listen properly. They hear a sentence or two and guess the rest. Even if you choose your sentences carefully. Even if you speak slowly and look at the person.
Ah, the traditional English response to the inability of Johnny Foreigner to comprehend God's Own language.

I don't think the problem is so much with people who don't speak your language. If they do guess at what you're saying, they usually check, because the chance of getting it wrong is so obvious.

I think it's more often people who do speak your own language natively, but who aren't focussed. Sometimes they are just distracted, looking around for another conversation or something, what you're saying doesn't seem important enough to them.

Sometimes what distracts them from really listening to what you say is the business of thinking about how they are going to reply to you. They don't listen to you fully, and they get (guess) it wrong.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Exactly. One's own mother at the top of the list, with over sensitive colleague a close second. Colleague is not, for the record, an EAL speaker.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

..the man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I am sick to the back teeth of people who don't listen properly. They hear a sentence or two and guess the rest. Even if you choose your sentences carefully. Even if you speak slowly and look at the person.

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Exactly. One's own mother at the top of the list, with over sensitive colleague a close second. Colleague is not, for the record, an EAL speaker.

I may be putting two and two together and making five but it seems to me at least possible that your first two sentences upset your colleague so much that s/he didn't listen to the rest. Of course, that might not be your fault, but it's still not a simple 'people don't listen' problem.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

In my experience, people don't listen properly, and don't read for comprehension. It is laziness, lack of time, energy or interest. A wise man once wrote, 'true listening is love in action.' It's a skill that takes thought and needs practice. I didn't really 'listen properly' to sioni sais' point, and certainly responded as if he said something a bit different.. partly because I felt poked with a stick and partly cos I'm writing on a kindle, which is limiting. My colleague doesn't listen properly, partly because, as a teacher, she is used to hearing the subtext and answering that, to save time, perhaps. But mostly she hears blame and criticism where none is intended. And that is, for all sorts of noble reasons, because she is sed to taking responsibility, or having to justify herself, or whatever. Other people are busy with other agendas. Now I'm wondering of I'm on the wrong board.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Of course, it should have had 'often'.
Often, people don't listen properly. Children and adults with less power than others will find this most frustrating.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Oh fuck.

I repeat some cheap jibe about the English SHOUTING at those who don't speak English, which is a dig at the English, forgetting that a good proportion of the audience has their irony detectors on "standby". If they have them fitted that is. That or their SOH is on holiday.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't know about communication in general, but i can testify that this listener misses a lot of stuff when worried and scared--at the moment, about health and family issues. It's rotten but i don't know how to fix it. And i sure can't explain it at my work (where it happens most dangerously) since mentioning such issues is a definite no-no and considered unprofessional.

I try to keep a paper trail so i can obsess over whether "they really meant that." Clutches head...

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Sigh. I said, you're joking, right? Yes, dig at English, yes accurate and yes, as funny to me at this moment as digs at the Americans is to Americans. Sorry, I'll get out of hell. I thought I was being funny at one point, but it obviously missed. Sorry.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

FWIW, I felt you, Taliesin. My family communication style is for folk to listen just long enough to formulate a counterpoint-- because it's never a discussion, it's always a debate-- and to charge in and defend that counterpoint whether or not the speaker is finished. Usually at several decibels higher than normal.

The big hint for me was the bit in the beginning where you said you weren't allowed to complete a sentence-- that is not ABOUT language comprehension. And I wonder if you are slowing down your speech to force calm on the situation. And I would be a bigass bar of chocolate that when you try to speak in soothing tones you get 'STOP PATRONIZING ME!"

[ 13. October 2013, 16:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Meg the Red (# 11838) on :

Geeze Kelly, now I want to be a bigass bar of chocolate. At least I've got the big ass part down.

Sigh.

As you were.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Sigh. I said, you're joking, right? Yes, dig at English, yes accurate and yes, as funny to me at this moment as digs at the Americans is to Americans. Sorry, I'll get out of hell. I thought I was being funny at one point, but it obviously missed. Sorry.

Screwed that royally didn't I!

(btw, I'm English, though I live in Wales.)

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meg the Red:
Geeze Kelly, now I want to be a bigass bar of chocolate. At least I've got the big ass part down.

Sigh.

As you were.

Stop patronizing me.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I love you all. [Axe murder]

A glorious mishmash of wordage, a smorgasbord of verbal delight, in this crazy craft upon a sea of syllables...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Well, verbal d . . something . .

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0