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.
Either you frequently deal with very not nice people, or you for some reason have negative assumptions about those around you. I'd like to assure you that there are many people out there who use repeating back what other people say (a critical component of active listening) to sincerely verify whether they've understood someone correctly, as well as validate the idea that they are indeed listening.
Honestly, I've found (only in my experience, not trying to make a blanket statement) that people who get easily annoyed aren't very easy to work with. The question then becomes whether their technical skills are good enough to disregard their lack of people skills. Sometimes, it's not worth it and you try to move on to a different situation if that person is a mainstay for the team. I've found that on really good teams, these types of people are mostly non-existent.
I don't doubt that there are teams out there filled with these types of people who magically understand each other and are always on the same page as if they had some sort of hive mind. I've heard of them, and it gets described as "good chemistry". I've just never experienced one of those teams myself where everyone can read the minds of other team members. For more average people, communication is a really important skill, and that includes not being annoyed by simple questions. Mind you, I can easily be annoyed by simple questions too. It's not like I'm good at this stuff either.
Teams that have achieved "mind meld" didn't just start there, never needing much communication. When you see this, it's usually because the team has had excellent communication together for many months/years, to the point that they have a rich understanding of each other and their communications can express a lot of meaning very efficiently.
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."
> 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.
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.
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.
I can imagine the doc was trying to reassure you or head off questions s/he gets often by going through the litany of scary stuff ruled out. But maybe should not have buried the lede.
Many (most?) medical terms are just a common description of the thing in Latin. "Anterior Cruciate Ligament" sounds fancy until you realise it just means "the string that goes across at the back." I dunno why but this vaguely annoys me.
I would imagine the tone of voice and confidence would have made a difference. If he said it an a hesitant way I would imagine that it might have got you worried. (I hope it wasn't cause for concern).
Well, the non-jokey answer is that simply transliterating it to Latin does carry novel information. It says, "your child has something the medical establishment is familiar with". That alone carries some reassurance with it.
I can't resist the jokey version. A man goes to a psychiatrist and says "I have this nameless fear." The psychiatrist says, "Oh, that's no problem, we have names for everything."
I agree paraphrasing is usually better. But with complicated matters you are having trouble understanding, word-for-word repetition can help a lot.
Also, for teaching, a lot of people need to do word-for-word first in order to learn how to really concentrate, then they can switch to paraphrasing.
In fact, I have found that a large portion of the population has a problem listening where their attention wanders away and they miss much of what is said, but they don't realize it and think they have heard it all. When you have them do word-for-word reflecting, they miss a lot of the content, and are shocked to realize their attention has wandered away, and indeed they have probably been doing this all their life, and they suddenly become very focused in their listening. It is quite something when you see this happen.
To follow on from your excellent second point - "actually be involved in the conversation"
People understandably don't appreciate if you're parroting back to them what they said (even paraphrased) so that you can appear to be an "active listener".
The reason to repeat what someone said exactly (useful in case you legitimately just missed an important phrase) or paraphrase is because you didn't fully understand what they said and you genuinely want to understand the point. Asking follow-up questions to drive discovery and enjoyment is next.
Being a good listener is about being humble, respectful and present. Turns out that's easier said than done.
Parroting shouldn't be your go-to tactic. It's useful to get you out of a potentially awkward spot to save the momentum of a conversation, but if you're actually involved in the conversation you should have other things to say/ask.
Yes, with technical conversations / difficult concepts I think this is a useful way to do it. If I can reword it and keep the same meaning we can assume I have understood correctly.
I do the repeating thing when I'm in danger of zoning out. I repeat their words, and then try to rephrase it. It signals to the other person to give me a second or two to come back into the conversation.
It's valuable when listening to people with thick accents, fast talkers, or on the phone.
With people who have thick accents, the reason is probably obvious; but with fast talkers sometimes it's needed to process what the talker said.
For example, yesterday I had to repeat back on the phone because the other guy had a very thick accent and was on a speaker phone.
Usually, the people who repeat back to me are people who aren't native English speakers; or people who aren't technical and need to make sure that they understand a point. I appreciate it.
What's your favorite technique for ensuring that you correctly understand the other person? For example, in a business negotiation, or crucial personal conversation?
paulsutter didn't include a single thought from the parent nor paraphrased it - but the question and probing clearly made him a good listener! His question elicited a 4-paragraph response from Bahamut (who I would venture to say felt he was being listened to) whereas the other comments (that actively responded to the thought he expressed) did not result in any conversation.
If I don't understand something, asking someone to clarify on the part I misunderstand, asking someone to repeat what was said (with an apology prior - this is mainly if I completely missed what was said), or to give me insight on the detail(s) I am missing - leaving room for the other person to correct me is also important, as it naturally evokes a response if I have a detail wrong and give the person an opportunity to rephrase it. More importantly, it is active - repeating what someone said is a passive act, as it does not demonstrate understanding, but just that someone knows how to repeat words said, whereas if someone is actively engaged in filling in important details & probing the implications of what was presented, the person is more likely to be focused on explaining the relevant details (& being mentally focused on the topic of conversation) than distracting emotions, thoughts, etc.
If I am confident I understand what is being said, I will operate under the assumption of that understanding, and continue on the natural implications, or on occasion, rephrase what was said to verify if there are major consequences (especially something legally binding).
This approach highly depends on ability to trust (to a degree) though. If one is in a situation where one cannot trust the other person's intentions, then one must be on their guard and rely on their ability to parse a situation & come up with an approach (or delay immediate response before being able to conduct the necessary research in order to make a proper response or have a productive discussion if possible).
To borrow an idea from literature, it is generally better to show than to tell. There is utility to telling, but its utility is mostly in speedily conveying an idea (or ideas) in order to get to more important matters.
But what about situations where you think you understand but you don't?
That's often the point of paraphrasing back what was said. I do this in cases of doubt, and often enough I learn my paraphrase was either incorrect or had the wrong emphasis.
I do it routinely enough that I often learn I was wrong when I had no doubts.
This technique does not seem to annoy people; quite the opposite. I'm sure it can be done badly - pure repetition rather than paraphrase would be senseless.l
Edit: upon further consideration, I think I do this when I notice there are multiple interpretations to a remark, or multiple factors at play (where I might think one is weighted 90%, but it could be 10%). I don't paraphrase things that are unambiguous.
I wonder if the paraphrasing itself is seen by that commenter as the "distorting" to fit an agenda? Once or twice I've had people angrily insist that only precisely their words conveyed their meaning - no paraphrasing would do (in a non-technical discussion).
Some people also believe that ambiguity and misunderstanding are not possible, and so checking on their meaning is a waste of time. They don't see the ambiguity, because they know what they mean. Even after several misunderstandings have occurred.
I've mostly had success with active listening, especially when someone is upset. It's reassuring to be given space.
On the other rare occasions... some people really do have issues. Or, maybe I'm doing it badly, not able to adjust to the situation, the specific words and the person. I honestly can't tell which predominates.
Finally, it makes a tremendous difference whether the participants have the same general background and specific context and perspective - on the same page. And whether they are aware of any differences.
When it's a critical topic, you should still paraphrase things that are unambiguous. Because the penalty is too high for critical things when you're wrong, even if the risk seems tiny. In critical situations, assuming that something is unambiguous is especially dangerous.
