Beyond the noise: What it really means to listen
As I’ve shared in previous articles and in episodes of my podcast, I have a complicated relationship with a lot of listening advice.
In particular, active listening.
It get the heebie-jeebies because so much of the advice on how to be a better listener feels performative or like it’s a checklist.
Be sure to nod your head, maintain oddly lengthy eye contact, say “mmhmmm” a few times, match the speaker’s body language, repeat back what they just said, and you're good to go!
When listening becomes or feels too robotic, you lose human connection.
And a new article appears to confirm this.
Graham Bodie, a Professor of Media & Communication at the University of Mississippi and a guest on episode 58 of my podcast, partnered with Guy Itzchakov from the University of Haifa on a meta analysis of research on listening.
Read it: Puzzles of Interpersonal Listening.pdf
Graham and Guy’s analysis confirms the problems I’ve had with a lot of the advice on how to be a better listener, including this “behavior checklist” approach.
“Treating listening as a rigid, mechanical checklist of behaviors like nodding or paraphrasing can actually hinder genuine connection. By prioritizing the visible signs of active listening over the experience of being heard, such techniques risk feeling disingenuous to the speaker.”
This was my experience when I first heard about and experienced active listening.
Listening is a massive part of effective communication, and is the cornerstone of the most overlooked aspect of communication: asking questions.
But that’s not all. Here are a few significant takeaways I pulled from Graham and Guy’s research.
On paraphrasing and perspective-taking
From the study:
“While empathy depends on perspective-taking, our capacity to accurately infer others’ perspectives is limited. As such even the most empathetic listener may project their own emotions rather than truly understand the speaker’s.”
What it means
Some of the most widely accepted listening advice calls for pure empathy and complete non-judgment.
However, being a non-judgmental blank slate sounds lovely in theory, but it feels impossible. Because, in fact, it is impossible.
As Dr. Kurt Gray shared with me, we face “the problem of other minds,” which is the fact that you cannot possibly know the fullness of someone else’s thoughts. And because of this, your capacity to accurately guess what someone else is experiencing is incredibly limited.
And so, what we might call an empathetic listener who paraphrases and repeats back what they’ve heard is often just someone projecting their own emotions onto the speaker rather than truly understanding the speaker.
In fact, the research shows that paraphrasing is almost never neutral. That classic phrase, “So what I hear you saying is…” is almost always followed by bias and/or an altered interpretation of the speaker’s meaning.
What's more, the study shares that while we might like it when a purely empathetic listener is across from us, we actually benefit more from what are called “challenge listeners.”
The data shows that speakers actually get better, more productive results from people who gently push back on the emotional reactions and prompt the speaker to reappraise the problem through curious questioning.
So instead of just saying, “I totally get why you're furious,” a challenge listener might say, “Well, I can understand why that made you mad. But is it possible they meant it this other way?”
It's constructive friction and sets aside this need for pure non-judgment.
On disagreement
From the study:
“Listening during a disagreement did not boost persuasion beyond the message itself, but it significantly enhanced how listeners were perceived, making them appear warmer, more thoughtful, and more trustworthy, even when views diverged.”
What it means
If I’ve said it once I've said it a thousand times: Understanding does not equal agreement.
The dirtiest lie popular culture has told us about what disagreement looks like is the notion that to simply understand a viewpoint or belief that differs from your own means that you must, in some way, support it.
Many are ridiculed or torn down simply for trying to understand those who disagree with them, fueled by this internal struggle that whispers that understanding a divergent view gives it oxygen to breathe. It just feels wrong.
And this, the research shows, reveals a huge misunderstanding about communication.
People frequently equate disagreement with not being heard, because often, the speaker’s ultimate goal is to persuade you. And if you don't agree with them by the end of the conversation, they assume you simply weren’t paying attention.
But learn about Daryl Davis’ work and you will find the opposite is true.
Daryl, a black man, meets white supremacists with curiosity rather than condemnation, and it has so far led more than 200 KKK members and other white supremacists to leave that ideology behind.
Ask Jeff Schoep. Listen to Jesse Morton’s story. Two men who left behind extremism because others pointed their curiosity at them and listened to their stories.
Because listening opens up a path to a third way beyond the false duality of choices we so often believe are the only paths to take. It reveals common ground, and it keeps the conversation going instead of shutting it down.
From the research: “Good listening in political conversations increased speakers’ openness and willingness to re-engage, even in the absence of agreement.”
On asking questions
From the study:
“Questions are often seen as a marker of inclusive leadership, but their effectiveness depends on the quality of the listening that accompanies them.”
What it means
We have to ask more questions. We have to probe.
Questions are generally great. Asking them makes you more likeable and shows you are engaged. As long as it doesn't feel like an interrogation.
But there is a massive conversational trap known as boomer-asking — when you throw a question out there, wait half a second, and then catch it yourself by answering it.
Or worse, asking mechanical questions just to check a box on that active listening list I previously addressed.
Or even worse, asking a question to box someone in rather than asking a truly curious question. I call these “weaponized questions.”
When questions are used to control the direction of the conversation rather than genuinely explore the speaker’s thoughts, they ruin rapport. They signal self-focus. It shows you aren't interested in their answer, you just want to hear yourself speak. And that you definitely aren't listening.
So how do you actually get listening right?
You have to reset your goals, and instead Graham and Guy show that all the research points to a definition of good listening as “co-exploring the speaker's world with and for them.”
Go on an expedition to help someone else unearth more of their thoughts.
And what's the best way to do that?
The research refers to it as “clean language,” which is an exploration of “speakers’ inner worlds through their naturally occurring metaphors, using questions based exclusively on speakers’ exact words.”
In my simpler language: Ask. More. Questions.
The next time you find yourself in a deep conversation with someone, ask if you're actually co-exploring their world, or are you just taking a guided tour of your own assumptions while you wait for your turn to speak?
As always... keep asking questions!
