You're not listening
Do you seem like a bad listener when you disagree? Yes, you do, even when you’re an ace listener. Here's why.
☀️Quick announcement: If you’re a paid subscriber, be sure to check out my newest bonus article, 9 practical strategies for navigating resistance when people disagree.
Feeling heard and understood is crucial for healthy dynamics and sound decision-making. Indeed, feeling understood helps buffer vital relationships from the detrimental effects of conflict.
Yet how many times have we heard — or participated in — hamster-wheel exchanges like this one:
“You’re not listening.”
“Yes, I am.”
“No, you’re not, or you wouldn’t be saying what you’re saying.”
“I am listening!”
Three flawed assumptions lead us to conclude someone isn’t listening well even when they are:
1. The assumption that what was said is what was heard.
This assumption is prompted by the overconfidence effect, in which our confidence in our ability to communicate is greater than our actual performance.
2. The assumption that when someone is listening carefully, they can’t mistake what was said.
There are valid reasons good listeners can fail to understand what was said: The speaker mumbled. The listener has a hearing problem, known or unknown. The speaker’s pronunciation or accent is different than the listener’s norm. Background noise interfered. The list goes on. Even if someone knows they have a problem with their hearing, they may never announce that to the room.
3. The assumption that if someone is listening carefully, they would no longer disagree.
When researchers at the University of Pennsylvania took a close look at speakers’ inferences about listeners’ quality of listening, they found that speakers frequently conflate agreement with listening quality:
Across various topics, mediums (e.g., video, chat), and cues of objective listening quality, speakers consistently perceived disagreeing listeners as worse listeners.
The researchers believe this happens because of naive realism, the human tendency to think our views are objective and unbiased. When we’re sure our view is correct, we conclude that someone who disagrees must not be listening well.
Not surprisingly, the speakers in the study rated listeners as better when the listeners agreed with them.
How to counteract this faulty thinking
When you’re a disagreeing listener, separate your receiving skills from your disagreement. The researchers in the Penn study noted that it can be difficult for someone to simultaneously convey that they disagree and are listening. Good receiving skills will help you here: Before pointing out your disagreement, restate what you understand they’ve said. Keep trying until they confirm you’ve understood them.
When you’re the speaker, confirm that the signal you sent is the signal they received. Invite them to tell you what they took from your words, especially when they continue to disagree.
Try to have important conversations in quiet settings. When you’re the listener and have trouble hearing, simply say, “I want to understand what you’re saying, and I’m having trouble hearing you.”
If you’re accused of not listening when you think you have been, find out why they think you’re not listening. Checking their conclusion will help you identify the gap between what you’re doing (or not doing) and what they’re concluding. And if you learn that it’s because you disagree, you can gently say, “You know, it is possible to listen well and still disagree.”
Over to you
Here are some journaling / conversation / comment prompts for your consideration. I welcome your comments, as always.
Can you recall a time when you concluded that someone who disagreed with you was not listening well? How might you challenge your thinking in future moments like this?
Have you been told you’re not listening when you think you have been? How did you respond? What additional ways might you respond in the future?
If you are in a situation where you suspect a speaker is conflating disagreement with bad listening, what might you do to help? What will you say?