I do not have a clear memory of where or how I read the following, it was about twenty years ago, but I remember it struck me back then: I once read that a clear sign that we are not good listeners is that we usually have our answer "ready" before half the sentence/comment the other person is making is over.
Whoa. I realized I did that all the time.
It is true that the more we know someone, the easier it gets to "see where the person is headed" when he/she starts a sentence. It is true too that we often guess just right.
Actually, one of the signs that we are well connected with someone is this mutual ability to finish each other's sentences, complete them, help each other explain ourselves etc. "Thinking ahead of time" of what the other will say and of our own answer to it CAN be an indication of our being really in tune with the person we talk.
The underside is... we are not always in tune with everyone we speak with or listen to. Not even with those we usually have a good connection with will always really mean to say what we imagine they will say... We might assume from parts of their sentences what they want, need, to say and then we might be thinking of our answer... while having missed on important "details" of the sentence just because we were already thinking of how to answer! and then the whole purpose of the conversation is distorted!
I am guilty of imagining what the other person will say way too often, especially the more I "know" someone. I must repeat myself continously that I should be all ears FIRST and only later think of an answer.
There is no competition or rush to come up with a perfect or adequate answer right away. Sadly, I guess because we all live in a rush, we tend to think that our answers must be ready just as fast as most things in our everyday's lives. And we might be losing on good communication by trying to be too efficient with our answers! What an irony!
Have you noticed how communcation by mail or email with some friends seems easier and less troublesome (in terms of having misunderstandings) than in real life, with friends we are interacting in real time with? I think that has to do with all the intereferences we have when communicating in real time, real life, face to face with someone. Interferences coming from our own "noises", background noises (both in the figurative and literal sense of "noise") and even the other person's "noises".
That rarely happens when answering emails because in order to do so, we necessarily have to read first and must necessarily take some time to answer... even if it is to just write down our thoughts. Even if we answer "as we read" and not before fully ending the message, we still make a "pause", even if just for typing. Sometimes that pause, and the fact that we are concentrating on answering, makes us weigh a bit more what we say and how well adjusted it is to what was said or asked to us. Nobody can interrupt nobody by email, and in that way, our message can get through or the other person can get hisher message through without unnecessary digressions and distorsions.
Of course whether or not we understand something or pass on a message clearly depend in turn on our ability to put our thoughts into words or to understand the way our friend communicates in the written world. In that sense, emails can make communication tougher: we lack of the verbal and gesture cues we have in real life. Yet, thank to emoticons, part of that problem is solved. In any case, just because we are not able to see each other face to face, we all tend to be more understanding of misunderstandings when communicating through email than in real time, real life.
I guess part of our communication problems could be avoided if we were better trained at keeping ourselves from thinking too much too soon, too far ahead, before the person stops talking and/or that we verify what the person meant to say.
It is scary how, when we pay attention to what our mind is into while "listening" to someone, we discover how often we jumped to an answer, an advice, etc. based on our assumption of what the other person is going through and based on our OWN experiences and ideas associated with the subject of the conversation. Sadly, oftentimes, only with "something", one thing, or part of the things, said during the conversation... and not with all of it, nor the "main" part of it!
Once ago, I bumped into a book written by someone -not sure if a priest, a pastor or a counselor- who spoke of the way people care about giving to other "answers" rather than helping THEM find their own answers by truly listening to them and helping them elaborate further on their thoughts just by our listening.
This person said that something that seemed to help a lot the people he counseled (again, not sure if a priest, pastor or therapist) was to just listen and then sort of rephrase and repeat as a question the main idea/s behind a comment someone had made to this same person.. as in saying "so, do you mean you felt ... at/when ....?".
Basically, this good communicator was saying that just by repeating the main ideas and asking again if that is what the person had meant to say, communication was improved in two ways:
1) we could make sure we had not actually misunderstood, misheard or misinterpreted some words the other pesron said
2) by giving to the one who spoke a "mirror" of what he/she said, this person could see if he/she was saying what he/she actually meant to say or speak about.. and/or clarify, rephrase, re-elaborate his/her thoughts.
An example based on this person' s experience in talking to others:
- Oh, my boss drives me nuts, each time I do something wrong, he points it out so that everyone in the office knows about my mistake!
- Do you mean it really upsets you when your boss points out a mistake you've made? and that others find out about that mistake?
- Well, err, not exactly. I mean, I am ok with his pointing my mistakes. It is the *way* he does so what upsets me: he says it ouloud, in a derogatory way. He belittles what I do right and makes a big fuss over what I do wrong.
- So it is not that you make mistakes nor that he tells you about them but *how* he does so what upsets you?
- Exactly. The way he enjoys reprimanding me outloud and putting me in the spot.
- Do you mean he puts you in the spot on purpose, so you look bad in front of others?
- Well, yes... no... I don't know. He sure makes me look bad in front of others and that happens because of how loud he is at reprminanding me. But I am not totally sure he does that on purpose. Maybe he does, maybe not. In any case, he does make me look bad!
- So he is inconsiderate toward you, either on purpose or not.
- Right. I will ask him if he is aware of the way he criticizes me and the impact it has on others. ....
Etcetera etcetera etcetera
Then again, if the person had said the very same sentence and that we were more into giving our "advice" our sharing our own experiences before knowing exactly how things are like, the conversation could have gone like this:
- Oh, my boss drives me nuts, each time I do something wrong, he points it out so that everyone in the office knows about my mistake!
- Oh, I hate, me too, people who do that! Your boss must be insecure and is is trying to look more assertive and "better" by making you look bad!
Now, it could be possible that the "boss" in this example was indeed acting on his insecurities and indeed trying to belittle our friend to look smarter by comparison... maybe. Maybe not.
In any case, it is interesting how having listened a longer time and asked more before giving an opinion on what was going on lead, in the first part of the example (when we listen and ask, and then ask some more) opened up possibilities that the second way of handling things did not. When we keep on asking, we make the person who talks elaborate more on what he/she says and in turn sometimes see things with different angles, consider more ponssiblities, etc. In this example, in the first conversation, we didn't acknowledge that the boss was a mean person with insecurity issues right away, nope.. we just kept on asking and interestingly enough, the person telling us that story acknowledged that the situation upset him, but that he was not sure himself if the boss did that knowinlgly or not.
Whatever the actual answer to the boss' attitude, the first approach was the fairest to everyone: the one where we proved to listen better to our friend and the one where we didn't jump ourselves nor make our friend jump to a conclusion too soon.
It always interesting to see how we jump from A to Z in conversations, sometimes going, indeed, though B, C, D... and all the alphabet to get to Z... and sometimes not! sometimes the jump takes place without real logics. It is interesting too to see how our way of listening OR NOT, and of interacting can interfere in the process. And not always in the fairest, best way!
) I have here. 
