[HN Gopher] No More Misunderstandings: Paraphrasing - When, Why,...
___________________________________________________________________
No More Misunderstandings: Paraphrasing - When, Why, and How
Author : amitt
Score : 43 points
Date : 2020-10-19 18:42 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (smallbigideas.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (smallbigideas.substack.com)
| mistermann wrote:
| I know the examples in the article are just for illustration, but
| man that would get annoying pretty fast - common sense scaling
| back would make it better, but then once again, is everyone on
| the same page then?
|
| And then we have the non-verbal world, like internet forums where
| tremendous amounts of interpersonal communication (and
| misunderstanding, leading to social disharmony) take place
| millions (billions?) of times per day...how well does this idea
| _realistically_ transfer to that medium?
| ipadmini wrote:
| You can get to a point where you don't need to paraphrase, even
| when clarifying important details, but that usually happens
| when you've worked with someone for so long that you understand
| the intent behind their words close to perfectly.
|
| Resolving misunderstandings on the internet is a good question
| -- it should be easier given that folks can usually edit what
| they want to say before publishing, and readers can read and
| re-read what's written. The __intent to understand__ seems to
| be the key thing in resolving misunderstandings here, both in
| online and in verbal communication
| mistermann wrote:
| > The __intent to understand__ seems to be the key thing in
| resolving misunderstandings here, both in online and in
| verbal communication
|
| Intent to understand is but one of many possible points of
| failure. The world is infinitely complex, but our minds have
| this nice feature where they hide the vast majority of that
| complexity from us. The problem is though, the simplification
| process is vastly different for each person, not to mention
| they are not working from the same set of data.
|
| So when an internet discussion takes place, particularly on
| special topics like politics, the odds of each person
| considering the topic from the same perspective (with the
| same desired outcomes, etc) is very low. Add on top of that
| the fact that most people seem to lack _realtime awareness_
| of the simplification process running in their heads, leaving
| _each participant in the discussion_ with the false
| impression that they are talking about _the(!) facts(!)_ ,
| when the reality is very different.
|
| Situations like this is where some variation of the
| recommended approach in TFA could perhaps come in handy, but
| people seem to be not terribly fond of speaking precisely and
| accurately, especially when it comes to politics.
| ipadmini wrote:
| I think the intent to understand isn't a point of failure,
| but a potential solution (if it goes hand in hand with
| humility) to the problems you mentioned -- the one where we
| all come with our own programming and are all susceptible
| to various biases that further entrench our existing
| beliefs, and the one where we are unaware of this
| programming. Ideally we're all rationalists who can hear
| each other out and come to an understanding, but it's hard
| to think rationally about politics. (https://www.lesswrong.
| com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i...)
| rcoveson wrote:
| > Teammate: Would you mind sending over this quarter's product
| roadmap?
|
| >
|
| > Me: I see, so you want me to.........sorry, could you repeat
| that?
|
| >
|
| > Teammate: Would you mind sending over this quarter's product
| roadmap?
|
| >
|
| > Me: You want me to send over this quarter's product roadmap.
| Yes, will do!
|
| If I heard this exchange out of context I would sincerely
| assume it was between a human and a digital assistant circa
| 2015.
| vsri wrote:
| The author here seems to be using "paraphrase" to mean mean both
| "mirroring" (repeat back using speaker's words) and
| "paraphrasing" (repeat back using listener's words). I think
| there are contexts when each is appropriate.
|
| For example, if I (speaker) am giving you (listener)
| instructions, it's good for you to paraphrase. That shows me how
| you are interpreting my language and that allows me to clarify.
| Mirroring doesn't allow for this because no new information is
| provided:
|
| - Speaker: Could you sort all the files and destroy duplicates?
|
| - Listener: You want me to put the files in alphabetical order
| and throw them out.
|
| - Speaker: Yes, but by destroy I meant shred.
|
| But there are cases where it's more important for the speaker to
| be understood. Perhaps they are feeling hard emotions and need to
| be heard, or (and I think this is the real use case for
| mirroring) when the speaker is still working through their
| feelings or thoughts on a subject. They are using speech, in a
| sense, to think.
|
| - Speaker: I think it's bizarre that the PM wants to push this
| along so quickly.
|
| - Listener: You think it's bizarre that the PM wants to push this
| along so quickly?
|
| - Speaker: Well... not bizarre. It's just surprising because
| there is no external deadline for this work.
|
| Here mirroring gives the speaker an opportunity to see how their
| words sound coming back to them and it gives them an opportunity
| to clarify and add.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _They are using speech, in a sense, to think._
|
| Oh yes, indeed they are. I never truly understood why some
| people close to me would just dump random issues at me,
| repeatedly, and actively refuse any attempt at guiding the
| conversation towards a possible solution. I knew I was supposed
| to handle it by emphasizing and letting them vent out, but I
| never could quite understand the frame of mind that goes behind
| this talking to vent out...
|
| ...until recently, during one of such conversations, hearing
| about the same problem for the 10th time this month, it
| clicked: I realized that they're doing the exact same thing I
| do with "brain dump" text files - up to the same phrasing, and
| "melody" of speech. Those people are just unloading their train
| of thought to sort it out, and the listener's role is just to
| be there and pay attention.
|
| (I say "those people" not as a negative, but only because I'm
| not like that; I think I've lost the ability to use talking to
| think when I learned to use a text editor for that purpose.)
| loopz wrote:
| If the issue is unresolved and emotional, it will be
| repeated.
|
| If the issue is emotional or unresolved, it will fester.
|
| If it's resolved, blame has been assigned.
|
| It's how you are treated that may or may not make it
| worthwhile.
| null_deref wrote:
| So you just dump your thoughts into a text file, and that's
| helps you clarify them and clean your head?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Sounds like the old trick of "write down your question, and
| you'll probably know the answer".
|
| I think it works because writing (or talking) engages
| different parts of the brain than thinking.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Anyone remember Donald Rumsfeld's style?
|
| He weaponized paraphrasing.
|
| A reporter would ask "Have you contacted the tribal chiefs, to
| work out a plan?"
|
| He would respond with "Have I given the enemy our strategic
| planning brief? Lord, no!"
| curiousllama wrote:
| Some of the biggest lessons I learned about communicating are to
| flip the interaction, which paraphrasing does well.
|
| If I'm struggling to communicate something, the best approach is
| to listen carefully, paraphrase every point, and focus on what
| _they_ have to say first. I can't add to someone's knowledge if I
| don't know what's already there.
|
| If I'm trying to understand something, it's often a good approach
| to take charge of the interaction, and actively 'assemble' the
| knowledge in my head. I can't add to my own knowledge without
| connecting it to what's already there.
|
| I also find these things are nearly impossible to do well on the
| internet...
| ipadmini wrote:
| @vsri, yes, exactly! Paraphrasing is stating your interpretation
| of what you've heard and mirroring is reflecting back exactly
| what the speaker said. I didn't break down the two
| interpretations in this post to keep it simple, but from what
| I've learned and read, mirroring is especially useful in more
| vulnerable / emotional conversations. You want to help the
| speaker feel seen as they are, without placing any judgment on
| them (and your interpretation is a form of judgment of what
| they're saying). Paraphrasing helps in making the speaker feel
| heard, but it's more useful in driving clarity.
| asplake wrote:
| > "Studies in labor-management negotiations demonstrate that the
| time required to reach conflict resolution is cut in half when
| each negotiator agrees, before responding, to accurately repeat
| what the previous speaker had said." - Marshall B. Rosenberg in
| Nonviolent Communication.
|
| Followed by:
|
| > Paraphrasing minimizes misunderstandings. At the end of a
| conversation, you and the speaker will leave with the same
| interpretation, which will reduce the need for a follow-up.
|
| "Accurately repeat" vs "Paraphrasing" - quite the contradiction
| there.
|
| I'm really not a fan of paraphrasing. It shifts the burden on
| your counterpart to understand you accurately, and it can be
| annoying, even destructive of a train of thought. Practice
| accurate quoting and non-leading questions instead! To take this
| to an interesting extreme, check out Clean Language [1], a style
| of questioning that make it as hard as possible to insert
| assumptions into your questions. A blog post of mine 'My
| favourite Clan Language question' [2] helps explain its
| relevance.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_language [2]
| https://blog.agendashift.com/2019/01/18/my-favourite-clean-l...
| happytoexplain wrote:
| There is no contradiction between accurately repeating and
| paraphrasing. You can do either or both or neither. Yes,
| paraphrasing is dangerous in your context (repeating to a 3rd
| party), but it's fantastic in the quoted context (confirming
| understanding with the 1st party, which _can not happen_ if you
| repeat using the exact same words).
| ipadmini wrote:
| Agree. Paraphrasing and mirroring are two different ways of
| reflecting what the speaker is saying. Some situations call
| for both. In imago therapy (meant for couples), the script
| calls first for mirroring (repeating word for word), followed
| by a summary (to demonstrate understanding, and to seek
| clarification).
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I kind of disagree. If I "parrot" (Accurately repeat) the
| original statement, it does not in any way demonstrate
| understanding, only memorization/note-taking.
|
| Restating, summarizing, or paraphrasing, shows that I
| _understand_ sufficiently that I can describe it in my own
| words rather than memorization.
|
| Day in and day out I find that my team members who accurately
| repeat a statement of problem or solution, may not have a clue
| what it actually is. Only by asking them to summarize or
| paraphrase, do we both discover that there's a lack of actual,
| internalized understanding.
|
| (in negotiations, discussions or conflict, it's also an
| opportunity to focus and agree on key points; accurately
| repeating may include any percentage of stylistic content)
| lkbm wrote:
| Agreed. My coworker recently shared[0] with us, which is
| largely jsut an expanded part of the TPS section. "Yes, I'll
| send over the TPS report this evening" doesn't solve the
| confusion around what "TPS" stands for.
|
| If nothing else, paraphrasing helps you disambiguate term you
| didn't consciously recognize as ambiguous.
|
| Maybe the other party should have used less ambiguous terms,
| but "well the other person caused the problem with their
| language choice" solves the blame, not the problem.
|
| [0] https://m.signalvnoise.com/dont-take-their-word-for-it/
| loopz wrote:
| I know it may frustrate at times, but instead of relaying
| instruction, I ask questions and challenge assumptions,
| though only if any ambiguity remains. Covering it up is the
| worse option.
| leafmeal wrote:
| This is something Marshall B. Rosenberg talks about a lot in his
| book Nonviolent Communication (the article even contains a quote
| as another commenter has pointed out).
|
| I highly recommend this book to everyone. It's a little cheesy at
| times and reads like a self-help book, but the content is
| insightful and applicable everywhere.
| kthejoker2 wrote:
| Can someone give me a TLDR?
|
| Just kidding - though I will say this type of behavior can
| sometimes fall somewhere between "Tricks to Sound Smarter at
| Meetings" and "what gives people feelings of power", so don't
| misuse it or misconstrue it being used on you as solely a
| positive force for understanding.
|
| Two big takeaways (see? paraphrasing!):
|
| Your tone should convey the desire to clarify and understand what
| the speaker said. If you don't have this desire, don't fake it.
|
| "Studies in labor-management negotiations demonstrate that the
| time required to reach conflict resolution is cut in half when
| each negotiator agrees, before responding, to accurately repeat
| what the previous speaker had said." - Marshall B. Rosenberg in
| Nonviolent Communication.
|
| My tldr Paraphrasing saves time, which people value more than
| money.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-19 23:00 UTC)