The Lost Art of Listening (19 page)

instead of pushing them to where you think they ought to go?

Giving predictable advice to adolescents—urging them to stop doing

things that aren’t good for them—is a classic mistake. The voice of “no” is

one that teenagers are already well aware of. A more effective way to get

through to them (or anyone else with self- destructive habits) is to adopt

a more neutral attitude and simply ask them about the effects of whatever

they’re doing. Unfortunately, when this question comes from someone

who is in fact anxious to make them change, it won’t be heard. Teenagers

can smell manipulation a mile away.

The compulsion to pursue self- destructive behavior isn’t easily over-

come with platitudinous advice. Not only do smoking and drinking and

overeating feel good, but they’re also supported by an inner voice that

whispers,
“Go on, you deserve it!”
Sometimes our inner voices work as a

team in a control-and- release cycle. The voice of self- reproach heaps on

the punishment that produces the control that eventually leads to another

rebellious release.

Psychologists call the interface between the voice that says “do it”

and the one that says “no” the
vertical split.
5 Unlike the horizontal split

(repression), the vertical split doesn’t keep wishes out of consciousness,

only on the back burner. In the case of a woman who spends too much

money on clothes or drinks too much, the voice on the “do it” side of the

vertical split is the one that usually doesn’t get heard—no one says to her

“You’re special; you deserve to be treated well”—and that’s why she acts

out its dictates. It takes empathy to bring out and reassure the shy voice

that says to her,
Go ahead, you need this; you deserve it.

Thinking in terms of subpersonalities can be especially helpful in

heated discussions. Instead of thinking of being at odds with someone, it’s

5Heinz Kohut,
The Analysis of the Self
(New York: International Universities Press, 1971).

108
THE REAL REASONS PEOPLE DON’T LISTEN

more useful to think of parts of one of you trying to change parts of the

other. In a typical scene provoked by a teenager’s coming home late, his

father gets mad and demands to know what happened. His accusatory tone

makes the boy feel attacked, and he counters angrily, which drives up the

father’s rage to the point where his wife tells him to calm down and stop

shouting. This infuriates the father, and he leaves the house. If you were

the father, you would probably think of the boy as disrespectful and the

mother as interfering. If you were the boy, you’d view the father as control-

ling. Instead, think of the conflict as being waged among parts of them. A

rebellious part of the boy activates a controlling part of the father, which

in turn mobilizes a protective part of the mother to shield the boy from

his father’s temper. If you were any one of these people and you began to

think this way, how difficult would it be to control your part? How might

the problem be affected if any of you could stay calm and avoid letting your

reactive parts take over?

Take another example. Does the question of whether or not to con-

front your partner with something that’s bothering you represent the com-

peting voices of a compliant child who believes that she shouldn’t com-

plain or people will get mad at her; a hurt part; and an angry part? Of the

last two, which one is more afraid to speak up? Why? If you can identify

those parts that have trouble speaking up, can you find a way to reassure

them? Would it help to tell the person you have trouble speaking up to

about the scared part of you? Would he (or she) be more understanding if

you asked for his (or her) help to express this part of you?

Let’s take a look at a familiar interaction between intimate partners,

using the notion of subpersonalities. A woman has trouble listening to her

husband because he expresses himself in the form of tirades. Is this the

sensitive and vulnerable man she married that she hears, or is it an echo of

mounting anxiety and danger from long ago? And who is the “she” who’s

doing the hearing? The part of her who’s strong and cares deeply about her

husband or a little girl part who trembled to hear her parents quarreling

over her father’s explosive temper and her mother’s shame about it in front

of others?

Finding the “parts” (obstacles or constraints) that get in the way of

our receptivity and then releasing these constraints is a very different way

of thinking from accusing ourselves of being immature or selfish or inad-

How Hidden Assumptions Prejudice Listening
109

equate. It isn’t that we’re bad listeners; it’s our hidden emotional agendas

that crowd out understanding and concern. When we clear away auto-

matic emotional reactions— criticism, fear, hurt—we get to compassion,

curiosity, and tenderness. Instead of condemning ourselves for being “bad

listeners,” we can learn to identify and relax those parts of ourselves that

interfere. In so doing, we release ourselves for effective listening.

Exercises

1.
Pick three people you see regularly. Write down what you generally

expect them to say to you. Then write how you usually respond. How

could you set aside those expectations to have a more in-depth conver-

sation the next time you see one of those people?

The most satisfying conversations with people we care about

involve talking about our personal concerns and both getting a turn.

If your conversations with someone are usually about things you care

less about—the weather, the news, third parties—ask more direct ques-

tions about what you’d prefer to talk about. When it’s your turn, use an

orienting comment—like “There’s something going on with me” or “I’d

like to tell you about . . . ”

2.
What did each of your parents do to make you feel they weren’t really

listening to you? How do those experiences affect how you approach

conversations now?

3.
How could you approach either of your parents in some completely dif-

ferent way the next time you’re in touch with them? What makes you

afraid to try doing so?

4.
Try to identify and personify the defensive parts (fearful, angry, hurt)

that interfere with listening in the following examples.

a.
Ivan’s boss is describing how they should handle a particular project,

but Ivan doesn’t hear any of the details because he thinks the boss’s

whole approach is wrong.

b.
Monica and Charlotte are eating lunch in a Chinese restaurant.

Charlotte is talking, but Monica can’t stop thinking about how

annoying it is that the man in the next booth is talking so loudly on

his cell phone.

110
THE REAL REASONS PEOPLE DON’T LISTEN

c.
“Can I talk to you about something, honey?” Toni asks. “Not now,

I’m busy,” Rob says.

d.
Lorraine starts telling her father about a project she’s working on

when he interrupts to talk about something else. Lorraine doesn’t

say anything, but she doesn’t hear a word he says.

e.
You want to tell someone how much he or she means to you, but

you’re afraid that kind of intimacy might make both of you feel awk-

ward.

f.
Bev is explaining to Michael what kind of toaster she wants him to

exchange for the one he brought home. Michael, who doesn’t have

the receipt, wishes she wouldn’t make such a fuss about the toaster

in the first place. When he gets to the store, he can’t remember what

kind of toaster he’s supposed to buy.

g.
Mindy’s father is explaining where he keeps all his important papers

and what Mindy will need to take care of after he dies. She knows

these things are important, but her father is still in good health, so

she doesn’t really pay attention to what he’s saying.

h.
Sharon thinks that she and Carlo should go to couples counseling,

but she’s afraid to bring it up for fear of how he will react.

Do you find it hard to identify the parts of these people that interfere

with listening without knowing more about the people’s backgrounds? The

point of the exercise isn’t to get the “right” answer, but to get you think-

ing about what kinds of things might be behind your and other people’s

problems in listening.

THE REAL REASONS PEOPLE DON’T LISTEN

How Emotionality Makes Us Defensive

6

…

“Why Do You

Always Overreact?!”

How Emotionality Makes Us Defensive

One of the reasons people don’t listen is that they become emotionally

reactive. Something in the speaker’s message triggers hurt or anger, which

provokes defensiveness and short- circuits understanding. Emotional reac-

tivity is like throwing a switch and having the electricity come on, only

instead of music you get static. The static is anxiety.

“What’s
Really
Bothering You?”

The hardest messages for us to listen to without reacting emotionally are

those that involve criticism. Most of us like to think that we can accept

constructive criticism, and, on the other hand, most of us know people

who can’t.

Once a month the Outpatient Psychiatry staff at Briarcliff Medical

Center reviews patient charts to assess the treatment being provided at

the clinic. This may sound like a good idea, but the review has become

progressively more tedious as the need to monitor bureaucratic forms has

crowded out time for considering the quality of care patients are receiving.

111

112
THE REAL REASONS PEOPLE DON’T LISTEN

At the last meeting the staff discovered that a few of the charts selected

for review had already been examined at the previous month’s meeting.

When the director mentioned this to the secretary, she said, “Then get

them yourself—I can’t do everything!” and stormed out of the room.

If you believed that this kind of reaction was common from this woman,

you’d have no trouble recognizing her as one of those hypersensitive people

who can’t take criticism. If, on the other hand, you knew her to be a very

even- tempered person, you’d assume she was having a bad day. You’d be

right. Her assistant was out sick and she’d had to stay three hours late the

night before and come to work two hours early to get the charts ready. Of

course she was on edge.

When people overreact uncharacteristically, we usually assume that

something’s bothering them. If our relationship with them has a history of

goodwill, we give them the benefit of the doubt and try to find out what

the problem is. But what about those people who regularly respond inap-

propriately? Are they having a bad life?

Corinne was a highly intelligent woman who couldn’t allow herself

to make mistakes. She kept up with
Forbes, Barron’s
, and
The Wall Street

Journal
, but she also watched ESPN and read
Sporting News.
She especially

loved baseball and took pleasure in writing a newsletter about her favorite

team, the Atlanta Braves, and circulating it at the office. When the team’s

star pitcher injured his shoulder, Corinne wrote that this might turn out to

be a blessing in disguise if it allowed a certain relief pitcher to prove that he

would make a good starter as some insiders suspected. When Corinne read

a draft of the piece over the phone to her cousin Drew, he said it was great,

except for one thing: the pitcher was injured playing against Pittsburgh,

not Philadelphia, as Corinne had written. Glad to get the facts straight,

Corinne corrected the error. When the newsletter came out, a senior staff

member told Corinne that he loved her article, but it was Philadelphia,

not Pittsburgh, where the fateful injury took place.

Corinne was so humiliated by this minor mistake that she was thrown

into a tailspin. She cried and felt like a fool and couldn’t bring herself to

go to work the next day.

She was a shy person who preferred to express herself in writing rather

than conversation; to her, being listened to meant having what she wrote

appreciated. Being wrong made her feel humiliated. Instead of getting

How Emotionality Makes Us Defensive
113

angry at her cousin for giving her the wrong information, she was ashamed

of herself for not getting the story straight. Nobody likes to make mistakes,

but clearly Corinne’s reaction was excessive.

Another example of reacting inappropriately may be more familiar,

in form if not intensity. Lenny was a devoted husband and a good provider.

He did his share of household chores and was emotionally involved in the

life of the family. His wife’s one complaint was that he was too critical.

The only thing that struck me as unusual about this situation was the

degree to which Sheila absorbed Lenny’s complaints without answering

with any complaints of her own. It was as if he was the lord and master, and

it was her job to cater to him. When Lenny said, “You should clean all the