Why do some people want listeners instead of solvers?

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I can't agree that sympathy should be the default. Offending me isn't the worst thing you can do to me--boring me is. If I am complaining about something, I am fishing for ideas, and if instead you offer only sympathy you have wasted both our time and forced me to repress my urge to leave the conversation right then.

You speak as though sympathetic listening and problem solving are mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact, sympathetic listening is frequently the first step to effective problem solving.

Besides, do you honestly think that you only complain when you are looking for a solution to your problem? Do you want us to believe that you never just want to vent about your issues or seek a listening ear? 'Cuz frankly, I find that hard to believe. And even if you are that kind of person, most people are not.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by tdn

There's a one word answer to that question, and it's staring you right in the face.

I do appreciate your explanations. I understand listening could make life easier in many cases, but I do feel differently about this subject, as do apparently others, and I'm trying to better understand that difference. I try to listen when I can remember that's what's expected, but it doesn't come to me naturally.

And since the topic comes up in this thread, I don't complain much in a way that isn't detectable as venting. I'm most likely to complain in a comical manner, because I don't want to shift my burdens onto others or have them feel obligated to provide me sympathy if they don't want to. I think others feel more of a need to complain than I do.

[JThunder]

It's true that empathetic listening doesn't come naturally to some people. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. A wise adult knows how to take advantage of one's strengths and seek to overcome the latter.

Ultimately, it's a skill, just like any other. It will come more naturally to some, and others will have to work harder to develop it. When you understand why it's important, then learning to develop that skill can become a bit easier.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Ok, depending on various factors I'd probably say "Well if bothers you that much, just quit" or "Let's get you a better job!"

I suppose that's awful somehow, but I don't understand why.

If I have to rate which of those response is more awful than the other, I'd say the first one is. Saying "Well if it bothers you that much..." isn't really showing that my unhappiness matters to you. Your phrasing even suggests there's a possibility that I'm overreacting. Or maybe a lazy whiner because I haven't done the "logical" thing and quit my job already.

I mean, think of it this way. If I sliced my finger open while making dinner and tearfully expressed to you how much it hurt while I'm frantically trying to stop the bleeding, and your response was "Well if it bothers you that much, just go to the ER" would you really be confused as to why that would send an uncaring impression? I'm looking for you to comfort me and provide a soothing presence, not to tell me where to go for the obvious.

"Let's get you a better job" is a better response, especially since by saying "let's" you're affirming the idea that me and you are in this together. But sympathy is still lacking here. I just told you I'm sad about my situation, and when people are sad, it helps them to feel better when they know other people understand what they're feeling and most importantly, care that they are feeling that way.

"Honey, I'm so sorry you're going through this. That truly sucks. Now I understand why you don't seem to like your job as much lately. If they are really snubbing you, it's totally their loss. You don't need 'em, and you need to look for a new job."

If my ex had said this instead what he had said, we wouldn't have fought that night.

[Invisible Chimp]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I can't agree that sympathy should be the default. Offending me isn't the worst thing you can do to me--boring me is. If I am complaining about something, I am fishing for ideas, and if instead you offer only sympathy you have wasted both our time and forced me to repress my urge to leave the conversation right then.

Now, it's obvious that to get by in society, solvers and sympathizers need to compromise, and so I sympathize when I detect it's needed, and pretend to be appreciative when it's offered. Sympathizers need to do the same in reverse. There's no inherent asymmetry that gives sympathy priority.

You show a lack of empathy as well as sympathy. It's not about boring you. Also, you don't think everyone does work like you, but you seem to think because when you complain about something you are looking for solutions, therefore everyone should. Different people work best different.

I want to reiterate Heart of Dorkness's point about problem solver's lack of sympathetic listening can lead to trying to solve the wrong problem. You have to make sure you know what's really bothering them by listening to their words, their nonverbal communications, and read between the lines.

I also want to reiterate brainstall's point about not making people feel stupid. Often people already know the solutions to their problems. What they may not already know is if anyone else cares about them or their problems.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by JThunder

In fact, sympathetic listening is frequently the first step to effective problem solving.

Careful listening is indeed important, but I'm not sure the sympathy is required. On the contrary, I often find that "outside" ideas--one from a party that has no direct experience in the problem at hand--are the best kind, since they're less contaminated by bias.

Also, I am not generally expecting anyone to solve my problem. I am looking to gather a range of ideas which I can then mull over to find my own solution.

Originally Posted by JThunder

Besides, do you honestly think that you only complain when you are looking for a solution to your problem? Do you want us to believe that you never just want to vent about your issues or seek a listening ear? 'Cuz frankly, I find that hard to believe. And even if you are that kind of person, most people are not.

I am not always looking for a practical solution. But I am always looking for ideas. If I complain about something an idiot politician said, then obviously I'm not really looking for someone to tell me to turn off the TV. But if you offer a context in which the politician's statement made sense, then you have given me something interesting to think about and respond to.

But no, I do not just vent. Even if I have just smashed my finger in a car door, I am not looking for someone to say "Yeah, I smashed my finger in a door once. Boy did that hurt!" Even if your offered solution is dumb, like saying that I should wear armored gloves, I would rather focus on that than the pain.

[Invisible Chimp]

Originally Posted by msmith537

The answer to your question is that some people are "women".

I want to say how much the sexism of this comment irritated me. Obviously, men and women have their tendencies, but sympathy-seekers and problem-solvers don't fall on strict gender lines. This comment seemed condescending to me, especially the quotation marks around women. FTR, I am a man.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

So in short, it seemed to you the conversation went: "No one else has this problem." "Plenty of people have, myself included." Whereas they heard it more like this: "I am SO screwed." "You're way over-reacting. It happens all the time. Why are you making a big deal out of it?"

I think your interpretation is spot on. You have correctly identified where the miscommunication is coming from.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Invisible Chimp

It's not about boring you.

In other words, if I complain, it is my fault if I am bored, but if someone else complains, it is also my fault if I cause distress?

Originally Posted by Invisible Chimp

Also, you don't think everyone does work like you, but you seem to think because when you complain about something you are looking for solutions, therefore everyone should.

I never said that. I said that if I'm going to offer you sympathy because I respect you and your feelings, then you owe it to me to do the same in kind.

Originally Posted by Invisible Chimp

Different people work best different.

Did I say otherwise?

Originally Posted by Invisible Chimp

I want to reiterate Heart of Dorkness's point about problem solver's lack of sympathetic listening can lead to trying to solve the wrong problem. You have to make sure you know what's really bothering them by listening to their words, their nonverbal communications, and read between the lines.

Yes. But this is bidirectional. As with all communication, both parties have a stake in ensuring clarity. Yes, I have a responsibility to listen as carefully as possible. But the speaker also has a responsibility in providing as much communication as possible.

I have a blind spot for nonverbal communication; I know this, but I'll be damned if I accept full blame for a communications breakdown when it's obvious to the speaker that I'm not getting something, and when a few extra words would have solved the breakdown.

Originally Posted by Invisible Chimp

I also want to reiterate brainstall's point about not making people feel stupid. Often people already know the solutions to their problems.

I wouldn't be so callous to suggest to a fat person that they try eating less. I offer solutions that, as much as possible, might not have occurred to the person and which do not make the person feel stupid/lazy/etc. And then only if the person is a "solver" in the first place.

And as I said, I do offer and acknowledge sympathy in the interests of social lubrication. I simply ask others to do the same in reverse.

I will say that I think most people vastly overestimate their capabilities for both sympathy and empathy. Doesn't this entire thread demonstrate that the "sympathizers" have a massive blind spot for the feelings of "solvers"?

[tdn]

I want to re-emphasize that being a good listener does NOT mean that you have to put up with incessant whiners. You have the choice to listen or not to anyone you choose. It's not a prison sentence. But it's almost always a kindness that you can offer to anyone you care about. Freely, at your own will.

And I must say, that since I've worked on it, to me listening is not a burden, but a pleasure. Just to sit and absorb another person's thoughts without needing to formulate a clever response is really joyful.

Sometimes.

[tdn]

Dr. Strangelove, I'm not sure who you think is saying that talking and listening must always be unidirectional. I'm pretty sure it's no one, though. Where did you come up with that?

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Careful listening is indeed important, but I'm not sure the sympathy is required.

With all due respect, therein lies the crux of the problem.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by tdn

Dr. Strangelove, I'm not sure who you think is saying that talking and listening must always be unidirectional. I'm pretty sure it's no one, though. Where did you come up with that?

It's an overall vibe which I may be misreading, but it seems the focus here has been on the responsibility of the listener to pick up on the speaker's cues. Fine, I accept that--but when I am wrong, the speaker must also accept responsibility if s/he is sending misleading cues.

In Blaster Master's examples, the speaker needs to learn that when communicating with a solver type, that complaining about something that isn't the real problem is liable to be misinterpreted. I do not deny that the listener should be looking for cues as well.

Originally Posted by JThunder

With all due respect, therein lies the crux of the problem.

It is possible that we have slightly different working definitions here, but for a person like me, sympathy itself is useless, boring, and often condescending. I simply don't need someone to give their mirror neurons a workout on my behalf.

Empathy is far more important for establishing a context, but even then I think it's more useful in an intellectual sense than an emotional one.

If you are providing sympathy on my behalf, then you are most certainly not being empathetic, because you have not considered a mindset and emotional state different from your own.

And to repeat, I do provide and accept sympathy when required. I simply do not accept that it should be the "default" as Invisible Chimp stated.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

It's an overall vibe which I may be misreading, but it seems the focus here has been on the responsibility of the listener to pick up on the speaker's cues. Fine, I accept that--but when I am wrong, the speaker must also accept responsibility if s/he is sending misleading cues.

Yes, of course. Communication is always a two way street. The speaker has a responsibilty to make himself understood, and the listener must make sure he understands and asks clarifying questions. Both parties bear responsiblity for the clarity of ideas.

You seem to believe that there are listener types and solver types. Is that correct? I don't believe this to be true. I think that we are all solvers by nature, but listening is a learned skill. (And to reintroduce some good old sexism, I think that women, by nature or nurture, have a natural affinity for this that men do not.) But we can all learn it. I'm still in the process of learning.

High level skills in both listening and solving are important to all of us if we want to find happiness and succes, and serve the world to the best of our gifts. Would you agree with that?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by tdn

You seem to believe that there are listener types and solver types. Is that correct? I don't believe this to be true. I think that we are all solvers by nature, but listening is a learned skill. (And to reintroduce some good old sexism, I think that women, by nature or nurture, have a natural affinity for this that men do not.) But we can all learn it. I'm still in the process of learning.

I would say that there is a spectrum and the two endpoints are solving and sympathetic. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle, but there is nevertheless enough of a distribution that we can broadly categorize people in one of the two types.

Listening skill is a somewhat different thing, and important, but the OP was about the response to that listening. Yes, making the solver/sympathetic determination is a part of the listening, but that's only one of several cues and so I don't consider it the dominant factor here.

Originally Posted by tdn

High level skills in both listening and solving are important to all of us if we want to find happiness and succes, and serve the world to the best of our gifts. Would you agree with that?

Of course. But again, the OP was about a woman upset that her husband tried to solve her problem instead of simply sympathizing. He didn't fail at listening; he failed at detecting that his wife wanted sympathizing. And the wife failed at communicating that she wanted sympathy instead of solutions.

There would have been an equal but opposite communications failure if the husband had joined in with the traffic complaints when all she wanted was help in planning a new route.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Of course. But again, the OP was about a woman upset that her husband tried to solve her problem instead of simply sympathizing. He didn't fail at listening; he failed at detecting that his wife wanted sympathizing. And the wife failed at communicating that she wanted sympathy instead of solutions.

There would have been an equal but opposite communications failure if the husband had joined in with the traffic complaints when all she wanted was help in planning a new route.

Yes, of course. But once again we're back to how the couple failed to communicate. And what should be the default mode.

Let's try a little experiment. Something tonight upset me a little. I'd like to tell you about it. Or tell somebody. (In reality, it's not a huge deal. But let's pretend that it is.) As a solver, what should I do? Before you tell me, what do you need to do?

Having said that, I must say goodnight. I look forward to rejoining this thread tomorrow.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I would say that there is a spectrum and the two endpoints are solving and sympathetic.

Therein lies the major flaw in your thinking. As others and I have emphasized, sympathy and problem solving are NOT mutually exclusive. They are not at polar opposites within the same spectrum. Quite the contrary; for reasons that various posters have discussed, effective problem solving often requires the use of empathy... both in terms of understanding the problem and making sure that your proposed solution is received well.

This is all a matter of emotional intelligence. Some peoples scoff at the notion of emotional intelligence, but I don't. I've learned that this is a quality that many people lack.

[stpauler]

Oddly enough, I got to test the validity of the claims from this thread tonight. My bf arrived home a couple minutes before me to find the hot water heater leaking big time. The floor was completely soaked (carpet squares) and the shut off valve was broken. To make it worse, he had a plumber out this morning for a separate issue.

Needless to say, he was upset and my first thought was to come up with solutions to resolve the issue. Instead, I let him vent about all of the issues and followed his lead waiting to see if he needed help or ideas.

How'd it turn out? Well, it was stressful on me at first not to start "working my magic" but at the same time, listening to him and letting him vent completely and the his frustration diffused much earlier. The plumber came and $500 later, it's all fixed (except the floor which we have to replace).

We headed to Ikea to return a couple items and as we chatted about the situation over our lingonberry drinks, I confided that I was test driving this new type of listening thing. He replied that he liked that he thought it went better as sometimes he just needs to vent.

This has definitely been an eye opening experience for me and something I'm going to be working at going forward. So thanks to all!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by tdn

Let's try a little experiment. Something tonight upset me a little. I'd like to tell you about it. Or tell somebody. (In reality, it's not a huge deal. But let's pretend that it is.) As a solver, what should I do? Before you tell me, what do you need to do?

I'm a little confused as to who is the solver in the hypothetical, but I'll assume it's me. And given that I know nothing about the situation and very little about you, I would just say: "That's a shame. I hope it's not too bad. Is it something that can be worked out, or do you just need an ear?"

In fact, I've used words to that effect several times when consoling an upset friend. Generally I know my friends well enough that I don't really have to ask, but different situations call for different techniques and I don't think I've ever offended anyone by asking.

I have a friend on the solver end of the spectrum, but when her father died I wasn't sure how to react. I couldn't really sympathize because I had never lost anyone that close, but it's also not a problem with a "solution". Well, I was there to listen when she needed and to suggest smaller solutions when they presented themselves. If I ever screwed up in going the wrong direction, she never let me know.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by JThunder

Quite the contrary; for reasons that various posters have discussed, effective problem solving often requires the use of empathy

You are using empathy and sympathy interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. In fact I already pointed out that empathy is important. But at least with my understanding of the terms, empathy does not require absorption in the feelings of the other, just a deep understanding of them and their sources. Sympathy I associate more with the acceptance and sharing of the feelings themselves.

That said, there seems to be a range of definitions of the words so I'll make up some more precisely defined terms:
X-pathy is the ability to put oneself in a similar emotional state as another and feel some of the same things; in an extreme case this may involve a person feeling physical pain on behalf of another via mirror neurons
Y-pathy is the ability to put oneself in another's shoes to the extent that one can make accurate predictions of their feelings, desires, etc. but without necessarily having those feelings.

I posit that Y-pathy is necessary for successful communication, but X-pathy is not. I am not even sure that "true" X-pathy exists outside of the simplest feelings, any more than I am convinced that I see green the same way that others do. The feelings are real but the reasons are not.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by stpauler

This has definitely been an eye opening experience for me and something I'm going to be working at going forward. So thanks to all!

I'm really glad that you got it and had a chance to road test it. And I can totally relate to your initial frustration not to jump in and play the role of solver. That's really hard! Once you got over that hump, how was it for you?

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I'm a little confused as to who is the solver in the hypothetical, but I'll assume it's me. And given that I know nothing about the situation and very little about you, I would just say: "That's a shame. I hope it's not too bad. Is it something that can be worked out, or do you just need an ear?"

That's perfect. A little sympathy and then a question. Presumably, when I answer your question, you're going to listen to what I have to say. That's all I want. And when I answer, it would be great if you could just say "Wow, that sucks. I've had stuff like that happen." Jumping in with a solution would be inappropriate and unhelpful. But just listening to my frustration for three seconds would be very much appreciated.

(The actual situation was that I was supposed to meet a group of people last night. I was really looking forward to it and had been planning for it all week. I went seriously out of my way to get there. Halfway there I got a voicemail saying that it was cancelled. It was no one's fault and no one is happy about it. There's no "fix" to it, it was just a little bit of a let down. Thanks for listening. )

[jjimm]

Something I don't think has been explicitly brought up yet. One of the other things that the solving-not-listening thing can make people feel is:

ur doin it rong

"I had such a shit time at the supermarket - I dropped all the vegetables."

- "Ah well what you should do is put the vegetables at the bottom if they're heavy, or use a trolley not a basket."

Most of the time the person knows how they fucked up. They don't need to be told a better way to do shit because they already know. They just want to tell you what went wrong and have some sympathy or share a laugh.

I say this, by the way, because I'm a natural solver who has had to learn the listening thing the hard way. Also at work, it is best to empathise with an underling before jumping into a critique. And I hypocritically find myself being annoyed when people jump in immediately and try to solve my problems.

By the way, this discussion is somewhat encompassed by the T/F dichotomy observed in Myers-Briggs.

[Incubus]

This got me in trouble recently. Normally I talk about work all the time to my wife. She rarely goes into detail about work or school. For her, she'll only bring it up if it was a particularly horrible day.

A few days ago she was talking to me about how four women in her cohort at school dont contribute to discussions, and she feels Its affecting her learning experience. I kept formulating a response until she got angry and stopped talking to me alltogether for some time. Later, when she calmed down, she explained she just wanted me to listen, and the reason she rarely talks about her day is because she doesnt feel that I'm open to listening and always want to dominate the conversation with MY thoughts, MY opinions, and MY voice on what was primarily HER day. She felt a couple with good communication is able to give each other space to listen, even if the topic is boring.

I found it hard to hear. Sometimes I apparently bore the hell out of her but because I'm her husband and I'm passionate about the topic, she'll engage me. She doesn't feel I do the same in return. A part of me feels like doing this is the intellectual equivalent of faking an orgasm. But on the other hand, I understand she won't be interested in ANYTHING I have to say if all I care about is me and never give her space to share.

It can be challenging, especially for people who take things really literally. But life does not give us in depth technical manuals on commmunication- we have to learn to fill in the blanks.

[sormanic]

I am a solver and often have difficulty dealing with people who just want empathy. They get annoyed when we solve their problems. There is a presumption on their part that it is always safer to show empathy rather than solve a problem. That isn't true. If you show empathy instead of suggesting a solution you come across as stupid if the person was expecting a recommended solution. Never show empathy at work.

Let me give an example: the English department complains that the students can't write. The history department commiserates. The math department suggests having a placement exam and sending students to remedial writing classes before they are allowed into courses that expect writing. Solution has been presented but rarely implemented and the complaining continues.

Physics department complains students don't know trigonometry. Math dept points out that students can pass college algebra without trig (although an A would indicate thorough knowledge) and that passing precalc requires trig. Physics dept makes precalc a prerequisite for their courses. Problem solved.

Problem solvers like to hear solutions and act on them. Empathetic types just want commiserate.

[sormanic]

By the way, I am a woman problem solver and just as annoyed by the empathetic types as a lot of guys are annoyed with their wives. Women's Magazines support the empathetic approach and girls are trained into this kind of behavior. But I think it holds women back in the work place. Sure their enpathy may make people feel better or more loved, but no one will come to them with a real problem.

Even parenting shouldn't just involve empathy: comforting a child when he fails an exam or has to deal with bullies. On TV sitcoms, the mothers comfort and fathers deal with the problem implementing a punishment or strategizing how to handle the tough kids. Its very sexist and girls are brought up that this is how to act. Then as women they perpetuate the process themselves.

[Ulfreida]

This whole debate is about the difference between taking people literally and hearing what they are actually needing.

Many times someone is trying to say, "I need a little empathy right now!" but instead they present what looks like a problem to be solved. If you try to solve the problem, you will not be giving the person what they need, and the conversation will take longer and may get quite cranky as you talk past each other.

You'd be surprised just how concise and satisfying a conversation can be if you give someone what they need instead what comes automatically for you.

Want to know how to tell whether someone needs empathy up front or just needs a concrete problem solved?

Ask.

[Mangetout]

Solving other people's problems for them is great in theory, but in practice, I'd say the solution is relevant or useful less than half the time - either because the situation was a one-off and is over now, or (quite likely) because the solver didn't wait to listen to the whole story before launching into a solution that simply doesn't fit.

Solving often just means elbowing into the conversation and making it all about you, the solver, and all about how great you are at life. If the complainer has had a bad day, they're unlikely to want that. "Wanna know what I'd have done in that situation?" - No, actually, they probably don't.

And I say this as an instinctive, well-meaning, talkative solver. Learning to keep my helpful gob shut is difficult, but a lot of the time, it's the right and proper thing to do.

[MichaelEmouse]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

This whole debate is about the difference between taking people literally and hearing what they are actually needing.

Many times someone is trying to say, "I need a little empathy right now!" but instead they present what looks like a problem to be solved. If you try to solve the problem, you will not be giving the person what they need, and the conversation will take longer and may get quite cranky as you talk past each other.

You'd be surprised just how concise and satisfying a conversation can be if you give someone what they need instead what comes automatically for you.

Want to know how to tell whether someone needs empathy up front or just needs a concrete problem solved?

Ask.

But if I ask, am I to take their reply literally? If they say they want a solution, should I try to parse that to find a message about what they actually need but haven't said? If they say they want empathy, perhaps I shouldn't take that literally but instead try to guess what they are actually needing.

[The Second Stone]

Some people want attention and find things to complain about and view people who want to fix their problem as wanting to deny them attention.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by sormanic

Let me give an example:

I'm not sure that that's a great example. What you gave is a situation where action is more important than emapthy or sympathy. It's a great example where solutions are needed.

When solutions are needed, provide them.

I'm currently in a situation where information and understanding are the most needed. This news came to me mid-afternoon. My father was air-lifted, after acting very irrationally, to a pretty far away hospital. I don't know if he is going to live or die, but the latest news seems good. Scary stuff!

I don't think there's much anyone can do for me than to listen to my concerns. I'm a little helpless other than to watch my phone and computer for more information. My siblings and I are trying to gather more information.

What solution could I have offered my mother when she was really ditsraught this afternoon? She could barely speak. What she needed was for me to just be a solid and supportive son. That's what she needed the most.

Please don't try to "solve" my problem. The best help you can give me is for wishing my father well. I think he'll pull through.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by jjimm

By the way, this discussion is somewhat encompassed by the T/F dichotomy observed in Myers-Briggs.

Me too - except the SDMB things Myers-Briggs is equivalent to astrology, and yet, here it is.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

Me too - except the SDMB things Myers-Briggs is equivalent to astrology, and yet, here it is.

The concurrent thread about extraversion/intraversion is also one of the four MBTI dichotomies. I think the skepticism is down to not actually knowing the full reasoning behind it.

FTR my take on Myers-Briggs is "mostly right, though for the wrong reasons". Or as the psych professor I learned about it from said "there are many angles at which you can slice the sausage of personality; this is just one of them".

[Mops]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

Solving other people's problems for them is great in theory, but in practice, I'd say the solution is relevant or useful less than half the time - either because the situation was a one-off and is over now, or (quite likely) because the solver didn't wait to listen to the whole story before launching into a solution that simply doesn't fit. ...

There is a third reason why solving peoples' problems for them is often not desirable, which has to do with the third kind of reaction I often find myself expecting from people I state a problem to, and where I often get frustrated.

If I tell someone of a problem I am having,

1. I sometimes tell of a general or past problem, and want empathy.
2. I sometimes specifically ask for help with a current problem, and want that specific help.
3. I often state that I am working on a present problem, by way of trying to politely tell the other person to STFU and not keep me from solving the problem.

So the list of desirable roles in others are for me: listeners, solvers, shutters-up.

[Mangetout]

Agreed.

The other thing to note here is that, if you're a 'solver' - it may only mean you enjoy or feel comfortable talking about how you would solve the problem - it doesn't necessarily follow that your proposed solutions are any damn good.

[JThunder]

Absolutely, Mangetout.

Let me cite another example that involves emotional hurt. I was once in a singles group wherein one fella poured his heart out about being lonely. As far as I could tell, he wasn't looking for a pity party; rather, I think he just felt like voicing his frustration to a small group of other people who could probably related to his problem.

Before long, another guy piped up, saying, "Here's what you need to do! You need to go to places where you can find other people with the same interests! Libraries, book clubs, whatever. Why, even a hardware store can be a great place to...!" And he went on an on.

The lonely fella was visibly annoyed. "I've tried all of that," he said. "I've gone to plenty of singles groups, and I've joined plenty of clubs. I have a lot of interests that I explore. Honestly, it hasn't worked out yet."

"Well then, you need to..." said the other guy, and on he went. I cringed.

Perhaps you can see why this discussion was a disaster. The second fella was intent on solving the first guy's problem, but he wasn't interested in listening. AS Mangetout said, he enjoyed talking about how he would solve this problem -- basically, basking in his own cleverness. He was more interested in speaking than in listening, and he didn't bother to see if his solutions had already been tried or not. As a result, he couldn't see whether they were any good.

IMO, when 'solvers' exclaim, "I don't understand. I'm offering a solution to this guy's problem! Why isn't he interested in what I have to say?" it's often because they enjoy talking about how they would solve somebody's situation. This doesn't mean that they have the wisdom to learn enough about this situation before trying to solve it.

[Inner Stickler]

I am amused at how many people are describing themselves as problem solvers. How they manage to soldier on in the face of those frustrating wussies who just want sympathy is truly a testament to their strength in adversity.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I am amused at how many people are describing themselves as problem solvers. How they manage to soldier on in the face of those frustrating wussies who just want sympathy is truly a testament to their strength in adversity.

It's the one problem they're still working on.

[Ulfreida]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

But if I ask, am I to take their reply literally? If they say they want a solution, should I try to parse that to find a message about what they actually need but haven't said? If they say they want empathy, perhaps I shouldn't take that literally but instead try to guess what they are actually needing.

Basically, guessing works far better if you guess out loud and ask if your guess is right.

This is all from a movement called NonViolent Communication (much info online) which , I will testify, saved my marriage 12 years ago, and may again. The stuff works, if you work it. Look into it!

[tdn]

Originally Posted by JThunder

"Well then, you need to..." said the other guy, and on he went. I cringed.

I have to wonder if the solver felt oppressed. Reading some responses in this thread, I'm coming to understand that people who just want to be heard are as bad as Hitler and solvers are poor, oppressed victims.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by sormanic

I am a solver and often have difficulty dealing with people who just want empathy. They get annoyed when we solve their problems. There is a presumption on their part that it is always safer to show empathy rather than solve a problem. That isn't true. If you show empathy instead of suggesting a solution you come across as stupid if the person was expecting a recommended solution. Never show empathy at work.

Let me give an example: the English department complains that the students can't write. <<snipped for brevity>>

That's not really a good example, for reasons that tdn has already pointed out.

Moreover, as other posters and I have emphasized, there is no contradiction between showing empathy and solving a problem. Quite the contrary; providing a listening, empathetic ear HELPS you provide better solutions, should this be necessary. This happens because it provides the troubled person with catharsis, because it helps ensure that you understand the problem thoroughly, and because it makes the troubled individual more receptive to your solutions.

"But I was listening!" most people would exclaim. Not really, though. As Mangetout said though, self-described problem solvers often launch into their solutions before they've heard the whole story. Additionally, their "listening" may involve parsing the words, but not discerning their emotional content. And let's face it -- if somebody thinks that establishing this emotional rapport is a waste of time, then it's a safe bet that they're not really listening, despite what they may believe.

[MichaelEmouse]

Originally Posted by JThunder

That's not really a good example, for reasons that tdn has already pointed out.

Moreover, as other posters and I have emphasized, there is no contradiction between showing empathy and solving a problem. Quite the contrary; providing a listening, empathetic ear HELPS you provide better solutions, should this be necessary. This happens because it provides the troubled person with catharsis, because it helps ensure that you understand the problem thoroughly, and because it makes the troubled individual more receptive to your solutions.

"But I was listening!" most people would exclaim. Not really, though. As Mangetout said though, self-described problem solvers often launch into their solutions before they've heard the whole story. Additionally, their "listening" may involve parsing the words, but not discerning their emotional content. And let's face it -- if somebody thinks that establishing this emotional rapport is a waste of time, then it's a safe bet that they're not really listening, despite what they may believe.

Several times in this thread, people have distinguished listening from really listening. What's the difference between listening and really listening?

Is there a third level as well? That of really really listening?

[tdn]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

Several times in this thread, people have distinguished listening from really listening. What's the difference between listening and really listening?

I think it's more the difference between hearing and listening. All it takes to hear is a pair of ears. Listening requires attention.

"I got that big promotion at work. My life is really going to change."

Hearing:

"Yeah, work's cool. What's for dinner?"

Listening:

"You sound like you're about to cry. How come?"

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by msmith537

The answer to your question is that some people are "women".

I clicked on this thread specifically to see how long it would take for the male/female thing to be mentioned.

(Note to readers.... the quote is from post #2/reply #1)

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by tdn

I think it's more the difference between hearing and listening. All it takes to hear is a pair of ears. Listening requires attention.

"I got that big promotion at work. My life is really going to change."

Hearing:

"Yeah, work's cool. What's for dinner?"

Listening:

"You sound like you're about to cry. How come?"

Very true. I think there are a few more elements to consider, though. The kind of "real listening" that we're talking about also involves understanding why the other person feels hurt, or angry, or frustrated, or whatever. This goes beyond merely paying attention.

It also involves attempting to discern hidden problems or sources of hurt. As Blaster Master said, for example, one person might be complaining about his stolen lunch, when the real problem is that he feels betrayed by his co-workers. Naturally, this involves paying attention, but it also requires discerning the undercurrents beneath someone's words -- or perhaps drawing this person's real feelings out in the course of your conversation.

You folks might want to look into something called reflective listening. It's a really simple skill, yet very few people know how to use it.