Have We Lost Our Ability to Listen?

[Ken H.]

First off, let me say this is not intended to be a thread about any specific issue. However some of the more contentious issues in the foreground of late (both here on this forum and in the general public) has gotten me to thinking/wondering – have we lost our ability to listen and reason? “We” individually and “we” as a collective society. By “listen” I mean both literally and immediately as in quit talking and actually let another talk, and interpretably as in taking time to evaluate what another(s) have to say.

 

It seems to me more and more, as this society (and in this context I’m more or less lumping the USA, UK, Canada and other similar highly westernized countries together) becomes more and more polarized on this or that; the amount of willingness to listen to and consider ‘the other side’ has become less and less. People seem to be more and more incapable of reason, of objective evaluation of an issue, and of rational conclusions.

 

(Presuming this observation is accurate) why is this? Is it reflections of the aging of our society as its people become more ‘set in their ways’? Is it a result of increased narcissism and/or visions of grandeur? A byproduct of our ‘me first’ society? A byproduct of the constant refrain of personal worth/value/’your special’ that has predominated in child rearing for the last few decades?

 

A lack of education in the art of critical observation and critical thinking methodology that is bubbling over into day-to-day reactions to the events and issues around us?

 

Maybe a side effect of much more stressed and resulting emotion charged lifestyles that we lead? I wonder if it isn’t even to some extent a result of mild brainwashing from the continuous pounding of religious/political/or other subject specific dogma/ideology?

 

Or is it just plain intellectual laziness - it’s easier to jump on the back of someone else’s band wagon than to think something through for ourselves?

 

It just seems to me our collective ability to listen to others, evaluate others positions/points of views and draw justified conclusions has diminished significantly in the last couple of decades. And it’s hurting us as a society.

 

What do you think?

 

[Lawman]

What do you think?

I think people that don't agree with me are just stupid..

[russell_bynum]

What do you think?

I think people that don't agree with me are just stupid..

 

Dammit Billy...you owe me a new keyboard (unless someone knows how to get Dr Pepper out of a computer keyboard).

 

It really smarts when it comes out of your nose, too.

[Dave McReynolds]

I agree with you and I've found out that I'm no better listener than anyone else. I'm writing a book in collaboration with another person. I interview that person over the phone, and record the phone conversations. I was embarrased in listening to the recordings at the number of times I would ask another question before the person had completed his thoughts on the question I'd just asked. I tried to do better in the second conversation, but still seemed impatient when I listened to it. I think I missed a lot in those first two conversations, because I think a person's most important thoughts are more likely to be the last things he says on a subject rather than his first thoughts on the subject.

 

Lately, when we were in Wyoming, I was with Nancy when she was interviewing someone for her book on the Wind River Mountains, and she did the same thing. The person would be formulating his answer to her question, and before he could get it out, she was asking the next question. I mentioned this to her after the interview, and I think she understood what I was saying, but me telling her probably doesn't have the same impact as hearing yourself do it.

[Roadwolf]

Wise cracks aside (and what would I expect from Russell here), I think you have a very astute observation here. Any number of reasons you mention are valid.

 

I am personally intrigued with the mood of our country right now (politically and culturally) and am dismayed as well... at the public's lack of interest or desire to be informed about the issues of the day (health care, the environment, war on terror, policing issues, etc.) and just follow the consensus, whether it be right, center or left.

 

I appreciate a good debate and to hear from all sides and make an informed and thoughtful decision on any particular topic. And I appreciate it even more when an opponent does the same. They might have a much better chance of convincing me of their point, rather than shouting at me or talking over me.

 

Agree with your post whole heartedly.

[russell_bynum]

Good stuff, Dave. I know personally...I'm a problem-solver. If you're telling me something, I'm listening, and I'm formulating the solution in my head. When I reach that solution, I have an almost uncontrollable urge to blurt it out. Solve the problem/answer the question and move on to the next one.

 

I find it incredibly difficult to just sit there with my yap shut and wait for the person to finish.

 

Of course...sometimes it seems like they've said what they want to say and they're repeating/rephrasing themselves because they don't think I've understood or don't have a solution yet.

 

Actually, I think this is one area where written communication/email can be better because I can yammer on as long as I want and you can't interrupt me with a reply until I'm done and have hit send.

[russell_bynum]

I appreciate a good debate and to hear from all sides and make an informed and thoughtful decision on any particular topic. And I appreciate it even more when an opponent does the same. They might have a much better chance of convincing me of their point, rather than shouting at me or talking over me.

 

Yup. Even if it doesn't change my mind, a well thought-out debate (not argument) can force me to really examine what I believe, and that's a good thing.

[smiller]

I think there's a lot of money in demagoguery and if we would reject that kind of thought instead of providing heavy financial rewards to the purveyors then we would probably be a lot better off. But of course that links directly back to the lack of education in the art of critical observation and critical thinking alluded to in the OP.

[Les is more]

An interesting question Ken. Here's one literal interpretation.

 

I worked with many kids with learning disabilities which stemmed from the inability to listen. They suffered from a disconnect between the ear and the brain known as auditory processing disorder.

 

We used carefully engineered music to "massage" the ear mechanism and pathways to the brain.

 

Small children, have brains in a formative state, designed for the uptake of information, with 2X as many synapses firing off as they will have as adults.

 

Intinctively, I feel that they are like finely tuned instruments. I believe that in our society that instrument is bombarded with bits of disjointed information coming in at great volume and unprecedented speeds.

 

When the ear brain connection is overloaded, the brain simply cuts off some pathways and the ability to listen (as opposed to hear) is damaged.

 

Add to that an education system that often teaches "facts" minus the critical thinking skills needed to weigh those facts and we do shortchange our listening and evaluation skills.

 

Another element I'll throw out there is the rats in a maze mentality that comes along with crowded population centers. Power becomes important and we all tend to eat each other rather than figuring out how to coexist.

 

Food for thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

Well, since my other idea didn't work out so well...

 

Lemme toss out a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

 

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

 

I think that we have a polarized nation that has factions hell bent on getting public, political revenge instead of actually solving the problems that face our nation. It's become more important to blame others than it is to resolve.

 

As a result, people with different opinions have resorted to labeling and name calling; the result being further marginalizing the opinions of those with whom we differ. That has lead to people generally failing to express an opinion for fear of having to defend it endlessly in the presence of those they choose to associate with for respite.

 

I believe that this has lead to the death of discourse in our society.

[Mike]

I'll defer to Leslie's greater understanding of learning disabilities. I think there are a couple of other factors, at least in the U.S.:

 

-The political party duopoly in our country has resulted in intellectually vacuous positions being touted as "fact" (and I believe there are ample instances of this in both parties), with the only acceptable responses to disagreement to be equally intellectually vacuous (things like accusing dissenters of being unpatriotic). In this world, you're either a liberal or a conservative, Democrat or Republican, "with us" or "against us." This strident factionalism discourages independent thought, or any deviation from the party line: there are only two truths.

 

-The news media, which have perhaps long been suspect, have increasingly moved to an emphasis on sound bites and tightly constrained portrayals of "the truth," generally tailored to a specific audience. Our collective attention span is too short to read or watch a complete exposition of the facts, so we rely on others to distill complex issues down to manageable morsels. That's bad enough, but we further degrade our ability to analyze and understand the world by then choosing the media outlets that present those morsels in a way that is consistent with our preconceived notions of the truth, whether it's Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or USA Today.

 

I know many will disagree with this, but I lay the blame squarely at the feet of our educational system. No longer do children receive a "classical education," encouraged to read, understand, critique, and dissent. They get their morsels from institutions who hire teachers who, largely though admittedly not uniformly, are not themselves intellectual giants. These institutions are focused on a variety of issues, with the teaching of critical thinking skills coming in pretty much dead last.

 

To summarize, we're toast.

[Tony_K]

What do you think?

 

[smiller]

I know many will disagree with this, but I lay the blame squarely at the feet of our educational system. No longer do children receive a "classical education," encouraged to read, understand, critique, and dissent.

No time for that, got to pass the standardized tests...

[russell_bynum]

I know many will disagree with this, but I lay the blame squarely at the feet of our educational system. No longer do children receive a "classical education," encouraged to read, understand, critique, and dissent.

No time for that, got to pass the standardized tests...

 

I completely agree about that.

 

I think all that standardized test crap was really taking hold when I was in High School and I remember distinctly what a complete waste of time it all was. I was fortunate in that I had a few teachers who taught to the stupid tests and then also taught useful stuff. The best was my Chemistry and Physics teacher who was far more interested in teaching us how to think and how to solve problems than memorizing the periodic table. I had a couple of really great English teachers too. But really, that was just dumb luck that I got those three teachers.

 

My impression is that the pressure to teach to these idiotic standardized tests has gotten much worse since I graduated, so I must assume that there are even fewer "good" teachers out there now than back then.

 

Then there's college. I started out in state schools in Texas and then in Cali, and I can honestly say that I learned very little that I could actually use in real life.

 

There was far too much emphasis on theoretical learning and almost no emphasis on practical application of that knowledge.

 

FWIW, I finished my degree at University of Phoenix and I feel like I learned a bunch from those classes because they were much more focused on applying the knowledge that we learned to real-life. One big difference I saw between UoP and the state schools was that all of my professors at UoP were professionals in their field rather than academics who've never functioned outside of the educational system a day in their life.

[ghaverkamp]

Then there's college. I started out in state schools in Texas and then in Cali, and I can honestly say that I learned very little that I could actually use in real life.

 

There was far too much emphasis on theoretical learning and almost no emphasis on practical application of that knowledge.

 

It seems to me that that's really just turning around and saying "classical education" is pointless. I mean, really, did learning to play a saxophone or glazing a pot teach me anything that I could apply to real life? Not really, because I'm neither a musician nor a potter.

 

Classical education, rather than teaching to tests, has little connection with teaching practical skills. Among other things classical education is about broadening minds, enhancing thinking skills, and exposing students to concepts that they might not otherwise learn in the normal course of life. The same very much applies to university education.

 

Teaching "skills" is a whole lot like teaching to the test. There are trade schools for that.

[Twisties]

My impression is that the pressure to teach to these idiotic standardized tests has gotten much worse since I graduated, so I must assume that there are even fewer "good" teachers out there now than back then.

 

I don't want to go off too far in the education direction, because it is but one of many issues related to this thread, but just as a quick perspective:

 

Well being I think maybe 15 years older than you Russell, and having moved a lot, there were always one or two great teachers that made learning fun, relevant and effective for me. However, I noticed that for other students, other teachers may have fulfilled those roles. Never the less, the numbers of really top teachers have I suspect always been low.

 

As for standardized tests, I spent 3 years in the NY State educational system in high school. NYS was the only one of the many systems I was in to use standardized tests, and yes the teachers taught to them. It was by far the most effective system I had any experience with, the toughest, and I learned the most. If the tests are good: Properly targeted and properly designed then there is nothing wrong with them. That said, if it were up to me there would be no tests and no grades at all.

[russell_bynum]

Then there's college. I started out in state schools in Texas and then in Cali, and I can honestly say that I learned very little that I could actually use in real life.

 

There was far too much emphasis on theoretical learning and almost no emphasis on practical application of that knowledge.

 

It seems to me that that's really just turning around and saying "classical education" is pointless. I mean, really, did learning to play a saxophone or glazing a pot teach me anything that I could apply to real life? Not really, because I'm neither a musician nor a potter.

 

Classical education, rather than teaching to tests, has little connection with teaching practical skills. Among other things classical education is about broadening minds, enhancing thinking skills, and exposing students to concepts that they might not otherwise learn in the normal course of life. The same very much applies to university education.

 

Teaching "skills" is a whole lot like teaching to the test. There are trade schools for that.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about teaching a particular skill like computer programming or auto repair. I just mean understanding how to apply the knowledge you learn to real life.

 

Example: I think that learning algebra is very important...its something that just about everyone needs. To learn algebra you have to start with the basics...how to build an equation, how to reduce it, solve for X, etc. But...if you don't also learn how to apply those skills to real-world problems, then what's the point?

 

And what about Critical thinking and problem solving? Those are extremely important skills to have but they're not on the standardized tests, so nobody teaches them.

 

I mean...does it really matter that you can memorize and regurgitate the names and dates of various Civil War battles? How about looking at each battle and what each side did right and wrong...and your deliverable would be a paper suggesting alternative courses of action that could have shifted the outcome? That would force you to look at what was going on and why, and think through alternative solutions and IMO would be FAR more worthwhile than the usual "memorize and regurgitate".

[Matts_12GS]

That said, if it were up to me there would be no tests and no grades at all.

 

Might I ask why?

 

You can PM your answer if you wish.

[Pilgrim]

Let me suggest that the phenomenon is not new, and it has been inherent in our democratic system since the Constitution was being drafted. In fact, recognition of the syndrome is why the Founders conducted their deliberations in private.

 

What is different now is the volume, as in loudness, available to any idiot with an opinion. In 1800 that idiot's voice was heard only as far as he could yell, or at best, in a local newspaper. Now Geraldo will interview him, millions will listen, and in any group that size at least a thousand will say Right ON! And thus, a movement is born.

 

Pilgrim

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my respect.

[Knifemaker]

I believe the art of listening has nothing to do with "classical education".

 

Listening is a social skill in my mind...The skill gets lost from childhood when a parent does not take the time to listen to their children. A child who continually searches for his or her voice in the family circle has only one of two ways to go...#1...don't say anything...#2..blurt out what they want to say no matter what any other party may be saying or when they may be saying it.

 

Or is it just plain intellectual laziness - it’s easier to jump on the back of someone else’s band wagon than to think something through for ourselves?

 

Maybe, the other side of the bandwagon coin maybe it's away for the person to feel accepted when no one else listens.

 

 

Actually, I think this is one area where written communication/email can be better because I can yammer on as long as I want and you can't interrupt me with a reply until I'm done and have hit send.

 

Again, maybe...Is there any difference in being interrupted while talking or being ignored when you post something you feel is worth while and no one replies?

 

Getting someone to listen can be easy IF you are willing to do it yourself and not just THINK you are doing it.

 

In the words of the WHO...."See me...hear me"

 

 

[Knifemaker]

What is different now is the volume, as in loudness, available to any idiot with an opinion. In 1800 that idiot's voice was heard only as far as he could yell, or at best, in a local newspaper.

 

That is a hard statement to swallow.....Is the idiot the one with a different opinion than anothers....or is the idiot the one who may not have the same social, eonomic, or educational background as another....

 

 

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my respect.

 

I do not know who the "You" in your statement is pointed at but...

 

This respect sir does not have to be mutual even though this opinion... you have a right to voice.

 

[upflying]

Cop's listen intently for the first five years of their careers.

After that they become cynics.

[pbbeck]

Both Les and Mike hit on the points I would have emphasized. Having a background in education and biopsychology, I think a lot about society can be understood by looking at relevant biological and environmental factors. Changes in our Information Age society, most particularly in the way information is moved, delivered, and accessed, combined with the nature of brain development and learning, has left us with a populace unwilling and/or unable to listen.

 

Other posters have brought up what is taught in schools (though I can't be sure... I wasn't listening)... As a middle school math teacher, I can tell you that the sheer volume of "content standards" that I am supposed to teach leaves no time for anything but teaching to standardized tests. Apparently this is what the public wants considering how many (including Obama and Schwarzenegger) want to link my paycheck to students' scores. How will this motivate me to slow down and teach critical thinking and communication skills. You can't efficiently or even validly measure either of those skills on a standardized test.

 

Pilgrim... I like your comment about loudness. I'm going to have to remember that one. I've used a phrase called "Righteousness Through Volume" to describe many people I have encountered of the years who share the following belief: The louder I am, the righter I am. Give someone a mic, and they are even louder, and therefore righter. This is why people want to be pop/rap stars. Then, they get to be the loudest person in the room!

[steve.foote]

This is why people want to be pop/rap stars. Then, they get to be the loudest person in the room!

 

And the best paid.

[pbbeck]

What I meant to say is this is why celebrities constantly share their opinions on matters that they have no business commenting on... and people seem to listen!!! Why? They have the mic. They must know what they're talking about.

[David]

What I meant to say is this is why celebrities constantly share their opinions on matters that they have no business commenting on... and people seem to listen!!! Why? They have the mic. They must know what they're talking about.

 

Yes, I think you are correct on that point. Why do people believe me in my business career? In some cases because what I say has the obvious ring of truth to it and it squares with their experience. That leads them to assume that what they do NOT understand is also true, and they follow it.

 

But some times it's simply because I have a microphone. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. "He must know what he's talking about because all these people are listening."

 

It's a very traumatic thing, just honestly, and there are times when it's been a burden. The guy I just chatted with driving my taxi to the hotel could very well be significantly wiser than me in some areas. He just doesn't have a microphone.

[Whip]

What I meant to say is this is why celebrities constantly share their opinions on matters that they have no business commenting on... and people seem to listen!!! Why? They have the mic. They must know what they're talking about.

 

Yes, I think you are correct on that point. Why do people believe me in my business career? In some cases because what I say has the obvious ring of truth to it and it squares with their experience. That leads them to assume that what they do NOT understand is also true, and they follow it.

 

But some times it's simply because I have a microphone. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. "He must know what he's talking about because all these people are listening."

 

It's a very traumatic thing, just honestly, and there are times when it's been a burden. The guy I just chatted with driving my taxi to the hotel could very well be significantly wiser than me in some areas. He just doesn't have a microphone.

 

 

Soooo......I gotta get me a big mic. I could fix everything.

 

 

[steve.foote]

Whip, you already know where the big chair is, now all you need to do is find the big mic and you're all set.

[Pilgrim]

What is different now is the volume, as in loudness, available to any idiot with an opinion. In 1800 that idiot's voice was heard only as far as he could yell, or at best, in a local newspaper.

 

That is a hard statement to swallow.....Is the idiot the one with a different opinion than anothers....or is the idiot the one who may not have the same social, eonomic, or educational background as another....

 

 

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my respect.

 

I do not know who the "You" in your statement is pointed at but...

 

This respect sir does not have to be mutual even though this opinion... you have a right to voice.

My response was aimed at no one in particular here, but since you've called attention to yourself...

 

Somewhere along the line, society seems to have adopted the credo that all opinions are equally worthy of respect. They are not. And if you (and in this case, I mean you) can't discern between fools with an opinion they have no qualifications to hold (in fact, that might be a good working definition of a fool, and here I do NOT apply it to you), and those who have gathered the information they can and thought things through to the best of their ability, then no wonder you are nonplussed at my statement.

 

Is this formulation of that signature line any more to your liking? You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to demand that I respect it.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

[Bullett]

Then there's college. I started out in state schools in Texas and then in Cali, and I can honestly say that I learned very little that I could actually use in real life.

 

There was far too much emphasis on theoretical learning and almost no emphasis on practical application of that knowledge.

 

It seems to me that that's really just turning around and saying "classical education" is pointless. I mean, really, did learning to play a saxophone or glazing a pot teach me anything that I could apply to real life? Not really, because I'm neither a musician nor a potter.

 

Classical education, rather than teaching to tests, has little connection with teaching practical skills. Among other things classical education is about broadening minds, enhancing thinking skills, and exposing students to concepts that they might not otherwise learn in the normal course of life. The same very much applies to university education.

 

Teaching "skills" is a whole lot like teaching to the test. There are trade schools for that.

 

Greg,

 

I submit that learning to play the saxophone and glaze a pot taught you the value of practice, persistence and humility.

 

I can't speak for you, but these "skills" are things I (try) to use everyday.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

This is a great thread; thanks for raising the issue, Ken.

 

I am going to seize upon this opportunity to give a heart felt "thanks" to everyone on this forum who has taken the time to discuss matters of race relations with me. You all have no idea how much my eyes have been opened and how much my understanding has grown by conversing with you on matters related to race.

 

Threads such as the "Nation of Cowards", "Louis Gates/Sgt Crowley/Pres Obama", "New York Post/Chimp/Obama" -- all these and others no doubt brought about discussions that either indirectly and sometimes quite directly challenged my opinions and assumptions about this topic. Politicians like to talk about a "national conversation on race" as though it's ever going to happen. Well, it has certainly happened here and I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to have been a part of this forum during these times.

 

Now, on a slightly different matter...

 

I think we all need to challenge ourselves to listen to each other more often. Whenever a moderator has to lock a thread, that's a clear message that people are doing too much shouting and not enough listening. It represents a "failure to communicate" to borrow a phrase from the film, "Cool Hand Luke". I don't respect everyone's opinions equally either, but I certainly respect everyone's right to an opinion and I enjoy listening to those opinions -- especially if you have the wisdom, patience, and care to carefully convey what you know, and to quietly listen to counter points of view.

 

There's a Proverb from the Bible I have always enjoyed. It goes something like this: "better to be though of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" Yes, listening is indeed golden.

 

Is this a great forum or what?!

[Knifemaker]

Is this formulation of that signature line any more to your liking? You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to demand that I respect it.

 

You sir are a gentleman...and this I can respect

 

 

those who have gathered the information they can and thought things through to the best of their ability,

 

Ahhhh...the art of listening...The ability to understand ones abilities without being judgemental...

 

Seek first to understand then be understood.

[David]

Bill, have you met Kent? I think you two would get along handsomely.

[vizhip]

I can tell you right now that most folks on this forum are going to disagree with me, but please hear me out...

 

We need a standard level of education... and thus a standard set of testing for that level... It is the only way to determine if the knowledge passed on has truly sunk in...

 

Now... the other shoe drops...

 

The Federal system of educating our youth has failed... Whenever an active mind appeared in a classroom, the teachers have complained that the child is disruptive and thus needs to be drugged and pacified... thus the child joins the rest of the mindless kids sitting there listening to the teacher drone on and on and on...

 

And if you were to listen closely to what the teacher is droning on and on about, I am betting that it is either some political view that they wish to present, or older technology and information and ways of doing things... or newer math that short cuts reality and presents an approximation of the true answer...

 

Am I down on teachers ??? Some of them... but then, my sister is a teacher and my nephew an assistant principle, after having taught a number of years...

 

Problems I see is finding a teacher with the energy to really TEACH... so those energetic minds will be challenged... and thus no longer disruptive...

 

But... this all starts at home... and these days there isn't much teaching done at home...

 

Many children come from single parent households... and yes, my youngest niece is a single parent and I see this happening all over again...

 

and even those with two parents that work all the time get into the same rut... ie... parents drop the kids off at daycare and head off to work... they come back and pick the kid up in the evening, taking time to drive through a fast-food joint to grab a quick bite so that they can head home...

 

Once home, the kid is parked in front of the TV for a couple hours while the adult(s) catch up on bills, chores and e-mail... maybe even their favorite forums or facebook, myspace or twitter... They will make a couple phone calls, then take the kid upstairs to wash up and put the kid to bed...

 

Best hope the daycare is a good one... no teaching or even attention paid at home during the week...

 

Weekend comes... time to gather with the neighbors and friends... so... Friday night the baby sitter shows up just as the kid is brought home with the fast-food meal... parent(s) going out for dinner and whatever comes after, thus they get home after the kid is in bed...

 

Kid wakes up before the parent(s) from the long night out... and thus is brought into the bed with the parent(s) for extra rest... Afternoon comes and FINALLY... time is spent with the child... but... it doesn't last long because their are groceries to buy... and errands to run... thus... packed up in the car... off the family goes...

 

Sunday is typically church day, drop the kid off in the nursery, and pick the kid up when church is over... time for lunch, an afternoon of relaxation, evening church and then home and wash up for bed to start the next week all over again...

 

The child grows older and makes it to grade school... Depending on how good the daycare and preschool systems were, the child may or may not be prepared for what's ahead... and may or may not need additional attention... and the teachers in grade school do not have time to spend showing love to their class... they have a curriculum to cover that was defined by the state... if not the federal level...

 

This is the point where the teachers should be teaching the child problem solving techniques that were missed in daycare and preschool... along with reading, writing and basic addition...

 

You say it is too early for problem solving ??? I beg to differ... by now the child should understand how to use building blocks... so... present them with a challenge of building a structure that will hold together on an incline... With LEGO blocks this is pretty easy... but with the old LOG pieces and tinker toys, it can present a small challenge if they keep rolling down the incline...

 

I will ignore the square peg, round hole and triangle at this point... kids figure that one out early... at least... you hope they do...

 

Soon the brighter children and the needier children will start to stand out... needier being those that need attention and love that they are not seeing at home... brighter being those that excel quickly at any challenge presented them...

 

Standard public education is to drug the kids with ridlin to keep them all calm and coasting through... and this typically starts at a VERY early age...

 

This is where I feel our education system is downright failing all across the board... push the brighter kids into a higher speed learning to challenge them... be it the next class level or just a specialized class... and place the needy children in smaller class groups where they can share with each other and develop at a slightly slower pace... The rest of the kids stay in the same class and develop at the normal pace...

 

Now this is where I will tick a few more people off... including educators...

 

Have no grade levels for elementary school... all kids, no matter what their age is will be lumped into various classes where they will learn according to their pace and capability of learning...

 

Sure, that means that the playground will contain older and younger kids together, but properly managed, it can work... I have seen it work in neighborhoods growing up...

 

Once the child develops the skill set required for graduation from the elementary school, they will take the standardized test to demonstrate their knowledge and proceed on to junior high school or middle school...

 

Same type structure will happen in middle school, only with an advanced pace of learning and stronger emphasis on how to learn and understand new concepts and the basics of science and geometry...

 

Towards the end of this school, the kids should show whether they can grasp the concepts needed for higher science and mathematics, or whether their energies are more geared towards the arts or possibly physical labor... The final test of this school should not be pass or fail, but determine placement for the next school...

 

Sciences and mathematics should be strongly emphasized in the technical high school with building blocks added for a basis where the child graduates and pushed off towards a technical college... something like MIT...

 

Those versed in the arts and history will see two paths... some towards law school and others towards music/arts/etc...

 

Physical labor will see mechanics, carpenters, metal smiths and the like trained in the various forms of building these items, both from the old school and new school to help them develop better techniques for building and constructing...

 

And finally... those in middle school who showed the ability to learn science and biology will find themselves in a high school that stresses more in the basic knowledge required for pre-med...

 

Yes, this gets the kids into their fields earlier in life... but it also creates specialized high schools set up to prepare the student for college... or for a trade craft...

 

No longer will there be a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th grade, but simply an elementary school with structured learning at a pace that the child can perform at... and upon reaching the point where they are ready to move to the next level... they graduate and move on... same with no 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th grades...

 

Of course, this means that their may be challenged kids that stay in elementary for a long long time... but they will know how to read and write before they leave... and those will be the folks that do the physical labor like waiting tables, washing dishes, etc...

 

But what this system would do would be to create thinkers again... and that is something that is sorely missing from the nation today...

 

Yes... this was a long post... but I truly believe that a system of this nature would be beneficial to the country and to those individuals that push hard enough to graduate the high school system and move into college...

 

For those that actually read it and didn't fall asleep... thanks for taking the time... and hopefully you wont think that I am too far off base with standard tests... it is just that the standards will have to be higher and more diverse... and thus it means that the educational department will have to start working hard to keep up with technology and all other breakthroughs as they happen in order to keep the standards up to snuff...

 

It also allows items to be introduced at different levels, depending on what makes sense for progression...

 

Anyways... this is just an idea I had and this seems to be the perfect place to post as it provides a solution to our ability to listen... well... at least in my opinion it is a solution...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[chrisolson]

I don't think we've lost the ability to listen, instead we've abandoned the artful application of compromise.

[pbbeck]

Wow... where to begin. I'll begin by saying thanks for your thoughts. You present an interesting model for education. I disagree with some of what you say - particularly those statements borne out of opinion and not fact. In general though, I am surprised by how much I find myself agreeing with you. I have been teaching for 17 years, and I can assure you that America's schools have problems.

 

You do hit on something that is missing in our system, and that is options for students. This is because America's entire public school system is based on the myth that all students should go to college. But the education system you outline sounds awful familiar. It sounds very European. No... that's not it. Nope. It sounds downright communist... very similar to the way it was in former Soviet block countries and in China today. The system you propose seems to "channelize" students at an early age. Those who show aptitude at manual labor will be locked out of the path to law school. Those who excel at math a locked into a math/engineering/science track. What if they want to work on bikes?

 

How can you espouse high, uniform standards and then in the same breath demand individualization of the education system? That, right there, is the one of the largest problem facing teachers today - how to meet the individual needs of students while getting them ALL to meet a standard (or at least make it look that way on standardized tests, the validity of which is suspect at best.) I'm not sure you can have it both ways.

 

Now, I'm going to bed. I have to get up early tomorrow and work for free, planning what I'm going to drone on and on about when school starts next week. Maybe I'll do a lesson on the slide rule.

 

 

[Knifemaker]

Bill, have you met Kent? I think you two would get along handsomely.

 

No...I have not had the pleasure...but I would consider it an honor to have taken a motorcycle ride with Kent and each person on this board at least once....

 

Kent...maybe we could meet half way someday or if you are in Florida without a bike.... I'll throw ya a key...

[Woodie]

Interesting. Familiar - one-room school-houses. The backbone of early American education.

 

I did read to the end, and appreciate the time you took to write out all your thoughts. I'm off to school now, to chaperone a team-building trip with my 6th grader.

 

FWIW, I've met many, many parents here where one parent stopped or reduced their work, to be home with the kids. I've met a number of others, where the parents work opposite shifts, so someone can be home with the kids. (Yes, we're in that number too)

 

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Ken,

I don't think it is intellectual laziness. I think it is more a function of the immediacy of our daily lives nowadays. Our news is almost always based on soundbites as opposed to true reporting. Our correspondence is no longer letters but brief emails or, more recently, tweets. Phone conversations are carried on by playing phone tag with answering machines or by brief calls while walking down a hall with a phone or bluetooth earpiece on the ear. People don't (or at least think they don't) have the time to listen. This is, I believe, truly a loss for ourselves and the generations following us.

[Couchrocket]

Interesting topic. I think it is a symptom of something bigger / broader / deeper in western culture. A part of the movement toward dehumanization that is concomitant with materialism (in the classic sense of that word -- not "materialistic").

 

One of the things that has always separated humans from the animal kingdom is that humans are "story tellers" and animals are "signalers." The richness of human society is grounded in our stories (again story is used in a classical sense to mean our history, culture, values, etc. as expressed in our thinking, speaking, relating to one another, writing, and YES our LISTENING too).

 

With the forward march of materialism (that we’re here merely through the confluence of time, plus chance, plus nothing) western culture has promoted the idea that humans are merely one more species of animal – perhaps a little higher on the food chain, but no different in nature or value or any other former “measure” of “humanity.”

 

 

As this idea has worked its way from the philosophers, to the artists, and eventually in to mass culture, we’ve begun to devolve into what we tell ourselves we are. Animals.

We’re slowly losing our story telling and increasing our mere signaling to one another for some expected response.

 

 

Examples:

 

 

I honestly believe that the PC movement is a sort of “signaling.” It dampens discussion of issues, and reduces communication to acceptable signals. Send the wrong signal, the herd bites you on the butt. Send the right signal and you’re included in the group.

 

 

Sound bites.

 

Tweets.

 

 

The amazing shift to “texting” from talking on cellular phones. Many kids today actually think talking on the phone they have in their hands is “so yesterday.”

 

 

“Pace”… by this I mean the frenetic pace of everything visual on TV, the movies, in art, etc. There is a staccato “blinking” of images that has replaced story development at every conceivable level in visual media. The story has been reduced to a series of signals.

 

 

The attention span of young folk. As we raise an entire generation of young people to be “signalers” their willingness to focus longer than it takes to send or receive a “signal” is getting close to zero.

 

 

And as a result of the “animalization” of culture, listening goes down the tube as a natural consequence.

 

[SeanC]

I disagree with the premise and assumptions of the OP. If anything, I think we listen too much and ignore too little. I'll quote from one of my favorite Police songs:

 

Too much information running through my brain

Too much information driving me insane

 

We care too much about what others think and feel and what they think of us. We're losing the art of saying "Shut up," not to mention the art of the subtle put-down, the condescending brush-off, etc. And by "we" I am not including myself or certain masters of the art (Hi David!).

 

So, um, yeah.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

We've gotten a lot better at saying "no" to people who want to tell us things we aren't interested in listening to, I think, after getting so much practice with telemarketers. I think rather than being subtle or condescending, it works better if you just say, "Sorry, I don't have time for this right now." Although maybe you have to think of something a little more polite if it's someone telling you about their dog's hemorrhoid surgery at a party.

 

On the other hand, let's not kid ourselves by thinking we're listening when we're really not.

[JohnnyJ]

have we lost our ability to listen and reason? What do you think?

 

Great topic -- Ken provided us with some well thought-out plausible explanations, and subsequent posters have had keen insight as well.

If we have lost our ability to listen and reason I'm sure its a combination of many factors. Some great ones have been submitted.

 

I truly believe that a key component of who we (as individuals) are and how we think, learn and behave has to do with what we eat.

 

Quite simply we are poisoning ourselves and our children with foods that have very little nutritional value and are preserved with chemicals that destroy our body's and minds. This and not getting adequate exercise will effect both mood and our ability to learn.

 

I could go on and on about this, but it is my experience that the main-stream population does not want to hear it.

 

 

JohnnyJ

[SeanC]

On the other hand, let's not kid ourselves by thinking we're listening when we're really not.

 

Unless empathy is a requisite of listening -- which I don't think is the case -- I disagree with that. I guess I've always figured that if someone is capable of formulating and expressing an opinion in my native language, regardless of content, I'm equally capable of hearing and understanding it in real time as it's expressed (certain technical topics excluded, of course). I've always equated this with listening. How is this kidding myself?

[Dave McReynolds]

How is this kidding myself?

 

In my remark that you quoted, I didn't mean that nobody ever listens, but that sometimes we may think we're listening when we really aren't. As I discussed in my post early in this string, I found that in interviewing someone on the phone, and later listening to the tapes of the conversation, that I was jumping in with a new question before he had finished answering the previous one. What this means is that I was formulating a followup question in my mind rather than listening to what he was saying. That's an example of poor listening.

 

Another example of poor listening would be to make assumptions about what someone is saying without asking questions where clarification might be needed.

 

Another example of poor listening would be to color someone's comments with your own emotional baggage, rather than just the meaning of the words being said.

 

One could go on and on with examples, but to say that the ability to speak the same language as the person you're talking with is the only requirement of listening is to equate hearing with listening. I know you make your living from communicating, and I would guess you're probably a good listener, so you probably already understand this. In that case, maybe I missed your point?

[Pilgrim]

How is this kidding myself?

What this means is that I was formulating a followup question[ in my mind rather than listening to what he was saying. That's an example of poor listening.

 

Dave, let's look at how you said that. I think two words I highlighted keep it from being precisely on point, although what you said is a subset of the overall problem.

 

Drop the words "a response" into that slot and it strikes exactly the right chord with me. To be formulating a followup question implies that at least to some degree, you've been listening, even hearing, what the other guy says, and that you are seeking clarification.

 

However, when we get into arguments (call them what you will), we too often get so busy formulating a response to an early point, or even a point that's not actually offered, that we cut off or quit listening to subsequent words that may offer clarification or nuance - or even an answer that defuses the whole issue.

 

It even shows up here. I'd be willing to bet that any active participant on this board (you know who you are!) has written up a response to something and posted it before really digesting what the OP had to say. Perhaps you've even gone so far as to respond before you've even read the whole thing (you'd make out fine in Congress). Or applied other possible interpretations to it. I know I have, and it's an embarrassment, isn't it? And here we have the leisure of taking our time to create a reasoned, judicious response. Imagine the pressure of conversation, when we imagine that an immediate response is imperative. It's not.

 

One of the most valuable skills I picked up during a career in investigations is being able to let the other guy talk until he quits, and then wait to see what else his mind drives him to say. I don't always remember to do it, but it's a good model to seek.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

[Pilgrim]

Bill, have you met Kent? I think you two would get along handsomely.

 

No...I have not had the pleasure...but I would consider it an honor to have taken a motorcycle ride with Kent and each person on this board at least once....

 

Kent...maybe we could meet half way someday or if you are in Florida without a bike.... I'll throw ya a key...

 

Kind words, Bill. Thank you, and back at you.

 

Look for a P.M. please.

 

Pilgrim

[SeanC]

One could go on and on with examples, but to say that the ability to speak the same language as the person you're talking with is the only requirement of listening is to equate hearing with listening. I know you make your living from communicating, and I would guess you're probably a good listener, so you probably already understand this. In that case, maybe I missed your point?

Absolutely you missed my point, and I'm surprised you did so. I didn't say "the ability to speak the same language is the only requirement of listening." I said that if someone is capable of formulating and expressing an opinion in my native language, I'm equally capable of hearing and understanding that opinion, regardless of content, as it's being expressed. In other words, my ability to listen is no less than the speaker's ability to express. Thus, if there's something I don't understand, I presume the flaw lies in the expression, not my listening skills. Of course, that's just my mindset.

 

As I discussed in my post early in this string, I found that in interviewing someone on the phone, and later listening to the tapes of the conversation, that I was jumping in with a new question before he had finished answering the previous one. What this means is that I was formulating a followup question in my mind rather than listening to what he was saying. That's an example of poor listening.

Perhaps. But is it possible the interviewee was not engaging or compelling enough, that his answers to your questions were simply not particularly interesting or relevant?

 

In our own example (i.e., this exchange between you and I), is it possible you missed my point because I expressed it in a style that did not capture your attention or interest? In which case, the flaw was mine. And the fact that you left the door open for me to re-iterate it is actually an example of good listening. I don't have a right to be understood the first time I say something, after all.

 

Another example of poor listening would be to make assumptions about what someone is saying without asking questions where clarification might be needed.

 

Another example of poor listening would be to color someone's comments with your own emotional baggage, rather than just the meaning of the words being said.

I agree with both of those examples, especially the latter, but they're easily corrected: just don't do that. I still haven't heard anything in this thread, however, that would convince me to conclude that listening skills are at some sort of historical low, much less that the ability has been lost altogether. I feel just the opposite -- that they're at an all-time high, that our ability to listen is keener now than ever.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

But is it possible the interviewee was not engaging or compelling enough, that his answers to your questions were simply not particularly interesting or relevant?

 

In this case, I was very interested in what the interviewee had to say, but he is from Arkansas, and they don't seem to be in any hurry to get their words out. But it was me wanting to interview him, and not vice versa, so I should have anticipated that.

[pbbeck]

I was thinking about this topic today when I was reminded of the great George Carlin's bit on the "BS meter." Someone could make complete sense until they said that one thing that redlines the BS meter. "Ah ha! You're full of s--t!" In an off color and tangential way, this resonates with Scott's notion of "signaling" and PC communication.

 

RIght or wrong, I will admit that I employ the BS meter when listening to people talk. There are certain key phrases that signal to me that a speaker does not know whereof he speaks. The following phrases are a big tipoff:

 

"I think...," I feel...," and "I believe...."

Sorry. Tell me what you know, how you know it, and why it's important for me to understand it.

 

Overuse of the word society

As in, "well, I think society is to blame." College kids love to insert the word society into otherwise senseless statements to sound smarter. I have used the word several times in my previous post, but here we are actually discussing societal trends.

 

Overuse of the phrase "express myself/himself/herself"

I wonder if the founding fathers of our nation, or the great philosophers ever uttered the words "express myself." The assertion that an individual should be free to express himself relieves that individual of the burden of engaging in the meaningful exchange of thoughts and ideas. It's the equivalent of saying "my bad" as a modern substitute for saying "I'm sorry." One phrase has meaning, the other does not.

 

When I hear these phrases I am no longer interested in what the speaker is saying, because they have indicated that they are simply stringing together phrases that they have heard or read on a talk show, from a college professor, or in the so-called news. They are signaling, not communicating thoughtfully.

 

I know I sound snobbish, but I am being honest. We all somehow filter the information which enters our brains. It's unavoidable. Maybe this has something to do with why people appear to listen so poorly today. Could it be in defense against the constant bombardment of the Information Age?