h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello new page. We are talking about relationships, and the difficulties encountered by intellectual people when they start to find their own thoughts more interesting than the words of another person they have been trying to take in interest in.

One way to counter the "drifting away" syndrome is to pay minutely close attention to the accent or other speech peculiarities of the speaker. This can keep you endlessly amused, and incidentally your attention is visible and appreciated, and you actually never miss a word. Listen like an actor whose next job is to impersonate the speaker.

Very good, Recumbentman! That gives me a lot to do, incidently, because I recently moved to the south-east of Germany, and people speak slightly *understatement* different than in the west. The menues in cafés already provided for several conversation topics, as I didn't have a clue what was ment by the names of the foods.

Consider this, when in such situations as described: I think of the person in their own movie and I try to re-wind the tape to when they first got an inkling that their lives weren't going as well as expected. What did they say, do, or did they just prattle on as they are doing now?

You look like a promising counsellor, Ridge57. What are your rates, and how do I get to you?

I'm his agent. I get 10% of everything... except the problems.

Didn't you know? The agent gets all the problems.

I think that if you are in a situation or conversation that you find uninspiring, maybe you could try and get a view of the other virtues this person has (as in Aristotle's). That may make you more genuinely interested in them as a person, and gain an understanding of why they behave in the way they do. It could also be a good idea to try and turn a superficial conversation into something more substantial that you have an interest in. As philosophers, I think all things in the world should take our interest.

True, but the odd trick helps!

But are we justified in pretending to be interested when we actually aren't. Isn't that a form of lying (or at the least mispropriety) which philosophers such as Kant frown upon?

Recently I was talking to someone about social welfare and the common good. I was confronted with a series of cliches concerning the poor and their inability to embrace self responsibility and recycled anecdotes about how illegal immigrants have better health care than citizens. I tried to explain the concept of the straw man fallacy, but was told, "there you go again with that failed liberal thinking."
What is stunning is not the prejudices or the lack of a grasp on what a group of liberals wrote that became the nation's document of law and government. What dumbfounds me is that no matter what facts could be brought to this person's attention he would have to change in what he believes and how he reasons.
So I ask, where first does the dishonesty occur? I could debate intelligent design to evolution, but sloppy thinking would have a therory be any idea that seems right to an individual.

Self-justification has a long and ignoble history. There really is no arguing with some practitioners, any more than with drunks.

About atention-holding tricks, I see no harm or even deception in them at all. Sometimes it is worth tricking yourself. To draw a good likeness of a face, you have also to look at it "not as a face".

Too true.

If someone else just concentrated on your mannerisms when you were speaking on something you believed greatly (or had a passion for), wouldn't you be annoyed? I think I would be.

The thing is, can you see them concentrating on your mannerisms? If they really do it right, it is identical to concentrating on your message.

Not if I'm saying things that I believe are of great importance. I don't think hearing is the same thing as listening.

But think of listening to music. Are you listening to the greatness less if you pay close attention also to the tone quality, the rhythmic attack, the balance of parts? Are these not the "accent" of the performing group, and isn't that essential to the musical experience?

I know it's wrong to shoot the messenger if you don't like the news, but it's also wrong to ignore the delivery.

But presumably when you're being listened to, you don't want an aesthetic response as much as an intellectual one. It's all very well if what you seek to achieve is to "sound pleasant", but if you actually want to mean something, you would rather someone actually concentrate on the content rather than the sound.

This is precisely the question: is the message necessarily something distinct from the delivery?

If yes, you are inevitably going to be bored by something that you already have an opinion about, if you hear nothing new in the message.

But if no, then paying attention to the delivery is precisely a way of allowing yourself to hear something new, even when you are programmed (by habit) to expect that you will not hear something new.

So the attention trick is good for you as well as good for the speaker. Do it!

Most of my conversations, believe it or beleive it not, are not philosophical. Sometimes someone needs just to talk. My mummy-in-law will keep me on the phone relentlessly for an hour or more given the chance. Tricks to pass the time until she runs out of steam are wonderful.

I also have to be careful when ending the conversation to back carefully away from it without saying anything like "Did they?" or "Did you?" or any of the other techniques a good listener will use. These indications of interest cause her to regain pace and John Donne's hour glass is turned over for another session.

Well, no, delivery is part of the message, as it indicates what the content being conveyed is. When we listen, we should either just say in a "nice" way that we are not interested in the discussion, or listen to what is being said politely. I still think to do anything else consciously is disingenuous.