We also anticipate/predict the point the speaker is trying to make before they finish their thought. It this same phenomenon in catching a ball. As soon as the ball is thrown we calculate where it is headed and starting moving into position.
These are 2 reasons why people struggle to be patient listeners.
Indeed…this is a great contribution, Bob. I appreciate your emphasis on anticipation in listening because it has firmer empirical grounding than the endlessly recycled claim that communication is 7% words, 38% tone, and 55% body language.
Mehrabian’s research concerned how people interpreted feelings and attitudes when words, vocal tone, and facial expressions conflicted.
Those percentages were never a universal formula for communication. Teaching them in that way turned a narrow finding into a sweeping misconception
Your observation that we anticipate what comes next is well-supported by language research.
The practical challenge is recognizing when our prediction has started substituting for the person’s actual meaning.
I’d personally prefer to further qualify the exact speaking and listening speeds, since comprehension varies with the listener, material, and conditions.
But your emphasis on how we listen offers a much more useful starting point.
People talk at about 150 words/minute.
People can easily listen at 300 words/minute.
We also anticipate/predict the point the speaker is trying to make before they finish their thought. It this same phenomenon in catching a ball. As soon as the ball is thrown we calculate where it is headed and starting moving into position.
These are 2 reasons why people struggle to be patient listeners.
I post regularly on Substack about listening.
This is an excellent addition. Thanks Bob! Love the ball analogy.
Indeed…this is a great contribution, Bob. I appreciate your emphasis on anticipation in listening because it has firmer empirical grounding than the endlessly recycled claim that communication is 7% words, 38% tone, and 55% body language.
Mehrabian’s research concerned how people interpreted feelings and attitudes when words, vocal tone, and facial expressions conflicted.
Those percentages were never a universal formula for communication. Teaching them in that way turned a narrow finding into a sweeping misconception
Your observation that we anticipate what comes next is well-supported by language research.
The practical challenge is recognizing when our prediction has started substituting for the person’s actual meaning.
I’d personally prefer to further qualify the exact speaking and listening speeds, since comprehension varies with the listener, material, and conditions.
But your emphasis on how we listen offers a much more useful starting point.
I really appreciate your informed reply. Thanks.
I don’t think it’s the silence, bro. It’s the intense gaze 🫡