Comments on: Solving emotions rather than solving problems.

By: Ballastexistenz » Blog Archive » I’m the monster you met on the Internet.

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 08:10:31 +0000

[…] But I have been meaning to write this entry for a couple weeks now, and the fact that I have just been called “harsh” again is just a catalyst and a good example of what I mean. The post itself has been forming itself in my head for far longer. I have previously covered various aspects of this topic in On the “angry” nature of my writing, Solving emotions rather than solving problems, and Sordid, anyone? […]

By: scap64

scap64 — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:02:00 +0000

When used by official figures, such responses are designed to evade admission of a wrongdoing/existence of a problem, and to imply that the only problem is in the complainant’s head/perception.

In such situations, “I hear you” is not a true validation, but merely a classic example of a “non-committal statement”.

By: scap64

scap64 — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:56:00 +0000

This post has been removed by the author.

By: Lisa Jean Collins

Lisa Jean Collins — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:55:00 +0000

I thought “I hear you” or “I’m hearing you saying…” was psychology lingo designed to convey validation to the other person. Validation means either that you believe the other’s point is valid (even if you disagree)or their right to make the point is valid, even if the point is not (meaning you disagree). It’s a way of not alienating you after you have spoken your mind about something, but it automatically sets up a hierarchy between the person with the complaint and the person listening to the complaint, because the person listening gets to (assumes the power to) validate the person complaining even if that validation was not asked for.

When I read “I hear you” I immediately see Dr. Phil standing before a panel of people with conflicting problems. So “I hear you” is also a signal that there is going to be some kind of diplomacy and compromise that is going to take place so that everyone wins. It is not usually a signal that someone is definitely wrong and someone else is definitely being victimized or wronged.

So in the case cited here, the “hearing” lingo seems totally inappropriate.

By: Ettina

Ettina — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:02:00 +0000

Some people use “I hear you” in a manner of “I don’t want you to feel ignored but I’m not actually listening.” And others use it as “I agree with you.” And others use it as “I’m listening, and I may or may not agree, but I haven’t decided yet.”
I hate when someone provides a response, usually involving “hearing me”, which slips out of responsibility for something. I got such a letter from Lenny Schafer when I asked him to define autism and Asperger Syndrome. He responded that he wasn’t qualified to, that he just followed the DSM. I responded that he had said certain people were or weren’t autistic in ways that didn’t follow the DSM. I wish I’d thought to save my response. I still haven’t got a response from him about that.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:30:00 +0000

After further thought, I should add that the phrase “I hear you” is sometimes functional, in that it can be synonymous with “I am now processing what you said, but I don’t have a substantive response yet”. But just the fact that it is ambiguous makes it problematic, because it is unclear.

By: ballastexistenz

ballastexistenz — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:12:00 +0000

Yes! Exactly, with the “seeming to provide a response” thing.

Non-responses (or worse, anti-responses) disguised as responses are one of my communication pet peeves.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:31:00 +0000

Yes, the “feeling” language is belittling, and is a way of avoiding granting you full status as a person.

I also dislike the “being heard” phrase, although I admit I am guilty of having used it myself in the past. IMO, it is also a type of avoidance, in the sense of *seeming* to provide a response without really providing one at all.