Monday, May 09, 2011

Listening vs Hearing: Its not mere semantics

Hope the deck is self explanatory. It contains only a few very simple aspects I wanted to highlight, the nuances are far more varied.
P.S.: Please forgive me for the title of slide 4. If you can suggest me a more appropriate title, I would be grateful & update the deck with full credits to you. :)

P.P.S: Mitch had a blog post with some lively discussions long ago about this same topic, be sure to read it here: http://mjayliebs.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/social-hearing-versus-social-listening-there-is-a-difference/

3 comments:

  1. Hi Prem,
    It will be interesting to see where you go with the processs of developing this view of listening.

    Just a couple of comments:
    Somehow the slides seem empty of an important component: humans. Humans are needed to listen to humans, with or without the aid of tech tools and processes. Understanding is usually an important part of listening, which frequently has a distinct subjective aspect to it. Context and other qualitative factors of listening also tie back to the human experience. In this sense humans could be called filters, but it is good to remember that listening is a mostly human activity.

    The notion of listening implying action as overt evidence of *being heard and understood* is a good concept but is not universal. Not all messages that are heard and understood require overt actions - it is not always possible or even appropriate. (this thinking is coming out of reading the post by Mitch).

    For slide 4, perhaps working with terms like *interaction* or *engagement* might take the title into a more satisfactory direction.

    Cheers,
    Julie
    @juliebhunt

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Prem,

    Julie has a number of good points. I just would like to add a smaller one: Measurement and analysis is not enough to make listening from hearing in this context; with this you gain learnings. So far, so good. These learnings are only good for if acted upon.

    cheers
    Thomas
    @twieberneit

    ReplyDelete
  3. Julie, Thomas,

    Thank you for such wonderful comments. What was implied has been made explicit now for my readers. :)

    ReplyDelete