Julie, Thomas, Thank you for such wonderful comme...

2011-05-18T16:28:55.682+05:30

Julie, Thomas,

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

Hi Prem, Julie has a number of good points. I jus...

2011-05-18T08:08:16.893+05:30

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

Hi Prem, It will be interesting to see where you ...

2011-05-09T20:40:04.638+05:30

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

Comments on SFH Blog: Listening vs Hearing: Its not mere semantics

Julie, Thomas, Thank you for such wonderful comme...

Hi Prem, Julie has a number of good points. I jus...

Hi Prem, It will be interesting to see where you ...