Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Jordan Peterson: Conversation requires listening, not just talking
In '12 Rules For Life', Jordan Peterson shows why listening is the most important aspect of any conversation.
My education in journalism began with Bill Moyers. Watching his classic interview with Joseph Campbell—the transcript became Campbell’s posthumous bestseller, The Power of Myth—is as instructive as any college course. Moyers extensively studied the subject matter before chatting with the mythologist. Yet he also exhibited an essential quality of good conversation: listening.
Moyers is an exceptional example of good journalism. He prepared with dozens of questions, yet throughout the interview, he volleys based on Campbell’s remarks. Much of what passes for journalism today—e-mail interviews; straight Q&As with no diversion from the script; unprepared interviewers and their tell-tale sign: the first question is, “So tell me about yourself…”—is nothing more than a drive to fulfill our incessant need for content.
Campbell was a storyteller, as was Moyers, which made their discussion, and subsequent book, enjoyable and informative. As with journalism, much of what passes for a conversation today is nothing but monologuing. In his latest book, 12 Rules for Life, Canadian psychology professor and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson warns against this type of dialogue. Merely waiting for someone to finish a sentence to launch your own thoughts does not make for any sort of conversation at all.
Knowledge is key when you’re talking with someone else. Even banal subjects can morph into teaching moments. We organize our brains with conversation, Peterson notes, and not only by speaking. Listening is an art, which is why this particular rule is aptly titled, “Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.”
Peterson recommends approaching conversation as “a form of mutual exploration.” Such dialogue features a topic, one that is often complex and requires nuance to engage in. He continues,
Everyone participating is trying to solve a problem, instead of insisting on the a priori validity of their own positions. All are acting on the premise that they have something to learn. This kind of conversation constitutes active philosophy, the highest form of thought, and the best preparation for proper living.
Such advice likely sounds like a foreign language when contemplating social media. While technological connectivity is touted as an advancement of global culture, it also acts as a breeding ground for echo chambers. I’m uncertain how often I’ve experienced this with this column, readers commenting on the title without bothering to read the article, which often addresses their very critiques. Even online conversations can be educational, yet the ability to listen (i.e. read and contemplate before replying) seems even more foreign in this medium.
Peterson is a rare professor that has kept a clinical practice, which forces him to listen to others in two separate worlds. Many of his patients and students are likely not accustomed to being heard. Instead of rushing to judgment by offering immediate feedback, he must listen and think on his replies. Listening, he writes, is as challenging as thinking.
People think they think, but it’s not true. It’s mostly self-criticism that passes for thinking. True thinking is rare—just like true listening. Thinking is listening to yourself. It’s difficult. To think, you have to be at least two people at the same time. Then you have to let those people disagree.
Each view, he continues, is an “avatar in a simulated world.” The key is to simulate multiple worlds. A strong thinker, like a strong listener—the two are essentially the same—imagines and articulates their worlds to one another. Yet too often we cling to a particular viewpoint. We might hear opposing viewpoints, from others or within ourselves, but we’re not actually listening.
This is dangerous. It creates unnecessary suffering. Whereas complex topics could be worked out with patience and an open mind, they instead remain mysterious. Each avatar refuses to listen to competing avatars. Competition is heightened; collaboration is not entertained. You never scratch the surface because no trust is built. You never have the chance to open your arms because they’re too busy shielding incoming blows.
Peterson advocates for listening without premature judgment. Conversations are rarely boring with deep listening. There is every opportunity to learn something you didn’t know. Even the conflict that ensues with opposing viewpoints is teachable: you sharpen your own viewpoint while recognizing that your philosophy isn’t the only one in the world.
Peterson extends this advice to venues traditionally thought of as monologues, like lecturing. A good lecturer talks “with and not at or even to his or her listeners.” There is no singular audience, but a collection of individuals that need to be engaged with. Creating a connection is the biggest hurdle in public speaking. Rarely is it made when the speaker is talking at their audience.
In regards to listening, Peterson is a popular victim. (He also struggles to take his own advice.) Peterson is an important voice speaking out against radical factions on the Left and Right, both of which are confident that only their viewpoints matter. This is not true confidence, however, but rather a mask for insecurity. It’s impossible to conclude that you’re right when your ideology is the only one you’ve weighed.
There’s a reason why podcasts are a such a popular medium. We love good conversations. We love great monologues that make us feel included. We love debates pushing cultures forward. In every situation, speakers aim to learn even while educating their audience. This requires listening to your inner, conflicting avatars as much as to those of others. Peterson sums this up in the chapter’s most succinct sentence:
You can be pretty smart if you can just shut up.
Derek Beres is the author of Whole Motion and creator of Clarity: Anxiety Reduction for Optimal Health. Based in Los Angeles, he is working on a new book about spiritual consumerism. Stay in touch on Facebook and Twitter.
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work