Someone begins a sentence, and we already know where it is going. They are the one who always doubts. The one who needs attention. The one who will never change their mind anyway.
Perhaps we know them well. It is also possible that we are listening more closely to our memory of them than to the person in front of us.
I am interested in how much our understanding is limited by having already decided what someone is like. We do not necessarily stop listening. We listen selectively, looking for the familiar story in their words and passing over what does not fit.
An observation and an interpretation are different things
‘They resist change’ can easily sound like an observation. Yet it is already an interpretation. An observation might be that they asked about the timetable, pointed out missing information or said nothing in a meeting.
The same action can have many explanations. A question may express resistance, but it may also be an attempt to understand. Silence may reflect indifference, but also thoughtfulness, uncertainty or a conversation in which there has not yet been room to speak. We cannot settle the matter simply by choosing the explanation we prefer.
We need the other person’s help to check our interpretation.
For me, this is the most demanding part of listening. I am not asking only to add detail to what I already believe I know. I am asking in a way that allows the answer to change my understanding.
A familiar person needs room to change
A long shared history can help us notice things a stranger would miss. But history can also hold someone in place. When a person tries to act differently, we may read even the new action through the old story.
Someone who used to be quiet speaks up, and we consider them difficult. Someone who used to be certain hesitates, and we think they are losing their grip. Someone who used to agree to everything says no, and we wonder why they have become selfish.
What if they are practising something important? Expressing their own view, tolerating uncertainty or recognising their limits? If we allow others only the behaviour that fits our earlier picture, there is very little room left for them to change.
Understanding does not require accepting everything
Listening to someone does not mean abandoning our observations or accepting any kind of behaviour. We can uphold agreements and be clear about what is unacceptable. At the same time, we can be careful about how much we claim to know about another person’s motives.
There is a difference between saying ‘the agreed task was not done’ and ‘you can never be trusted’. The first opens a conversation about what happened and what needs to happen next. The second defines a whole person.
Perhaps a good question does not always need to be complicated. It might be: what am I not yet understanding here? Followed by a more difficult question: am I willing to hear an answer that does not support my interpretation?
We do not need to meet familiar people every day as if they were complete strangers. But perhaps even within familiarity, we could leave a small space open. A place for something about them that we do not yet know.
A surprising amount of a person can fit into that space.
