For example, if I (speaker) am giving you (listener) instructions, it's good for you to paraphrase. That shows me how you are interpreting my language and that allows me to clarify. Mirroring doesn't allow for this because no new information is provided:
- Speaker: Could you sort all the files and destroy duplicates?
- Listener: You want me to put the files in alphabetical order and throw them out.
- Speaker: Yes, but by destroy I meant shred.
But there are cases where it's more important for the speaker to be understood. Perhaps they are feeling hard emotions and need to be heard, or (and I think this is the real use case for mirroring) when the speaker is still working through their feelings or thoughts on a subject. They are using speech, in a sense, to think.
- Speaker: I think it's bizarre that the PM wants to push this along so quickly.
- Listener: You think it's bizarre that the PM wants to push this along so quickly?
- Speaker: Well... not bizarre. It's just surprising because there is no external deadline for this work.
Here mirroring gives the speaker an opportunity to see how their words sound coming back to them and it gives them an opportunity to clarify and add.
Oh yes, indeed they are. I never truly understood why some people close to me would just dump random issues at me, repeatedly, and actively refuse any attempt at guiding the conversation towards a possible solution. I knew I was supposed to handle it by emphasizing and letting them vent out, but I never could quite understand the frame of mind that goes behind this talking to vent out...
...until recently, during one of such conversations, hearing about the same problem for the 10th time this month, it clicked: I realized that they're doing the exact same thing I do with "brain dump" text files - up to the same phrasing, and "melody" of speech. Those people are just unloading their train of thought to sort it out, and the listener's role is just to be there and pay attention.
(I say "those people" not as a negative, but only because I'm not like that; I think I've lost the ability to use talking to think when I learned to use a text editor for that purpose.)
I think it works because writing (or talking) engages different parts of the brain than thinking.
If the issue is emotional or unresolved, it will fester.
If it's resolved, blame has been assigned.
It's how you are treated that may or may not make it worthwhile.
That's key and is what your first example illustrates.
Your second example sounds more like questioning the speaker.
He weaponized paraphrasing.
A reporter would ask "Have you contacted the tribal chiefs, to work out a plan?"
He would respond with "Have I given the enemy our strategic planning brief? Lord, no!"
Followed by:
> Paraphrasing minimizes misunderstandings. At the end of a conversation, you and the speaker will leave with the same interpretation, which will reduce the need for a follow-up.
"Accurately repeat" vs "Paraphrasing" – quite the contradiction there.
I'm really not a fan of paraphrasing. It shifts the burden on your counterpart to understand you accurately, and it can be annoying, even destructive of a train of thought. Practice accurate quoting and non-leading questions instead! To take this to an interesting extreme, check out Clean Language [1], a style of questioning that make it as hard as possible to insert assumptions into your questions. A blog post of mine 'My favourite Clan Language question' [2] helps explain its relevance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_language [2] https://blog.agendashift.com/2019/01/18/my-favourite-clean-l...
Restating, summarizing, or paraphrasing, shows that I understand sufficiently that I can describe it in my own words rather than memorization.
Day in and day out I find that my team members who accurately repeat a statement of problem or solution, may not have a clue what it actually is. Only by asking them to summarize or paraphrase, do we both discover that there's a lack of actual, internalized understanding.
(in negotiations, discussions or conflict, it's also an opportunity to focus and agree on key points; accurately repeating may include any percentage of stylistic content)
>Restating, summarizing, or paraphrasing, shows that I understand sufficiently that I can describe it in my own words rather than memorization.
That's absolutely correct. Restating the concept(s) presented definitely provides confirmation that they have been heard and understood[0].
I'd only add that doing so may also alert the other party to a lack of understanding, requiring further discussion, which is arguably as or more useful than just assuming you are understood.
[0] See what I did there? :)
If nothing else, paraphrasing helps you disambiguate term you didn't consciously recognize as ambiguous.
Maybe the other party should have used less ambiguous terms, but "well the other person caused the problem with their language choice" solves the blame, not the problem.
And then we have the non-verbal world, like internet forums where tremendous amounts of interpersonal communication (and misunderstanding, leading to social disharmony) take place millions (billions?) of times per day...how well does this idea realistically transfer to that medium?
Resolving misunderstandings on the internet is a good question -- it should be easier given that folks can usually edit what they want to say before publishing, and readers can read and re-read what's written. The __intent to understand__ seems to be the key thing in resolving misunderstandings here, both in online and in verbal communication
Intent to understand is but one of many possible points of failure. The world is infinitely complex, but our minds have this nice feature where they hide the vast majority of that complexity from us. The problem is though, the simplification process is vastly different for each person, not to mention they are not working from the same set of data.
So when an internet discussion takes place, particularly on special topics like politics, the odds of each person considering the topic from the same perspective (with the same desired outcomes, etc) is very low. Add on top of that the fact that most people seem to lack realtime awareness of the simplification process running in their heads, leaving each participant in the discussion with the false impression that they are talking about the(!) facts(!), when the reality is very different.
Situations like this is where some variation of the recommended approach in TFA could perhaps come in handy, but people seem to be not terribly fond of speaking precisely and accurately, especially when it comes to politics.
>
> Me: I see, so you want me to………sorry, could you repeat that?
>
> Teammate: Would you mind sending over this quarter’s product roadmap?
>
> Me: You want me to send over this quarter’s product roadmap. Yes, will do!
If I heard this exchange out of context I would sincerely assume it was between a human and a digital assistant circa 2015.
https://smallbigideas.substack.com/p/understanding-bandwidth...
I highly recommend this book to everyone. It's a little cheesy at times and reads like a self-help book, but the content is insightful and applicable everywhere.
If I'm struggling to communicate something, the best approach is to listen carefully, paraphrase every point, and focus on what _they_ have to say first. I can't add to someone's knowledge if I don't know what's already there.
If I'm trying to understand something, it's often a good approach to take charge of the interaction, and actively 'assemble' the knowledge in my head. I can't add to my own knowledge without connecting it to what's already there.
I also find these things are nearly impossible to do well on the internet...
You mean, no more misunderstandings by parroting the when, why and how?
Just kidding - though I will say this type of behavior can sometimes fall somewhere between "Tricks to Sound Smarter at Meetings" and "what gives people feelings of power", so don't misuse it or misconstrue it being used on you as solely a positive force for understanding.
Two big takeaways (see? paraphrasing!):
Your tone should convey the desire to clarify and understand what the speaker said. If you don't have this desire, don't fake it.
“Studies in labor-management negotiations demonstrate that the time required to reach conflict resolution is cut in half when each negotiator agrees, before responding, to accurately repeat what the previous speaker had said.” - Marshall B. Rosenberg in Nonviolent Communication.
My tldr Paraphrasing saves time, which people value more than money.
