Similar I read a line a year or so ago (can’t remember where) that really stuck with me:

All anyone ever really says is “I love you” or “help me”.

I try remember this whenever I am frustrated with what someone is saying to me. You can’t always help them, and sometimes it’s hard to love them, but you can reframe where they are coming at as being from them not about you, and with that resist arguing and feeling insulted or threatened.

This is definitely an important thing that more people, especially tech people, should keep in mind. However, this doesn't really apply in all situations, and I actually disagree about the example which you give.

When someone shares a problem with you, you may want to ask yourself two questions to evaluate whether you should give advice: 1. Can you suggest any action that the other person wouldn't already have taken if it were feasible? This isn't necessarily limited to you being a subject matter expert, it also includes situations where personal or interpersonal factors are at play: for example, when the person you're talking to is very shy or reluctant to formulate clear demands, empowering them to talk to their manager can be very beneficial. On the other hand, if they already are a person who feels very comfortable with meetings and social situations, they will likely already have considered the option and decided that it won't help, so you're adding nothing useful. 2. Is the problem at hand highly emotional, or is there something else suggesting that solving it right now is crass? For example, if your coworker told you that the family dog died, she's probably not looking for advice on funeral arrangements.

So, what it comes down to in the end is considering the context. Some people might be very happy to receive advice, and might be very thankful in the long run if you encourage them to talk to their manager about a career step they have been meaning to take. Even then, of course, compassion is never misplaced, and people will always be thankful if you show understanding for how the problem troubles them emotionally as well. If you want to encourage a shy person to have a conversation, you shouldn't pressure them. And so on.

I agree with your points, but the OP was specifically asking for tip on building empathy and becoming a better listener. Software types like me are problem solvers, and to us, problems exist to be solved. It took me many years (and my late Wife's great help) to understand that not every complaint was a request for a solution.

So I stick by my initial suggestion, until at least the person trying to learn listening skills feels that they are making progress.

Is that even true? I seriously can't relate. What is the point of "being heard"? And I don't think people would usually ask directly "can you suggest what I should do about this", they would consider it too demanding and perhaps they don't even know who could help them.

Well I cannot say whether or not it is true, but it certainly is for me. There is a lot of point to "being heard". Here is a short essay on giving advice that you may find interesting:

https://tinybuddha.com/blog/10-tips-advise-wisely-how-to-giv...

Here is a section from that page: ----

2. Give them a rant window.

Oftentimes when people ask for advice, what they really want is to rehash something they can’t get off their mind—something they’ve probably talked about repeatedly to lots of different people (maybe even anyone who’d listen).

The best way to be a friend is to enable both what they want to do and what they need to do. Want: tell the story repeatedly, as if they can change how they feel if they just talk about it enough. Need: work through it and let it go. Tell them you’re there to listen to everything they need to say. Once they’ve gotten all out, you’d love to help them move on.

I remember from Chris Voss Masterclass about Negotiation (which I unfortunately did not really finish), that he simply repeated what the other person said, with a questioning tone. Like if they say "I feel tired", he would say "you feel tired?" and so on. And I think he would sometimes interpret what the other person said to frame their personality for them (I think he called that "labelling"). Like say some terrorists takes hostages to pressure to USA to stop using oil, he could say "it sounds like you are really concerned about climate change and the well being of people" - completely made up and he would do it better, but that way, he could make that person think of themselves as a caring person who is worried about people rather than as a terrorist who is prepared to shoot hostages to get their way.

I can relate to that, sort of, I just don't think one should be supposed to fake feeling sorry or other emotions.

>I can relate to that, sort of, I just don't think one should be supposed to fake feeling sorry or other emotions.

No one is suggesting that. if it's fake, it's not going to work. You need to actively take an interest in what the other person is saying.

Look at what you're describing. It's an algorithm for appearing interested, without any of the actual interest. Your goal here is purely your appearance to the other person.

And it can work. But the follow-up question is: what is your goal?

If your goal is only to get what you want, there are much more effective ways than this sort of insincerity.

If your goal is to have a meaningful reaction with the other person, there is no substitute for mindful presence.

If you're not actually interested in what the other person is saying, examine your won mind for why that is, and decide whether you need to make a change.

But the most important thing is to forget about how you're appearing to the other person. By definition, it removes the authenticity from your interaction.

Now that can be problematic, for a number of reasons. I'm someone who's authentic self has been rejected by many people I've met in life. The temptation is to try to work on how I'm 'appearing' in order to avoid that rejection. But it doesn't work that way.

It turns out I needed to find more compatible people, instead of expecting to be compatible with everyone.

Voss' "radical empathy" is not faking emotions. It's a communication technique.

Choose to drop your preconceptions. Hear what the other person is really saying. Increase likelihood of a successful negotiation.

I've dealt with this, my family was very providing so if you hinted at some problem they'd try to solve it. But I might just be shooting the shit, if I complain about the weather I'm just observing the hassles of everyday life. I've had to work on not repeating this mistake

Reminds me of this line from Stallman's rider: https://github.com/ddol/rre-rms/blob/fb39b3d0bc29805519a57ca...

When you start proposing solutions you're essentially assuming lots of information. Then you enter into an argument to clarify those assumptions. Continue listening & maybe relate, it depends, there's no real script, but when you propose a problem there's an implicit implication that it's simple, when it probably isn't, the person has probably thought about it more than you have in the last ten seconds, so if it were so simple they'd've dealt with it already. Not to say never offer advice, but try get a read on whether advice is being asked for. Seek to increase information rather than make assertions

edit: full disclosure, I struggle with being empathetic, so ymmv etc

For many people, being head validates their experiences. It’s reassuring to be accepted by another person.

That is good advice though saying "I am sorry to hear that", seems a little shallow.

I think I solutionize cause I care or maybe I just like problem solving. Though coming up with an answer instantly belittles their problem.

What you're hitting on is the difference between sympathy and empathy. Both have a role in helping people.

"I'm sorry to hear that" = sympathy

"It sounds like you're exhausted by that." = empathy

Notice the noun in those sentences: first one is you, second one is them.

What matters is what we say after those, too. There's a big difference between, "It sounds like you're exhausted that. [Solution proposal]" and "It sounds like you're exhausted by that. [Pause, wait for them to expound]"

Proposing solutions can have a role, and is a form of caring. But only if we get permission for it first, and do so in a rubber-duck way (ex "what have you already tried to fix that?")

>> What matters is what we say after those, too. There's a big difference between, "It sounds like you're exhausted that. [Solution proposal]" and "It sounds like you're exhausted by that. [Pause, wait for them to expound]"

Really glad you brought up this point too. It comes off as extremely condescending if you don’t fully give someone space to express themselves. Simple follow up questions can be useful to help them develop their thoughts further, but firing back a solution instantly against something they may have put a great deal of thought into isn’t the right thing to do.

I like that you went with "It sounds like you're exhausted by that" instead of "Wow, that would make me exhausted too".

Because the 2nd one sets a totally different tone which might be seen as you wanting to stop talking about them and now it's your turn to guide the conversation and make it about you. It's also making a pretty big assumption about them being exhausted in which case you might drop the "too" to get rid of that assumption but you're still trying to sound like you're shifting things to be about you instead of them.

What if I don't think the person is "exhausted by that", but displays some other psychological issue, like blaming other people for their problems? Wouldn't that also be emphatic?

I give that example because it is common for people to bond via complaining about stuff (like their bosses), which I think is a bad habit that leads to negative outcomes.

And why are the people who just want to hear "I'm sorry" in the right, and not the people who want to find solutions? Why do the people who don't want solutions get to make the rules?

> And why are the people who just want to hear "I'm sorry" in the right, and not the people who want to find solutions? Why do the people who don't want solutions get to make the rules?

it's a set of tools, not a set of moral imperatives. worrying about which conversation style is "correct" is not a practical way to approach social interactions.

unless the person is a close friend or their behavior is harming you somehow, just keep the negative feedback to yourself. just tell them your best guess at what they want to hear and move on.

The main difference[1] between sympathy and empathy is that sympathy means actually sharing the emotional experience, whereas empathy merely means understanding someone is having an emotional experience. A sociopath devoid of sympathy could be highly empathetic and they often are, because it aids emotional manipulation.

For example something like "you clearly feel unappreciated, but I don't care so stop telling me about it" is empathetic. This leaves me wondering why exactly there is such an obviously submarined push for empathy in the software industry. Is the idea to get unsympathetic persons to learn enough empathy to convincingly feign sympathy? If so, what outcome is that dishonesty meant to achieve?

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sympathy-empat...

Also, proposing solutions is distinct from suggesting ways to search for solutions. Confusing those explains most of the sentiment that solutions belittle someone.

Careful though - "It sounds like you're exhausted by that" can also come off as sounding quite patronising.

Absolutely - tone of voice matters a lot.

Perhaps “that sounds exhausting”, so that you are communicating that you too would be exhausted by that.

Would ” That sucks, have you tried doing something about it?” be good? As in, use the socratic method to help them come up with a solution.

The Socratic method is very good at problem solving, but when it comes to interpersonal communication it often comes across as aggressive and condescending. If you're going to use it, make sure it's in a purely problem-solving context, and that the other person is aware of what you're doing and has some degree of familiarity with you so that they don't assume the worst.

I am learning empathy myself and I think this would imply that they are being lazy and could come across as condescending. “That’s too bad, if I had that problem I would do something about it.”

I was just thinking about this I think you're right. Such small differences in phrasing can have a big difference.

I think a great response would be "That sucks, do you THINK if you spoke to them something would change?" Rather than "have you tried to speak to them?"

The first is a question, that will prompt them to think and then maybe act. The second is a question that is a little accusatory (you should have already spoken to them about it)

Conversation is hard!

"That sucks" may be intended as empathetic, but usually comes off as callous.

You might try the combination of [name the feeling] + [broad question], like:

"That sounds frustrating. What have you tried to solve that?"

or ismply stating the feeling and letting them move towards solution ideas after their feeling has been established, like:

"It sounds like this is taking a lot of energy from you."

(wait, let them reply)

"Can you tell me what you're working through to try to fix this?"

That may fit professional relationships, but close informal relationships demand more-intimate problem solving. That doesn't always mean suggesting obvious things, but thinking a problem through aloud can help.

Plus, friends don't always know exactly how they can help. Airing laments can collect solutions without having to catalog each others' resources and limitations or trespassing on power structures, like in a workplace.