↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

The myth of listening and good atmosphere

To the question 'What conditions must be met to produce serious reasoning?', we explained the four phases of problem-solving, i.e., of making a serious decision:
1. Recognize the problem.
2. Conduct a serious analysis.
3. Develop a solution, often partial.
4. Implement it.

Here is now how to make arbitrary decisions, while saving yourself all the cognitive effort of the analysis phase, while still appearing likeable:
1. Have the other person describe the situation, show interest in their description, ask questions, but above all seek to create a good atmosphere, so do not point out any inconsistencies, approximations, beliefs, etc.
2. State the solution you have chosen, without any justification.

The principle is as follows: it is the time spent on empathetic listening that creates in the other person a feeling of goodwill, even if it leads to a sloppy decision.

At the stage of presenting the chosen solution, one can also use various artifices to mask the final resort to an authoritarian approach:
We will... even though it is actually the other person who will.
I suggest to you... and as if you mess up, I will make it clear that you did not listen to me, instead of supporting you, in practice I put pressure on you.
I would like to, but the rule is... I will brutally apply the conventional solution, without even making the effort to evaluate to what extent it was adapted to the present case, nor taking the risk of opposing the absurd or the unjust.
...

Empathetic listening elevated as a life strategy

Empathetic listening is so effective that it becomes the dominant mode of relating to others for some individuals. When they meet us, they ask about us, show interest, encourage us to speak, and do not speak themselves. They simply accumulate trust capital, which they will use when the time comes.
This way of approaching others is also very effective for playing the game of alliances, due to the sympathy capital it creates.

What is useful listening?

Useful and genuinely benevolent listening is a reinterpretation of the other person's reasoning at the moment they are trying to solve a problem concerning them. This listening aims to point out inconsistencies, gaps in their reasoning, and to suggest new lines of reflection. It is simply making available to the other person their own cognitive capacities and experience.

Becoming addicted to a good atmosphere

Solving problems requires temporarily stepping out of one's mental comfort zone, to 'seek out problems' in the literal sense. The associated exchange is therefore inherently uncomfortable.
If one does not accept this, if one demands a good atmosphere as a prerequisite and necessary condition for a satisfactory exchange, then one does not solve problems, which accumulate, make us more and more stressed, hence more and more addicted to a good atmosphere to compensate for this stress, hence less and less effective at actually solving problems, which continue to accumulate. It is a vicious circle.
Constructive good atmosphere takes more the form of: it was hard, we worked well, now let's enjoy ourselves. See the paragraph 'Alternative Recommendations' in the question 'How to succeed in life?'.

Going deeper

See the associated question 'In what way are benevolence and tolerance traps?'.

At the level of motivations, see the following question 'Not judging'.
At the level of technique, see the question 'What conditions must be met to produce serious reasoning? Problem-solving.' which describes the methodological framework of the mental problem-solving process in which useful listening must be exercised.
Also see chapter 9 'The problem journal' in the book From capital to reason which describes a social framework aimed at favoring the practical implementation of this problem-solving process.
Ultimately, if informal exchange remains the most pleasant, because the smoothest, it is also the most difficult to implement, the one that most easily goes off track, so it is preferable to return to a structured exchange, both at the methodological and social level, whenever one observes that one is not advancing satisfactorily in problem-solving.