The author here seems to be using "paraphrase" to mean mean both "mirroring" (repeat back using speaker's words) and "paraphrasing" (repeat back using listener's words). I think there are contexts when each is appropriate.<p>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:<p>- Speaker: Could you sort all the files and destroy duplicates?<p>- Listener: You want me to put the files in alphabetical order and throw them out.<p>- Speaker: Yes, but by destroy I meant shred.<p>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.<p>- Speaker: I think it's bizarre that the PM wants to push this along so quickly.<p>- Listener: You think it's bizarre that the PM wants to push this along so quickly?<p>- Speaker: Well... not bizarre. It's just surprising because there is no external deadline for this work.<p>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.
Anyone remember Donald Rumsfeld's style?<p>He weaponized paraphrasing.<p>A reporter would ask "Have you contacted the tribal chiefs, to work out a plan?"<p>He would respond with "Have I given the enemy our strategic planning brief? Lord, no!"
> “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.<p>Followed by:<p>> 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.<p>"Accurately repeat" vs "Paraphrasing" – quite the contradiction there.<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_language" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_language</a>
[2] <a href="https://blog.agendashift.com/2019/01/18/my-favourite-clean-language-question/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.agendashift.com/2019/01/18/my-favourite-clean-l...</a>
I know the examples in the article are just for illustration, but man that would get annoying pretty fast - common sense scaling back would make it better, but then once again, is everyone on the same page then?<p>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 <i>realistically</i> transfer to that medium?
This is something Marshall B. Rosenberg talks about a lot in his book Nonviolent Communication (the article even contains a quote as another commenter has pointed out).<p>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.
Some of the biggest lessons I learned about communicating are to flip the interaction, which paraphrasing does well.<p>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.<p>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.<p>I also find these things are nearly impossible to do well on the internet...
@vsri, yes, exactly! Paraphrasing is stating your interpretation of what you've heard and mirroring is reflecting back exactly what the speaker said. I didn't break down the two interpretations in this post to keep it simple, but from what I've learned and read, mirroring is especially useful in more vulnerable / emotional conversations. You want to help the speaker feel seen as they are, without placing any judgment on them (and your interpretation is a form of judgment of what they're saying). Paraphrasing helps in making the speaker feel heard, but it's more useful in driving clarity.
Can someone give me a TLDR?<p>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.<p>Two big takeaways (see? paraphrasing!):<p>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.<p>“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.<p>My tldr Paraphrasing saves time, which people value more than money.