Has anyone else noticed that "listen" is often used as a synonym for "obey"?

that from now on. It does make sense.

enlist

it makes perfect sense in just about every case I recall. It's a very subtle manipulation.

We've all had productive disagreements with people, and plenty more frustrating experiences when you may as well be speaking to a brick wall. It depends on what you expect to get out of the communication, I suppose - that goes for both communicating and listening/reacting.

Listening implies that person is at least trying to understand where you're coming from - or at least that's how it should be. But you're right, too many people communicate (talk and listen) with a "my way or the highway" type of agenda.

When I ask someone to listen, I'm asking them to hear me and acknowledge what Im saying. Not obey me.

In that the speaker really does think the person they're describing doesn't understand, whereas people who say they want to be listened to usually actually want something else too.

When I'm having a debate/discussion with someone and they tell me "No you don't understand what I'm saying..." Actually, I understand perfectly what you're saying; I just disagree with you. It's incredibly patronizing.

from a major, international, electronic device corporation...

When someone tells you something, repeat back to them what they just said to you.

They will say about you, "this person really listened to me."

I know, I know, it sounds redundant. I personally do not need to hear a recap of what I just said to someone to make me believe that they listened to what I just said. However, there is a surprisingly large percentage of the population who need you to repeat back to them what they had just said before they acknowledge that you "listened to them".

Edit to add:

This is good advice for anyone who deals with people who just won't stop complaining no matter how much you help them. Oh yeah, that's another thing-- after you have repeated back what they said to you (their complaint or request or whatever) and you went ahead and did something, MAKE SURE TO TELL THEM what you did in order to solve their issue, possibly two times for good measure, and also repeat back to them the entire scenario about why they called to complain, what you did to solve their issue, and is there anything else? About 15% to 20% of the population needs that much verbal response from the listener before they believe that you actually listened to what they had to say.

the ideal response to a request you don't intend to obey is to acknowledge the request first before then explaining why you disagree or refuse to obey.

this breaks up the "listen" and "obey" into two parts and makes clear that you did listen but disagree regarding the obey part.


then again, if over time a stubborn refusal to comply with requests emerges, then again, people often do say "he doesn't listen" even if the above technique is used. this is common with stubborn ceos, who may often say they appreciate input yet for some reason that input never seems to change their minds....

When my kids would accuse me of not listening to them, when they weren't getting their way, I would say " I am listening to you. I am just not agreeing with you."

tromptromptromp down the hall....door. SLAM!!!

You think that hurt my feelings.



I...almost...miss having teens.

The tongue and lips movements required to command someone to "Listen!" give the speaker a more satisfying release of frustration than do the tongue and lip mechanics used to admonish the listener to "Obey!"

Also, I think the sibilant "s" sound has a relatively forceful impact on the listener's ears.

It's pretty weak. Designed to make those that won't "listen" seem unreasonable, when in fact those that demand that people "listen" are unreasonable.

when they clearly mean "accept" or "agree."

Better?

You're right of course.

It isn't a set of abstract logical propositions that are strictly compositional and based on a pre-issued set of tokens with inflexible semantic properties.

It's used by humans. They make assumptions. They use context. They expect inferences to be made. They have a whole set of constraints, most culturally conditioned, that they expect to be followed. And they're free to change the meanings, as a group. Once the avalance has started the pebbles don't get a vote. You're a pebble trying to cast a vote. Sorry.

"Listen" means a bunch of things. It's different from "hear" in that "listen" presupposes some sort of intent and goal. I can hear music or I can listen to music. One's passive. The other shows some sort of engagement.

"Are you listening to me?" isn't the same as "Do you hear me?" One asks for ability; the other is asking about engagement.

If you're talking to somebody with less authority than you and they hear what you're telling them to do, the only reason that they're not doing what you're saying is that they're not paying attention, they're not engaged. To hear and be engaged is to obey when you're told to do something.

There's no change in there. That's been the case since before I was born. I'm in my mid-50s. You can find instances of that going back before 1900. It's just pragmatic inferencing. You may not draw the inferences, you may not like the inferences, but a lot of people draw them and many people expect you to draw them as well.

However, it's been used to many times for so many decades to ask about why somebody's not obeying that it is quite probably, to be honest, shifting meanings. Just like "starve" no longer means to "die" and "control" no longer means just "to monitor or observe", so "listen" now means to "hear attentively" and in a secondary sense means "listen and do as told." Kids have applied the abductive logic that drives language change and have assumed, with sufficient evidence, that one of the word's meaning is "to obey." They've botched the inferencing.

So kids now say, "But you're not listening," forgetting as teens have done for the last 60 years that they have no authority that would entail their parents' (or others') obedience.

"Understand" is the same. If you wield authority then the only reason that a subordinate wouldn't carry out your orders--apart from not paying attention--is not understanding. This, of course, was an inference lost by the '70s when everything was understanding and feeling and logic/reason were down played by all "right thinking" folk.

People are masters of their language until they get stuck on a point. Then they become primarily messers.

Some of us do understand, but find your position unconvincing.

People need to just accept that their arguments will not persuade anyone, or even be persuasive at all.

Another is "show" or "educate" being used synonymously for the words "persuade". They do not mean the same thing, as often the person making the argument is restating a position that the listener has already considered.