August 13, 2024 • 40 mins
This episode delves into the critical role of listening, particularly in the context of debates and the competitive advantage provided to participants.
Sasan Kisravi explains the significance of preparation in debate, especially when preparing both sides of the argument.
When preparing both sides of an argument, you can discover and anticipate the counterpoints that will help you discover multiple approaches to the same issue.
The concept of "competitive listening" is emphasized, and it is important to understand an opponent's argument and analyze its impact on the judge and audience.
Note-taking is a crucial tool for effective listening, but there is a difference between traditional note-taking and a more strategic approach. The latter involves creating a visual map of arguments, identifying key points, and tracking the flow of the discussion.
This method allows listeners to maintain focus, identify unaddressed points, and ultimately gain a clearer understanding of the debate.
The conversation also touches on the psychological aspects of listening, highlighting the importance of motivation and purpose.
By understanding the nuances of effective listening, individuals can improve their communication skills, build stronger relationships, and achieve greater success at work.
- Listening is a competitive advantage: Effective Listening is crucial for success in debates and workplace communication.
- Preparation is key: Understanding both sides of an argument and anticipating counterpoints is essential for effective listening and responding.
- Note-taking is a strategic tool: Creating visual maps of arguments helps maintain focus, identify key points, and analyze the flow of the discussion.
How to listen like a High Court Judge with Justice Michael Kirby
Listen like World Memory Champion Dr Boris Konrad
00:10:10 Douglas Murray on Malcolm Gladwell: "I Still Don't Feel Pity"
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
- Ladies and gentlemen,welcome to the Munk Debates.
(00:03):
- Not long ago, a fewthousand people gathered
at Roy Thompson Hall in Toronto,
the fanciest performance spacein the city to hear a debate,
parliamentary style, opening statements,
rebuttals, closing arguments.
- It's so strange hearingyou debate, Malcolm,
because you listen to nothingthat your opponents say.
(00:23):
(audience laughing)It's quite extraordinary.
I've met it before, butnever quite so badly
as it occurs in you.
You keep saying things thatneither of us have said.
Malcolm, why don't youlisten to what comes out
of our mouths and try tolearn something from it
as I am with you, butat the moment all I get
is you dismissing everysingle story we come up with.
(00:45):
- Turns out he was right.
And that was when DiCo told me
I had to come to Brooklynagain for listening lessons.
- When I teach debate, I teach it
as essentially competitive listening.
(01:23):
- How to listen effectivelywhen you debate at work,
what you just heard was a tiny part
of a 90-minute Munk Debate from Canada.
They were debating theproposition, be it resolved.
Don't trust the mainstream media.
Before the debate, thehost, Rudyard Griffiths,
(01:44):
invited thousands ofpeople in the audience
to complete the poll, whichresulted in the following.
48% of people agreed, don'ttrust the mainstream media.
52% disagreed.
Then Rudyard proposed a second question.
(02:05):
Are you open to changing your vote
on the resolution tonight?
I always say that listening
is the willingness to change your mind.
The result, 82% said yes,
they were open to changing their vote.
They will get an opportunity to vote again
(02:26):
at the end of the debate.
For the affirmative, DouglasMurray and Matt Taibbi
are speaking for the proposition,
don't trust the mainstream media.
And arguing for the negative
is Michelle Goldberg and Malcolm Gladwell.
A robust debate tookplace over the 80 minutes
(02:48):
and the audience was asked to vote again.
A reminder, the original score
was 48% agreed with the proposition,
don't trust the mainstream media.
Four out of five people were also willing
to change their vote.
On their final vote atthe end of the debate,
(03:08):
the result, 67% of peoplevoted for the proposition
don't trust the mainstream media.
The audience listened andthey changed their mind.
In fact, this was the biggest swing
in the history of the Munk Debates,
Murray and Taibbi wonGoldberg and Gladwell
(03:32):
were comprehensively defeated.
In Gladwell's own words, "We got creamed."
Upon reflection, Malcolm Gladwell decided
he needed to improve his listening.
They didn't lose becauseof what they said,
they lost because they weren't listening
to the other team or the audience.
(03:53):
To improve his listening,Malcolm reached out
to his friend, DiCo, atthe Brooklyn Debate League.
As a result, Malcolmcreated an entire episode
of his podcast, Revisionist History
called, "Malcolm Goes to Debate School."
Many of the deep listeningambassadors sent me this episode
(04:16):
and said, "Oscar, you needto interview, Sasan Kasravi
from the Brooklyn Debate League,
an expert debater and educator."
I had a wonderful conversation with Sasan
and you'll hear from himshortly, as well as other parts
of Malcolm Gladwell's reflections.
Why should you listen toan episode about debate
(04:37):
and how does it influenceyour listening at work?
I want you to keep three concepts
in mind as you listen today.
The first, when you needto argue your proposition
to someone else or to agroup of people at work,
you need to prepare, understand
and articulate both sides of the argument.
(04:58):
Can you argue theirposition as effectively
as you can argue your own?
If you can, you've probably discovered
that there are more thantwo positions to debate.
Maybe there's a third, a fourth,
and many other alternatives will emerge.
The second, you can be more persuasive
when you listen carefully towhat the others are saying,
(05:20):
you're more likely to change their minds.
The minds of the speakers,the surrounding stakeholders
and other audience if you listen well,
noting their arguments and adjusting.
Finally, and number three,you can make note taking
one of your listening superpowers.
Not by learning how to transcribe,
(05:41):
note taking is about connection, content,
context, systems, and a visual shorthand.
Throughout our discussiontoday, I'll invite you
to pause and participateto listen and take notes.
This discussion will includewhat I consider a masterclass
(06:03):
from Sasan about how toeffectively take notes
in the context of debate
and extremely limited time environment.
Does that sound like where you work?
I went into this discussionwith an open mind about
note taking and realizedthat in complex debates,
in group settings, I needed to adjust
(06:24):
my orientation about 90 degrees.
Thanks for changing my mind, Sasan.
Before we begin, a bigthank you to Jacob Smith,
the producer at Pushkin Industries,for providing permission
to use parts of theRevisionist History episode
from season eight in April, 2023,
(06:46):
"Malcolm goes to Debate School."
Next, you'll hear froma few different voices,
including Sasan and Jonathanfrom the Brooklyn Debate League
and Malcolm Gladwell.
And for bonus points, at the very end
I've got the reflectionsof Douglas Murray,
Malcolm Gladwell's opponent in the debate
(07:09):
and his reflections onMalcolm's lack of listening.
- Hi, my name's Sasan Kasravi.
I am a debate coach working in New York
to bring high qualitycritical thinking education
to as many students in the city as we can.
(07:30):
- What's the cost of not listening?
- The cost of notlistening is not knowing.
It's not being able totest your assumptions.
The foundation of what we do in debate.
There is this idea that every assertion
(07:51):
is based on assumptions.
So every belief that you have,everything that you think
you know about the world or your life
or anything that you've ever experienced,
you have a lot ofassumptions embedded in that
where there's things thatyou don't know are true
but you're just assuming aren't.
And for any belief, there'sprobably more assumptions
(08:14):
you are making than there is evidence
that you have or good reasonyou have to believe something.
If you're trying to drive a car,
if you don't make some assumptions,
you can't really go anywhere.
Assumptions are the gas pedal of the car
where the more assumptionsyou make, the faster you move.
(08:35):
I think listening iswhat allows us to steer
and the cost of not listeningis trading speed for steering,
which sounds appealing whenyou are in a certain mind frame
but is a lot less appealingwhen you head into a brick wall
- Without a break, youmay up in a brick wall,
(08:56):
so I'm curious about thechoice to place listening
on the steering wheel.
Have you considered the roleof listening as a brake?
- The role of a brake inthis analogy is confronting
and accepting the thingsthat you don't know
and that you can't really work around.
(09:17):
When do you stop in aparticular direction?
When is it not productive for you
to move past where you are?
The role of a brake is todecide when it's time to stop,
because any direction youmove farther is not productive
toward accomplishing a valuable goal.
(09:39):
- We say listening happens before,
during, and after the discussion.
And this is true in debate.
There is a definitebefore, during, and after.
And there's two elements of preparation.
The first one is how toprepare for both sides.
And the second, which doesn'toften happen in workplace
(09:59):
settings, is gettingthe participants to vote
by standing on one sideof the room or the other,
so you know what you are dealingwith in terms of who agrees
with a resolution and who does not.
- What does actuallypreparing for a debate
in the academic world look like?
I've been doing 10 hours of research
(10:22):
in the last couple dayson academic tracking,
on the benefits and harms,
and I probably have another10 hours ahead of me
before I feel confident that the arguments
that I have prepared on this topic
are to the level ofquality that I want them.
So what does that look like?
(10:43):
The first thing I'm curious to learn
is what is the commonunderstanding of this issue?
If I'm going to watch twoother people debate about this,
what are the arguments thatis going to be brought up
by the side that's for it?
What are the arguments thatare gonna be brought up
by the side that's against it?
And I want to make sure I understand
(11:05):
what each side likes about those arguments
and what their motivation behind it is,
what they're trying to accomplish.
In debate, we break an argument down
into different components.
And by argument I mean anything
that you're claiming to be true,
anything you're advocating for, right?
(11:26):
And we hear people say things like,
"Oh, that's a good argument,"
but what do we mean by that?
What are the qualities of a good argument?
Because the answer younormally get is a good argument
is one that persuades people.
But how do you know ifit'll persuade people?
Or you find out that youshould support your idea
with evidence, but you don't know
(11:47):
what the idea you'resupporting with evidence
is supposed to be.
A good argument is three things.
It's true.
The claim you're making issupported by reason and evidence.
It's relevant to youraudience to the thing
that you're there to discuss.
There's some sort of sharedquestion that we're trying
(12:08):
to answer and your argumentis relevant to that.
Most importantly is it's important.
So there's a lot of arguments
that you can make about anygiven topic that are true,
but ultimately when somebodycomes to a decision about
(12:29):
that big question, it'snot like, oh, well,
there was 12 reasons why we should do this
and seven reasons why we shouldn't,
so I guess the 12 side wins.
Usually it comes down tothe one most important issue
that was raised.
And that can be the onlytopic, the only argument
(12:52):
that one side brought up.
In terms of preparing,
first you wanna knowwhat the landscape is,
then you wanna try to figure out
what would the best solutionto this question look like?
And after that it's thinkingabout what are the arguments
that nobody else is thinking about?
And I can figure out ifwe're talking about academic
tracking, what the basic discussion
(13:12):
is most likely to be withinan hour on any topic.
The other 19 hours isthe aspects of this issue
that people aren't thinking about.
And that's really where yourstrength as a advocate are
(13:34):
because your audience is going in
trying to have an openmind, but to the degree
that they understand thequestion being asked,
they have some opinion on it,
and them hearing you soundpretty isn't really going
to challenge their assumptions.
And so how do you prepare for a debate?
(13:54):
You wanna first understand the landscape
of your audience is goingin with a certain set
of assumptions about thistopic, certain pros and cons
that they currently understand.
You have to figure out what those are.
You have to figure out what value system
they're probably usingto make their decision
on whether they like that idea or not.
(14:15):
You have to decide isthat a good value system
for them to be using?
Is there a different valuesystem that you think
you know a different value that they have
that you can attach to this?
You can't change their values,
but can you get them, for instance,
to instead of beingfocused on their finances,
to be focused on their safety.
And once you know what thatis, you have to consider all
(14:37):
of the different inroadsthat they haven't considered
in their decisions becausethat's the only way
you're going to really get an audience
to reconsider their positioncoming into a discussion.
- The short excerptyou're about to hear next
(14:57):
is from the RevisionistHistory podcast where Malcolm
goes to the Brooklyn Debate League.
The recording takesplace inside a classroom
with a range of school ageparticipants as well as Malcolm.
Jonathan Conyers is thefirst voice you will hear,
and he's setting up for a mini debate.
Wouldn't it be great in a workplace
(15:18):
if everybody stood up onthe left and the right
where they stand on the issueor the decision to be made
before the discussion takes place?
And how about we vote afterwards,
so we know where everybody stands?
Not sure that everyworkplace is ready for it.
Let's listen to Jonathan.
- Ready? Y'all ready?- Yes, sir.
(15:39):
- All right, open forum, look up.
Being able to listen isthe most important skill
a debater should have.
All right, stand up.
You know the routine.
If you agree, you're on this side.
If you disagree, you're on that side.
Come on, come on, come on.
- Jonathan, Kick thingsoff with a warmup exercise,
open forum.
A mini debate on the question of the day.
What's more important to a debater?
(16:01):
Being a good listener or a good talker?
- Being able to listen isthe most important skill
a debater could have.
Being able to listen is themost important skill a debater-
- Debating is not onlyabout using information
against information, but it'salso about obtaining something
and understanding it inorder to use information
to fight it.
(16:21):
- You also said you haveto listen to your opponent.
So that's also a very important skill
to listen to your opponent,'cause if you don't listen to it
and you just drawing stuff down,
you might say the wrong thingsor write down the wrong thing
as to what your opponent is saying.
- Hold that thought for a moment.
You might write down the wrong thing.
This becomes veryimportant for the balance
(16:43):
of our conversation.
Taking matters not just in debate,
but also in your workplace.
Before, during, and after.
Let's talk about during the debate.
A lot of people thinkthat world class debaters,
people who are persuasiveand can change minds
(17:05):
do so through oratory.
They do so through rhetoric.
They do things the way theyarticulate their ideas,
yet I suspect they'realso great listeners.
- You have to be.
When I teach debate, I teach it
as essentially competitive listening.
(17:26):
And to a debater, themost impressive skill set,
and the one that setsthe top level debaters
apart from people who are starting out
is not the strength ofwriting an argument.
The argument is justcontext for what the debate
(17:46):
is going to be.
If you like chess, all of your preparation
is just the opening moves of a chess game.
And in chess, all of thoseopening moves have names,
but nobody at a high levelof chess is winning or losing
based on which opening move they're using.
And the same thing is whatwe should expect to happen
(18:08):
in a debate where we will take 10 students
to a debate competitionand they're paired up,
and so there's five debate teams.
There's one topic thateverybody is going to debate
and they're all going togo off into separate rooms
and they're going to allmake very similar arguments,
(18:31):
if not just the same startingscript for how they're going
to advocate for their side of this issue.
But at some point in that debate,
just like in a game of chess,
that debate will becomean entirely unique debate
that only this version of thisdiscussion has ever existed.
(18:53):
Every other discussion aboutthis topic is a slightly
different discussion based onwhat points have been made,
what's been responded to,what hasn't been responded to,
what has been effective,what hasn't been effective.
And what makes a gooddebate a good debater
isn't their strength ofwriting a good speech
(19:14):
for the first part of the debate.
It's their ability to recognize
what's happening in this debate.
What have I said that is working?
What have they said that is a concern?
What have they said that's weak?
What's good about it?
What's bad about it?
And that in the moment responsiveness,
and always putting yourself inthe position of the listener.
(19:37):
That is your primary concern,
which is the the thirdparty, which is the judge.
In competitive debate,there's always a third party.
It's the thing that makesit the most different
from just arguing withsomebody in real life.
Because in competitivedebate, the debate will end
and someone will tell youif you won or you lost.
And so you always wanna beputting yourself in the position
(19:58):
of what has this person heard?
What are they thinking in this moment?
Where do I want to movetheir attention to?
And the only way youcan do that is listening
because the best debatersare the ones that can best
put themselves in theposition of the listening
(20:18):
and decision making audience.
And it's a tricky thingto balance, both listening
to everything your opponent is saying
in terms of processing whatexactly they're claiming,
how you want to respond,
but also at the same time processing
what effect is this goingto have on the third party
(20:40):
that's listening to this?
The judge.
Is this persuasive to them?
Do they like it?
Do they not like it?
Because ultimately you can't respond
to every single thing somebody else says
and you have to make some decisions about
what's important and what's not important.
And the only way to makethose decisions effectively
is to be a really good listener.
(21:01):
If you don't know what somebody else said,
you have no tool with which toknow what bits are important.
- In trying to notice andlisten, people use note taking.
Done well, it can liberate your listening.
(21:22):
Done poorly, it can actuallycrash your listening
and you need shit to deploy airbags.
What's effective note-takinglook like in a debate?
- Debate has a uniquestyle of note taking.
It is a combination of whatwe would call an argument map.
(21:46):
An argument map is a visualrepresentation on a page
of how a discussion has gone.
Imagine like visualizing this point
was responded to with this other point.
And it's also a combination of shorthand,
which is necessary to beable to not miss details,
(22:08):
which you inevitably,even the best debaters
will inevitably miss some details.
And again, you have to deploysome thoughtful listening
'cause it's not transcript making.
It's you're listening and deciding what
of the one third of this information
that you're able to write down,
what is the thing that isimportant to write down?
(22:30):
Let's say you're startingat the top of the page
and you're working your way down.
We'll capture everythingthat someone has said.
Let's say it's a perfect transcript.
That's a court transcript.
And then the next lawyer comes up
and the next lawyer makes a case.
And the court once againhas a perfect transcript.
It's really difficult to visually tell
(22:52):
by looking at those twopages of transcript,
what did the first lawyer say
that the second lawyer never responded to?
The form of note takingthat we do in debate flowing
is instead of havingone page for one speech
or going vertically down, wesplit the debate into columns
(23:13):
and the columns representeach speech that we know
is going to be happening in the debate.
And the first column isjust every basic argument
that the first speaker makes.
The second column, youwrite how the other side
responds to that and you place an argument
(23:35):
next to the argumentthat it's responding to.
When Malcolm Gladwell came to our class
and I was teaching him this card exercise,
the exercise is I'm gonnaname a bunch of cards.
- Good day, it's Oscar.
I'm just gonna quickly jump in here
and signal what's about to happen.
(23:55):
Sasan is going to readout a range of cards
and you need to keep track of them.
Then he's going to read outa different set of cards
and you need to keep track of that too.
When it's finished, I'm gonna jump back in
and deconstruct what's just happened.
- Hello, my name is Sasan
(24:16):
and I'll be speaking onthe affirmative today.
My first argument is the three of hearts.
And we know that's true becauseof the four of diamonds.
You can't forget about the jack of spades.
A lot of people tell me 10 of diamonds.
But what those people don't realize
is first off ace of hearts,secondly, the six of clubs,
(24:38):
and finally the nine of spades.
That's it.
That's the speech.
So you should have these written down.
Okay, great.
- How did you go?
Did you write out the full name
or did you use a shorthand code?
Did you write from left to right
or did you write from top to bottom?
(25:00):
Did you write at all?
Did you try and keep it in your head?
After a while you realize youget pretty lost in the debate.
- Now we're going todo the negative speech.
I'm the negative and I disagree
with everything that guy said.
He says three of hearts morelike the seven of diamonds.
(25:22):
People like to talk about jack of spades,
but what they don'trealize is king of hearts.
10 of diamonds is okay.
if you don't remember thatthe ace of spades is there.
And as far as the ace of hearts goes,
more like the two of hearts.
Finally, they broughtup the nine of spades.
Nine of spades, nine of seriously,
(25:43):
because have you never heard
of the queen of clubs?
That's my whole speech.
- How did I do?
I was terrible.
I could keep up for the first minute
or so then I fell behind.
I miss things.
Sasan gets up and talksabout playing cards
and I can't keep up.
(26:05):
- How did you go?
Did you feel like you wanna rewind
and do the exercise all over again?
So the first time there were seven cards,
and the second time therewere only five cards.
Did you notice that the four of diamonds
was not refuted nor the six of clubs?
None of those points were refuted.
(26:25):
Sasan only refuted five points directly
and he ignored two points.
This is a really good example of listening
to what's not said.
When I heard it for the first time,
rather than trying to remember everything,
I wrote down the following.
And I did it from left to right
rather than from top to bottom.
(26:45):
I wrote, 3H, 4D, JS, 10D, AH, 6C, 9S.
I used a shorthand way so I didn't have
to write anything out in full.
Now writing it from left toright was a rookie error.
(27:06):
That's the way we write.
It's not the way we build an argument map.
And Sasan's gonna spend sometime helping us understand
how to do that a little bit further on.
The second time around,I heard the following.
7D, KH, AS, 2H, QC.
(27:28):
This left to right approachfor me didn't create
the right kind ofeffective visual shortcut
that an argument mapcreates going from top
to bottom vertical rather than horizontal.
The horizontal approach didn't allow me
to do a quick scan andsee what was missing
(27:48):
and see what was related in the debate.
My listening lesson is somethingthat James Clear mentioned.
You rise to the level of your systems.
In this case, my system and process
needed to be flipped 90 degrees
to help me listeneffectively to what was said
and more importantly, what wasn't said.
(28:08):
Let's join Sasan now as heexplores a little bit further
how to build a visual argument map.
- You're gonna write them all down.
And, Oscar, we talkedabout this and you said
that you had a shorthand for that,
a two letter shorthand where7S means seven of spades.
That is exactly what you should be doing,
but it's not just about are you able
(28:29):
to write down every card that I set,
the exercise goes on and thenext step of the exercise
is now I'm the second speaker
and I might not even go inthe same speaking order.
I might not touch on thingsand I'll skip things.
And the skill challengeis to stay organized
and finish with thisvisual representation.
(28:50):
For example, once you'rethrough a whole debate
and you have five columns filled,
you'll be able to telleven when this card example
where we're just talking aboutan abstract imaginary debate,
which point was raisedthat got talked about
at every opportunity, what wasraised by the first debater
(29:13):
that the second debaterfailed to respond to.
And the first debater caughtit and brought that up.
That you can visually tell.
What got not responded to
and then nobody ever brought it up again.
And these skills are important in debate
because the less a point is responded to,
(29:33):
the less resistance there is in that path
to convincing the judgethat your point is right.
It becomes really importantto us in a regular discussion
if you and I are just havinga conversation about tracking
in schools, you mighttell me a little bit about
Sydney's system andwhat's effective about it
and what's not effective about it.
And I'll latch onto one bit of that
(29:54):
and I'll say this thing that you said
that is effective aboutit, we have some version
of that in New York, but it'snot working the same way.
And I think it's maybefor these three reasons.
And then you'll latch ontoone of those three reasons
and you'll say, here's whatI think that actually is.
And there's all these thingsin a natural conversation
that get introduced butdon't get pursued farther.
(30:16):
And the two parties, or atleast one of the parties
tends to forget they were ever brought up.
And the skill set thatyou get trained in debate
is to not lose thatperspective and to be able
to look at a sheet ofpaper and be able to tell,
am I winning this argument
in terms of whatever thissheet of paper represents?
(30:38):
Do I have an advantage here?
Is this worth my focus?
And in the context of debate,that is really helpful.
- Your mind may have justexploded thinking about
all the permutations ofthis in your workplace.
Your takeaways are this.
Don't take verbatim notes.
(31:00):
Create a visual map thatmaps not only your position
but the other.
And notice the progress of the positions.
If you take notes in a graphical,visual and shorthand way,
your attention is not asdistracted and hijacked
when you're taking verbatim notes.
There are some professionslistening right now
(31:21):
say we have to take verbatim notes.
It's our professional standard.
It's critical.
This is true.
There's not the context we're referencing.
For those of you who needto allocate fixed resources
and you need to get into adebate and have a manager
or director or vice president to give
some kind of a approval,take the time to map
(31:45):
what the possible counterarguments to your points are
and do that in a visual way
so you can keep track by scanning.
The minute you give your attention
to the notes you're taking,you're not listening
to the other position in the conversation.
This is a muscle we can all develop.
How long do you think it takes us
(32:05):
to develop this flow muscle?
- In the context of debate,
but think of it in terms of athletic skill
in your personal life,let's say a gym or jogging
versus a competitive environment.
Building the muscle andthe ability to do this.
A lot of students start toget this down within three,
(32:26):
four months of once a weekpractice for one debate a week.
And part of the reason ittakes that length of time
is because it's, they need that time
to develop their own style of doing it.
And to see a bunch of different scenarios,
it might take them acouple weeks to be able
(32:46):
to map out one particularargument and discussion.
But what happens is then the next argument
and discussion doesn't go in the same way
and doesn't work the same way.
And so all of a sudden you're back
to trying to figure it out.
I'd say after about four months,you are in a place where,
okay, you've probably experienced most
of the cases for this.
(33:07):
In a competitive setting, Ithink it takes probably about
two years for it to nolonger play a factor
in who wins or loses.
The reason for that isthe difference between
your physical abilitiesin exercising for health
and how long it takes foryou to get comfortable
jogging for health andthen how long it takes
(33:29):
for you to be competentjogging competitively.
In debate, we're not justkeeping track of notes
to keep track of what was said.
We are keeping track ofnotes because the other side
is trying to push our limits in how much
we can handle competitiveacademic college debates.
They do tend to be fasterthan regular conversation.
(33:53):
I'd say it takes acouple years to the point
where note-taking is nolonger the determining factor
in who wins the debate.
But in terms of the ability to engage
in that note-taking style effectively,
I'd say two to four months.
- What's the question I haven't asked
at the intersection ofdebate and listening?
(34:15):
- The motivation for why you're listening
and how that shapes thequality of your listening.
There's a lot in your book about listening
to understand meaning andintent and context and feelings.
And in the context of a debate,
those things will only matter to me
if I think they will matter to the judge,
(34:37):
and I usually don't thinkthey will matter to a judge.
In other words, my concernisn't what you meant,
my concern is what you said
because I'm not debatingagainst your intention.
More so than that, in academic debate,
the sides are, you prepareboth sides of the topic
and you're told in this round you're going
(34:59):
to advocate for this side.
So it's less often a exercisein that form of empathy
for another human being's intentions.
It's more a questionof what are the things
that you are saying?
I would've been surprisedif we had never talked about
that distinction.
(35:20):
But also I think there'sa lot to be said about
the ways in which thekind of listening we use
for a debate setting aren'tproductive in every setting.
- What a masterclass.
I wonder what you aretaking away from today.
(35:43):
I wonder what's differentin your thinking about
note taking, preparing forboth sides of the debate
and the importance oflistening and speaking
while you're in a situation where you need
to debate something and to make progress.
I'm curious, what didyou take away from today?
(36:04):
Email me, podcast@oscartrimboli.com.
That's, podcast@oscartrimboli.com
with the subject line, debate.
I'm curious what'schanged in your thinking
with regard to note taking especially.
I'm also curious aboutwhat it means for you
in terms of preparingboth sides of the debate.
(36:27):
Just a couple of tips toimprove your visual note taking.
Practice and practice frequency
is a point that Sasan reinforced.
If you wanna make improvements,
you've gotta increase theaccuracy of your practice
as well as the frequency of your practice.
So I would recommend practice this first
in a one-on-one environment,in an environment
(36:49):
where you've got high trust
and it's a low riskconversation taking place,
then move to a low risk environment.
Maybe the trust isn't high,but maybe it's a little lower.
And then finally, practicein high trust environments
where groups are presentbecause you are listening
(37:12):
and your note taking, startsmall and then expand out
till you eventually get to group meetings.
There's a couple ofadditional podcast episodes,
episode 36 with Justice Michael Kirby,
how to listen like a high court justice
where he talked about using a tree.
(37:33):
The tree was having the trunkas the center of the argument,
the branches, the supportingarguments and the leaves,
important pieces of evidence
equally reinforcing theimportance of visualization
and using visual approaches to help you
is Dr. Boris Conrad.
(37:54):
And he's a world memory champion.
He's episode 65 where youcan explore some techniques
that he reinforces aboutnot being a stenographer,
but being a visual note taker.
There's no shortage of resources
to support you in your listening journey.
(38:15):
If you'd love to get access
to important techniques like note-taking,
we have a fundamentals course.
If you'd like to be added to the wait list
for the fundamentals course,which we have once a quarter
in groups of 10 to 12, no more, no less,
so that we can practiceour listening together,
(38:36):
just send me an emailpodcast@oscartrimboli.com
with a subject line, fundamentals.
I'm Oscar Trimboli and along
with the Deep Listeningambassador community,
we're on a quest to create100 million deep listeners
in the workplace and you've given us
the greatest gift of all.
You've listened to us.
(38:56):
Thanks for listening.
- What did you do right in that debate
and what did he do wrong?
- Oh, I listened to himand he didn't listen.
He spent most of the debate.
I had Matt Taibbi on my side.
He had Michelle Goldberg on his.
I said to one point to Matt,
(39:18):
"What's Malcolm Gladwell writing?"
He spent the whole timescribbling on this pad
and then would saysomething utterly inane.
He would say something he'd already said.
It was so preposterousand we were bored of it
and the audience was groaning.
I actually said to him, it's very weird
seeing you try to debate, Malcolm,
(39:38):
because you listen tonothing we say, nothing.
And in his sort of post matchanalysis, some months later,
he said, "I should havelistened to my opponents."
(thoughtful music)
- Ladies and gentlemen,welcome to the Munk Debates.
(00:03):
- Not long ago, a fewthousand people gathered
at Roy Thompson Hall in Toronto,
the fanciest performance spacein the city to hear a debate,
parliamentary style, opening statements,
rebuttals, closing arguments.
- It's so strange hearingyou debate, Malcolm,
because you listen to nothingthat your opponents say.
(00:23):
(audience laughing)It's quite extraordinary.
I've met it before, butnever quite so badly
as it occurs in you.
You keep saying things thatneither of us have said.
Malcolm, why don't youlisten to what comes out
of our mouths and try tolearn something from it
as I am with you, butat the moment all I get
is you dismissing everysingle story we come up with.
(00:45):
- Turns out he was right.
And that was when DiCo told me
I had to come to Brooklynagain for listening lessons.
- When I teach debate, I teach it
as essentially competitive listening.
(01:23):
- How to listen effectivelywhen you debate at work,
what you just heard was a tiny part
of a 90-minute Munk Debate from Canada.
They were debating theproposition, be it resolved.
Don't trust the mainstream media.
Before the debate, thehost, Rudyard Griffiths,
(01:44):
invited thousands ofpeople in the audience
to complete the poll, whichresulted in the following.
48% of people agreed, don'ttrust the mainstream media.
52% disagreed.
Then Rudyard proposed a second question.
(02:05):
Are you open to changing your vote
on the resolution tonight?
I always say that listening
is the willingness to change your mind.
The result, 82% said yes,
they were open to changing their vote.
They will get an opportunity to vote again
(02:26):
at the end of the debate.
For the affirmative, DouglasMurray and Matt Taibbi
are speaking for the proposition,
don't trust the mainstream media.
And arguing for the negative
is Michelle Goldberg and Malcolm Gladwell.
A robust debate tookplace over the 80 minutes
(02:48):
and the audience was asked to vote again.
A reminder, the original score
was 48% agreed with the proposition,
don't trust the mainstream media.
Four out of five people were also willing
to change their vote.
On their final vote atthe end of the debate,
(03:08):
the result, 67% of peoplevoted for the proposition
don't trust the mainstream media.
The audience listened andthey changed their mind.
In fact, this was the biggest swing
in the history of the Munk Debates,
Murray and Taibbi wonGoldberg and Gladwell
(03:32):
were comprehensively defeated.
In Gladwell's own words, "We got creamed."
Upon reflection, Malcolm Gladwell decided
he needed to improve his listening.
They didn't lose becauseof what they said,
they lost because they weren't listening
to the other team or the audience.
(03:53):
To improve his listening,Malcolm reached out
to his friend, DiCo, atthe Brooklyn Debate League.
As a result, Malcolmcreated an entire episode
of his podcast, Revisionist History
called, "Malcolm Goes to Debate School."
Many of the deep listeningambassadors sent me this episode
(04:16):
and said, "Oscar, you needto interview, Sasan Kasravi
from the Brooklyn Debate League,
an expert debater and educator."
I had a wonderful conversation with Sasan
and you'll hear from himshortly, as well as other parts
of Malcolm Gladwell's reflections.
Why should you listen toan episode about debate
(04:37):
and how does it influenceyour listening at work?
I want you to keep three concepts
in mind as you listen today.
The first, when you needto argue your proposition
to someone else or to agroup of people at work,
you need to prepare, understand
and articulate both sides of the argument.
(04:58):
Can you argue theirposition as effectively
as you can argue your own?
If you can, you've probably discovered
that there are more thantwo positions to debate.
Maybe there's a third, a fourth,
and many other alternatives will emerge.
The second, you can be more persuasive
when you listen carefully towhat the others are saying,
(05:20):
you're more likely to change their minds.
The minds of the speakers,the surrounding stakeholders
and other audience if you listen well,
noting their arguments and adjusting.
Finally, and number three,you can make note taking
one of your listening superpowers.
Not by learning how to transcribe,
(05:41):
note taking is about connection, content,
context, systems, and a visual shorthand.
Throughout our discussiontoday, I'll invite you
to pause and participateto listen and take notes.
This discussion will includewhat I consider a masterclass
(06:03):
from Sasan about how toeffectively take notes
in the context of debate
and extremely limited time environment.
Does that sound like where you work?
I went into this discussionwith an open mind about
note taking and realizedthat in complex debates,
in group settings, I needed to adjust
(06:24):
my orientation about 90 degrees.
Thanks for changing my mind, Sasan.
Before we begin, a bigthank you to Jacob Smith,
the producer at Pushkin Industries,for providing permission
to use parts of theRevisionist History episode
from season eight in April, 2023,
(06:46):
"Malcolm goes to Debate School."
Next, you'll hear froma few different voices,
including Sasan and Jonathanfrom the Brooklyn Debate League
and Malcolm Gladwell.
And for bonus points, at the very end
I've got the reflectionsof Douglas Murray,
Malcolm Gladwell's opponent in the debate
(07:09):
and his reflections onMalcolm's lack of listening.
- Hi, my name's Sasan Kasravi.
I am a debate coach working in New York
to bring high qualitycritical thinking education
to as many students in the city as we can.
(07:30):
- What's the cost of not listening?
- The cost of notlistening is not knowing.
It's not being able totest your assumptions.
The foundation of what we do in debate.
There is this idea that every assertion
(07:51):
is based on assumptions.
So every belief that you have,everything that you think
you know about the world or your life
or anything that you've ever experienced,
you have a lot ofassumptions embedded in that
where there's things thatyou don't know are true
but you're just assuming aren't.
And for any belief, there'sprobably more assumptions
(08:14):
you are making than there is evidence
that you have or good reasonyou have to believe something.
If you're trying to drive a car,
if you don't make some assumptions,
you can't really go anywhere.
Assumptions are the gas pedal of the car
where the more assumptionsyou make, the faster you move.
(08:35):
I think listening iswhat allows us to steer
and the cost of not listeningis trading speed for steering,
which sounds appealing whenyou are in a certain mind frame
but is a lot less appealingwhen you head into a brick wall
- Without a break, youmay up in a brick wall,
(08:56):
so I'm curious about thechoice to place listening
on the steering wheel.
Have you considered the roleof listening as a brake?
- The role of a brake inthis analogy is confronting
and accepting the thingsthat you don't know
and that you can't really work around.
(09:17):
When do you stop in aparticular direction?
When is it not productive for you
to move past where you are?
The role of a brake is todecide when it's time to stop,
because any direction youmove farther is not productive
toward accomplishing a valuable goal.
(09:39):
- We say listening happens before,
during, and after the discussion.
And this is true in debate.
There is a definitebefore, during, and after.
And there's two elements of preparation.
The first one is how toprepare for both sides.
And the second, which doesn'toften happen in workplace
(09:59):
settings, is gettingthe participants to vote
by standing on one sideof the room or the other,
so you know what you are dealingwith in terms of who agrees
with a resolution and who does not.
- What does actuallypreparing for a debate
in the academic world look like?
I've been doing 10 hours of research
(10:22):
in the last couple dayson academic tracking,
on the benefits and harms,
and I probably have another10 hours ahead of me
before I feel confident that the arguments
that I have prepared on this topic
are to the level ofquality that I want them.
So what does that look like?
(10:43):
The first thing I'm curious to learn
is what is the commonunderstanding of this issue?
If I'm going to watch twoother people debate about this,
what are the arguments thatis going to be brought up
by the side that's for it?
What are the arguments thatare gonna be brought up
by the side that's against it?
And I want to make sure I understand
(11:05):
what each side likes about those arguments
and what their motivation behind it is,
what they're trying to accomplish.
In debate, we break an argument down
into different components.
And by argument I mean anything
that you're claiming to be true,
anything you're advocating for, right?
(11:26):
And we hear people say things like,
"Oh, that's a good argument,"
but what do we mean by that?
What are the qualities of a good argument?
Because the answer younormally get is a good argument
is one that persuades people.
But how do you know ifit'll persuade people?
Or you find out that youshould support your idea
with evidence, but you don't know
(11:47):
what the idea you'resupporting with evidence
is supposed to be.
A good argument is three things.
It's true.
The claim you're making issupported by reason and evidence.
It's relevant to youraudience to the thing
that you're there to discuss.
There's some sort of sharedquestion that we're trying
(12:08):
to answer and your argumentis relevant to that.
Most importantly is it's important.
So there's a lot of arguments
that you can make about anygiven topic that are true,
but ultimately when somebodycomes to a decision about
(12:29):
that big question, it'snot like, oh, well,
there was 12 reasons why we should do this
and seven reasons why we shouldn't,
so I guess the 12 side wins.
Usually it comes down tothe one most important issue
that was raised.
And that can be the onlytopic, the only argument
(12:52):
that one side brought up.
In terms of preparing,
first you wanna knowwhat the landscape is,
then you wanna try to figure out
what would the best solutionto this question look like?
And after that it's thinkingabout what are the arguments
that nobody else is thinking about?
And I can figure out ifwe're talking about academic
tracking, what the basic discussion
(13:12):
is most likely to be withinan hour on any topic.
The other 19 hours isthe aspects of this issue
that people aren't thinking about.
And that's really where yourstrength as a advocate are
(13:34):
because your audience is going in
trying to have an openmind, but to the degree
that they understand thequestion being asked,
they have some opinion on it,
and them hearing you soundpretty isn't really going
to challenge their assumptions.
And so how do you prepare for a debate?
(13:54):
You wanna first understand the landscape
of your audience is goingin with a certain set
of assumptions about thistopic, certain pros and cons
that they currently understand.
You have to figure out what those are.
You have to figure out what value system
they're probably usingto make their decision
on whether they like that idea or not.
(14:15):
You have to decide isthat a good value system
for them to be using?
Is there a different valuesystem that you think
you know a different value that they have
that you can attach to this?
You can't change their values,
but can you get them, for instance,
to instead of beingfocused on their finances,
to be focused on their safety.
And once you know what thatis, you have to consider all
(14:37):
of the different inroadsthat they haven't considered
in their decisions becausethat's the only way
you're going to really get an audience
to reconsider their positioncoming into a discussion.
- The short excerptyou're about to hear next
(14:57):
is from the RevisionistHistory podcast where Malcolm
goes to the Brooklyn Debate League.
The recording takesplace inside a classroom
with a range of school ageparticipants as well as Malcolm.
Jonathan Conyers is thefirst voice you will hear,
and he's setting up for a mini debate.
Wouldn't it be great in a workplace
(15:18):
if everybody stood up onthe left and the right
where they stand on the issueor the decision to be made
before the discussion takes place?
And how about we vote afterwards,
so we know where everybody stands?
Not sure that everyworkplace is ready for it.
Let's listen to Jonathan.
- Ready? Y'all ready?- Yes, sir.
(15:39):
- All right, open forum, look up.
Being able to listen isthe most important skill
a debater should have.
All right, stand up.
You know the routine.
If you agree, you're on this side.
If you disagree, you're on that side.
Come on, come on, come on.
- Jonathan, Kick thingsoff with a warmup exercise,
open forum.
A mini debate on the question of the day.
What's more important to a debater?
(16:01):
Being a good listener or a good talker?
- Being able to listen isthe most important skill
a debater could have.
Being able to listen is themost important skill a debater-
- Debating is not onlyabout using information
against information, but it'salso about obtaining something
and understanding it inorder to use information
to fight it.
(16:21):
- You also said you haveto listen to your opponent.
So that's also a very important skill
to listen to your opponent,'cause if you don't listen to it
and you just drawing stuff down,
you might say the wrong thingsor write down the wrong thing
as to what your opponent is saying.
- Hold that thought for a moment.
You might write down the wrong thing.
This becomes veryimportant for the balance
(16:43):
of our conversation.
Taking matters not just in debate,
but also in your workplace.
Before, during, and after.
Let's talk about during the debate.
A lot of people thinkthat world class debaters,
people who are persuasiveand can change minds
(17:05):
do so through oratory.
They do so through rhetoric.
They do things the way theyarticulate their ideas,
yet I suspect they'realso great listeners.
- You have to be.
When I teach debate, I teach it
as essentially competitive listening.
(17:26):
And to a debater, themost impressive skill set,
and the one that setsthe top level debaters
apart from people who are starting out
is not the strength ofwriting an argument.
The argument is justcontext for what the debate
(17:46):
is going to be.
If you like chess, all of your preparation
is just the opening moves of a chess game.
And in chess, all of thoseopening moves have names,
but nobody at a high levelof chess is winning or losing
based on which opening move they're using.
And the same thing is whatwe should expect to happen
(18:08):
in a debate where we will take 10 students
to a debate competitionand they're paired up,
and so there's five debate teams.
There's one topic thateverybody is going to debate
and they're all going togo off into separate rooms
and they're going to allmake very similar arguments,
(18:31):
if not just the same startingscript for how they're going
to advocate for their side of this issue.
But at some point in that debate,
just like in a game of chess,
that debate will becomean entirely unique debate
that only this version of thisdiscussion has ever existed.
(18:53):
Every other discussion aboutthis topic is a slightly
different discussion based onwhat points have been made,
what's been responded to,what hasn't been responded to,
what has been effective,what hasn't been effective.
And what makes a gooddebate a good debater
isn't their strength ofwriting a good speech
(19:14):
for the first part of the debate.
It's their ability to recognize
what's happening in this debate.
What have I said that is working?
What have they said that is a concern?
What have they said that's weak?
What's good about it?
What's bad about it?
And that in the moment responsiveness,
and always putting yourself inthe position of the listener.
(19:37):
That is your primary concern,
which is the the thirdparty, which is the judge.
In competitive debate,there's always a third party.
It's the thing that makesit the most different
from just arguing withsomebody in real life.
Because in competitivedebate, the debate will end
and someone will tell youif you won or you lost.
And so you always wanna beputting yourself in the position
(19:58):
of what has this person heard?
What are they thinking in this moment?
Where do I want to movetheir attention to?
And the only way youcan do that is listening
because the best debatersare the ones that can best
put themselves in theposition of the listening
(20:18):
and decision making audience.
And it's a tricky thingto balance, both listening
to everything your opponent is saying
in terms of processing whatexactly they're claiming,
how you want to respond,
but also at the same time processing
what effect is this goingto have on the third party
(20:40):
that's listening to this?
The judge.
Is this persuasive to them?
Do they like it?
Do they not like it?
Because ultimately you can't respond
to every single thing somebody else says
and you have to make some decisions about
what's important and what's not important.
And the only way to makethose decisions effectively
is to be a really good listener.
(21:01):
If you don't know what somebody else said,
you have no tool with which toknow what bits are important.
- In trying to notice andlisten, people use note taking.
Done well, it can liberate your listening.
(21:22):
Done poorly, it can actuallycrash your listening
and you need shit to deploy airbags.
What's effective note-takinglook like in a debate?
- Debate has a uniquestyle of note taking.
It is a combination of whatwe would call an argument map.
(21:46):
An argument map is a visualrepresentation on a page
of how a discussion has gone.
Imagine like visualizing this point
was responded to with this other point.
And it's also a combination of shorthand,
which is necessary to beable to not miss details,
(22:08):
which you inevitably,even the best debaters
will inevitably miss some details.
And again, you have to deploysome thoughtful listening
'cause it's not transcript making.
It's you're listening and deciding what
of the one third of this information
that you're able to write down,
what is the thing that isimportant to write down?
(22:30):
Let's say you're startingat the top of the page
and you're working your way down.
We'll capture everythingthat someone has said.
Let's say it's a perfect transcript.
That's a court transcript.
And then the next lawyer comes up
and the next lawyer makes a case.
And the court once againhas a perfect transcript.
It's really difficult to visually tell
(22:52):
by looking at those twopages of transcript,
what did the first lawyer say
that the second lawyer never responded to?
The form of note takingthat we do in debate flowing
is instead of havingone page for one speech
or going vertically down, wesplit the debate into columns
(23:13):
and the columns representeach speech that we know
is going to be happening in the debate.
And the first column isjust every basic argument
that the first speaker makes.
The second column, youwrite how the other side
responds to that and you place an argument
(23:35):
next to the argumentthat it's responding to.
When Malcolm Gladwell came to our class
and I was teaching him this card exercise,
the exercise is I'm gonnaname a bunch of cards.
- Good day, it's Oscar.
I'm just gonna quickly jump in here
and signal what's about to happen.
(23:55):
Sasan is going to readout a range of cards
and you need to keep track of them.
Then he's going to read outa different set of cards
and you need to keep track of that too.
When it's finished, I'm gonna jump back in
and deconstruct what's just happened.
- Hello, my name is Sasan
(24:16):
and I'll be speaking onthe affirmative today.
My first argument is the three of hearts.
And we know that's true becauseof the four of diamonds.
You can't forget about the jack of spades.
A lot of people tell me 10 of diamonds.
But what those people don't realize
is first off ace of hearts,secondly, the six of clubs,
(24:38):
and finally the nine of spades.
That's it.
That's the speech.
So you should have these written down.
Okay, great.
- How did you go?
Did you write out the full name
or did you use a shorthand code?
Did you write from left to right
or did you write from top to bottom?
(25:00):
Did you write at all?
Did you try and keep it in your head?
After a while you realize youget pretty lost in the debate.
- Now we're going todo the negative speech.
I'm the negative and I disagree
with everything that guy said.
He says three of hearts morelike the seven of diamonds.
(25:22):
People like to talk about jack of spades,
but what they don'trealize is king of hearts.
10 of diamonds is okay.
if you don't remember thatthe ace of spades is there.
And as far as the ace of hearts goes,
more like the two of hearts.
Finally, they broughtup the nine of spades.
Nine of spades, nine of seriously,
(25:43):
because have you never heard
of the queen of clubs?
That's my whole speech.
- How did I do?
I was terrible.
I could keep up for the first minute
or so then I fell behind.
I miss things.
Sasan gets up and talksabout playing cards
and I can't keep up.
(26:05):
- How did you go?
Did you feel like you wanna rewind
and do the exercise all over again?
So the first time there were seven cards,
and the second time therewere only five cards.
Did you notice that the four of diamonds
was not refuted nor the six of clubs?
None of those points were refuted.
(26:25):
Sasan only refuted five points directly
and he ignored two points.
This is a really good example of listening
to what's not said.
When I heard it for the first time,
rather than trying to remember everything,
I wrote down the following.
And I did it from left to right
rather than from top to bottom.
(26:45):
I wrote, 3H, 4D, JS, 10D, AH, 6C, 9S.
I used a shorthand way so I didn't have
to write anything out in full.
Now writing it from left toright was a rookie error.
(27:06):
That's the way we write.
It's not the way we build an argument map.
And Sasan's gonna spend sometime helping us understand
how to do that a little bit further on.
The second time around,I heard the following.
7D, KH, AS, 2H, QC.
(27:28):
This left to right approachfor me didn't create
the right kind ofeffective visual shortcut
that an argument mapcreates going from top
to bottom vertical rather than horizontal.
The horizontal approach didn't allow me
to do a quick scan andsee what was missing
(27:48):
and see what was related in the debate.
My listening lesson is somethingthat James Clear mentioned.
You rise to the level of your systems.
In this case, my system and process
needed to be flipped 90 degrees
to help me listeneffectively to what was said
and more importantly, what wasn't said.
(28:08):
Let's join Sasan now as heexplores a little bit further
how to build a visual argument map.
- You're gonna write them all down.
And, Oscar, we talkedabout this and you said
that you had a shorthand for that,
a two letter shorthand where7S means seven of spades.
That is exactly what you should be doing,
but it's not just about are you able
(28:29):
to write down every card that I set,
the exercise goes on and thenext step of the exercise
is now I'm the second speaker
and I might not even go inthe same speaking order.
I might not touch on thingsand I'll skip things.
And the skill challengeis to stay organized
and finish with thisvisual representation.
(28:50):
For example, once you'rethrough a whole debate
and you have five columns filled,
you'll be able to telleven when this card example
where we're just talking aboutan abstract imaginary debate,
which point was raisedthat got talked about
at every opportunity, what wasraised by the first debater
(29:13):
that the second debaterfailed to respond to.
And the first debater caughtit and brought that up.
That you can visually tell.
What got not responded to
and then nobody ever brought it up again.
And these skills are important in debate
because the less a point is responded to,
(29:33):
the less resistance there is in that path
to convincing the judgethat your point is right.
It becomes really importantto us in a regular discussion
if you and I are just havinga conversation about tracking
in schools, you mighttell me a little bit about
Sydney's system andwhat's effective about it
and what's not effective about it.
And I'll latch onto one bit of that
(29:54):
and I'll say this thing that you said
that is effective aboutit, we have some version
of that in New York, but it'snot working the same way.
And I think it's maybefor these three reasons.
And then you'll latch ontoone of those three reasons
and you'll say, here's whatI think that actually is.
And there's all these thingsin a natural conversation
that get introduced butdon't get pursued farther.
(30:16):
And the two parties, or atleast one of the parties
tends to forget they were ever brought up.
And the skill set thatyou get trained in debate
is to not lose thatperspective and to be able
to look at a sheet ofpaper and be able to tell,
am I winning this argument
in terms of whatever thissheet of paper represents?
(30:38):
Do I have an advantage here?
Is this worth my focus?
And in the context of debate,that is really helpful.
- Your mind may have justexploded thinking about
all the permutations ofthis in your workplace.
Your takeaways are this.
Don't take verbatim notes.
(31:00):
Create a visual map thatmaps not only your position
but the other.
And notice the progress of the positions.
If you take notes in a graphical,visual and shorthand way,
your attention is not asdistracted and hijacked
when you're taking verbatim notes.
There are some professionslistening right now
(31:21):
say we have to take verbatim notes.
It's our professional standard.
It's critical.
This is true.
There's not the context we're referencing.
For those of you who needto allocate fixed resources
and you need to get into adebate and have a manager
or director or vice president to give
some kind of a approval,take the time to map
(31:45):
what the possible counterarguments to your points are
and do that in a visual way
so you can keep track by scanning.
The minute you give your attention
to the notes you're taking,you're not listening
to the other position in the conversation.
This is a muscle we can all develop.
How long do you think it takes us
(32:05):
to develop this flow muscle?
- In the context of debate,
but think of it in terms of athletic skill
in your personal life,let's say a gym or jogging
versus a competitive environment.
Building the muscle andthe ability to do this.
A lot of students start toget this down within three,
(32:26):
four months of once a weekpractice for one debate a week.
And part of the reason ittakes that length of time
is because it's, they need that time
to develop their own style of doing it.
And to see a bunch of different scenarios,
it might take them acouple weeks to be able
(32:46):
to map out one particularargument and discussion.
But what happens is then the next argument
and discussion doesn't go in the same way
and doesn't work the same way.
And so all of a sudden you're back
to trying to figure it out.
I'd say after about four months,you are in a place where,
okay, you've probably experienced most
of the cases for this.
(33:07):
In a competitive setting, Ithink it takes probably about
two years for it to nolonger play a factor
in who wins or loses.
The reason for that isthe difference between
your physical abilitiesin exercising for health
and how long it takes foryou to get comfortable
jogging for health andthen how long it takes
(33:29):
for you to be competentjogging competitively.
In debate, we're not justkeeping track of notes
to keep track of what was said.
We are keeping track ofnotes because the other side
is trying to push our limits in how much
we can handle competitiveacademic college debates.
They do tend to be fasterthan regular conversation.
(33:53):
I'd say it takes acouple years to the point
where note-taking is nolonger the determining factor
in who wins the debate.
But in terms of the ability to engage
in that note-taking style effectively,
I'd say two to four months.
- What's the question I haven't asked
at the intersection ofdebate and listening?
(34:15):
- The motivation for why you're listening
and how that shapes thequality of your listening.
There's a lot in your book about listening
to understand meaning andintent and context and feelings.
And in the context of a debate,
those things will only matter to me
if I think they will matter to the judge,
(34:37):
and I usually don't thinkthey will matter to a judge.
In other words, my concernisn't what you meant,
my concern is what you said
because I'm not debatingagainst your intention.
More so than that, in academic debate,
the sides are, you prepareboth sides of the topic
and you're told in this round you're going
(34:59):
to advocate for this side.
So it's less often a exercisein that form of empathy
for another human being's intentions.
It's more a questionof what are the things
that you are saying?
I would've been surprisedif we had never talked about
that distinction.
(35:20):
But also I think there'sa lot to be said about
the ways in which thekind of listening we use
for a debate setting aren'tproductive in every setting.
- What a masterclass.
I wonder what you aretaking away from today.
(35:43):
I wonder what's differentin your thinking about
note taking, preparing forboth sides of the debate
and the importance oflistening and speaking
while you're in a situation where you need
to debate something and to make progress.
I'm curious, what didyou take away from today?
(36:04):
Email me, podcast@oscartrimboli.com.
That's, podcast@oscartrimboli.com
with the subject line, debate.
I'm curious what'schanged in your thinking
with regard to note taking especially.
I'm also curious aboutwhat it means for you
in terms of preparingboth sides of the debate.
(36:27):
Just a couple of tips toimprove your visual note taking.
Practice and practice frequency
is a point that Sasan reinforced.
If you wanna make improvements,
you've gotta increase theaccuracy of your practice
as well as the frequency of your practice.
So I would recommend practice this first
in a one-on-one environment,in an environment
(36:49):
where you've got high trust
and it's a low riskconversation taking place,
then move to a low risk environment.
Maybe the trust isn't high,but maybe it's a little lower.
And then finally, practicein high trust environments
where groups are presentbecause you are listening
(37:12):
and your note taking, startsmall and then expand out
till you eventually get to group meetings.
There's a couple ofadditional podcast episodes,
episode 36 with Justice Michael Kirby,
how to listen like a high court justice
where he talked about using a tree.
(37:33):
The tree was having the trunkas the center of the argument,
the branches, the supportingarguments and the leaves,
important pieces of evidence
equally reinforcing theimportance of visualization
and using visual approaches to help you
is Dr. Boris Conrad.
(37:54):
And he's a world memory champion.
He's episode 65 where youcan explore some techniques
that he reinforces aboutnot being a stenographer,
but being a visual note taker.
There's no shortage of resources
to support you in your listening journey.
(38:15):
If you'd love to get access
to important techniques like note-taking,
we have a fundamentals course.
If you'd like to be added to the wait list
for the fundamentals course,which we have once a quarter
in groups of 10 to 12, no more, no less,
so that we can practiceour listening together,
(38:36):
just send me an emailpodcast@oscartrimboli.com
with a subject line, fundamentals.
I'm Oscar Trimboli and along
with the Deep Listeningambassador community,
we're on a quest to create100 million deep listeners
in the workplace and you've given us
the greatest gift of all.
You've listened to us.
(38:56):
Thanks for listening.
- What did you do right in that debate
and what did he do wrong?
- Oh, I listened to himand he didn't listen.
He spent most of the debate.
I had Matt Taibbi on my side.
He had Michelle Goldberg on his.
I said to one point to Matt,
(39:18):
"What's Malcolm Gladwell writing?"
He spent the whole timescribbling on this pad
and then would saysomething utterly inane.
He would say something he'd already said.
It was so preposterousand we were bored of it
and the audience was groaning.
I actually said to him, it's very weird
seeing you try to debate, Malcolm,
(39:38):
because you listen tonothing we say, nothing.
And in his sort of post matchanalysis, some months later,
he said, "I should havelistened to my opponents."
(thoughtful music)
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com