Thoughts on the phrase: ‘You just don’t listen’
Why we should stop saying this
There’s a phrase in everyday and political conversation which I cannot stand: ‘You just don’t listen’. Variations include ‘He should have listened’, ‘Nobody listens to me’ and ‘You’re not listening’. I want to put forward a couple of reasons as to why you should almost never use the phrase(s) ever again. Unfortunately, I cannot relay any instances of this phrase without boring the reader with needless details of my dad and I arguing over dinner; I leave it to young readers to think of examples.
What does it mean to ‘listen’? I think the dictionary does a good job with its definition: ‘To give one’s attention to a sound’. If someone dazes off into middle distances and you’re talking to them I think it’s proper to say ‘You’re not listening’ (but not in any greatly disparaging tone). In the vast majority of instances this phrase (or its variations) is used though the person has listened. Certainly, I think if they can repeat back what the speaker has said in their own words they’ve probably listened. Hence, saying ‘you just don’t listen’ is a false accusation, and, given you shouldn’t make false accusations of people, you shouldn’t say ‘you just don’t listen’.
Usually ‘You just don’t listen’ is said when someone is seriously disagreeing with someone else, getting frustrated, and, to my mind, can’t think of anything better to say. Now if the listener has misunderstood your point, why not actually just say ‘I think you may have misunderstood me’. I think we can all agree you can give you attention to a sound, e.g., to a maths teacher explaining a problem, i.e., listen, but still fail to understand what is being said. Or why not be modest and say something such as ‘Perhaps I misspoke, let me explain again’, or, ‘I haven’t explained myself very well, let me rearticulate my case’ which is also a good way to diffuse any heat in a debate.
I’m not sure whether people intend this or not, but I think ‘You just don’t listen’ is really a condescending comment (actually, I err to it being intentional). This is because if the accused has focused on what has been said, denying that truth is putting them in an inferior box as either not being able or choosing not to focus on audio. The same goes for ‘he should have listened’, or, ‘you should have listened to me’, in almost all cases the alleged non-listener can repeat back what he has allegedly not listened to. The meaning of these phrases is really ‘he should have done as I said’ and ‘you should have done as I’ve said’ and these phrases sound worse (because not focusing on advise given to you is worse than weighting it up and not taking it).
The reason why the former phases are used and the latter are not is listeners to the dispute may really believe the relevant person has not listened and think worse of them as a result (revealing the poor character of the accuser). Or, everyone knows full well what is meant, but relying on the former phases belittles the alleged non-listener and that is indeed the purpose of saying it. If you want to get to the truth in a dispute or at least better understand each’s position, this unspoken insult of a phrase is not helpful at all. Indeed, I think Dale Carnegie may be right when he writes:
‘Well suppose you triumph over another man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove he is non-compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him. You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still’
Being condescending to a man, even slyly, and, especially in front of others, is only going to compound this resentment. And even where you’re not looking to win over the person you’re debating with, I think manners warrant not being condescending to them nevertheless. Thus, I would urge readers to stop saying ‘You just don’t listen’ and variations on it.
I've often heard people say things like "he just won't listen!" but I always wonder why people don't make less emphatic statements and ask more questions. Sometimes, when you ask someone what their take is on something, they will start to tell you and then realise there is no solid basis for what they are saying and become less unwilling to hear one out. Asking questions that require more than a 'yes' or a 'no' in reply gives the questioner an opportunity to evaluate an alternative viewpoint, learn what misconceptions are being held and put the conversation on an exchange basis rather than a one-way tirade. Sometimes we are so keen to get our point across that we ride roughshod over one another but we can all learn to communicate better with a little encouragement. I agree with you, though, that "You never listen" can frequently be interpreted as "You refuse to agree with me and I don't like it."
This is interesting. I broadly agree that the term 'you just don't listen' is general not very useful in meaningful discussion. It usually really means 'you don't agree with me, when I think you should', The only proviso I would make is that in the current extremely polarised situation regarding politics and culture, adherents of certain types of ideology are more than likely actually *literally* 'not listening' to opposing viewpoints - they are performing the equivalent of what you did as a kid when you stuck your fingers in your ears and hummed to block out things you didn't like. An example would be followers of the 'transgender' cult who just go on repeating 'transwomen are women' robotically, regardless of the arguments people are trying to present to them. Also, I would suspect it's mainly adherents of extreme (mostly leftist) movements who will use the phrase 'you are not listening' of people whose views they dislike, simply as part of the strategy of depicting their opponents as 'fascists' who are beyond the pale and should therefore be 'cancelled'. (By the way, shouldn't it be 'condescend TO or TOWARDS'? I don't think you can 'condescend someone' - condescend is surely an intransitive verb?)