Rudyard Griffiths (00:00):

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Munk Debates.

Malcolm Gladwell (00:03):

Not long ago, a few thousand people gathered at Roy Thompson Hall in Toronto, the fanciest performance space in the city to hear a debate, parliamentary style, opening statements, rebuttals, closing arguments.

Douglas Murray (00:17):

It’s so strange hearing you debate, Malcolm, because you listen to nothing that your opponents say. It’s quite extraordinary. I’ve met it before, but never quite so badly as it occurs in you. You keep saying things that neither of us have said. Malcolm, why don’t you listen to what comes out of our mouths and try to learn something from it as I am with you?

 

But at the moment all I get is you dismissing every single story we come up with.

Malcolm Gladwell (00:45):

It turns out he was right and that was when DiCo told me I had to come to Brooklyn again for listening lessons.

Sasan Kasravi (00:54):

When I teach debate, I teach it as essentially competitive listening.

Oscar Trimboli (01:23):

How to listen effectively when you debate at work. What you just heard was a tiny part of a 90 minute munk debate from Canada.

 

They were debating the proposition, be it resolved, don’t trust the mainstream media. Before the debate.

 

The host, Rudyard Griffiths invited thousands of people in the audience to complete the poll, which resulted in the following, 48% of people agreed don’t trust the mainstream media, 52% disagreed.

 

Then, Rudyard proposed a second question. 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 at the end of the debate.

 

For the affirmative, Douglas Murray 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 took place over the 80 minutes 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.

(03:01):

Four out of five people were also willing to change their vote. On their final vote at the end of the debate, the result, 67% of people voted for the proposition, Don’t Trust the Mainstream Media. The audience listened and they changed their mind.

 

In fact, this was the biggest swing in the history of the Munk Debates. Murray and Taibbi won, Goldberg and Gladwell 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 because of what they said, they lost because they weren’t listening to the other team or the audience.

 

To improve his listening, Malcolm reached out to his friend DiCo at the Brooklyn Debate League. As a result, Malcolm created an entire episode of his podcast Revisionist History called Malcolm Goes to Debate School.

 

Many of the deep listening ambassadors sent me this episode and said, “Oscar, you need to interview Sasan Kasravi from the Brooklyn Debate League, an expert debater and educator.

(04:25):

I had a wonderful conversation with Sasan and you’ll hear from him shortly as well as other parts of Malcolm Gladwell’s reflections.

 

Why should you listen to an episode about debate and how does it influence your listening at work?

 

I want you to keep three concepts in mind as you listen today.

 

The first, when you need to argue your proposition to someone else or to a group of people at work, you need to prepare, understand and articulate both sides of the argument. Can you argue their position as effectively as you can argue your own? If you can, you’ve probably discovered that there are more than two 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 to what the others are saying, 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. Note-taking is about connection, content, context, systems, and a visual shorthand. Throughout our discussion today, I’ll invite you to pause and participate, to listen and take notes.

(06:00):

This discussion will include what I consider a masterclass from Sasan about how to effectively take notes in the context of debate in extremely limited time environment. Does that sound like where you work? I went into this discussion with an open mind about note-taking and realized that in complex debates, in group settings, I needed to adjust my orientation about 90 degrees.

 

Thanks for changing my mind, Sasan.

(06:31):

Before we begin, a big thank you to Jacob Smith, the producer at Pushkin Industries, for providing permission to use parts of the Revisionist History episode from season eight in April 2023, Malcolm Goes to Debate School.

 

Next, you’ll hear from a few different voices, including Sasan and Jonathan from the Brooklyn Debate League and Malcolm Gladwell. And for bonus points at the very end, I’ve got the reflections of Douglas Murray, Malcolm Gladwell’s opponent in the debate and his reflections on Malcolm’s lack of listening.

Sasan Kasravi (07:15):

Hi, my name is Sasan Kasravi. I am a debate coach working in New York to bring high quality critical thinking education to as many students in the city as we can.

Oscar Trimboli (07:30):

What’s the cost of not listening?

Sasan Kasravi (07:32):

The cost of not listening is not knowing, it’s not being able to test your assumptions. The foundation of what we do in debate, there is this idea that every assertion is based on assumptions.

(07:53):

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 of assumptions embedded in that where there’s things that you don’t know are true but you’re just assuming aren’t.

(08:10):

And for any belief, there’s probably more assumptions you are making than there is evidence that you have or good reason you have to believe something.

(08:21):

If you’re trying to drive a car, if you don’t make some assumptions, you can’t really go anywhere.

(08:28):

Assumptions are the gas pedal of the car where the more assumptions you make, the faster you move.

(08:35):

I think listening is what allows us to steer and the cost of not listening is trading speed for steering, which sounds appealing when you are in a certain mind frame but is a lot less appealing when you head into a brick wall

Oscar Trimboli (08:53):

Without a break, you may up in a brick wall. So, I’m curious about the choice to place listening on the steering wheel. Have you considered the role of listening as a break?

Sasan Kasravi (09:06):

The role of a break in this analogy is confronting and accepting the things that you don’t know and that you can’t really work around. When do you stop in a particular direction?

(09:20):

When is it not productive for you to move past where you are? The role of a break is to decide when it’s time to stop because any direction you move farther is not productive toward accomplishing a valuable goal.

Oscar Trimboli (09:39):

We say listening happens before, during, and after the discussion and this is true in debate. There is a definite before, during and after, and there’s two elements of preparation.

(09:51):

The first one is how to prepare for both sides, and the second, which doesn’t often happen in workplace settings, is getting the participants to vote by standing on one side of the room or the other so you know what you are dealing with in terms of who agrees with a resolution and who does not.

Sasan Kasravi (10:14):

What does actually preparing for a debate in the academic world look like? I’ve been doing 10 hours of research in the last couple of days on academic tracking, on the benefits and harms, and I probably have another 10 hours ahead of me before I feel confident that the arguments that I have prepared on this topic are to the level of quality that I want them.

(10:41):

So, what does that look like? The first thing I’m curious to learn is what is the common understanding of this issue? If I’m going to watch two other people debate about this, what are the arguments that is going to be brought up by the side that’s for it? What are the arguments that are going to be brought up by the side that’s against it?

(11:00):

And I want to make sure I understand 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. 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?

(11:34):

Because the answer you normally get is a good argument is one that persuades people. But how do you know if it’ll persuade people? Or you find out that you should support your idea with evidence, but you don’t know what the idea you’re supporting with evidence is supposed to be.

(11:50):

A good argument is three things. It’s true. The claim you’re making is supported by reason and evidence. It’s relevant to your audience, to the thing that you’re there to discuss.

(12:05):

There’s some sort of shared question that we’re trying to answer and your argument is relevant to that. Most importantly, is it’s important. So, there’s a lot of arguments that you can make about any given topic that are true. But ultimately, when somebody comes to a decision about that big question, it’s not like, “Oh, well you know, there are 12 reasons why we should do this and seven reasons why we shouldn’t.”

(12:38):

So, I guess the 12 side wins. Usually, it comes down to the one most important issue that was raised, and that can be the only topic, the only argument that one side brought up.

(12:53):

In terms of preparing, first you want to know what the landscape is, then you want to try to figure out what would the best solution to this question look like?

(13:02):

And after that, it’s thinking about what are the arguments that nobody else is thinking about? And I can figure out if we’re talking about academic tracking, what the basic discussion is most likely to be within an hour on any topic.

(13:17):

The other 19 hours is the aspects of this issue that people aren’t thinking about. And that’s really where your strength as an advocate are. Because your audience is going in trying to have an open mind, but to the degree that they understand the question being asked, they have some opinion on it, and them hearing you sound pretty isn’t really going to challenge their assumptions.

(13:50):

And so, how do you prepare for a debate? You want to first understand the landscape of your audience is going in with a certain set of assumptions about this topic, certain pros and cons that they currently understand. You have to figure out what those are.

(14:06):

You have to figure out what value system they’re probably using to make their decision on whether they like that idea or not.

(14:15):

You have to decide is that a good value system for them to be using? Is there a different value system that you think, a different value that they have that you can attach to this?

(14:24):

You can’t change their values, but can you get them, for instance, to instead of being focused on their finances, to be focused on their safety.

(14:33):

And once you know what that is, you have to consider all of the different inroads that they haven’t considered in their decisions because that’s the only way you’re going to really get an audience to reconsider their position coming into a discussion.

Oscar Trimboli (14:55):

The short excerpt you’re about to hear next is from the Revisionist History podcast, where Malcolm goes to the Brooklyn Debate League.

(15:04):

The recording takes place inside a classroom with a range of school-age participants as well as Malcolm.

(15:10):

Jonathan Conyers is the first voice you will hear and he’s setting up for a mini debate. Wouldn’t it be great in a workplace if everybody stood up on the left and the right where they stand on the issue or 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 every workplace is ready for it.

(15:35):

Let’s listen to Jonathan.

Jonathan Conyers (15:36):

Ready? You all ready?

Student Two (15:37):

Yes, sir.

Jonathan Conyers (15:38):

All right. Open forum. Look up. Being able to listen is the 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.

Oscar Trimboli (15:52):

Jonathan kicked things off with a warm-up exercise. Open forum, a mini debate on the question of the day. What’s more important to a debate? Being a good listener or a good talker?

Jonathan Conyers (16:04):

Being able to listen is the most important skill a debater could have. Being able to listen is the most important skill a debater could have.

Student One (16:12):

Debating is not only about using information against information, but it’s also about obtaining something and understanding it in order to use information to fight it.

Student Two (16:21):

You also said you have to listen to your opponent, so that’s also a very important skill, to listen to your opponent because if you don’t listen to it and you just drawing stuff down, you might say the wrong things or write down the wrong thing as to what your opponent is saying.

Oscar Trimboli (16:35):

Hold that thought for a moment.

(16:37):

You might write down the wrong thing.

(16:39):

This becomes very important for the balance of our conversation.

(16:45):

Note-taking matters not just in debate, but also in your workplace.

(16:52):

Before, during and after. Let’s talk about during the debate. A lot of people think that world-class debaters, people who are persuasive and can change minds do so through oratory.

(17:07):

They do so through rhetoric, they do this by the way they articulate their ideas, yet I suspect they’re also great listeners.

Sasan Kasravi (17:18):

You have to be. When I teach debate, I teach it as essentially competitive listening.

(17:26):

And to a debater, the most impressive skill set and the one that sets the top-level debaters apart from people who are starting out is not the strength of writing an argument. The argument is just context for what the debate is going to be.

(17:46):

If you like chess, all of your preparation is just the opening moves of a chess game. And in chess, all of those opening moves have names, but nobody at a high level of chess is winning or losing based on which opening move they’re using. And the same thing is what we should expect to happen in a debate where we will take 10 students to a debate competition and they’re paired up. And so, there’s five debate teams.

(18:18):

There’s one topic that everybody is going to debate and they’re all going to go off into separate rooms and they’re going to all make very similar arguments if not just the same starting script for how they’re going to advocate for their side of this issue.

(18:39):

But at some point, in that debate, just like in a game of chess that debate will become an entirely unique debate that only this version of this discussion has ever existed.

(18:53):

Every other discussion about this topic is a slightly different discussion based on what 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 good debater isn’t their strength of writing a good speech for the first part of the debate. It’s their ability to recognize what’s happening in this debate.

(19:21):

What have I said that is working?

(19:23):

What have they said that is a concern?

(19:26):

What have they said that’s weak?

(19:27):

What’s good about it?

(19:28):

What’s bad about it?

(19:29):

And that in the moment, responsiveness and always putting yourself in the position of the listener that is your primary concern, which is the third party, which is the judge. In competitive debate, there’s always a third party. It’s the thing that makes it the most different from just arguing with somebody in real life because in competitive debate, the debate will end and someone will tell you if you won or you lost.

(19:56):

And so, you always want to be putting yourself in the position of what has this person heard? What are they thinking in this moment? Where do I want to move their attention to?

(20:07):

And the only way you can do that is listening because the best debaters are the ones that can best put themselves in the position of the listening and decision-making audience, and it’s a tricky thing to balance, both listening to everything your opponent is saying in terms of processing what exactly they’re claiming, how you want to respond, but also at the same time processing what effect is this going to have on the third party that’s listening to this, the judge.

(20:41):

Is this persuasive to them?

(20:42):

Do they like it?

(20:43):

Do they not like it?

(20:44):

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 make those decisions effectively is to be a really good listener. If you don’t know what somebody else said, you have no tool with which to know what bits are important

Oscar Trimboli (21:10):

In trying to notice and listen, people use note-taking. Done well, it can liberate your listening. Done poorly, it can actually crash your listening and you need to deploy airbags.

(21:31):

What’s effective note-taking look like in a debate?

Sasan Kasravi (21:35):

Debate has a unique style of note-taking. It is a combination of what we would call an argument map.

(21:46):

An argument map is a visual representation on the page of how a discussion has gone. Imagine visualizing this point was responded to with this other point, and it’s also a combination of shorthand which is necessary to be able to not miss details, which you inevitably, even the best debaters will inevitably miss some details.

(22:14):

And again, you have to deploy some thoughtful listening because 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 is important to write down?

(22:30):

Let’s say you’re starting at the top of the page and you’re working your way down.

(22:33):

We will capture everything that someone has said. Let’s say it’s a perfect transcript, that’s a court transcript.

(22:41):

And then, the next lawyer comes up and the next lawyer makes a case and the court once again has a perfect transcript. It’s really difficult to visually tell by looking at those two pages of transcript.

(22:56):

What did the first lawyer say that the second lawyer never responded to?

(23:01):

The form of note-taking that we do in debate flowing is instead of having one page for one speech or going vertically down, we split the debate into columns and the columns represent each speech that we know is going to be happening in the debate.

(23:19):

And in the first column is just every basic argument that the first speaker makes.

(23:26):

The second column, you write how the other side responds to that and you place an argument next to the argument that it’s responding to.

(23:38):

When Malcolm Gladwell came to our class and I was teaching him this card exercise, the exercise is I’m going to name a bunch of cards…

Oscar Trimboli (23:50):

Good day. It’s Oscar. I’m just going to quickly jump in here and signal what’s about to happen.

(23:55):

Sasan is going to read out a range of cards and you need to keep track of them.

(24:03):

Then he’s going to read out a different set of cards and you need to keep track of that too.

(24:09):

When it’s finished, I’m going to jump back in and deconstruct what’s just happened.

Sasan Kasravi (24:14):

Hello, my name is Sasan and I’ll be speaking on the affirmative today. My first argument is the three of hearts, and we know that’s true because of 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, and finally, the nine of spades. That’s it. That’s the speech. So, you should have these written down. Okay, great.

Oscar Trimboli (24:48):

How did you go?

(24:50):

Did you write out the full name or did you use a shorthand code?

(24:54):

Did you write from left to right or did you write from top to bottom?

(25:00):

Did you write at all?

(25:01):

Did you try and keep it in your head?

(25:03):

After a while, you realize you get pretty lost in the debate.

Sasan Kasravi (25:11):

Now, we’re going to do the negative speech.

(25:15):

I’m the negative, and I disagree with everything that guy said. He says three of hearts, more like the seven of diamonds. People like to talk about jack of spades, but what they don’t realize is king of hearts. Ten of diamonds is okay. If you don’t remember that the ace of spades is there and as far as the ace of hearts goes, more like the two of hearts. Finally, they brought up the nine of spades. Nine of spades, nine of seriously? Because have you never heard of the queen of clubs?

(25:47):

That’s my whole speech.

Malcolm Gladwell (25:49):

How did I do? I was terrible. I could keep up for the first minute or so, then I fell behind. I missed things. Sasan gets up and talks about playing cards and I can’t keep up.

Oscar Trimboli (26:05):

How did you go?

(26:06):

Do you feel like you want to rewind and do the exercise all over again?

(26:10):

So, the first time there were seven cards, and the second time there were only five cards.

(26:16):

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.

(26:30):

This is a really good example of listening to what’s not said.

(26:34):

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.

(27:03):

Now, writing from left to right was a rookie error. That’s the way we write. It’s not the way we build an argument map. And Sasan’s going to spend some time helping us understand how to do that a little bit further on.

(27:15):

The second time around, I heard the following, 7D, KH, AS, 2H, QC. This left to right approach for me didn’t create the right kind of effective visual shortcut that an argument map creates going from top to bottom, vertical rather than horizontal.

(27:42):

The horizontal approach didn’t allow me to do a quick scan and see what was missing and see what was related in the debate.

(27:51):

My listening lesson is something that 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 listen effectively to what was said and more importantly, what wasn’t said.

(28:08):

Let’s join Sasan now as he explores a little bit further how to build a visual argument map.

Sasan Kasravi (28:14):

You’re going to write them all down and Oscar, we talked about this and you said that you had a shorthand for that, a two-letter shorthand where 7S means seven of spades. That is exactly what you should be doing, but it’s not just about are you able to write down every card that I set? The exercise goes on.

(28:33):

And the next step of the exercise is now I’m the second speaker and I might not even go in the same speaking order. I might not touch on things and I’ll skip things.

(28:42):

And the skill challenge is to stay organized and finish with this visual representation.

(28:50):

For example, once you’re through a whole debate and you have five columns filled, you’ll be able to tell even when this card example where we’re just talking about an abstract imaginary debate.

(29:04):

Which point was raised that got talked about at every opportunity? What was raised by the first debater that the second debater failed to respond to and the first debater caught it and brought that up?

(29:20):

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, the less resistance there is in that path to convincing the judge that your point is right.

(29:38):

It becomes really important to us in a regular discussion. If you and I are just having a conversation about tracking in schools, you might tell me a little bit about Sydney System and what’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 about it, we have some version of that in New York, but it’s not working the same way. And I think it’s maybe for these three reasons.” And then you’ll latch onto one of those three reasons and you’ll say, “Here’s what I think that actually is.”

(30:09):

And there’s all these things in a natural conversation that get introduced but don’t get pursued farther. And the two parties, or at least one of the parties tends to forget they were ever brought up.

(30:23):

And the skill set that you get trained in debate is to not lose that perspective and to be able to look at a sheet of paper and be able to tell, “Am I winning this argument? In terms of whatever this sheet of paper represents? Do I have an advantage here? Is this worth my focus?” And in the context of debate, that is really helpful.

Oscar Trimboli (30:47):

Your mind may have just exploded thinking about all the permutations of this in your workplace.

(30:55):

Your takeaways are this. Don’t take verbatim notes. Create a visual map that maps not only your position but the other and notice the progress of the positions.

(31:08):

If you take notes in a graphical, visual and shorthand way, your attention is not as distracted and hijacked when you’re taking verbatim notes.

(31:19):

There are some professions listening right now saying, “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.

(31:31):

For those of you who need to allocate fixed resources and you need to get into a debate and have a manager or director or vice president to give some kind of an approval, take the time to map what the possible counter arguments to your points are and do that in a visual way so you can keep track by scanning.

(31:53):

The minute you give your attention to the notes you’re taking, you’re not listening to the other position in the conversation.

(32:00):

This is a muscle we can all develop. How long do you think it takes us to develop this flow muscle?

Sasan Kasravi (32:08):

In the context of debate, 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 and the ability to do this.

(32:23):

A lot of students start to get this down within three, four months of once a week practice for one debate a week. And part of the reason it takes that length of time is because they need that time to develop their own style of doing it and to see a bunch of different scenarios.

(32:44):

It might take them a couple of weeks to be able to map out one particular argument and discussion, but what happens is then the next argument and discussion doesn’t go in the same way. It doesn’t work the same way.

(32:57):

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, I think it takes probably about two years for it to no longer play a factor in who wins or loses. The reason for that is the difference between your physical abilities in exercising for health and how long it takes for you to get comfortable jogging for health, and then how long it takes for you to be competent jogging competitively.

(33:33):

In debate, we’re not just keeping track of notes to keep track of what was said. We are keeping track of notes because the other side is trying to push our limits in how much we can handle competitive academic college debates.

(33:49):

They do tend to be faster than regular conversation. I’d say it takes a couple years to the point where note-taking is no longer 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.

Oscar Trimboli (34:10):

What’s the question I haven’t asked at the intersection of debate and listening?

Sasan Kasravi (34:15):

The motivation for why you’re listening and how that shapes the quality of your listening.

(34:22):

There’s a lot in your book about listening to understand meaning and intent 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, and I usually don’t think they will matter to a judge. In other words, my concern isn’t what you meant.

(34:43):

My concern is what you said because I’m not debating against your intention. More so than that, in academic debate, the sides are, you prepare both sides of the topic and you’re told in this round you’re going to advocate for this side.

(35:01):

So, it’s less often an exercise in that form of empathy for another human being’s intentions. It’s more a question of what are the things that you are saying?

(35:15):

I would have been surprised if we had never talked about that distinction. But also, I think there’s a lot to be said about the ways in which the kind of listening we use for a debate setting aren’t productive in every setting.

Oscar Trimboli (35:38):

What a masterclass. I wonder what you are taking away from today. I wonder what’s different in your thinking about note-taking, preparing for both sides of the debate and the importance of listening and speaking while you’re in a situation where you need to debate something and to make progress. I’m curious, what did you take away from today?

(36:04):

Email me podcast@oscartrimboli.com, that’s podcast@oscartrimboli.com with the subject line, Debate.

(36:15):

I’m curious what’s changed in your thinking with regard to note-taking, especially.

(36:20):

I’m also curious about what it means for you in terms of preparing both sides of the debate. Just a couple of tips to improve your visual note-taking. Practice and practice frequency is a point that Sasan reinforced.

(36:36):

If you want to make improvements, you’ve got to increase the accuracy 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 where you’ve got high trust and it’s a low risk conversation taking place, then move to a low risk environment.

(36:59):

Maybe the trust isn’t high, but maybe it’s a little lower. And then, finally, practice in high trust environments where groups are present because you are listening and you’re note-taking. Start small and then expand out till you eventually get to group meetings.

(37:20):

There’s a couple of additional 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 trunk as the center of the argument, the branches, the supporting arguments and the leaves, important pieces of evidence, equally reinforcing the importance of visualization and using visual approaches to help you as Dr. Boris Konrad, and he’s a world memory champion. He is episode 65 where you can explore some techniques that he reinforces about not being a stenographer, but being a visual note taker.

(38:11):

There’s no shortage of resources to support you in your listening journey. 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 waitlist for the fundamentals course, which we have once a quarter in groups of 10 to 12, no more, no less, so that we can practice our listening together.

(38:36):

Just send me an email podcast@oscartrimboli.com with a subject line, Fundamentals.

(38:44):

I’m Oscar Trimboli and along with the Deep Listening Ambassador Community, we’re on a quest to create 100 million deep listeners in the workplace, and you’ve given us the greatest gift of all, you’ve listened to us. Thanks for listening.

Host (39:02):

What did you do right in that debate and what did he do wrong?

Douglas Murray (39:06):

Oh, I listened to him and he didn’t.

(39:09):

He didn’t listen.

(39:11):

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, “What’s Malcolm Gladwell writing?”

(39:19):

He spent the whole time scribbling on this pad and then would say something utterly inane. He would say something he’d already said. It was so preposterous and we were bored of it, and the audience was groaning.

(39:33):

I actually said to him, “It’s very weird seeing you try to debate, Malcolm, because you listen to nothing we say, nothing.”

(39:42):

And in his sort of post-match analysis, some months later, he said, “I should have listened to my opponents.”