Active Listening & Active Speaking
I thought I listened well because I am friendly. In fact I was often rehearsing my next counter. This module practises listening to discover and speaking to influence.
Interactive formats on this page: 8-snippet dialogue reply chooser, free-text looping practice with heuristic feedback (3 seller lines, repeatable), attack-vs-constructive framing sort, annotated dialogue A/B.
Learning objectives
After this module you should be able to:
- Describe the steps of active listening: attention, suspending the internal voice, noting, looping, inviting correction, clarifying, validating.
- Write a loop that restates content and interest without agreeing or countering.
- Apply the qualities of active speaking: audience-specific, concise, precise, integrative, suggestive, positively framed, no bluffing.
- Use objective criteria as a joint search rather than as ammunition.
- Reframe a market fact constructively instead of attacking the seller's position.
Property example — the S$1.80m case
Two moments from the S$1.80m case:
In the simulation, Step 2 rewards restating and one clarifying question; Step 4 rewards acknowledging the concern, citing two relevant comparables and linking price to completion and financing — and gives only partial credit to the data-dump.
All property figures are illustrative and do not represent my real numbers.
Interactive exercise
Part A — Choose the best reply (dialogue practice)
Each snippet comes from the S$1.80m negotiation. Choose the reply that best applies active listening or active speaking. Every option has an explanation.
Part B — Looping practice (type your own restatement)
Read the seller's line, then type a loop: restate the content and the interest behind it, and invite correction. You'll get heuristic feedback. Repeat with the next line.
Part C — Attack or constructive frame?
Annotated dialogue (from Journal Part 6)
| Seller: "S$1.80m is my minimum because I need to complete my next purchase." | Observable data: a number, and an explanation after "because". |
| Buyer (thinking): "Everyone says 'minimum'." | Selected data: only the number kept. |
| Buyer: "Would you take S$1.70m?" | Conclusion and action: a counter that ignores what she said. |
| Seller: "I told you, S$1.80m." | Reinforced position; I learned nothing. |
| Buyer: "So the number is connected to your next purchase… Have I got that right?" | Looping — checking accuracy, inviting correction. |
| Seller: "Yes. And my last buyer's financing fell through." | New information: certainty matters. |
| Buyer: "That sounds stressful. When does your next purchase need to complete?" | Validation + one clarifying question. |
| Seller: "Within about eight weeks." | A variable I can accommodate at low cost. |
Illustrative dialogue written to show the concepts; it is not a transcript.
Critical question
Is active listening a technique or a disposition? If I loop mechanically while privately concluding "she is bluffing", the seller will probably sense it. Suspending the internal voice is the real work; restating is just the visible part.
Are objective criteria really objective? Rarely. Comparables can be selected to support either side: I cite the smaller, older unit; the seller cites the renovated one on a higher floor. If I present ten comparables to prove she is "objectively overpriced", I am using criteria as a weapon. Framing the search as a joint task shifts the question from "Whose data wins?" to "Which standard should we both accept?" — more honest and, I think, more persuasive.
A third worry (Part 15): a counterpart who has read the same books can loop my words back to build false rapport. Good listening by the other side is pleasant — and still not a reason to stop evaluating the package against my BATNA.
What I got wrong before
- "Listening means hearing before responding." Now: it means restating, checking, clarifying and probing — and suspending my own counter while I do it.
- "I'm sincere" is persuasive. Now: sincerity must be demonstrated — financing, speed, process understanding, flexibility.
- Comparables win arguments. Now: comparables are most persuasive when we choose the standard together.
Do not listen merely to prepare my next counteroffer. Understand what drives the other party's position before proposing.
Key takeaways
- The most valuable information is often the explanation after "because".
- Loop: restate content and interest, invite correction — without agreeing or countering.
- Listening is low-cost to me and high-value in information — so it comes before advocating.
- Speak concisely, precisely and positively; demonstrate rather than claim sincerity.
- Use objective criteria as a joint search. Rule #7: don't attack the seller's position.