This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
trim


Lawyers tend to be so fo-


cused on the next question, the next theme, the next line of at- tack, that they do not listen to and thereby fail to absorb the impact of the answers given to their questions. Thus they do not make adjustments in their ques- tions that would lead to extract- ing more productive information. Listening is a diffi cult skill.


Listening, as opposed to merely hearing, requires focus, analysis, preparation, self-control, knowl- edge, an agile intellect and a sense of where you want to go. Useful listening requires goals and purposes. Listening is anal- ogous to the distinction made by clay target shooters between seeing and vision. Seeing is a sensory impulse where the brain acknowledges something is no- ticed: take a look—the target is by the tree! Vision, on the other hand, is


the integration of many stimuli analyzed by the brain: where the


target is going; its fl ight path, velocity, distance and where the target is most susceptible to being hit. Just as the brain integrates data through vision, the mind must integrate data by listening.


It is fundamental


that engaging cred- ibly with the media requires clarity of purposes and goals. Extending beyond your purposes and having unfocused or unrealistic goals are paths to losing your credibility.


Listening can disclose the tone, the values, the biases, the


40 USA Shooting News | Spring 2013


assumptions and the traps to be set, if any, by the person asking the question. The question “when did you take up target shooting?” is different in ideology and val- ues from the question “when did you begin using weapons?” Careful analysis from listen-


ing can disclose opportunities to elaborate or enhance your mes- sage. For example, assume you are asked, “Did you suffer a loss of confi dence when your gun was stolen and you had to borrow a gun?” If you listen superfi cially and deductively, you might give this answer: “No, not really. The borrowed gun fi t the same.” But if you listen analytically and with imagination, you will


be aware that the simplistic question actually incorporates complex issues regarding the foundation for confi dence and your ability to sustain confi dence under adverse circumstances. This recognition opens the door to an answer richly endowed with facts and emotions that will en- hance your persuasiveness. Thus, you might reply: “No loss of con- fi dence occurred. I trained every day; I shot under diffi cult circum- stances; I worked on my me- chanics and my mental game. I visualized, weight-lifted and pre- pared. So, no, using a different gun did not shake my confi dence at all.”


Photo: Sommer Wood/CMP


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68