[vsri]

The author here seems to be using "paraphrase" to mean mean both "mirroring" (repeat back using speaker's words) and "paraphrasing" (repeat back using listener's words). I think there are contexts when each is appropriate.

For example, if I (speaker) am giving you (listener) instructions, it's good for you to paraphrase. That shows me how you are interpreting my language and that allows me to clarify. Mirroring doesn't allow for this because no new information is provided:

- Speaker: Could you sort all the files and destroy duplicates?

- Listener: You want me to put the files in alphabetical order and throw them out.

- Speaker: Yes, but by destroy I meant shred.

But there are cases where it's more important for the speaker to be understood. Perhaps they are feeling hard emotions and need to be heard, or (and I think this is the real use case for mirroring) when the speaker is still working through their feelings or thoughts on a subject. They are using speech, in a sense, to think.

- Speaker: I think it's bizarre that the PM wants to push this along so quickly.

- Listener: You think it's bizarre that the PM wants to push this along so quickly?

- Speaker: Well... not bizarre. It's just surprising because there is no external deadline for this work.

Here mirroring gives the speaker an opportunity to see how their words sound coming back to them and it gives them an opportunity to clarify and add.

[TeMPOraL]

> They are using speech, in a sense, to think.

Oh yes, indeed they are. I never truly understood why some people close to me would just dump random issues at me, repeatedly, and actively refuse any attempt at guiding the conversation towards a possible solution. I knew I was supposed to handle it by emphasizing and letting them vent out, but I never could quite understand the frame of mind that goes behind this talking to vent out...

...until recently, during one of such conversations, hearing about the same problem for the 10th time this month, it clicked: I realized that they're doing the exact same thing I do with "brain dump" text files - up to the same phrasing, and "melody" of speech. Those people are just unloading their train of thought to sort it out, and the listener's role is just to be there and pay attention.

(I say "those people" not as a negative, but only because I'm not like that; I think I've lost the ability to use talking to think when I learned to use a text editor for that purpose.)

[BurningFrog]

Sounds like the old trick of "write down your question, and you'll probably know the answer".

I think it works because writing (or talking) engages different parts of the brain than thinking.

[l0b0]

To paraphrase(!), in a way you're paraphrasing your thoughts when speaking. I think I do this a lot while programming, and certainly rubber ducking (or the human equivalent, a quick sanity check with a colleague) seems to be a good way to do this.

[null_deref]

So you just dump your thoughts into a text file, and that's helps you clarify them and clean your head?

[iainctduncan]

I see what you did there. ba doom cha!

[curiousllama]

Never thought of doing that in a text file - I'm gonna give that a try

[_y5hn]

If the issue is unresolved and emotional, it will be repeated.

If the issue is emotional or unresolved, it will fester.

If it's resolved, blame has been assigned.

It's how you are treated that may or may not make it worthwhile.

[fian]

Verbalising a problem helps you check for assumptions. See "talk to the duck"

[mytailorisrich]

To avoid misunderstandings the important bit is for the listener to rephrase in their own words according to their understanding.

That's key and is what your first example illustrates.

Your second example sounds more like questioning the speaker.