Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A guide to difficult conversations

medium.dave-bailey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 415 posts

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#191

Post by scruple »

chroma wrote: post #156

Calling it "nonviolent communication" is a brilliant marketing move, as it implies that not conversing in this manner is violent. I've seen this style many times in my career, and it always comes off as patronizing. It also tends to be used far more often than recommended. Instead of being deployed in difficult conversations, it gets used in every one-on-one. My guess is that NVC ends up like power posing[1]: pop-psy…

I think there's a (small) subset of people who can pull it (NVC) off but it requires them to have had the empathy in the first place. You can't just manufacture empathy in a way where it passes the sniff test.

As an example, a quick Google search just now for "nonviolent communication empathy" turns up an article from 2011 at the "Center for Non-Violent Communication" titled "How to DO empathy." I couldn't possibly roll my eyes harder. It's a failed premise from the jump. It's like an ask I recently had at work, "We need to DO machine learning," says the CEO, "because all of our competitors are [putting it on their slide decks]."

I notice the same behaviors in people who read Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and think that it's an instruction manual. It comes off as insincere and it instantly sours me to further communications with the person.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#192

Post by ben509 »

weeksie wrote: post #14

It's funny because few things make me seethe like someone talking to me in this way during a high stress moment. The artifice is transparent and if the conversation is tense the tone is quite easy to read as condescension. I'm hardly dismissing NVC as a tactic, just that when done poorly it's worse than simply being direct.

I've sort of used NVC, but I put a lampshade on it:

"Look, fuckery abounds, and it's not time to pass judgement because I'm not ready to be hung, drawn and quartered myself. So for now, let's deal with the facts and only the facts: ..."

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#193

Post by hitekker »

chroma wrote: post #156

Calling it "nonviolent communication" is a brilliant marketing move, as it implies that not conversing in this manner is violent. I've seen this style many times in my career, and it always comes off as patronizing. It also tends to be used far more often than recommended. Instead of being deployed in difficult conversations, it gets used in every one-on-one. My guess is that NVC ends up like power posing[1]: pop-psy…

Great point about the marketing angle; even just using its name implies that you agree with its premises.

One can be non-violent, and coercive. That’s how passive aggression works. Sometimes it’s not angry words but the nicest, prettiest words which can get inside a persons head and destroy them.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#194

Post by CPLX »

onion2k wrote: post #179
chroma wrote: post #156

Calling it "nonviolent communication" is a brilliant marketing move, as it implies that not conversing in this manner is violent. I've seen this style many times in my career, and it always comes off as patronizing. It also tends to be used far more often than recommended. Instead of being deployed in difficult conversations, it gets used in every one-on-one. My guess is that NVC ends up like power posing[1]: pop-psy…

You may be right, but don't ignore the fact that nonviolent communication has been around for more than 50 years. Power posing was discredited within a decade.

Also, nobody is really arguing that "power posing" can't make someone feel better, if they're disposed to use it as a way to feel better. What was discredited is the idea that it had measurable chemical effects on the body.

NVC is a suggestion, like a style of doing things, not a scientific theory.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#195

Post by leesalminen »

PakG1 wrote: post #175
leesalminen wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately they’re both terrible to each other. Always have been, likely always will be. Even in relatively stressless situations they end up at each other’s throats in seconds. The family (not my wife) asked me to talk to my brother-in-law about this because nobody else could get through to him. I totally agree I’m not the right person to get in the middle. There’s just nobody else willing or able to.

If this is the situation, I would not be so hard on yourself. It seems like there's a lot of history and emotional trauma that would need to be resolved before any progress would be feasible. If this is indeed the situation, getting your wife involved in the process could make it worse, not better. Imagine all the fights they'd have with so much on the line, when they'd have so many fights before when there wasn't mu…

You’re right. I will call today without any agenda or goals. I really do want to be there for him. Nobody should have to take this on alone.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#196

Post by leesalminen »

snowwrestler wrote: post #186
leesalminen wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately they’re both terrible to each other. Always have been, likely always will be. Even in relatively stressless situations they end up at each other’s throats in seconds. The family (not my wife) asked me to talk to my brother-in-law about this because nobody else could get through to him. I totally agree I’m not the right person to get in the middle. There’s just nobody else willing or able to.

If this is the background, then your failure with your brother in law was probably inevitable, but trying was important for maintaining and improving your relationship with the rest of the family. If you had just said, "forget it, it won't work," and not tried, the outcome for your wife would be the same, but everyone else would also be mad that you didn't try.

I hadn’t looked at it that way. I appreciate this viewpoint. Does make me feel a little better about the situation. Thank you!

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#197

Post by FakeComments »

kodz4 wrote: post #181
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ This is what NVC does. Notice how this person is attempting to sound authentic, genuine, helpful, and hopeful. But also notice that they are very subtly positioning themselves as someone who has learned some Very Big Life Lessons, whereas who they are talking to has not. And then they close off. With small sentences. For. Dramatic. Effect. See how wise they are?

I noticed I started taking NVC seriously only after my 'very big life lessons'. I had heard about NVC and never found any great reason to think about it deeply or apply it until my own screw ups. That is all I was trying to convey.

I have the same reading as the other person: that the implication of your comment is people who don’t agree with you are just ignorant.

I too have experienced big, unrecoverable losses: several were caused by manipulative people thinking NVC or similar allowed them to force resolutions to their misconduct by manipulating others’ emotions, while never engaging in direct discussion.

Many of these discussion frameworks are most often used by toxic and manipulative people, so they become associated with that behavior — though the framework itself is neutral to good.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#198

Post by rhn_mk1 »

el_cujo wrote: post #128
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #12

What's the purpose of expressing the feeling? It seems like it's there only to underline the urgency of the unmet needs. At the same time, it implies an emotional investment in the issue at hand, which I would see either as unnecessary or insincere in a work environment.

The article has the example: >Thought: ‘I feel that you aren’t taking this seriously.’ >Emotion: ‘I feel frustrated.’ I definitely agree that the "emotional" way of looking at this statement is better. The "thought" here is accusatory and puts the other person on the defensive. Moreover, like the article says, saying the person is not taking things seriously is just an evaluation of their actions; you don't know that…

The example starts from the point of "let's express an emotion", and shows two sentences, right and wrong. Without trying to say "I feel", while following the other steps, there's no opportunity to even make the mistake of choosing the "wrong" one. That's why I asked why the article bothers describing step 2. at all.

I agree that evaluating the actions of the other person is not useful for resolving the problem, but the article also doesn't provide a justfication for sharing my own feelings (thank you BeetleB for shining some light).

Personally, if someone from the management told me "I feel X", I would completely discount it, because first, I don't care, and second, they have an incentive to be dishonest if it reduces the trouble they have to deal with.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#199

Post by leesalminen »

exclusiv wrote: post #149
leesalminen wrote: post #126

I’m generally a good conversation participant, but this week has made me second guess myself. My father-in-law is currently hospitalized after his heart stopped this weekend. He’s currently in an induced coma. Brain damage is a foregone conclusion at this point and they’re unsure if he will ever regain consciousness. My wife and I happened to be on vacation in Costa Rica when this happened. We hopped on the next avai…

I wouldn't be so hard on yourself. The family is in a very difficult spot right now and people all cope and behave differently. I'd recommend the book Never Split the Difference which was written by a former hostage negotiator. From what I learned from that book, anchoring his emotions and asking How questions might have helped you. Why questions are accusatory and put people on the defensive, often leading to escala…

Thank you for the recommendation. I did use Why questions and probably should’ve avoided those. I’ll check out this book.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#200

Post by leesalminen »

phaefele wrote: post #150
leesalminen wrote: post #126

I’m generally a good conversation participant, but this week has made me second guess myself. My father-in-law is currently hospitalized after his heart stopped this weekend. He’s currently in an induced coma. Brain damage is a foregone conclusion at this point and they’re unsure if he will ever regain consciousness. My wife and I happened to be on vacation in Costa Rica when this happened. We hopped on the next avai…

I found this book very helpful in several difficult conversations over the years - https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-... It has quite practical advice as well as a framework helping one navigate.

Thanks for the link. I will check it out.
Post reply on HN