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

261–270 of 415 posts

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#261

Post by SolaceQuantum »

BadassFractal wrote: post #173
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…

In general I'm also not a fan of changing definitions of words for the extra pathos and marketability. I also would be surprised if Rosenberg has any sort of malicious intent here in his choice of wording. Violence is, by definition, physical, and claiming that "speech is violence" seems like a trivialization of actual physical violence. While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a ph…

"While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare"

Is this actually true? I was under the impression that trauma quite often results in physical responses afterwards regardless of source. eg. panic attacks, night terrors.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#262

Post by LolNoGenerics »

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…

Propagators of those techniques also tell you that sometimes there is no help. I.e. completely irrational positions or mindsets, as well arguments that are already set with hostility.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#263

Post by munchbunny »

elhudy wrote: post #239
jacobolus wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is speculatively projecting a lot of thoughts and feelings on the brother-in-law, which is quite patronizing. It also awkwardly uses overcomplicated words and overcomplicated passive grammar. Try reading the linked blog post again, and hold up your proposed question against each of Dave Bailey’s suggestions.

>This is speculatively projecting a lot of thoughts and feelings on the brother-in-law, which is quite patronizing. Isn't that what negotiation is about, when dealing with someone who won't effectively communicate their thoughts? Speculating the wants/needs of that person and addressing them directly? This isn't something I'm making up, I've just read it in "Never Split the Difference". The book was written to addres…

The key is not to speculate, but to figure out how to ask so that you can have a discussion about what they feel and need.

You have a theory, but even if you are a good people reader, and even if you are mostly right, you are very likely to be wrong in many small but important ways. I'm sure you can recall instances where someone was right about you in general but wrong in small ways that really mattered to you.

Even if you have a guess, ask instead.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#264

Post by tome »

treis wrote: post #148
BeetleB wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It gets the problem wrong. It's very unlikely the problem is a lack of opportunity for co-founders to provide one on one feedback. The solution is one that no one really wants and wouldn't fix the issue. The problem is the co-founder poorly choosing words and poorly choosing the venue to deliver them. I also don't think it focuses on the right I don't know - to me that was clear from the statement. >When you said, “…

>This is what NVC calls an evaluation. The other person can simply disagree about it undermining the authority. >There's a reason negotiations books (not just NVC) emphasize talking about how you felt. It is because few ordinary people would deny your feelings. The cofounder is not going to jump in and say "No, you did not feel embarrassed". It is, however, very easy for them to say "You're overreacting. People know…

I'm confused about what you are saying, because the word "undermined" was introduced by you. The article suggests saying

> ‘When you said, “I’m not happy with your work,” to me in front of the team, I felt embarrassed because it didn’t meet my need for trust and recognition. Please, could we set up a weekly one-on-one session to share feedback in private?’

Are you suggesting that the other party would think "You're overreacting. People know you're the boss. Nothing is being undermined"? If so it sounds like it would be an evaluation on their part, and I guess it would be dealt with as such.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#265

Post by btilly »

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…

The book https://www.amazon.com/Just-Listen-Discover-Getting-Absolute... may help you.

It is written by a psychiatrist who trains FBI hostage negotiators. Which is about as targeted as you can for hard conversations under difficult circumstances.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#266

Post by Pharmakon »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #261
BadassFractal wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general I'm also not a fan of changing definitions of words for the extra pathos and marketability. I also would be surprised if Rosenberg has any sort of malicious intent here in his choice of wording. Violence is, by definition, physical, and claiming that "speech is violence" seems like a trivialization of actual physical violence. While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a ph…

"While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare" Is this actually true? I was under the impression that trauma quite often results in physical responses afterwards regardless of source. eg. panic attacks, night terrors.

Trauma generally involves either violence, or the credible threat of violence. The three greatest factors underlying trauma are the fear of imminnat death or grievous injury, and/or the loss of control and resulting sense of helplessness, and a destruction of bedrock assumptions such as “I am a good person” or “I’m safe at home.”

It’s not common for PTSD to emerge in the context of purely psychological abuse, although it does happen. Almost inevitably abuse resulting in PTSD has a component of either physical harm, or the threat of physical harm (including witnessing violence or threats of violence).

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#267

Post by darkpuma »

tashian wrote: post #204
scruple wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

So true. I agree that you can't pull it out of a hat or learn it from reading a blog post. But, I believe it is learnable. I've gone from being a person who had no words for my emotions because I literally could not feel them most of the time, to being able to really bring heart and mind together and really speak from that place. I didn't learn it from a self-help book though, I learned it through practice and a lot…

> So true. [...] But, [I disagree]

Help me out here, is this the power of NVC?

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#268

Post by jacobolus »

gambler wrote: post #255
jacobolus wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you (and probably the people adopting this form in talking to you, if it is coming across as patronizing or passive-aggressive) are mistaking the point. This style of communication is not supposed to be a tool for more efficient (or deniable) emotional manipulation / control. The “nonviolent communicator” is supposed to spend a lot of work up front thinking about what their real emotional needs are (which tak…

>This style of communication is not supposed to be a tool for more efficient emotional manipulation / control. In corporate environments, at least, "I feel [blah]" is a formula for manipulation and control. It allows people to make demands without ever acknowledging that they are making demands. It becomes a form of doublespeak. For example, "I feel frustrated and I need commitment to the project" means "start workin…

This is not non-violent communication. If the subtext is “figure out what unstated thing I want you to do and then do it or I will fire you”, then that is quite violent. Making both the demand and the threat explicit would probably be better.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#269

Post by giardini »

JohnSully wrote: post #246
giardini wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JohnSully says: Sometimes its best not to further aggravate family arguments. This situation is currently recoverable, filing charges will forever change the relationship. In most such situations it may resolve the matter to the benefit of a wiser or more socialized party, does little additional harm and merely cements and documents a longstanding situation that has little or no chance of being changed. It also provi…

Under extreme emotional stress such as this situation people act irrationally. The brother may come to his senses and relent as he has time to calm down and reflect. If charges are pressed it becomes extremely unlikely this will happen. Further it does harm, it will dramatically affect the life of the brother if he is convicted. Deescalation is not emotionally satisfying but it does work.

JohnSully says:

"Deescalation is not emotionally satisfying but it does [sometimes] work."

FTFY

but you may not agree.

JohnSully, you are an optimist. As in

"this is the best of all possible worlds." -the early Candide in Voltaire's Candide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds#Cr...

Like the older Candide I am a pessimist and my personal experience is that:

a)Roughly a third of people are either simply nuts (insane, partially schizophrenic, manic-depressive, etc.), have significant character flaws (greed, dishonesty, vice, short temper, addiction, etc.), hold far-fetched ideas that bar them from thinking clearly or are too dim-witted to do so. In any conflict or decision, they will never agree to most anything.

b) Half of people are amenable to reason but require a significant effort in both time and expense to gain agreement. No decision will ever take less than a week.

c) A final one-sixth of persons will see a presented beneficial resolution for both parties _and_ will act thereupon almost immediately.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#270

Post by hitekker »

jacobolus wrote: post #268
gambler wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This style of communication is not supposed to be a tool for more efficient emotional manipulation / control. In corporate environments, at least, "I feel [blah]" is a formula for manipulation and control. It allows people to make demands without ever acknowledging that they are making demands. It becomes a form of doublespeak. For example, "I feel frustrated and I need commitment to the project" means "start workin…

This is not non-violent communication. If the subtext is “figure out what unstated thing I want you to do and then do it or I will fire you”, then that is quite violent. Making both the demand and the threat explicit would probably be better.

I think you're overloading the word "violent".

What you really mean is "coercive" which, interestingly enough, is the blindspot of the ideology extolled by the OP's article.

Post reply on HN