A guide to difficult conversations • Hacker News Board

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#271

Post by jacobolus » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

Pharmakon wrote: post #266

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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, althoug…

I know lots of people who had panic attacks in response to emotional abuse with no physical violence involved.

Probably not rising to the level of a PTSD diagnosis though.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#272

Post by ehsanu1 » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

kodz4 wrote: post #222

FakeComments wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh I see...thanks for that. I was wondering why there was so much hostility. Makes sense.

This back and forth actually shows part of what's difficult with applying NVC: when a statement is made, another hidden meaning may be inferred by other participants in the conversation, even if such meaning was not intended or even considered by the speaker. It's worse given that some people specifically do say the same types of things with ulterior motives, so it isn't entirely unreasonable for other people to come to the conclusion that you are doing so as well.

This would work better if both parties practiced NVC, as they may reply with what your comment made them feel and that would help clarify the confusion. But it's going to be hard to find that type of situation given that NVC is not quite that widespread, so the NVC happening on only one side of the conversation truly make it difficult.

So we have to either be very careful with our wording and be aware of all possible misinterpretations, to make sure our wording only says what we want it to say, and/or we have to keep clarifying ourselves until our true meaning is clear and confirm with others what they've understood, which can be awkward. No wonder NVC is hard.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#273

Post by mgamache » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

Nonviolent Communication? Words are not violent. There are better ways and worse ways to say things. You can be more empathetic and use words that result in less "triggering", but calling words violence is dangerous. It erodes the distinction between thoughts and opinions and real physical action.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#274

Post by nfin » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

andrei_says_ wrote: post #141

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…

You can find a lot of Marshall Rosenberg lectures and even full workshops on YouTube. An important part of the nvc practice is to give up attachment to outcome. Making a true request means that there will be no negative consequences if the answer is “No”. It is possible that your wife’s brother was triggered partly because you insisted (if you did), maybe he needed autonomy, solitude, to feel that he matters, to grie…

I can not figure how to buy it :( :(

Only one website seems to have it, but shipping only to Australia :(

Any ideas how to get it??

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#275

Post by pyrale » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

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…

One could argue that violence is, etymologically, purely psychological: it means transgressing one's intent or will. Harm would be the word for physical stuff.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#276

Post by dang » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

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 experienced that artifice too, and it's unsettling. It's as if the NVC is adding an additional layer of inauthenticity on top of regular old inauthenticity.

The real skill, it seems to me, is to be able to know what one is feeling, stay connected to it, and take responsibility for it, especially in high-stress situations. If you can't do that, techniques only make things worse. And if you can do that, maybe you don't need so much technique.

(Not to dismiss NVC though. NVC is very interesting. But I have found it much more interesting and compelling to watch how Rosenberg did it than in the limited cases where I've run across it in the wild.)

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#277

Post by ehsanu1 » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

excepttry wrote: post #260

FooBarWidget wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. What part of that question is aggressive? Arriving late is a fact. The author requests helping him understand what's happening -- not an unreasonable request, unless you think that author magically understanding the situation without any communication counts as reasonable. The author feels an emotion -- again, not unreasonable because emotions are private and are not a choice. The author does not give…

> It sounds like you expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt all the time, without needing to expend any effort communicating. I am saying there should be a culture of trust. What do you lose by trusting that your peer coworker did not intend to be late? If you don't trust your peers, you will create a hostile environment where everyone is on the defensive. I trust that my former coworker did not intend to…

It seems that you read some implied blame in the question about understanding what's happening. I believe this implication is the problem, and may or may not actually exist, depending on the speaker and listener. A valid interpretation of the same question is that it is asking for a blameless postmortem to find a solution, which may only be inferred by the listener if they understand the speaker to not be blaming them.

Am I off base on any of this?

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#278

Post by oconnor663 » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

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…

> It allows people to make demands without ever acknowledging that they are making demands.

Oh for sure, if someone wants to use NVC-style language to make demands or manipulate people, there's nothing stopping them. People are too clever to stop them from hurting each other just by restricting them to certain words.

But if someone is coming across as manipulative despite their best intentions, and wants help with that, I think NVC has a lot of helpful things to say. The distinction between a "request" and a "demand" is very clear: A request is when it's ok for the person to tell you no, and a demand is when it not. That's not always easy to communicate with 100% clarity, but I think you can get a lot of work done by asking yourself (before you start making a request to someone else) "am I actually ok with them telling me no here?" Often we're not ok with no, and no matter what language we use to make the demand then, the demanded-ness of it is going to come across.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#279

Post by Bluestrike2 » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

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…

You mentioned being unable to get any information from hospital staff. Did your brother-in-law explicitly instruct them for some reason not to provide any information to other family members?

How exactly was he granted power of attorney? Was your father-in-law capable of signing a power of attorney when he was initially hospitalized, or had he signed a POA or healthcare proxy beforehand? If the latter, did it assign multiple agents and specify any restrictions on how they make decisions? For example, was the brother-in-law listed a successor to someone else in the agreement or are they co-agents? Getting a copy of the agreement will take very little billable time for any attorney. Given that time is probably a factor, and from how entrenched the attitude you've described is by now, it's unlikely that you or the family will be able to talk your brother-in-law into backing down in any reasonable timeframe. Your first step is to get a copy of the power of attorney agreement and go from there.

Speaking to an attorney might seem like an aggressive step in such a precarious situation, with the potential for long-term consequences for the family dynamic. On the other hand, as difficult as it might be to hear, you're probably already at that point. Were your father-in-law to pass away without the rest of the family even being able to hear what's happening from a medical standpoint, painful as it may be to contemplate, it's highly unlikely that anyone in the family is going to be willing to forgive your brother-in-law for it. Appearing to go around him to get a copy of the agreement might be seen as a betrayal, but it's probably going to be less problematic in the long run than the status quo.

I've seen families that have been permanently torn apart during end-of-life decision-making. Be that as it may, some manage to heal. Eventually. I hope that yours will be one of the ones that does so.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#280

Post by davesque » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

The NVC system has some useful insights but suffers from a fatal flaw. It punts on the question of where the universal needs come from and the important task of distinguishing between true needs and simple desires. For example, an NVC practitioner could come to you complaining that a particular need is not being met. But by seeing that need as "universal", they've already potentially given up any leverage they might have in a conversation with a rational person.

It seems perfectly healthy (indeed essential in some ways) to develop an ability to distinguish between thoughts and emotions or observations and evaluations. But it's highly suspect to apply an ill-defined term like "universal need" to what could just as easily be described as a "personal preference."

It's not surprising to me that, in this day and age, I would start seeing people regain interest in things like NVC. In these times when everyone has an opinion and everyone is angry, people probably want a quick way to categorize people or ideas as good or bad. Ironically, by relying on vague concepts like "universal needs", NVC ends up being a pretty good system for making blanket judgements. But the real world is not that simple and takes more adaptability and agility to make sense out of.