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

291–300 of 415 posts

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#291

Post by Misdicorl »

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #26
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 supported my girlfriend throughout her grad studies to become a therapist. A huge part of her studies were in NVC. Even though I didn't go to school with her, I spent a lot of time with her classmates. Nearly everyone's conclusion, after 3 years of being deeply embedded in NVC, was that they hated it. And for the same reasons you describe.

I imagine this is an awful lot like developers hating svn and telling people not to use it.

Yes, there are better options, but most people are manually copy/pasting files into backup folders before making big changes.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#292

Post by mnsc »

davesque wrote: post #280

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…

>NVC ends up being a pretty good system for making blanket judgements

Could you give an example of this?

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#293

Post by steve_avery »

This is a very timely article for me. I just ended a romantic relationship due to, in my perspective, a failure of communication in our disagreements.

I had generally thought of myself as someone who was able to communicate clearly, in recognition of whatever emotion triggered a disagreement but without letting that emotion color the discussion. To at least to keep it in check while discussing our needs. But I consistently failed with my partner, and I found it so incredibly frustrating. I got more exasperated and upset in our conversations than I ever been, and it spiraled out of control.

I had been seeing a therapist, and he instructed me briefly in NVC, and I suddenly saw that I had been unable to say things without inherently assigning blame. I felt cowed.

But the thing is, my partner had always reacted negatively to my calm approach to the disagreements. I had gone so far as to demand her to get on my level (which I acknowledge was an over-the-top condescending statement) to which she rejected as being sanctimonious. It was more than just that statement that she was rejecting, though.

And now, I can't help but feel that NVC would be just another crutch to approaching difficult conversations, and possibly even counter to my goals. My synthesis of these experiences is that I am practically blind to my emotions, and I am only barely better at recognizing motivations and emotions in others. Once I've built up the ability to recognize what the hell is going on, then I have to figure out what to say. It's all about the audience.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#294

Post by mgamache »

mgamache wrote: post #273

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.

and a downvote with no comment?

I see that you were afraid to express your opinion.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#295

Post by crucialfelix »

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 have been in almost the same situation for the last two years. It's my mother that nearly died, her husband who now has power of attorney and uses this as an excuse to prevent us from even trivial medical information. It's far worse than just that actually. Worst battle I've ever gone through. Through careful emotional chess I now have won the peace, but he still won't tell us what medicines she is prescribed. It's an emotional trigger for him, a challenge to his leadership. You can't win against people like this because when they experience loss it makes them even harder to deal with.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#296

Post by helloworld »

nfin wrote: post #274
andrei_says_ wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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??

I was curious, too, and after some Googling, I found it here:

http://www.groktheworld.com/communication-fundamentals-2nd-e...

Looks like they ship just about anywhere.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#297

Post by treis »

mercutio2 wrote: post #91
leroy_masochist wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >To a teammate: ‘You arrived 10 minutes late to the last three team meetings. I am frustrated because, as a team, we have a need for efficiency. Please, could you help me understand what’s happening?’ > This one is super passive aggressive. Your intention is to communicate a problem but instead of just doing that this is asking a question. I think this example shows the problem most clearly. These should be stateme…

I don’t get it. There are two (harsh! Direct!) statements, followed by a relatively low-emotional-intensity question. So the “these should be statements” angle doesn’t make any sense to me, they’re already statements. Are you expecting people to just say “cut it out”, with no conversational room for a discussion? I think it’s true that many people would prefer to get scolded in silence, but in actual fact, what the o…

>I don’t get it. There are two (harsh! Direct!) statements, followed by a relatively low-emotional-intensity question. So the “these should be statements” angle doesn’t make any sense to me, they’re already statements. Are you expecting people to just say “cut it out”, with no conversational room for a discussion?

Depends on the situation. A reliable employee that suddenly starts showing up late would get the "Is everything ok?" talk. A perpetually late employee on there last strike would get the "cut it out" talk without a lot of need for discussion. The point is that you need to pick one. A "cut the crap but is everything ok?" message doesn't work.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#298

Post by mnsc »

soheil wrote: post #210

At the risk of getting a lot of heat for this, I find this type of thinking more of a plague that has cast its ugly web on tech as a whole. An analogy would be anti-something drugs to damp down people who are hyper, might have ADHD and have so much energy and short attention span. As a society if we try to normalize all things and people we're only left with the mediocrity almost by definition and boring middle of th…

"powerful human interaction"

- don't be late or else!

Yes that is the language of power that that a lot of you are capable of. And a lot of people with power don't want others to try to mute the power they have gained.

Nvc is not about power, it's about emphatic connections with other human beings, nothing more, nothing less.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#299

Post by soheil »

Loughla wrote: post #287
soheil wrote: post #210

At the risk of getting a lot of heat for this, I find this type of thinking more of a plague that has cast its ugly web on tech as a whole. An analogy would be anti-something drugs to damp down people who are hyper, might have ADHD and have so much energy and short attention span. As a society if we try to normalize all things and people we're only left with the mediocrity almost by definition and boring middle of th…

It seems like your line of reasoning implies that threats are a necessary part of being an adult in the working world. And that's just not the case. That should never be the case. This style of communication isn't angled at 'normalizing' anything. It's meant to give you a framework to identify what the real problem is, to communicate it clearly and efficiently, and to work with the other person to move past the probl…

That was just a tongue and cheek example to make my point clear ie. direct communication in favor of passive aggressiveness. I'm not advocating for threads, I think you found a straw man.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#300

Post by Double_Cast »

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…

Violence is about violation.
Post reply on HN