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

361–370 of 415 posts

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#361

Post by mgamache »

dang wrote: post #337
mgamache wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and a downvote with no comment? I see that you were afraid to express your opinion.

Please don't break the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . I'm just guessing, but probably it was downvoted for being a shallow dismissal (also in the guidelines). Had you made your argument a little less strident and a little more informative, it could have been a fine comment, but as it was it sounds more like a shallow reaction to the name "Non-Violent Comm…

I accept that my second response was not of the highest standard, but came from frustration that i felt a down-vote needed explanation (which your comment provided unlike other anon person). My original dismissal was not shallow. The article makes some valid points on how best to approach some interpersonal communication. However, the equivocation of words to violence is part of the postmodern attack on science. This article may not have written from that perspective and just using that as a pithy title, but I maintain it's wrong. I felt the need to point out the title's hyperbole.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it...

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#363

Post by fouc »

elhudy wrote: post #203
Zelphyr wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't give up on your brother-in-law. He's making seemingly irrational decisions but look at it from is point of view. His father may be dying. Regardless of his relationship with his father, this is a very difficult thing to go through. And then he suddenly has a lot of responsibility placed on him. He's having to answer questions he's never been asked before much less having given much thought to. He's being told t…

Instead of making space, what are your thoughts on OP leveraging these perceptions to find common ground? E.g., "We understand that we need you to be the man of the family, and appreciate that you have stepped up to be strong for all of us. We would like to support you in doing so and feel that our greatest assistance would be in helping to facilitate communications for you. Is this something you're able to allow?" S…

Sounds super patronizing. Especially using "We" article in that context.

Directly saying "I appreciate that you have stepped up to be strong for all of us. Can we help?" seems better.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#364

Post by roel_v »

The problem, as I've experienced with this, is that it requires cooperation of the other part; more specifically, it requires them to acknowledge these feelings as being pertinent to reality. Take this example from the article:

"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?"

What when the other party says 'well I didn't mean to make you feel embarrassed, and if you did, that's your problem - just change the way you feel about these things because this is just the way things go around here.' What then? And a similar response can be phrased for every statement that uses this terminology/method.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#365

Post by m463 »

JohnSully wrote: post #235
giardini wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

leeslaminen says: "Because we were unavailable, my younger brother-in-law was given Power of Attorney." If what you say is true, then get a lawyer and request that the court transfer POA to you or your wife, whomever was specified in his papers or in the law by default. Now that you _are_ available, the court may transfer POA to you. Let this be a reminder to those reading that, when you assign POA you might also wis…

> Too bad you didn't let him assault you: that would have made it much easier. Simply charge him with assault and use it as evidence in the POA hearing. Sometimes its best not to further aggravate family arguments. This situation is currently recoverable, filing charges will forever change the relationship.

I've seen the result of "filing charges" during a time like this and let me tell you family relationships are especially fragile, and can easily evaporate completely after the remaining parent dies.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#366

Post by dodobirdlord »

logfromblammo wrote: post #169
waylandsmithers wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of it is that the observation needs to be genuinely objective rather than veiled evaluation. For example, when I did tech support I would occasionally get chat messages from my supervisor along the lines of: "Hey, I see that you closed out Ticket #XYZ without any resolution or response sent to the requester." (waits for response) (waits for response) (waits for response) ...and it would make me furious,…

"Is there something you want me to do?" is a slightly less hostile way of saying "Get to the point." "The petitioner did not make a request upon which relief can be granted." might set off a snark detector, and "The ticketing system already automatically notifies the requester that their ticket has been closed." might inadvertently imply that the supervisor does not know how to do their job.

My habitual response to these sorts of messages has been to just affirm the statement.

> "Hey, I see that you closed out Ticket #XYZ without any resolution or response sent to the requester."

> "yes" / "yup" / "indeed" / "true"

It's an effective way to sidestep having to pay attention until the person comes up with an actual question or request.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#367

Post by tomhoward »

mgamache wrote: post #361
dang wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't break the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . I'm just guessing, but probably it was downvoted for being a shallow dismissal (also in the guidelines). Had you made your argument a little less strident and a little more informative, it could have been a fine comment, but as it was it sounds more like a shallow reaction to the name "Non-Violent Comm…

I accept that my second response was not of the highest standard, but came from frustration that i felt a down-vote needed explanation (which your comment provided unlike other anon person). My original dismissal was not shallow. The article makes some valid points on how best to approach some interpersonal communication. However, the equivocation of words to violence is part of the postmodern attack on science. This…

The author literally writes "Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is an awful name for one of the most powerful communication courses I’ve ever taken."

So clearly the author/article is not endorsing the term, but using it for the purpose of familiarity and conciseness.

> the equivocation of words to violence is part of the postmodern attack on science

I've been a sympathiser with the culture-wars faction that makes claims like this, and whilst I've not exactly switched to an opposing faction, I've come around to a more moderate view of things, after personal experiences gave me a deep understanding of the way words and their style of delivery can be subconsciously perceived as physical threats.

We can accept this whilst still resisting such fears being exaggerated and misused by those with destructive culture-wars agendas.

It's clear to anyone committed to civility and empathy, that the way we express our communications can make a big difference to the way they are perceived and to the outcomes that are achieved.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#368

Post by Noumenon72 »

waylandsmithers wrote: post #113
tyingq wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"how you recognize when you are being patronizing" That's a good point. I'm fairly adept at recognizing when someone is trying to negotiate with me based on some kind of taught methodology. Because most of what's taught is counter to how you would do it naturally...thus it stands out. Once you recognize it, the natural reaction is to feel like you're being manipulated with some technique.

I think part of it is that the observation needs to be genuinely objective rather than veiled evaluation. For example, when I did tech support I would occasionally get chat messages from my supervisor along the lines of: "Hey, I see that you closed out Ticket #XYZ without any resolution or response sent to the requester." (waits for response) (waits for response) (waits for response) ...and it would make me furious,…

That wouldn't bug me at all. People who totally respect me would ask me that. "Why didn't you put a resolution on Ticket XYZ?" blames me. "There is no resolution on Ticket XYZ" states a fact and lets me offer an explanation of why I do that kind of thing. Or, like as not, investigate how I closed the ticket by accident or assigned it to someone else who closed it. There are usually lots of good explanations and if you can't even raise the subject without getting mad, you miss those opportunities to not screw up. Maybe I thought no one cared about the resolution and this teaches me someone does look. It's a positive thing to do IMO.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#369

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

tyingq wrote: post #79
motohagiography wrote: post #7

This is a valuable post. I have not taken an NVC course before, but I have done a lot of work in negotiations, writing, and was brought up to use this style of communication. One thing I would be interested in either from the OP or someone with experience with NVC, is how you recognize when you are being patronizing. Much of this communication style is the artifact of an implied power relationship, where the speaker…

"how you recognize when you are being patronizing" That's a good point. I'm fairly adept at recognizing when someone is trying to negotiate with me based on some kind of taught methodology. Because most of what's taught is counter to how you would do it naturally...thus it stands out. Once you recognize it, the natural reaction is to feel like you're being manipulated with some technique.

I've been in that scenario and NVC still worked. In that case the person I was talking to felt anxious when I practiced NVC in our conversations because they needed freedom: to think their own thoughts and make decisions etc.

I asked if there was some way I could speak to them that would help them meet their need for freedom. Then we both laughed and the situation defused.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#370

Post by truth_seeker »

>> ‘The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence.’ — Jiddu Krishnamurti, Indian Philosopher

First of all, he was a mystic than being a philosopher. The quality of observing is a by-product, a consequence. If you directly try to achieve this by using your mind based on some moral principles or disciplines mentioned through this article you are bound to get frustrated. It is like one thought fighting with other thought but in the end, it leads to the creation of a chain of many complex thoughts entangled. But because it appeals more many people fall prey.

I see many such articles focus more on the mind and how to change thoughts. This article is nothing but an offshoot of a limited part of psychology. A real inner transformation happens when you experientially go beyond thoughts. Psychology is just a temporary cure. Vipassana can help you in a true experiential manner.

Jobs such as software engineering and others which requires constant use of thinking and sitting at one place throughout the day makes the mind stronger than other faculties of a human being. it needs to be balanced with exercise (to remove physical and to certain extent mental blocks ) and proper meditation guidance.

Post reply on HN