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

371–380 of 415 posts

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#371

Post by waterhouse »

groby_b wrote: post #244
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…

Discussions of NVC are often frustrating for that reason - there's a tool for difficult conversations, but we focus more on labeling than on teaching the tool. As a society, we need more mutual understanding. Setting aside definition debates would be helpful.

It's kind of ironic—for a style of communication designed to avoid statements with embedded accusations and controversial judgments, its name embeds one of the most accusatory and controversial judgments one can make. I wonder what was going through Rosenberg's head when he chose the name.

I figured out I could autocorrect it in my head to "nonvolatile communication", which seems significantly better.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#372

Post by nearbuy »

pyrale wrote: post #275
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…

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.

The current definition in Merriam-Webster is pretty much the opposite.

Harm: physical or mental damage.

Violence: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#373

Post by vfinn »

ehsanu1 wrote: post #358
vfinn wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, silly me. I forgot to mention that I was referring to his 3 hour Youtube workshop (link was in the summary), not the summary itself. Hard to imagine the book would be that different. Still, I appreciated the applied Krishnamurti :).

I don't believe Marshall's idea is to apply a template-based approach to communication, if that is what you mean. The templates themselves are not NVC, but are rather a guide to help the uninitiated to apply the philosophy behind NVC. Aside: I'm definitely interested in learning more about Krishnamurti after reading this thread of conversation.

Ok, sounds great :). Have patience with Krishnamurti, because he's very subtle. First time I read his book, The Awakening of Intelligence, I thought he was nice but rather empty in content, because I saw his message intellectually, which just the thing you shouldn't do. A few years later I read it again, and started to see, and the things I agreed with kept increasing the more I listened to him.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#374

Post by trhway »

freyir wrote: post #157
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've often seen families get particularly hostile when an in-law involves him or herself with the death or illness of a parent. It doesn't matter whether you're right or what approach you use. They're likely in one of the worst times of their life, and they're not going to be receptive to negotiation tactics. Why is your wife not having this conversation?

>I've often seen families get particularly hostile when an in-law involves him or herself with the death or illness of a parent.

Definitely. The husband of my sister trying to insert himself - it felt so wrong at the gut/instinct level. I just felt at the gut/instinct level that he has no voice - no "standing" - in that situation. While it was expected and predictable feeling, its actual strength was a bit surprising. Note that in general I have nothing against the guy, and we're good with the sister.

GP> I spent over 2 hours with him trying to talk it through.

You just wouldn't get it with me. I'd just have no reason to waste all that time and energy with somebody who have "no standing" in the situation.

GP> I never insulted or condescended him. My goal of the conversation was to allow his sister (both are the patients children) to participate in conversations with the medical staff.

did you really think that your supposedly nice conversational skills would be more powerful and effective than a lifelong relationship, whatever complicated it may be, between the brother and the sister? Talking about insult and condescension ...

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#375

Post by rejschaap »

After reading the comments in this thread I feel there are two broad categories people seem to fall in. These categories are independent of whether they use it themselves or it is used on them. The first category is of people who think it is a tool to manipulate people into doing what they want. The second category is of people who think it is a tool for introspection and starting a meaningful conversation.

I think that in human communication intent matters much more than the tool or framework you use.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#376

Post by [deleted] »

rsweeney21 wrote: post #119

The formative years of my career were spent as a software engineer at Microsoft where communication was direct and sometimes harsh. Code reviews could be particularly harsh with comments like "this code is bad because..." or "this is unreadable." At first it was really hard, but eventually my skin got pretty think. I even came to love the efficiency of direct communication in programming. When I became a founder, the…

[deleted]

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#377

Post by BigJono »

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…

Did I misread his post? It read to me like he is saying the complete opposite: That the example in the article sounds more threatening than just being genuine.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#378

Post by goto11 »

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…

No conversation technique will enable you to always get what you want. I mean, if such a technique existed the other part could also use it, right? The guide is not about how to win a conversation, just about how to have it.

Your state that "the power went to his head" and he is "irrational". That is pretty judgemental! But looking at your story from the outside, he is the son with the dying father and you are an in-law trying to wrestle control of the situation and get access to medical information and perhaps influence critical decisions.

No amount of conversation skill is going to make you closer related than the son.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#379

Post by tmp987 »

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…

1. let him threaten or assault you

2. call the cops

3. get him locked up

4. your wife will be given control

It doesn't sound like that would make their relationship any worse, so why argue with an idiot when you can make him go away.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#380

Post by yomly »

jacobolus wrote: post #232
elhudy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

The most powerful and influential communicators/connectors I've encountered in my life essentially only ever do this. I suppose the nuance is that they treat every person as an individual, so (on a semi-subconscious level) spend their first interactions profiling the individual so they understand their motives. I liken it to boxers learning their opponent's range and rhythm (only less combative).

I suppose what might be patronizing though is projecting thoughts onto a stranger from afar (like on this thread) though presenting some projections as an example of one possible thought pattern that may need to be handled can be useful IMO.

Post reply on HN