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

391–400 of 415 posts

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#391

Post by critiqjo »

soheil wrote: post #299
Loughla wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The original post was not intended at teaching the reader how to make a passive aggressive conversation effectively. It was actually about making honest and direct communication without biases and preconceptions. The whole post, to me, was about how to not jump into conclusions about the other person.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#392

Post by Allower »

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…

Your example is straight up NOT NVC, so yeah..

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#393

Post by biounit »

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 find this scenario strange. Why is your wife not interfacing directly with her brother? Why are you even involved in these discussions during this obviously challenging situation? It might be better to step back and support your wife and not insinuate yourself into the higher level aspects of the situation. You're only increasing the conflict. "Blood is thicker than water" is very true. And you just received a good lesson on that from your brother in law. Put your wife before everything else. If things get even worse you'll be the scapegoat at the end. Guaranteed.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#394

Post by shanecleveland »

I saw a similar article about workplace conversations that suggested a similar track.

The gist was to make a request for help instead of a demand, while also being frank about what is happening and that there is a need for change.

I can appreciate the idea of presenting it in a collaborative way. Instead of "I am telling you to do this because you made a mistake and I know better" you can present it as "I can understand the issue, and we can work as a team to come up with a solution that works for everyone."

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#395

Post by jshowa3 »

phkahler wrote: post #390
jshowa3 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes you have to realize that there is no way to solve such a situation. I think the best situation in this case is to resolve it through the court system. It's incredibly hard to convince people to give up power on their own unless they have a certain disposition, there's no disincentive in doing it, or there's no consequence to them when keeping it. They need to be given a clear consequence if they don't.

>> It's incredibly hard to convince people to give up power... When I read that I thought the word power was important. The OPs brother-in-law is probably feeling a lot of things, one of which may well be "powerless" in the face of what is happening with his father. I'm not sure what involving the court is going to do in this case - for the patient or the interpersonal issues.

It's probably the only way to get rid of his power of attorney.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#397

Post by cljs-js-eval »

2arrs2ells wrote: post #386
cljs-js-eval wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because NVC has taken away the natural way for people to express frustration, which is by being short with the other person. Personally, I don't get it either. No one I'm frustrated with seems to understand that if I tell them in an unhurried, matter-of-fact way. They may say that they prefer me to express frustration that way, but it gets no results. I don't see the appeal.

NVC is most effective if you share your feelings in an authentic and vulnerable way. This isn’t the same as being in the feeling (ex getting angry or frustrated) or staying them in a matter-of-fact way. The magic of NVC comes from the recipient empathizing with the person making the request.

"This isn’t the same as being in the feeling"

I genuinely have no idea what this means. What are you trying to say here? So I can be in any feeling except frustration when I'm conveying that I'm being frustrated? This sounds like snake oil.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#398

Post by andrei_says_ »

helloworld wrote: post #296
nfin wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes that’s where I got it.

I love this little book, because it focuses on the basics without getting heady.

When I teach I use it for drills.

Get it and:

- start rewording in giraffe, esp. harsh internal dialogue

- then start using “everyday” language to say the same things

- remember that intention and alignment come become technique. Without them technique becomes a minus, not a plus.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#399

Post by ehsanu1 »

tomp wrote: post #381
ehsanu1 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rewards can also backfire. I'm currently reading "Punished by Rewards", by Alfie Kohn, which spells out all the ways in which rewards are counterproductive. Interestingly enough, I found this book via Marshall Rosenberg's book on non-violent communication, in which Marshall urges us not to use rewards as a means to manipulate others (and not to use punishments for that purpose either of course).

Interesting... Yeah, I didn't mean "manipulate", more to observe the behaviour that we would do naturally (e.g. things like praise, expressing anger, ignoring someone when we're dissatisfied with their behaviour, promotions, etc.) and shifting most of the "punishment"-type responses into "reward"-type responses. Can that (i.e. non-manipulative rewarding behaviour) still backfire? Probably, although I'm then not sure…

Using the word "manipulate" might carry too heavy a negative connotation than you might be used to ascribing to rewards, but if you strip the connotations from the word, it's clear that rewards expressly manipulate others. "Do this and I'll give you that" is explicitly a way of affecting others' actions by providing external motivation. It is an attempt to control others behaviors (this is meant plainly, not necessarily judging whether trying to exercise such control is bad).

The intention behind the reward might not even be to control, but unfortunately that doesn't change that that it does do control even if inadvertently. Yes, according to Alfie Kohn, such rewards, even innocent seeming things like praise, can indeed backfire.

Marshall Rosenberg had this question: When someone does something that you want them to do, what reason would you like for them doing that thing? Would you like them to do it purely due to the reward (or fear of the withdrawal of the reward, which is functionally a punishment)? Or would you like them to do it because they themselves see the value in it and are self-motivated?

This is not to say that rewards have no place in life, just that they are a tool that should be carefully considered, and to understand that they will not solve most problems and may make things worse sometimes.

The alternative to rewarding or punishing others involves working with them in a less coercive fashion. But that's hard, and I don't know that there's a ready answer for what exactly to do in each situation. NVC could help sometimes.

Re: A guide to difficult conversations

#400

Post by MadWombat »

kodz4 wrote: post #165
MadWombat wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure whether you are using NVC well or not, but this comment makes you sound like a pompous ass. I suppose thats what you learn by picking up the book you mentioned.

Clarify. What didn't you like about my comment?

I did not like that in your comment you have assumed your opponent to be less experienced and less aware than you are just because he disagrees with your opinion.
Post reply on HN