Live data from Hacker News

Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

clearerthinking.org

191–200 of 355 posts

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your workplace sounds toxic and full of backstabbing jerks. Am I misunderstand you? I can't imagine why you seem proud to work in such a place.

>>>Your workplace sounds toxic Well, it's the Marine Corps. It ain't a rose garden.[1][2] >>>full of backstabbing jerks Actually quite the contrary. If anything we are well-known for our solidarity.[3] Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face. People try to stiff-arm work responsibilities off to other offices but I think that is endemic to an…

> Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face.

It is easy to keep clear communication when there are no real stakes and positions at stake. Learned that hard way, in teams where communication looked good and mature and direct until power vaacuum happened.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#192
post #46
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We all kind of rolled our eyes and went along with the exercise. I now use it to great effect almost daily in both personal and professional relationships. Reactions like that tell me once again that a lot of people really underestimate simple stuff like this. I hope that in the future simple and useful psychology topics will find their way into our schools so that the acceptance and understanding for the usefulnes…

When you actually read the book, you find it has a very awkward way of speaking which can induce eyerolls.

It drove me up the wall and I didn't finish it.

All this "if you answered c, e and f, we are not of the same opinion" feels passive-aggressive to me.

The whole thing feels manipulative to me. It makes me think that people try an insincere way of talking to me, in order to manipulate my feelings and reaction.

I've had huge discussions with friends who try to live the book, and neither of us could make the other see their point.

One of their examples was "My boyfriend likes to go DJing, but sometimes I'd love for him to stay home and cuddle with me. So I clearly tell him that him leaving makes me feel alone and that I would like some warmth. But I don't tell him what to do, to stay at home, for example. I only talk about my own perception and feelings."

– "Yes, that's great, but in communication there is the level of pragmatics above pure logical semantics. And you telling your boyfriend that him leaving makes you feel very alone is just another way of saying 'please don't go'".

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not passive aggressive. That's a direct ask, to your face, just worded softly.

I can read it out loud in both a passive aggressive manner, and as a softly worded request. Body language, tone and cadence all affect how this request is understood. Words read on a screen are often filtered through your presumptions of the writer's tone, rather than the actual tone that was meant.

That is not passive aggressiveness. That is tone of voice being offensive or causing bad feelings. Those are two very different things.

Passive aggressiveness is an indirect action/inaction to get your way.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#194
Another approach that leads to similar results: try to apply the Golden Rule to your life...

"do unto others what you would have them done to you"

Then in every situation try to think how you would want to be treated or how you would want to be spoken to and behave like that to the other person. It isn't as hard as one might think and there's not much theory to learn, only one has to meditate on this, what it means exactly applied to all areas of life.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your workplace sounds toxic and full of backstabbing jerks. Am I misunderstand you? I can't imagine why you seem proud to work in such a place.

>>>Your workplace sounds toxic Well, it's the Marine Corps. It ain't a rose garden.[1][2] >>>full of backstabbing jerks Actually quite the contrary. If anything we are well-known for our solidarity.[3] Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face. People try to stiff-arm work responsibilities off to other offices but I think that is endemic to an…

I greatly appreciate your perspective here. Makes me think about whether certain communication styles work better in different contexts.

I remember asking a vet what the communication style was in the military and he said, "Someone who outranks you tells you what to do and there is always someone who outranks you." Now, I don't know how representative that is of the military as a whole, but it got me thinking: how would that vet respond if he were to tell his wife what to do and she said no?

I say this because maybe in the high-stress, high-urgency situation with a hierarchical organizational structure, NVC doesn't work well, but perhaps it would work better in the lower-stress, lower-urgency situation with a flatter organizational structure, and that it could be useful to speak the two languages, so to say.

--

However, I think something like NVC could work in your workplace, as it seems like you showed it in that example.

> Contractor A: "Hey I need X. And it's a time-sensitive priority."

Sounds pretty much like NVC to me, just a much more efficient version of it. The thing you need (X), when you need it (~now), with an implicit ask of will you do it.

> Contractor B: "Could you possibly ask nicer next time?"

This sounds pretty far from the style of NVC. Jumps straight to the request step and buries the feelings and wants in the "possibly ask nicer" phrase.

If I were Contractor B, I would love if Contractor A spoke to me like that and would only wish Contractor A added, "Will you do it now?" at the end of it, so that I could close the transaction in the affirmative.

If A didn't ask (or directly tell me to do it) and I felt unsure if A wanted me to do it and when exactly to do it, then I might reply with, "I'm a bit confused, do you want me to do this and if so, by when do you want it done?" However, depending on how well I know the person and how they communicate, this may be unnecessary.

Anyway, I love this—thank you for writing all that you did and for bringing your perspective to the conversation :-)

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#196
post #118
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the skepticism is the "quick fix" "trendy" packages that get peddled to businesses or show up in pop culture--like Power Poses or The Secret. Nonviolent Communication isn't the greatest name, either.

Everything ends up being packaged as some get- -quick scheme in the US, including how to peddle get- -quick schemes. Don't blame the idea for the hucksters.

Heuristics in action. I can‘t possibly number all the different BS methodologies and frameworks that were supposed to do something, every time.

Applicable and actually highly successful ones like NVC are few and far between.

Can‘t blame anyone who smells a fad on hearing it the first time, but I‘m also using NVC by now whenever I need to untangle difficult conversations.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#197

Another approach that leads to similar results: try to apply the Golden Rule to your life... "do unto others what you would have them done to you" Then in every situation try to think how you would want to be treated or how you would want to be spoken to and behave like that to the other person. It isn't as hard as one might think and there's not much theory to learn, only one has to meditate on this, what it means e…

"Golden rule? But you were trying to kill me?

Well yes, if I ever were to become an evil monster like you, then in my heart of hearts I would actually want you to slay me immediately in order to save the world from a nightmarish reign of terror and destruction!"

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#198

Huh, my fiancée and I developed a system years ago that approximates this approach by replacing statements with what we call “food codes”. For example: “Applesauce” is equivalent to “I can’t hear you”, or “speak up” or “stop mumbling”. “Applesauce Factory” means “I can’t hear you because you are too far away or something noisy is making it hard to hear you” - very convenient verbal shorthand for when it’s too noisy t…

A similar effect would be possible when using baby-talk. It allows you to say something without instigating defensive reactions.

> “would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?”

Would be: "Baby, I'm so hungry and I can't find anything to eat. I couldn't find the food I had in the fridge. What should I do?"

Only works when you can code switch from regular language to baby language which is 'non violent' by design.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#199
post #192
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you actually read the book, you find it has a very awkward way of speaking which can induce eyerolls.

It drove me up the wall and I didn't finish it. All this "if you answered c, e and f, we are not of the same opinion" feels passive-aggressive to me. The whole thing feels manipulative to me. It makes me think that people try an insincere way of talking to me, in order to manipulate my feelings and reaction. I've had huge discussions with friends who try to live the book, and neither of us could make the other see th…

The linked page has four steps, the last of which is "make requests".

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#200
post #192
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you actually read the book, you find it has a very awkward way of speaking which can induce eyerolls.

It drove me up the wall and I didn't finish it. All this "if you answered c, e and f, we are not of the same opinion" feels passive-aggressive to me. The whole thing feels manipulative to me. It makes me think that people try an insincere way of talking to me, in order to manipulate my feelings and reaction. I've had huge discussions with friends who try to live the book, and neither of us could make the other see th…

This is very good point. Often our tacit knowledge about how to communicate is much larger than the explicit theory. When people then use a framework to communicate, they sometimes actually get less intelligent in a way because it ignores all the implicit rules.

NVC sometimes seem a bit dry or rational and practioners ignore a lot of tacit knowledge they have, which is why it feels insincere. It also easily promotes a kind of disconnection from your feelings by taking a meta-stance, which can make it actually harder to communicate.

I do love the basic idea and spirit of the framework though, I just think it's not a good idea probably to approach it as a set of rules for how to communicate.

Post reply on HN