Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication • Hacker News Board

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#211

Post by sideshowb » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:47 AM UTC

scruple wrote: post #172

chroma wrote: post #86

Nonviolent communication comes up on HN every few months and it's always the same praises and criticisms. I've been on the receiving end of NVC quite a few times in my career, and every single time it comes off as patronizing bullshit. I'd rather people yell at me than couch everything in, "I feel X" or "Would you be willing to Y". When important things must be done well, do you think this sort of language is used? O…

I've found that folks who take "How to Win Friends and Influence People" as a roadmap for getting what they want the same way. I personally think that it's easy to detect when someone is faking empathy, being insincere, etc... And it instantly sours me on whatever conversation I am having when I find myself on the receiving end of these techniques.

Funny, I didn't see that as a book of techniques at all. More a reminder that other people all have their stories and are mostly fascinating beings if you only take the time to take an interest. The interest needn't be insincere, but the reminder is still useful for a natural recluse like myself.

(but then again I'd be rubbish at sales).

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#212

Post by trhway » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

"nonviolent communication" - well, using those communication patterns/frameworks, basically communication weapons, to goad/manipulate your target (can we say mark?) in my view is among the most hostile communication acts, and when i recognize them being used against me i immediately put my defenses up.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#213

Post by BasDirks » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

I have my doubts about the honesty of these interpretations:

> I feel angry because you forgot about our coffee date -> I want people to value the feelings of their friends

Are you not angry because you want the person to value YOU and your time? What are these generic "people" and "the feeling of their friends" to you?

> You make me feel guilty when you text me all the time -> I want there to be less pressure on my to respond to your texts

What's the point of this pressure? If you feel guilty for not texting back, isn't there a chance that the other person wants to receive more than they are giving?

> You make me upset when you call other children names -> I want my child to be kind to others

Might the desire sometimes be: As a parent, I don't want to get embarrassed for (as I perceive it) not raising a kind child?

--

Being a bit cynical, because the underlying motives might be more useful to solve than the more generic desires.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#214

Post by avar » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #206

avar wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what makes it passive-aggressive, it can be perceived as three steps of manipulation to get to a fourth step. If your ultimate intent is to make a request, then make a request.

Ending at third step and leaving request unstated sounds highly manipulative to me, because the other party now has to figure out what you really want. Going straight to the request makes the tone do all the work - whether the exact request is even registered by the other party, or whether they feel forced to abandon their plans, all depends on how you voice your words. Perhaps people are different, but I'm of the ty…

> I'm of the type that I absolutely want to hear both what you want and reasoning why you want it.

Skipping straight to the 4th step doesn't preclude us from discussing that, we can always backtrack and talk about that. It's just skipping straight to the point.

Consider this: We've agreed to go to a specific restaurant tonight, you change your mind for whatever reason and feel strongly about it. You had a burger at lunch for a work meeting, and don't feel like having one again.

Just say so, maybe I don't care in the least what restaurant we go to as long as it has some form of nutrition and isn't inconvenient to get to.

> "Hey, mind if we go to Subway instead?"

> "Sure, no problem"

As opposed to some long step #1-#3 process where you start talking about not wanting the same type of food twice in one day before finally getting to the point.

Maybe I do feel really strongly about it, but we can still talk about it and be direct, observe:

> "Hey, mind if we go to Subway instead?"

> "Yeah actually. Weird thing, but my late brother and I had a thing about going to that burger place every year on his birthday. It's sort of a tradition, don't want to miss it, and you were only in town today"

> "Shit man, no problem I guess. Just asked because I had a burger for lunch, didn't realize it was a burger place"

> "Hey like Sushi? They actually make the most amazing Sushi. It's the weirdest combination I know, it's run by this Japanese/American couple and they made it work"

> "I love Sushi, didn't realize that. Awesome!"

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#215

Post by roenxi » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:52 AM UTC

avar wrote: post #204

din-9 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's what makes it passive-aggressive, it can be perceived as three steps of manipulation to get to a fourth step. If your ultimate intent is to make a request, then make a request.

The article left out a key part of 'make a request', which is Rosenberg redefines the word slightly. It isn't really the right word to use; what it means is 'don't complicate a request with unrelated matters'.

"Clean this up before you do anything else." isn't necessarily a Rosenberg-demand and "would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?" isn't necessarily a Rosenberg-request. The test is what happens if the person says no.

If in the first case that is the end of the matter then it was secretly a request dressed up in hard language.

If in the second case there is an hour of cold-shouldering and recriminations then it was really a demand dressed up in flowery language.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#216

Post by taneq » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

jimkleiber wrote: post #179

taneq wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brilliant marketing move though, calling it "nonviolent communication", implying that any other form of communication is violent. Thanks, I've been trying to put my finger on what irks me about this and I think this is it. I tend to have a strong negative reaction to people trying to control a conversation by framing it with loaded language. It's dishonest and manipulative and you see it all the time .

I think what frustrates me about speaking with some people who have learned NVC is that they seem to speak it with a very rigid formula and then they seem frustrated when I don't respond with the same sentence structure. Almost like they're speaking a different language and want me to conform to their language instead of meeting me halfway. Does that sound related to what you're talking about?

Yeah, exactly. They're trying to control the language used in such a way to make disagreement with them impossible. (I don't know if this is an NVC thing, it could just be the people doing this).

A great example in fiction is the scene in Donnie Darko where the teacher is trying to make everyone classify things on a scale from "fear" to "love" and not accepting any answers not on the scale.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#217

Post by reportgunner » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:54 AM UTC

aspaviento wrote: post #208

> Felix, you always leave your dirty socks on the floor! It’s disgusting! Clean this up before you do anything else. Obviously Felix is going to respond bad to the first example because it's a demand. Someone forcing you to do something is never welcomed. > 1. Observe Facts] Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table, [2. Note Feelings] I feel irritated because [3. Uncover Desires] I want more…

There also might be other reasons to why Felix does this that you didn't think about. Maybe you use the washing machine every single day and Felix is just tired to race with you to get it first and just gives up. This way you leave room for your own errors which is very important.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#218

Post by ngold » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:55 AM UTC

endymi0n wrote: post #196

_jal wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Violent communication is hitting someone to make a point. The name of this is insulting.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#219

Post by Nursie » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:00 AM UTC

nhumrich wrote: post #186

ctdonath wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vs “quit leaving dirty socks under the coffee table.” That’s direct & natural.

Natural is not always better. Human behavior on average doesn't actually respond well to direct criticism. Our flight or fight responses kick in ("uggh fine" or deflecting) and cause us to handle the situation in suboptimal ways. This is probably not a great example as it feels more like a parenting example, but even in parenting, a lot of parenting material suggests that "commands" (pick up your socks) often leads t…

Why are you bothering yourself with the state of someone else's desk in the first place?

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#220

Post by roenxi » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:02 AM UTC

Tomminn wrote: post #16

I think non-violent communication is great when you actually have to ask someone to change something about the way they operate in the world. If you want to improve your relationships though, make rule zero "minimize the extent to which you require other people in the world to change."

> minimize the extent to which you require other people in the world to change.

That is the central point of NVC though. It isn't a mind trick to make people change, it is a framework for someone to communicate how they see the world without requiring anyone else to change.

Your rule 0 combines with NVC to lets conversations drift into meaningful topics while allowing other people to change only if they want to.

Your rule 0 without NVC basically means you need to rediscover NVC yourself or you have to limit your conversation only to the superficial. Which is workable but sub-optimal.