Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

clearerthinking.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 355 posts

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#301

Post by lidHanteyk »

friendlybus wrote: post #201

>Felix, you always leave your dirty socks on the floor! It’s disgusting! Clean this up before you do anything else. >Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table, I feel irritated because I want more order in the rooms that we share in common - would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine? These two sentences convey the same information. The speaker finds the sock to be out of o…

> Felix, I see that you have once again left your dirty socks on the floor. This is unacceptable to me; we have agreed as roommates to not leave dirty laundry about the house. I'm not touching your socks; could you imagine having to touch mine? So I'm leaving it to you to pick them up.

I'm a fair amount more "violent" than NVC, I guess. But by communicating with my feelings, rather than about my feelings, I can be more effective.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#302

Post by CathedralBorrow »

Nursie wrote: post #293
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a parent who relentlessly verbally bullies their child every day is what, just exchanging ideas?

I would say they are a terrible parent, they are a bully, and an awful human being. But not violent. Just the same as I wouldn't say pirating a movie was theft, but by saying that I'm not saying I think it's OK - these are just different concepts.

I understand, but completely disagree. I think the idea that physical harm is real but psychological harm doesn't exist is just wrong.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#303

Post by awb »

vanderZwan wrote: post #276
Mirioron wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's basically a way to be both non-passive-aggressive and compassionate But the examples given as "observation" read as passive-aggressive to me. Whether you say "Eleanor procrastinates" or "Eleanor wait to do all her studying the night before the exam" it's still the same thing. If you hear this type of comment regularly (eg you have ADHD) then it'll still affect you negatively.

> Whether you say "Eleanor procrastinates" or "Eleanor wait to do all her studying the night before the exam" it's still the same thing. It is not. The latter is a fact. The former is an interpretation of that fact showing how the person saying it judges this fact. If you perceive the former while someone says the latter, then that is a result of your own expectation of judgement. I have ADD and had to unlearn this m…

Exactly. "Eleanor wait to do all her studying the night before the exam" doesn't attempt to insert the part of the story we don't know.

Maybe she waited because she's lazy, maybe because she was waiting for her anxiety to decrease, maybe because she was working two jobs.

When we make a judgement and say that she procrastinates, we shut ourselves out from the rest of the story and insert our own.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#304

Post by sideshowb »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #296
sideshowb wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally a fan of direct communication but also find NVC interesting, and have thought about this a bit. Although I have nothing to do with the military now I trained to fly with the RAF volunteer reserve and I remember my instructor punching me once (not particularly hard, but the sort of thing that could easily get you fired in most jobs) when I messed up a turn. My folks knew a few high ranking army types som…

>>>It strikes me that the military way of doing things, while appropriate in battle, might have downsides for those who end up flying desks. I once read that the "Mad Men" business culture of the 60's, much of which is now considered "toxic", was largely built by WW2 and Korean War veterans. Guys who had spent years in those traumatizing battles had a unique perspective on work and communication that perhaps hasn't a…

Interesting reply to all the points, thank you.

On the topic of Critical Information Requirements and Mission-type orders: sure, in either military or civilian settings a manager can request information and delegate tasks, and any particular decision will end up being made at a particular level which may or may not be optimal. Perhaps NVC affects those decision levels, perhaps it doesn't; other management practices and org structure will surely have an influence. And what about deeper aspects like defining which questions are valid to ask in the first place, and which ones we want to focus on asking? I'm reminded of a recent article which said that the role of a CEO is primarily to set a culture - they aren't optimally placed even for high level strategic decisions so have to settle with generating the context in which those are made.

Are flatter hierarchies more effective as the problem space gets more complex? How does direct vs nonviolent communication style interact with all this? I wonder if anyone knows, I certainly don't.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#305

Post by mr_overalls »

roystonvassey wrote: post #299

The older I grow, the more I realize that, in its barest essence, we are all 'good' human beings. But, thanks to self-help advice of the kind that aspires to teach you to be 'powerful', 'assertive', 'effective', 'take no for an answer', we are fed ideas that we need to behave/talk differently to be successful. But, it is not what we should be striving for. It is meaningful connections. By treating others the way you…

> we are all 'good' human beings

I would say we're _mostly_ good human beings. The presence of a few bad actors and psychopaths, IMHO, is what prevents the benefits of universal altruism in society.

Speaking personally, I was a much more trusting person before falling into a relationship in college with a very charismatic person who almost certainly had antisocial personality disorder. Your behavior patterns must allow for the presence of well-camouflaged exploiters if you want to survive and thrive in adulthood. I still strive to be a good person, but am more guarded and suspicious of others' intentions than when I was younger.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#306

Post by homonculus1 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #302
Nursie wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say they are a terrible parent, they are a bully, and an awful human being. But not violent. Just the same as I wouldn't say pirating a movie was theft, but by saying that I'm not saying I think it's OK - these are just different concepts.

I understand, but completely disagree. I think the idea that physical harm is real but psychological harm doesn't exist is just wrong.

Who said psychological harm doesn't exist? It just isn't a form of violence, that's all.

It is important not to conflate the two concepts, because violence is widely criminalized and psychological harm is highly subjective. The immediate implication of bundling these completely disparate concepts is that somebody will have to arbitrate which verbal expressions constitute violent crime. This is not conjecture, activist groups have already regulated speech in several countries on the premise that words are violence.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#307

Post by username90 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #302
Nursie wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say they are a terrible parent, they are a bully, and an awful human being. But not violent. Just the same as I wouldn't say pirating a movie was theft, but by saying that I'm not saying I think it's OK - these are just different concepts.

I understand, but completely disagree. I think the idea that physical harm is real but psychological harm doesn't exist is just wrong.

The whole idea of "X is not being taken seriously but Y is, so I will start calling X Y instead, and anyone who corrects me tries to downplay X" is insane to me.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#308

Post by randrews »

roystonvassey wrote: post #299

The older I grow, the more I realize that, in its barest essence, we are all 'good' human beings. But, thanks to self-help advice of the kind that aspires to teach you to be 'powerful', 'assertive', 'effective', 'take no for an answer', we are fed ideas that we need to behave/talk differently to be successful. But, it is not what we should be striving for. It is meaningful connections. By treating others the way you…

I would say, other than a tiny minority of sociopaths, we're all good human beings to people we perceive as also being humans.

There are plenty of people who are perfectly nice and decent who would think nothing of ripping off a giant corporation for a few bucks because it's a giant corporation and they'll never notice.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#309

Post by perfect_wave »

I took a Peace Studies class in college which focused heavily on non-violent communication techniques. Despite being something I took my senior year because I thought it would be easy, I have used the communication methods I learned in that class constantly.

My most important takeaway was approaching problems in relationships as a me AND you problem instead of a me VS you problem.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#310

Post by thecrash »

rimliu wrote: post #244
x220 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, NVC would have you say "I feel X when I notice you doing Y." The way you phrased it implies blame.

How is NVC way any different? "I feel sad because you did X" is just sugarcoated "You are the one who made me feel sad by doing X". I find the "uncover your feelings" the most questionable point of the whole framework. Instantly reminds me of Stephen Fry's — I am rather offended by that – So fucking what? Long ago I made an observation that anger and other feelings are more of our perception of someone's actions than…

Words are just a way of conveying meaning, and it's always possible to interpret someone's words as implying blame. A motivated listener can take the most impartial, detached observation and hear it as a blistering indictment.

If someone is told the words "I feel a lot of anxiety about our financial stability" it's completely possible for them to understand the "true meaning" as "You're a useless slob who can't hold a proper job and I hate you"

But this doesn't mean that words don't matter. We don't control the meaning we convey, but we do influence it. Choice of words and phrasing is a very powerful tool for that. There are other tools as well, of course. But getting the words right is the low hanging fruit for most people.

Post reply on HN