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

311–320 of 355 posts

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#311

Post by watwut »

blub wrote: post #292
firepoet wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree 100%. “just talk directly to people” reads to me like an ill-informed tactic that allows all our worst habits to run amok. Studying these techniques and making them habitual is the key to a kinder, more thoughtful, and even more effective and productive teamwork experience. I had a coworker who addressed my team about some difficulty they were having collaborating with us. They spoke directly, telling us we…

If you became fearful and got your act together, I'd say their approach worked. Of course, apologizing afterwards is pretty weak. Either they were forced to do it or they're not in control of their emotions.

They feared to talk to them. That does not imply doing what they want. It implies people acting on ressentment in further interactions.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#312

Post by kempbellt »

watwut wrote: post #193
kempbellt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?"

Is this not indirectly saying: "Stop eating my (or other people's) food"?

This can certainly be construed as passive aggressive.

Edit: To add, I would prefer the direct approach. I hate the word dancing that goes on with trying to soften the tone. It comes off as patronizing to me.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#313

Post by QualityReboot »

firepoet wrote: post #260
QualityReboot wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please no. That reads like a cheat sheet for sociopaths. Conversations between good actors don't need to be engineered. These techniques are probably great if you're a police officer, lawyer, executive, or salesperson, but let's not turn our workplaces into that internally. I'm also in software development, and especially in this field, just talk directly to people. If you find that you can't connect with your team a…

Disagree 100%. “just talk directly to people” reads to me like an ill-informed tactic that allows all our worst habits to run amok. Studying these techniques and making them habitual is the key to a kinder, more thoughtful, and even more effective and productive teamwork experience. I had a coworker who addressed my team about some difficulty they were having collaborating with us. They spoke directly, telling us we…

What's wrong with saying "hey dude, no need to get angry, let's figure out how to get you better requirements. how about we try xyz and you come back to us in 2 weeks and tell us if we're doing better"?

If he apologized to everyone but you, maybe say "I heard you apologized to some people about last week's tension, I just wanted to let you know that we're all on the same team and there's no hard feelings, your concerns are valid and we'll work on them together".

Your reaction shouldn't be fear and extra stress. It should be about how you can help your fellow workers through the day and help everyone meet their goals. The whole idea that you'd have fear as a response to a co-worker is crazy to me.

If you can't have that type of conversation with your co-workers and get good results, it's probably not because you employed the wrong conversation tactic. It's probably actually because they don't trust you, which would make sense if you've been forcing them through a conversation algorithm instead of treating them like humans.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#314

Post by jes »

NVC makes sense to me.

I reject the idea that we have libertarian free will. In my view, each of us is an ongoing process, we don't strictly end at our skin lines (the world is a unity, maybe quantum fields), and no one is responsible for their actions in the strictest sense.

In other words, "You didn't build that" because there is no separate, tangible "you" to have built it.

I don't usually talk about this, because it often makes people uncomfortable, and I don't typically don't care enough to try to answer all the questions that such a view raises.

What I have noticed is that this view has allowed me to be a lot more charitable with others and with myself. If someone cuts me off in traffic, I feel a flash of anger which then fades pretty quickly, as I remind myself that the driver is as much a victim or a winner of life unfolding as I am. I think it's important to develop in myself as much of a sense of compassion for myself and others as I can.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#315

Post by QualityReboot »

laputan_machine wrote: post #237
Beltiras wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When you didn't show up for our coffee date, I felt hurt. I need my time to be respected. Would you please show up on time or send me text letting me know you can't come?" More verbose for sure but clearer and more likely to de-escalate.

If someone spoke like that to me it would feel very forced and unnatural, I would assume it is fake

That tone tells me that the conversation is now in lawyer-mode. If I'm using it, it's because I'm no longer willing or able to communicate normally. If I cared about you, you'd see me angry. If I don't care about you, you'll see me having this style of conversation, which IMO is far more aggressive and dangerous than actual anger.

If I'm on the receiving side of that kind of tone, it's time to either re-engage with normal conversation and try to salvage the relationship, or now I'm also mirroring that tone and we can never have an honest conversation again.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#316

Post by lmeyerov »

gimboland wrote: post #297
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.

My understanding of this: "Eleanor waited to do all her studying the night before the exam" — that's data: it would show up on a video recording of the scene. "Eleanor procrastinates" — that's a judgement/interpretation/opinion: it exists in someone's mind (i.e. the person making the judgement). This isn't to say "judgements bad, don't make judgements". That would be nonsensical. We all make judgements/interpretation…

"Waited" is interpretation and "all" is generalization, both to avoid in basic nvc.

NVC would be more like: "I saw Eleanor study the night before and I did not see her study before then. I interpreted this as procrastination, which makes me anxious because something similar happened at time X, you want her to succeed, fear a pattern will prevent that, and feel powerless to change it."

Maybe Eleanor did study secretly. Or knew the stuff. Or had a death in the family. Or it is unimportant. Maybe she forgot and could use reminders.

ADHD was a great tool for me + team. Basically autopilot and a low bar. One downside is people mistake things like this and blameless.postmortems as you cannot confront people and publicly, or do not bc of the work... While in reality, it provides a baseline framework for it when you have nothing better.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#317

Post by Nursie »

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.

I said no such thing, and in fact was careful to disclaim such an idea. Perhaps not careful enough.

I meant to say it's not violent by my understanding of the term, not that it can't cause real harm. It absolutely can.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#318

Post by gimboland »

lmeyerov wrote: post #316
gimboland wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of this: "Eleanor waited to do all her studying the night before the exam" — that's data: it would show up on a video recording of the scene. "Eleanor procrastinates" — that's a judgement/interpretation/opinion: it exists in someone's mind (i.e. the person making the judgement). This isn't to say "judgements bad, don't make judgements". That would be nonsensical. We all make judgements/interpretation…

"Waited" is interpretation and "all" is generalization, both to avoid in basic nvc. NVC would be more like: "I saw Eleanor study the night before and I did not see her study before then. I interpreted this as procrastination, which makes me anxious because something similar happened at time X, you want her to succeed, fear a pattern will prevent that, and feel powerless to change it." Maybe Eleanor did study secretly…

Yes. Nice clarification — many thanks indeed.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#319

Post by lmeyerov »

colordrops wrote: post #154
n42 wrote: post #7

I learned this at a company retreat at some point. 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. It takes a little care and thought to apply it well. I've found when done effectively, it can unlock difficult conversations and turn even the most hostile interactions into productive conversations. You are demon…

Perhaps a better name would help, such as "Non-hostile communication". There is no such thing as violent communication, and the confusion between speech and violence is precisely what is driving the current pro-censorship wave.

The premise is naive speech may inadvertently force negative and clouding emotion in the recipient, and is aimed at critical scenarios, where misinterpretation of speech causes the recipient's body chemistry to activate, and then the conv goes off a cliff and things get even worse. If you don't believe that is happening, the techniques for identifying where it is happening and how to simply avoid them seems kind of pointless.

There may be some reason preventing your use of the word 'violent' for verbal ways to cause negative physical reactions and mental trauma. You may want to ask yourself why you are downplaying the core principle here and, I'm guessing, the agency of the speaker in it..

Post reply on HN