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

321–330 of 355 posts

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#321

Post by westinghouse »

randrews wrote: post #308
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.

You're opening a massive philosophical can of worms with that one.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#322

Post by learnstats2 »

People using NVC makes me bristle.

When I think about the people who use NVC on me, I feel negative and distrustful. They are acquaintances, not friends.

Presenting demands as politely couched questions doesn't change the fact that they are still demands.

Where is the effort to make compromise and work together?

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#323

Post by getpost »

gotrythis wrote: post #295

I discovered NVC decades ago and have been using it ever since. Many people complain that NVC sounds unnatural. This is because it is like learning a new language. It sounds unnatural when any native speaker teaches someone their language, because they speak slowly, in simple phrases, and repeat everything at least twice. That is exactly what Marshal did when teaching NVC. Once you are fluent, it sounds very differen…

At a Marshall Rosenberg event I attended, he was asked about the unnatural speaking style. His reponse was that it was like "training wheels" for learning the process and, like you say, it doesn't sound like that once you learn to practice NVC natually.

And that may be, but my experience with various NVC teachers and practitioners is that they don't know the training wheel analogy and they do speak in an unnatural way for the most part.

Got a link for that YouTube lecture? (There are many.)

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#324

Post by confidantlake »

joshuamorton wrote: post #134
themgt wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be willing to tell me what you recommend a person say in that situation instead? To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around that a person may have reasons beyond simple obstinate refusal to grant the request. FWIW, in my lim…

You're doing the same thing that a lot of people in this thread are: assuming that there is a wrong and a right person in the interaction. > To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around that a person may have reasons beyond simple obsti…

"Would you only eat the food you buy?" sounds manipulative to me. I much prefer asking "why did you eat my food?" Eating someone else's food is not acceptable. There is a wrong person in this scenario.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#325

Post by User23 »

roenxi wrote: post #221
User23 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing an algorithm, albeit an informal one. The problem is that there is no general algorithm for social skills, which means that this algorithm is useless in the general case. Now, if one treats your listed points as a set of heuristics rather than an algorithm and then perceptively applies them to a given social interaction, they probably will be useful. But, of course, the ability to do that is exactly…

There obviously is a general algorithm for social skills; otherwise humans couldn't socialise. However there is no algorithm independent from what other people say and do. So any strategy that doesn't involve carefully considering what other people say and do is bound to fail.

You’re implying human social interaction is decidable. That’s a pretty bold claim and I’m not aware of any evidence for it. Please elaborate.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#326

Post by joshuamorton »

confidantlake wrote: post #324
joshuamorton wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing the same thing that a lot of people in this thread are: assuming that there is a wrong and a right person in the interaction. > To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around that a person may have reasons beyond simple obsti…

"Would you only eat the food you buy?" sounds manipulative to me. I much prefer asking "why did you eat my food?" Eating someone else's food is not acceptable. There is a wrong person in this scenario.

> sounds manipulative to me

Amusingly, "would you only eat the food that you buy" was a suggestion by another person for a less manipulative suggestion. What most people took issue with wasn't the "only eat what you buy" part, but the "would you be willing to ?" part, which many people took as forcing the other party to answer "yes".

Again, if you're coming from the preconception that someone (normally the other person) is "wrong", you shouldn't use NVC. Earnest NVC requires that you not assign blame or fault. That's the entire reason that you speak only about your feelings and needs and perceived actions of the other party. Granted, "It upsets me when I get to lunch and don't have anything to eat, would you stop eating my food" is also fine in the NVC framework, as I understand it.

> "why did you eat my food?"

This doesn't begin to solve the problem, you're not yet addressing the conflict. In fact, you haven't necessarily signaled that there even is a conflict that needs to be addressed. And note that you're putting the other person on the defensive by not being open about what your goals are. You're acting from a position of uneven information instead of earnesty.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#327

Post by soared »

mikorym wrote: post #262

What if you don't want nonviolent communication? I can think of many examples; an oppressive government, a physically oppressive/abusive relationship or rape, a religously delusional cult, etc. Maybe the assumption is that you are excluding such situations? Sometimes you have to fight for justice. What is your priority, peace or truth? I understand that point 1. should address this, but the opposite can happen as wel…

This is explicitly covered in the reading.

> We think it's important to note that NVC should only be used in situations where people have each other's best interests at heart. It isn't helpful in abusive relationships....

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#328

Post by munchbunny »

catalogia wrote: post #143
munchbunny wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't answer my question. How would you have phrased (empathetically) the ask that someone stop eating your food? Let's pretend you're asking me. If I wanted to, I could take anything you say the wrong way. NVC is generally good for avoiding most of the easy pitfalls. They're approaching the conversation with a goal-oriented mindset, where engineering circumstances that result in my compliance is a puzzle they'v…

You're missing the point. There is no formula for natural human interaction, it's something that comes from inside of you. That's the entire point. The way it should be worded is a function of the two personalities and specific circumstance. You can't sell tickets to corporate seminars for this.

Humor me. How would you phrase it based on personality types? Give me some examples.

I'm explicitly pushing you on this point because you have yet to make any suggestions for how to actually construct what to say. It's like if I asked an engineer how they would implement a sorting algorithm and they stopped their answer at "I would make sure it satisfied the requirements of the problem." That answer doesn't require you to put real stakes on the table.

Everyone I have ever asked had their own framework. What's yours? How would you actually do it?

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#329

Post by artfulhippo »

There is perhaps a connection between nonviolent communication and functional programming with immutable data structures. In both cases, change is effected through the construction of new information structures, rather than through forcing objects that already exist to be different from their present state.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#330

Post by confidantlake »

joshuamorton wrote: post #326
confidantlake wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Would you only eat the food you buy?" sounds manipulative to me. I much prefer asking "why did you eat my food?" Eating someone else's food is not acceptable. There is a wrong person in this scenario.

> sounds manipulative to me Amusingly, "would you only eat the food that you buy" was a suggestion by another person for a less manipulative suggestion. What most people took issue with wasn't the "only eat what you buy" part, but the "would you be willing to ?" part, which many people took as forcing the other party to answer "yes". Again, if you're coming from the preconception that someone (normally the other pers…

Thinking about it a bit more, I prefer "did you eat my food"? That way you are not accusing someone, after all maybe they didn't.

To me the issue of asking "would you" sounds like the request is optional and they can say, "no I won't". In this case there is no negotiating.

Post reply on HN