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

351–355 of 355 posts

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#351

Post by anoncorpprog »

SubuSS wrote: post #289
alwayslearning0 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe when you pick your words carefully to get desired reactions it is manipulative. I'd rather not manipulate others, it leads to me oftentimes sticking my foot in my mouth, but at least others know what I am thinking and I know I'm not lying to others for personal gain.

A few points Re speaking your mind: - Talking is an incomplete way capturing your thoughts. (Gets progressively worse with videos / phone calls / emails / telegrams ...). You will never capture all you're thinking in a few words. So IMO speaking your mind is essentially blurting what's floating on the top rather than actually speaking your mind. You probably can see how that can strain a conversation. - Believe it or…

This is the most convincing argument I've heard yet on why speaking your mind can lead to dissatisfactory outcomes. coming from a speak your mind type of person, this is the most compelling perspective I've seen yet.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#353

Post by MattPerelstein »

Beltiras wrote: post #234
Sammi wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah for sure. One fundamental rule of NVC is to never state a feeling as being caused by anyone. Instead you state that something happened and what you felt when that happened. So the template is "this and this happened and I felt this and this emotion". Not "you did this and this and you made me feel this and this". This way you take responsibility for your own emotions, and don't make anyone else defensive or conf…

"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.

We call these "I" messages and they show Emotional Responsibility for ourselves (and thus cause less friction and arguments). No one can "make" us feel anything emotionally, without our permission (physical, yes, but emotional, no). We make ourselves feel things... more specifically, our thoughts and meanings make us feel the way we feel.

The format is, "I felt __ when you __ because I thought/expected/believed __". Try it... it works well!

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#354

Post by Beltiras »

MattPerelstein wrote: post #353
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.

We call these "I" messages and they show Emotional Responsibility for ourselves (and thus cause less friction and arguments). No one can "make" us feel anything emotionally, without our permission (physical, yes, but emotional, no). We make ourselves feel things... more specifically, our thoughts and meanings make us feel the way we feel. The format is, "I felt __ when you __ because I thought/expected/believed __".…

The flaw in that is the when you clause ends with something that usually is ambiguous or taken the wrong way can flare up an argument. I am a bit rusty in the theory since it's more than a decade since I took the course but the other form is what has done wonders for me. Me and the wife use NVC at least weekly to defuse situations.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#355

Post by ignoramous »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #128
ignoramous wrote: post #30

Kevin Hale, at startupschool 2019, spoke in length on How to Work Together [0]. Key points aside from non-violent communication were, everyone fights, but when you fight, stay away from these four horsemen [1]: 1. Criticism : Involves bringing in variety or unrelated issues to the discussion / argument. Focus on the one thing that needs resolution. 2. Contempt : Argumentum ad hominem. Intention to insult, making thin…

This kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic approach to dialectic is always left wanting when contrasted with cold hard logic and evidence. Criticism is not bad, but is inherent to any sort of give-and-take discussion framework, and especially to the unequal manager-employee relationships that HN has projected onto this thread; we should be wary of advice given by people who cannot take it. Ultimately, we cannot take full res…

> This kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic approach to dialectic is always left wanting when contrasted with cold hard logic and evidence

I can see why you'd say that. It certainly feels that way too. Some of the points though are worth a consideration, if nothing more... as communication is hard but key to co-founders and a promising startup's success.

> For example, I think that we should always have "Level 3 conversations". Anything less sounds horribly thoughtless and automatic.

For the same reason you can't communicate with kids the way you would with adults, I believe there might be even more nuances with the way communication among adults need to take place to be more effective.

> Frankly, these situations make me doubt whether there's any point to looking for insights about language in these sorts of ventures, as all I can see are ways to divest responsibility while holding onto power.

Agree. Though, rhetoric is key and I believe at some level theorising abt communication is not without end-goals. I've personally known folks whose communication skills have worked wonders for their personal and professional life.

Post reply on HN