Live data from Hacker News

Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

clearerthinking.org

61–70 of 355 posts

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#61
post #49

Huh, my fiancée and I developed a system years ago that approximates this approach by replacing statements with what we call “food codes”. For example: “Applesauce” is equivalent to “I can’t hear you”, or “speak up” or “stop mumbling”. “Applesauce Factory” means “I can’t hear you because you are too far away or something noisy is making it hard to hear you” - very convenient verbal shorthand for when it’s too noisy t…

Can you give some examples of how you use this? Do you use the words by themselves? If your partner is being overbearing and annoying do you just say “soufflé” and they stop talking?

So if the washer/dryer is on (which is in the kitchen) and one of us is in the kitchen and the other is not, and someone starts talking, nobody can hear so its a reflexive “applesauce factory”, which means at least one person has to move closer to the other so they can hear clearly.

Soufflé is typically said like “I’ve had a rough day and I’m peopled-out. I need to soufflé”.

“Sure! I’ll let our friends know that it’s just me coming to hang out tonight. Let me know if you want me to pick up something for you on the way back.”

Sometimes they’re more immediate. “Oatmeal” means “stop biting your nails, the sound really bothers me.” I’ll just say that when she is doing that and she stops. Sometimes it’s actually quite funny because it starts involuntarily and as soon as I say it she realizes what she’s doing and slams her hand back down to the steering wheel (it seems to happen a lot when driving, although not as often anymore in general).

Another, like oatmeal, that was so useful it was effectively discontinued, is “salsa.” For whatever reason, there was a period of time that I interspaced the word “like” a lot as I spoke, so she would say “salsa” when I did it and I became conscious of it and stopped. Eventually I stopped saying it altogether.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#63

I've read "Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life" and found it helpful in personal & work communication. I _hate_ the name, though. I don't want to suggest to someone that they read about non-violent communication because that suggests they're being violent when they're not. I'd prefer almost any other name. Some better names: "observational communication", "non-judgmental communication", "empathetic communica…

Indeed, the name was immediately off-putting to me.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#64
post #26
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only she had consulted some marketing people before publishing the book! It might've been accepted by a larger audience.

She? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-B-Rosenberg/e/B000APJPFG/

ah i thought i read marsha lol

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding "would you be willing" does serve a purpose, it makes it easier for the other person to say "yes" since they don't yet have to commit. This is very important in any negotiation. For example, the other person could respond with "Yes, I would if you clean the kitchen after making food".

It lets the other person know that you think so little of them that you're willing to communicate with them in an artificial manner meant to manipulate them into complying. It's the antithesis of humane; it's an impersonal and heartless mode of communication masking itself as empathetic. That's the way I feel when people use it on me.

I'm curious what your rendition of "empathetic" is in this case.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#66

the requests all sound very passive aggressive to me. eg, “ would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?”

I wouldn't say passive aggressive because that has a specific definition which this doesn't meet but there's something about them that's off. "Would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?” isn't really a question because "no" isn't really an acceptable answer so there's something dirty about phrasing like a question but I can't quite put my finger on what.

"Would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?” isn't really a question because "no" isn't really an acceptable answer so there's something dirty about phrasing like a question but I can't quite put my finger on what.

That's not because of the phrasing. That's because eating someone else's food without their permission is widely seen as a dick move.

No matter how you word it, if you clearly mean that you intend to continue eating someone's food without their permission, that makes you the bad person in this type of situation.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#67

the requests all sound very passive aggressive to me. eg, “ would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?”

I get the feeling you really need to know about the folks you are talking to if you intend to use that phrasing. The oddity of that sentence probably would escalate any situation far beyond just saying: "Don't eat the food that isn't yours" with certain groups of people. I lived in one place that the indirectness would be seen as weakness and not respected at all.

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#68

the requests all sound very passive aggressive to me. eg, “ would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?”

I wouldn't say passive aggressive because that has a specific definition which this doesn't meet but there's something about them that's off. "Would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?” isn't really a question because "no" isn't really an acceptable answer so there's something dirty about phrasing like a question but I can't quite put my finger on what.

As you note it is a dilemma/compliance strategy where Amina can't say no without seeming to be very unreasonable.

Sneakily, it expands the scope of "please don't eat my food without permission" to "please agree to never eat any food that you did not purchase." The scope of the apparent infraction, as well as the scope of the remedy, are greatly increased.

The trap and the expanded scope make it much worse than "please don't eat my food without permission."

Re: Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication

#70

I've read "Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life" and found it helpful in personal & work communication. I _hate_ the name, though. I don't want to suggest to someone that they read about non-violent communication because that suggests they're being violent when they're not. I'd prefer almost any other name. Some better names: "observational communication", "non-judgmental communication", "empathetic communica…

Fascinating, and I totally hear that. For me, the name is part of what drew me to it in the first place -- the framing that there is a "violence" even in the normal day to day interactions we are all used to was a bit of an "aha!" moment for me that provided hope for something better.
Post reply on HN