8 ms·

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

by n42 7y ago

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 demonstrating, through a careful choice of words, a willingness to understand the other person. Easily the most powerful communication tool I have learned while hungover with my coworkers.

_def 7y ago
> 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. Reactions like that tell me once again that a lot of people really underestimate simple stuff like this. I hope that in the future simple and useful psychology topics will find their way into our schools so that the acceptance and understanding for the usefulness will increase (hopefully).
- chapium 7y ago
  Reactions like this tell me people despise corporate indoctrination.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- donw 7y ago
  This would require a large body of educators both equipped and empowered to educate, coupled with parents invested in the success of their children. My experience in at least the California educational system -- where both of my parents were teachers, with Mom also serving on the school board for some time -- gives me little hope that this will ever be the case.
- novok 7y ago
  When you actually read the book, you find it has a very awkward way of speaking which can induce eyerolls.
  - megous 7y ago
    Though if you just follow the reasons behind the four points in the article and implement them your way, it would be fine too, no? It's like with lots of these communication systems. (P.E.T. is similar, but more oriented at communicatuion with children) The authors have some specific examples of situations, and how they'd communicate, but it's all driven by some core principles and goals, and as long as you're also driven by and mind those all the time, you'll be fine using your own language, or the language of your peer.
    - bhy 7y ago
      Could you provide a link towards "P.E.T."? The term is not googleble..
      - jhncls 7y ago
        Parent Effectiveness Training: https://www.gordontraining.com/parent-programs/parent-effectiveness-training-p-e-t/ https://www.gordontraining.com/parent-programs/parent-effect... https://www.parentskills.com.au/blog/pet-page-summary-skills-and-principles-parent-effectiveness-training-pet https://www.parentskills.com.au/blog/pet-page-summary-skills...
        bhy 7y ago
        Thank you!
  - atoav 7y ago
    I read it ages ago in it’s German translation and while I remember there was a bit of awkwardness, I always understood it as an exaggeration for the sake of the example. My main takeaway was not the kind of language described in the book, but the thoughts behind it: the effects of your phrasing on how your message is received etc. I think I mostly use the ideas from the book without thinking at this point — and in order for that to work you most likely will have to find your own way.
- pfranz 7y ago
  I think the skepticism is the "quick fix" "trendy" packages that get peddled to businesses or show up in pop culture--like Power Poses or The Secret. Nonviolent Communication isn't the greatest name, either.
  - _jal 7y ago
    Everything ends up being packaged as some get-<blank>-quick scheme in the US, including how to peddle get-<blank>-quick schemes. Don't blame the idea for the hucksters.
    - endymi0n 7y ago
      Heuristics in action. I can‘t possibly number all the different BS methodologies and frameworks that were supposed to do something, every time. Applicable and actually highly successful ones like NVC are few and far between. Can‘t blame anyone who smells a fad on hearing it the first time, but I‘m also using NVC by now whenever I need to untangle difficult conversations.
      - ngold 7y ago
        Violent communication is hitting someone to make a point. The name of this is insulting.
        DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
        Violence isn't always physical.
        tomashubelbauer 7y ago
        I agree with this but I still think it is a bad name. Maybe something like non-aggressive communication would fare better?
        homonculus1 7y ago
        Violence is always physical, by definition. Sometimes the word is also used for poetic effect though.
- roenxi 7y ago
  The eye rolling is often justified. The value of something like NVC is having an entire framework for managing relationships (and it is a fantastic framework, havn't seen a better one yet). However a lot of vocal people are happy to take the words and not join the pieces together properly. There are a lot of mistakes in interpreting NVC that quickly lead to eye-roll-worthy corporate inductions. The nuance is critical and complicated. Eg, I'd assume an average person trying to talk about NVC either thinks: 1) Thinks it is a tool to use after someone else is already upset. 2) Hasn't understood it and thinks that the point is to appease someone who is angry by not being aggressive.
- swsieber 7y ago
  I instead hope that parents start teaching it to children. While my online decorum has major room for improvements, I feel like I'm pretty conscientious in my in person interactions and gained a lot of that through explicit instructions from my parents.
- pyrale 7y ago
  This happens mostly because orgs are stuck in confrontational, or at least non-cooperative ways of working, and expect that communication tools will somehow make it acceptable. When the tool is used, people soon realize that they won't get what they need, and that they now have to endure a speciific ceremonial.
- otaviokz 7y ago
  To be fair, I believe a big part of this kind of reaction often comes from being pushed trendy "easy fix for something important" from HR or top management quite frequently.
- acollins1331 7y ago
  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.
  - SubuSS 7y ago
    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 not, Communication is a 2 way problem: It doesn't matter even if you perfectly capture it, if the other party ain't listening. Or is only listening to cherry pick metaphors to rant on. Even if they are listening, the first few aggro sentences (or some that are sandwiched) can set them off - making them non-receptive to the rest. Again another reason people try to pick their words carefully so that they can put their best foot forward. -A world where clairvoyance is the norm is where speaking your mind may make sense: Otherwise you are one of the few who is baring his soul every time while others are picking a time and place. Good or bad, I am sure you see this puts you at a great disadvantage. - When bad news is delivered, we all process it differently. One of the common mechanics is attacking the messenger in some way or other OR trying to blame the messenger for delivering it badly. Again something to keep in mind when talking. - Life is grey: If you want to define careful words as manipulation, that's polarizing the situation. In reality it could be manipulation or just plain old 'being careful'. I am not going to be able to convince you in one post :) neither can I tell you how to live your life. These have been some of my observations that moved me from a 'speak your mind' person to a lot more 'reasonable' person model. So HTH!
    - anoncorpprog 7y ago
      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.
colordrops 7y ago
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.
- PycptN2MH 7y ago
  I agree. If I'm not mistaken the name comes from Ahimsa [1]. So, Communication for Non-Violence and Compassion might be more accurate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa
  - jimkleiber 7y ago
    I believe there was a movement to change the name to compassionate communication, maybe even led by Rosenberg himself, but I don’t think it has had as much traction as NVC.
- jimkleiber 7y ago
  I believe that communication can be violent, but I guess that depends on one’s definition of “violent.” I see “violent” as causing harm to another being and I can think of many examples how communication can be used for that. Also this is assuming “communication” means verbal communication, because I also see punching someone as a form of communication, or sending one message to another. That all being said, I think when we receive communication that we perceive as violent, we often have a reaction to try to stop people from saying those things, thus the increase in censorship. I don’t think that works well. What I like about NVC is not about stopping someone from communicating in a violent way, but choosing to respond in a nonviolent way. Similar to MLK’s beliefs on nonviolent resistance. In the end, I believe the goal is to change the way people communicate, but not violently stopping someone from being violent.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  Can speech cause harm?
  - 7y ago
laurex 7y ago
NVC is a great framework. I've watched the 9 hour training by Marshall Rosenberg on YouTube more than once, and I keep finding ways that it can be useful in all relationships. It's basically a way to be both non-passive-aggressive and compassionate, while having boundaries. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPNVcESwoWu4lI9C3bhkYIWB8-dphbzJ3 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPNVcESwoWu4lI9C3bhkY...
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >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.
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    > 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 myself.
    - awb 7y ago
      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.
  - gimboland 7y ago
    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/interpretations all the time, they're a necessary part of the human experience. But (in my experience) it's really _really_ helpful to differentiate between these two categories. It opens the whole thing up and allows things to proceed more smoothly and effectively (in conjunction with other tools in the toolset - but this is core). To expand on the example: if, as Eleanor, I hear the judgement I'm probably, yes, more likely to shut down and get defensive - which gets none of us anywhere. OTOH if I hear the data, there is then perhaps more room to have a conversation about what's going on. It might be that my ADHD is contributing to this behaviour, and perhaps if I get that it has a negative impact on someone else, I might decide to ask them (or someone else) for support in working out a better way to deal with this. Or I might simply be asking for more understanding, different structures. I don't know. But the kind of mutual acknowledgement of experience, feelings and wants that I'm talking about tends to be shut down by unowned judgements presented as fact.

by n42 7y ago

_def 7y ago

> 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. Reactions like that tell me once again that a lot of people really underestimate simple stuff like this. I hope that in the future simple and useful psychology topics will find their way into our schools so that the acceptance and understanding for the usefulness will increase (hopefully).

chapium 7y ago
Reactions like this tell me people despise corporate indoctrination.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
donw 7y ago
This would require a large body of educators both equipped and empowered to educate, coupled with parents invested in the success of their children. My experience in at least the California educational system -- where both of my parents were teachers, with Mom also serving on the school board for some time -- gives me little hope that this will ever be the case.
novok 7y ago
When you actually read the book, you find it has a very awkward way of speaking which can induce eyerolls.
- megous 7y ago
  Though if you just follow the reasons behind the four points in the article and implement them your way, it would be fine too, no? It's like with lots of these communication systems. (P.E.T. is similar, but more oriented at communicatuion with children) The authors have some specific examples of situations, and how they'd communicate, but it's all driven by some core principles and goals, and as long as you're also driven by and mind those all the time, you'll be fine using your own language, or the language of your peer.
  - bhy 7y ago
    Could you provide a link towards "P.E.T."? The term is not googleble..
    - jhncls 7y ago
      Parent Effectiveness Training: https://www.gordontraining.com/parent-programs/parent-effectiveness-training-p-e-t/ https://www.gordontraining.com/parent-programs/parent-effect... https://www.parentskills.com.au/blog/pet-page-summary-skills-and-principles-parent-effectiveness-training-pet https://www.parentskills.com.au/blog/pet-page-summary-skills...
      - bhy 7y ago
        Thank you!
- atoav 7y ago
  I read it ages ago in it’s German translation and while I remember there was a bit of awkwardness, I always understood it as an exaggeration for the sake of the example. My main takeaway was not the kind of language described in the book, but the thoughts behind it: the effects of your phrasing on how your message is received etc. I think I mostly use the ideas from the book without thinking at this point — and in order for that to work you most likely will have to find your own way.
pfranz 7y ago
I think the skepticism is the "quick fix" "trendy" packages that get peddled to businesses or show up in pop culture--like Power Poses or The Secret. Nonviolent Communication isn't the greatest name, either.
- _jal 7y ago
  Everything ends up being packaged as some get-<blank>-quick scheme in the US, including how to peddle get-<blank>-quick schemes. Don't blame the idea for the hucksters.
  - endymi0n 7y ago
    Heuristics in action. I can‘t possibly number all the different BS methodologies and frameworks that were supposed to do something, every time. Applicable and actually highly successful ones like NVC are few and far between. Can‘t blame anyone who smells a fad on hearing it the first time, but I‘m also using NVC by now whenever I need to untangle difficult conversations.
    - ngold 7y ago
      Violent communication is hitting someone to make a point. The name of this is insulting.
      - DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
        Violence isn't always physical.
        tomashubelbauer 7y ago
        I agree with this but I still think it is a bad name. Maybe something like non-aggressive communication would fare better?
        homonculus1 7y ago
        Violence is always physical, by definition. Sometimes the word is also used for poetic effect though.
roenxi 7y ago
The eye rolling is often justified. The value of something like NVC is having an entire framework for managing relationships (and it is a fantastic framework, havn't seen a better one yet). However a lot of vocal people are happy to take the words and not join the pieces together properly. There are a lot of mistakes in interpreting NVC that quickly lead to eye-roll-worthy corporate inductions. The nuance is critical and complicated. Eg, I'd assume an average person trying to talk about NVC either thinks: 1) Thinks it is a tool to use after someone else is already upset. 2) Hasn't understood it and thinks that the point is to appease someone who is angry by not being aggressive.
swsieber 7y ago
I instead hope that parents start teaching it to children. While my online decorum has major room for improvements, I feel like I'm pretty conscientious in my in person interactions and gained a lot of that through explicit instructions from my parents.
pyrale 7y ago
This happens mostly because orgs are stuck in confrontational, or at least non-cooperative ways of working, and expect that communication tools will somehow make it acceptable. When the tool is used, people soon realize that they won't get what they need, and that they now have to endure a speciific ceremonial.
otaviokz 7y ago
To be fair, I believe a big part of this kind of reaction often comes from being pushed trendy "easy fix for something important" from HR or top management quite frequently.
acollins1331 7y ago
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.
- SubuSS 7y ago
  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 not, Communication is a 2 way problem: It doesn't matter even if you perfectly capture it, if the other party ain't listening. Or is only listening to cherry pick metaphors to rant on. Even if they are listening, the first few aggro sentences (or some that are sandwiched) can set them off - making them non-receptive to the rest. Again another reason people try to pick their words carefully so that they can put their best foot forward. -A world where clairvoyance is the norm is where speaking your mind may make sense: Otherwise you are one of the few who is baring his soul every time while others are picking a time and place. Good or bad, I am sure you see this puts you at a great disadvantage. - When bad news is delivered, we all process it differently. One of the common mechanics is attacking the messenger in some way or other OR trying to blame the messenger for delivering it badly. Again something to keep in mind when talking. - Life is grey: If you want to define careful words as manipulation, that's polarizing the situation. In reality it could be manipulation or just plain old 'being careful'. I am not going to be able to convince you in one post :) neither can I tell you how to live your life. These have been some of my observations that moved me from a 'speak your mind' person to a lot more 'reasonable' person model. So HTH!
  - anoncorpprog 7y ago
    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.

colordrops 7y ago

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.

PycptN2MH 7y ago
I agree. If I'm not mistaken the name comes from Ahimsa [1]. So, Communication for Non-Violence and Compassion might be more accurate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa
- jimkleiber 7y ago
  I believe there was a movement to change the name to compassionate communication, maybe even led by Rosenberg himself, but I don’t think it has had as much traction as NVC.
jimkleiber 7y ago
I believe that communication can be violent, but I guess that depends on one’s definition of “violent.” I see “violent” as causing harm to another being and I can think of many examples how communication can be used for that. Also this is assuming “communication” means verbal communication, because I also see punching someone as a form of communication, or sending one message to another. That all being said, I think when we receive communication that we perceive as violent, we often have a reaction to try to stop people from saying those things, thus the increase in censorship. I don’t think that works well. What I like about NVC is not about stopping someone from communicating in a violent way, but choosing to respond in a nonviolent way. Similar to MLK’s beliefs on nonviolent resistance. In the end, I believe the goal is to change the way people communicate, but not violently stopping someone from being violent.
CathedralBorrow 7y ago
Can speech cause harm?
- 7y ago

laurex 7y ago

NVC is a great framework. I've watched the 9 hour training by Marshall Rosenberg on YouTube more than once, and I keep finding ways that it can be useful in all relationships. It's basically a way to be both non-passive-aggressive and compassionate, while having boundaries. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPNVcESwoWu4lI9C3bhkYIWB8-dphbzJ3 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPNVcESwoWu4lI9C3bhkY...

Mirioron 7y ago
>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.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  > 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 myself.
  - awb 7y ago
    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.
- gimboland 7y ago
  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/interpretations all the time, they're a necessary part of the human experience. But (in my experience) it's really _really_ helpful to differentiate between these two categories. It opens the whole thing up and allows things to proceed more smoothly and effectively (in conjunction with other tools in the toolset - but this is core). To expand on the example: if, as Eleanor, I hear the judgement I'm probably, yes, more likely to shut down and get defensive - which gets none of us anywhere. OTOH if I hear the data, there is then perhaps more room to have a conversation about what's going on. It might be that my ADHD is contributing to this behaviour, and perhaps if I get that it has a negative impact on someone else, I might decide to ask them (or someone else) for support in working out a better way to deal with this. Or I might simply be asking for more understanding, different structures. I don't know. But the kind of mutual acknowledgement of experience, feelings and wants that I'm talking about tends to be shut down by unowned judgements presented as fact.