4 ms·

It's not a "direct ask". The "would you be willing to" hides the direct question behind weasel words and adds confusion. The additional phrase equivocates the p

It's not a "direct ask". The "would you be willing to" hides the direct question behind weasel words and adds confusion. The additional phrase equivocates the person's initial point; now it is ambigious if the person asking about the food cares at all about the food itself, or is just curious about if the person would be willing. The person could say "Yes" and then nothing will change, because this is not a "direct ask" to them in the first place.

aeternum 7y ago
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".
- cryptoz 7y ago
  I agree it serves a purpose; I believe it serves a purpose by adding a layer of indirection in there, making the conversation flow easier. I think it's passive aggressive, yes, but I also understand why it is done. It's not done to make it a "direct ask" though, as this process specifically makes the requests less direct as part of the strategy. The less-direct wording is both able to be seen as passive aggressive (as evidenced by other comments here) as well as a helpful hint to more smoothly continue a conversation.
  - starpilot 7y ago
    https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/passive-aggression-top-5-misused-psychology-terms-part-3/ https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/passive-aggression-top-5-misus... "Passive" means inaction, it doesn't mean indirect or sneaky. You can be actively indirect, but it still originates with an (active) action. There is no passive action, just as there is no active passivity. This doesn't mean the wording is perfect, just the passive aggressive label doesn't apply here.
- catalogia 7y ago
  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.
  - munchbunny 7y ago
    I'm curious what your rendition of "empathetic" is in this case.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      When somebody communicates with me using NVC, it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. They're approaching the conversation with a goal-oriented mindset, where engineering circumstances that result in my compliance is a puzzle they've been tasked with solving. The appearance of caring about my feelings, the apparent empathy, is only a facade. The other party doesn't care about my feelings, they care about my compliance. The apparent care for my feelings is motivated by their belief that presenting themselves as empathetic will make my compliance more likely. The overall experience is dehumanizing.
      - klodolph 7y ago
        > When somebody communicates with me using NVC, > it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. You’re using the NVC pattern in this comment, almost exactly. It’s very close. The part missing is where you suggest a course of action. How would you like to be treated?
        catalogia 7y ago
        I've received NVC training and I think using it in this discussion is an ironic way of getting my point across, since the point is that I have no respect for people who use NVC. Suggested course of action: stop talking to people using modes of communication you learned at corporate seminars.
nadavr 7y ago
The direct ask is "would you be willing to", if that's what you want to know. If the goal is to make sure your food isn't eaten, then "stop!" might work better. If the goal is better understanding of the people around you, and a connection to what's happening for them, then the ask is about what they want, and what they'd be willing to do.

aeternum 7y ago

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".

cryptoz 7y ago
I agree it serves a purpose; I believe it serves a purpose by adding a layer of indirection in there, making the conversation flow easier. I think it's passive aggressive, yes, but I also understand why it is done. It's not done to make it a "direct ask" though, as this process specifically makes the requests less direct as part of the strategy. The less-direct wording is both able to be seen as passive aggressive (as evidenced by other comments here) as well as a helpful hint to more smoothly continue a conversation.
- starpilot 7y ago
  https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/passive-aggression-top-5-misused-psychology-terms-part-3/ https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/passive-aggression-top-5-misus... "Passive" means inaction, it doesn't mean indirect or sneaky. You can be actively indirect, but it still originates with an (active) action. There is no passive action, just as there is no active passivity. This doesn't mean the wording is perfect, just the passive aggressive label doesn't apply here.
catalogia 7y ago
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.
- munchbunny 7y ago
  I'm curious what your rendition of "empathetic" is in this case.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    When somebody communicates with me using NVC, it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. They're approaching the conversation with a goal-oriented mindset, where engineering circumstances that result in my compliance is a puzzle they've been tasked with solving. The appearance of caring about my feelings, the apparent empathy, is only a facade. The other party doesn't care about my feelings, they care about my compliance. The apparent care for my feelings is motivated by their belief that presenting themselves as empathetic will make my compliance more likely. The overall experience is dehumanizing.
    - klodolph 7y ago
      > When somebody communicates with me using NVC, > it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. You’re using the NVC pattern in this comment, almost exactly. It’s very close. The part missing is where you suggest a course of action. How would you like to be treated?
      - catalogia 7y ago
        I've received NVC training and I think using it in this discussion is an ironic way of getting my point across, since the point is that I have no respect for people who use NVC. Suggested course of action: stop talking to people using modes of communication you learned at corporate seminars.

nadavr 7y ago

The direct ask is "would you be willing to", if that's what you want to know. If the goal is to make sure your food isn't eaten, then "stop!" might work better. If the goal is better understanding of the people around you, and a connection to what's happening for them, then the ask is about what they want, and what they'd be willing to do.