10 ms·

With trusted people, I find its best to default to a non-violent communication style[1]. Express your feelings with "I" statements, etc. "I'm feeling X". Believ

With trusted people, I find its best to default to a non-violent communication style[1]. Express your feelings with "I" statements, etc. "I'm feeling X". Believe the other side has positive intent (ie 'hanlons razor'). Express the 2-way nature, and understand feelings can arise for many reason that may not be anyones fault. Recently I had a conversation with to a colleague where I expressed their earlier perceived 'pressure' made me feel my relationship with them was "transactional". And I felt like my value was about the work I did, not me as a person. I reiterated throughout I didn't think it was their intention. I expressed that this has as much to do with my personality & baggage with how I perceive comments that might not bother others. I didn't do it perfectly (this is a hard skill to cultivate). But... we left with a better way to communicate. "OK Doug reacts to X statements a bit roughly". On my end, I take accountability for maybe overreacting to X types of statements, and taking a deep breath and being as forgiving as I can. Most importantly our relationship and trust deepened, and we'll work more effectively together... 1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

tssva 5y ago
Was this a work colleague? If so, isn't your relationship transactional and just part of a larger transactional relationship. That between each of you and your employer.
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  Human relationships just can't be boiled down to a single term in that way. My relationship with the cashier at the grocery store is obviously transactional, yet we can interact in a variety of ways, and how we do so will affect how we feel, how satisfied we are with {the job|the store}, etc. There's always room for two people in an interaction to be more or less trusting, compatible, enjoyable, etc.
- softwaredoug 5y ago
  Honestly when you boil it down, almost all relationships we have are transactional to some degree (money, emotionally, physically...). Unconditional love is very hard.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
drewcoo 5y ago
In therapy that's one thing. But I often see NVC abused as passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open communication. This is almost always used after some alleged harm has been done. As in "let's talk about how I feel and somehow blame you for it" in some public forum with social pressures. It's about coercing people into changing their behavior and is the polar opposite of acceptance. It is a means of social control and should raise red flags whenever it's seen.
- altcognito 5y ago
  What you described is not NVC communication. NVC communication requires at a bare minimum first listening to both sides needs.
  - sombremesa 5y ago
    I agree with GP here, it's much better to simply commit to transparent and candid communication, without forcing people into some preset paradigm that may not fit at all with their communication style. If a pre-requisite for NVC communication is trust and the application of hanlon's razor in any case, I don't see how adding it to the equation improves upon just letting people hash it out in the way that jives best with their personalities. Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that more direct styles of communication are "violent", and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. The reason NVC is "a hard skill to cultivate" is because it's an unnatural method designed to suppress candor and transparency in favor of feel-good vibes, the interpersonal equivalent of corporate "synergy".
    - potatoman22 5y ago
      I agree that NVC isn't best for all scenarios and it can feel unnatural, but I don't understand how it's not transparent. To me, I think telling someone about your feelings and needs requires a great deal of transparency and vulnerability. I see it as very directly conveying what the issue is, why it's an issue, and how one can help solve that issue. One issue with "candid conversation" that NVC tries to address is that the language we use can often imply blame or thrust the onus of your emotions onto someone else, even when not intended. NVC provides a more standard framework for working out issues while reducing the likelihood that your intentions are misinterpreted.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Always excited to hear about another person who sees the value in NVC. I've got the books on my shelf and periodically have to re-read them (and I always cringe at having to re-train myself because it is such a hard initial effort!). It is a great framework, and even better if the audience or recipient is familiar with it. > I didn't do it perfectly (this is a hard skill to cultivate). But... we left with a better way to communicate. Sounds like you did just fine! The framework allows you to at least identify people who reject this type of communication, because not everyone is open to it.
throwawayboise 5y ago
I really can't stand talking to people who frame everything in terms of how it makes them feel or other emotional responses. IDK why but it just seems like such a cop-out. Say what you mean, and don't try to get what you want by guilt-tripping and psychobabble.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  You're going to get an emotional response whether you acknowledge it or not, and often times, such miscomunication results in anger/escalation of the misunderstanding. "You're rude" vs "I feel like what you said to me was rude" will elicit different responses; the former is likely to trigger self-defense or the listener taking offense, whereas the latter is a statement of opinion that does not escalate. Non-violent communication is how diplomacy gets done, as the stakes are often very high.
  - noptd 5y ago
    I disagree. Prefacing statements with "I feel" only acts to highlight the subjectivity of the statement which makes it much easier for the offending party to dismiss in practice. "That statement was rude" makes the speaker consider their statement from their own perspective vs "I feel like that statement was rude" which causes the speaker consider whether the other party rationally feels that way. If the speaker doesn't see the offended party as a rational individual, then any statement like that will automatically be dismissed. IMO this underscores the biggest failing of NVC - it requires both parties to abide by it. If the speaker does and has an adequate level of EQ to actually successfully use it, then they would most likely take you feelings into account even if you aren't using NVC so there's no benefit. Conversely, if they don't use it or see the benefits of EQ, explicitly adding "I feel" before every statement isn't going to achieve anything except annoying the speaker while they dismiss your feedback just as quickly as they would have anyways. Ironically, NVC strikes me as a way to _feel_ like you're communicating more effectively without much or any net positive impact on the receiving end, which doesn't seem worth it to me.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
tapia 5y ago
NVC is a very good tool for solving communication problems and I think it is definitely worth practicing. However, it is not always easy, as it requires that we identify and express our _feelings_ correctly. In the example you described, there is a problem in that you are _not really_ saying a feeling. "I feel that our relationship is transactional..." is not a feeling. The rule being: when you start with "I feel like ..." then you are not naming a feeling. This is the most difficult part as we are not used to talking with actual feelings (I am certainly not). For the case your described, one option could be to state it like this: "(1) When you put so much pressure on me, (2) I feel discouraged/uncomfortable, (3) because I need work relationships that are more than purely transactional. (4) Would you mind trying to do X next time?". And then you have the four required steps of NVC :) (I literally need to look at a list with words that are feelings to try to see which is the one that corresponds for the situation when it goes beyond happy, angry or sad.) (*edited some typos)
- softwaredoug 5y ago
  agree. That's what I meant that I knew was imperfect would have done differently :) It's often hard to find words for feelings. Sadly I didn't have as much time to prep to think (and really feel) what I was feeling as much as I'd like.
make3 5y ago
Wtf you're coworkers. The relationship will always be, at its core, transactional. People should be nice, but nice doesn't mean the relationship isn't transactional. Someone nice can still fire you at a moment's notice.
endymi0n 5y ago
I absolutely love NVC and found this to be a great primer: https://medium.com/s/please-advise/the-essential-guide-to-difficult-conversations-41f736e63ccf https://medium.com/s/please-advise/the-essential-guide-to-di... However, NVC mainly talks about _giving_ constructive criticism, not about _receiving unconstructive_ one and I still missed that piece for my own assertiveness until I recently found something that clicked with me on that part: I got some great insights from the book "When I say No, I feel guilty" that were especially easy to put in practice and helped me to massively boost my own assertiveness and to me is an extremely valuable extension to NVC on dealing with attacks on the own assertiveness. The book goes into much more detail, but I can sum up the essence in just three paragraph here: You have the fundamental right to be your own judge on everything. That includes being wrong, illogical or changing your opinion. Now how do you put that in practice if someone wants to impress their opinion on you? First, stay calm, friendly and agree with something that they said — and if that something is just their own feeling! (They call it "fogging" as if trying to hit a fog bank) Second, calmly stay with your opinion. ("broken record"). Don't stop until the other side has given up. Never explode, never yell. And that's already it. I found that combo to be extremely effective in practice, because you don't actually give any attack surface. Here's a sample dialogue: A: I think you should go to bed earlier, otherwise you get wrinkles. B: I agree it's good to go to bed early, but I don't want to. A: Come on, wrinkles would be ugly on you! B: I see how you might feel that way, but I don't want to. A: It would make me very sad to see you with wrinkles. B: I appreciate you caring for my appearance, but I don't want to. [...] Obviously hair-pulled example, but you get the picture. Works A-OK for me, it quickly entered my daily conversation.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I find that in reading your example, if I imagine myself as person A, I might start to get really annoyed. When I read "I agree it's good to go to bed early, but I don't want to" I feel suspicious that you agree it's good to go to bed early. When I read "I see how you might feel that way, but I don't want to" I feel lots of pain arise from past "I'm sorry if you feel that way" kinds of responses. When I read "I appreciate you caring for my appearance, but I don't want to" I start to doubt whether you appreciate that I care for your appearance. I guess the overall pattern is that sometimes when I sense someone's emotions underneath and they don't say them first, I'm often not listening/trusting what they say about me first, waiting for the grand reveal of the bad news. That all being said, I can imagine it might work in standing firm on your ground and doing what you want to do. I just wonder the impact it has on the other person and how that might influence how they respond to you then or in the future. I think when someone repeats the same thing over and over to me I can also feel that pain, maybe it's the "because I said so" re-emerging from my childhood that used to drive me so crazy. Lastly, when I read "stay calm and friendly" and "calmly state your opinion" I imagine that, especially in conflict scenarios like this, I wouldn't be able to do so. When someone guilt trips me, I feel guilty and sometimes telling myself to "stay calm" doesn't work at all, because I feel even more guilty/frustrated. Are you able to stay calm in the 1st and 2nd steps? And if so, how?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bsder 5y ago
Unfortunately, I generally find that NVC comes off as patronizing in almost all circumstances where there is real conflict that has consequences. "I understand that you're feeling <X> because I did <Y>." generally comes off as "I disagree and I'm dismissing you." It's in the same class as "We're just going to have to agree to disagree." which is simply a polite "Fuck off and deal." If I'm angry and tell you "You did <Y> and that made me angry. Give me a good reason why you did that or don't do <Y> again." I better hear "I'm sorry. I won't do <Y> again." or "I thought I had good reason <Z> to do <Y>." We probably are going to get into a discussion about whether <Z> is a good reason, and it may be heated. That's life. If I hear "I'm sorry you're angry" you've probably just ratcheted my angry up a notch. In addition, I've now placed you in the "passive aggressive" category and will now deal with you as if that is your default stance--ie backstabbing manipulator.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > "You did <Y> and that made me angry. Give me a good reason why you did that or don't do <Y> again". I better hear "I'm sorry. I won't do <Y> again." or "I thought I had good reason <Z> to do <Y>." This is horrible communication. I did Y, but I did not make you angry. You became angry. There's a huge distinction. Instead of taking ownership of your anger, you are blaming someone else for it. Instead of understanding and explaining why you became angry, you're making demands of me. You are demanding an explanation from me and/or a change of my behavior yet commit to nothing on your side - not even an explanation of your (likely misplaced) anger. You are forcing the conversation into a very narrow template (either explain or apologize). Some will perceive this as "manipulative", even though in reality it's just a sign you do not know how to handle such situations with any sort of grace. > If I hear "I'm sorry you're angry" you've probably just ratcheted my angry up a notch. In addition, I've now placed you in the "passive aggressive" category and will now deal with you as if that is your default stance--ie backstabbing manipulator. If you're going to so easily categorize folks, you are confining yourself to an eternity of misunderstandings, with yourself being the primary culprit. There's a reason all communications books that I've read emphasize introspection and understanding your own motives and emotions. Your communications skills will not improve if you jump to conclusions like this.
borski 5y ago
This is spot-on, tbh, and helps communication in many walks of life, but, and this is important: the “with trusted people” is paramount. This sort of conversation requires, as you mention, the assumption that both parties have only the best intent. I’ve run into a lot of people where that is decidedly untrue; they did not have the best intentions in mind. But also, I think this is orthogonal to assertiveness. Sometimes simply learning to say “no” when you’re overwhelmed or too busy, alone, is a great habit to build. How to do it gets easier with time, and how to communicate it does too.
- burntwater 5y ago
  > I’ve run into a lot of people where that is decidedly untrue; they did not have the best intentions in mind. The manipulative nature of "NVC" is precisely one of my triggers for assuming that someone does not have best intentions in mind. They're out to get something for themselves, and I'm being hoodwinked into agreeing to it.
  - mattm 5y ago
    If you view NVC as manipulative, isn't all communication manipulative? Can you give an example of expressing yourself during a conflict that wouldn't be manipulative?

tssva 5y ago

Was this a work colleague? If so, isn't your relationship transactional and just part of a larger transactional relationship. That between each of you and your employer.

GavinMcG 5y ago
Human relationships just can't be boiled down to a single term in that way. My relationship with the cashier at the grocery store is obviously transactional, yet we can interact in a variety of ways, and how we do so will affect how we feel, how satisfied we are with {the job|the store}, etc. There's always room for two people in an interaction to be more or less trusting, compatible, enjoyable, etc.
softwaredoug 5y ago
Honestly when you boil it down, almost all relationships we have are transactional to some degree (money, emotionally, physically...). Unconditional love is very hard.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

drewcoo 5y ago

In therapy that's one thing. But I often see NVC abused as passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open communication. This is almost always used after some alleged harm has been done. As in "let's talk about how I feel and somehow blame you for it" in some public forum with social pressures. It's about coercing people into changing their behavior and is the polar opposite of acceptance. It is a means of social control and should raise red flags whenever it's seen.

altcognito 5y ago
What you described is not NVC communication. NVC communication requires at a bare minimum first listening to both sides needs.
- sombremesa 5y ago
  I agree with GP here, it's much better to simply commit to transparent and candid communication, without forcing people into some preset paradigm that may not fit at all with their communication style. If a pre-requisite for NVC communication is trust and the application of hanlon's razor in any case, I don't see how adding it to the equation improves upon just letting people hash it out in the way that jives best with their personalities. Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that more direct styles of communication are "violent", and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. The reason NVC is "a hard skill to cultivate" is because it's an unnatural method designed to suppress candor and transparency in favor of feel-good vibes, the interpersonal equivalent of corporate "synergy".
  - potatoman22 5y ago
    I agree that NVC isn't best for all scenarios and it can feel unnatural, but I don't understand how it's not transparent. To me, I think telling someone about your feelings and needs requires a great deal of transparency and vulnerability. I see it as very directly conveying what the issue is, why it's an issue, and how one can help solve that issue. One issue with "candid conversation" that NVC tries to address is that the language we use can often imply blame or thrust the onus of your emotions onto someone else, even when not intended. NVC provides a more standard framework for working out issues while reducing the likelihood that your intentions are misinterpreted.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

Always excited to hear about another person who sees the value in NVC. I've got the books on my shelf and periodically have to re-read them (and I always cringe at having to re-train myself because it is such a hard initial effort!). It is a great framework, and even better if the audience or recipient is familiar with it. > I didn't do it perfectly (this is a hard skill to cultivate). But... we left with a better way to communicate. Sounds like you did just fine! The framework allows you to at least identify people who reject this type of communication, because not everyone is open to it.

throwawayboise 5y ago

I really can't stand talking to people who frame everything in terms of how it makes them feel or other emotional responses. IDK why but it just seems like such a cop-out. Say what you mean, and don't try to get what you want by guilt-tripping and psychobabble.

sangnoir 5y ago
You're going to get an emotional response whether you acknowledge it or not, and often times, such miscomunication results in anger/escalation of the misunderstanding. "You're rude" vs "I feel like what you said to me was rude" will elicit different responses; the former is likely to trigger self-defense or the listener taking offense, whereas the latter is a statement of opinion that does not escalate. Non-violent communication is how diplomacy gets done, as the stakes are often very high.
- noptd 5y ago
  I disagree. Prefacing statements with "I feel" only acts to highlight the subjectivity of the statement which makes it much easier for the offending party to dismiss in practice. "That statement was rude" makes the speaker consider their statement from their own perspective vs "I feel like that statement was rude" which causes the speaker consider whether the other party rationally feels that way. If the speaker doesn't see the offended party as a rational individual, then any statement like that will automatically be dismissed. IMO this underscores the biggest failing of NVC - it requires both parties to abide by it. If the speaker does and has an adequate level of EQ to actually successfully use it, then they would most likely take you feelings into account even if you aren't using NVC so there's no benefit. Conversely, if they don't use it or see the benefits of EQ, explicitly adding "I feel" before every statement isn't going to achieve anything except annoying the speaker while they dismiss your feedback just as quickly as they would have anyways. Ironically, NVC strikes me as a way to _feel_ like you're communicating more effectively without much or any net positive impact on the receiving end, which doesn't seem worth it to me.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago

tapia 5y ago

NVC is a very good tool for solving communication problems and I think it is definitely worth practicing. However, it is not always easy, as it requires that we identify and express our _feelings_ correctly. In the example you described, there is a problem in that you are _not really_ saying a feeling. "I feel that our relationship is transactional..." is not a feeling. The rule being: when you start with "I feel like ..." then you are not naming a feeling. This is the most difficult part as we are not used to talking with actual feelings (I am certainly not). For the case your described, one option could be to state it like this: "(1) When you put so much pressure on me, (2) I feel discouraged/uncomfortable, (3) because I need work relationships that are more than purely transactional. (4) Would you mind trying to do X next time?". And then you have the four required steps of NVC :) (I literally need to look at a list with words that are feelings to try to see which is the one that corresponds for the situation when it goes beyond happy, angry or sad.) (*edited some typos)

softwaredoug 5y ago
agree. That's what I meant that I knew was imperfect would have done differently :) It's often hard to find words for feelings. Sadly I didn't have as much time to prep to think (and really feel) what I was feeling as much as I'd like.

make3 5y ago

Wtf you're coworkers. The relationship will always be, at its core, transactional. People should be nice, but nice doesn't mean the relationship isn't transactional. Someone nice can still fire you at a moment's notice.

endymi0n 5y ago

I absolutely love NVC and found this to be a great primer: https://medium.com/s/please-advise/the-essential-guide-to-difficult-conversations-41f736e63ccf https://medium.com/s/please-advise/the-essential-guide-to-di... However, NVC mainly talks about _giving_ constructive criticism, not about _receiving unconstructive_ one and I still missed that piece for my own assertiveness until I recently found something that clicked with me on that part: I got some great insights from the book "When I say No, I feel guilty" that were especially easy to put in practice and helped me to massively boost my own assertiveness and to me is an extremely valuable extension to NVC on dealing with attacks on the own assertiveness. The book goes into much more detail, but I can sum up the essence in just three paragraph here: You have the fundamental right to be your own judge on everything. That includes being wrong, illogical or changing your opinion. Now how do you put that in practice if someone wants to impress their opinion on you? First, stay calm, friendly and agree with something that they said — and if that something is just their own feeling! (They call it "fogging" as if trying to hit a fog bank) Second, calmly stay with your opinion. ("broken record"). Don't stop until the other side has given up. Never explode, never yell. And that's already it. I found that combo to be extremely effective in practice, because you don't actually give any attack surface. Here's a sample dialogue: A: I think you should go to bed earlier, otherwise you get wrinkles. B: I agree it's good to go to bed early, but I don't want to. A: Come on, wrinkles would be ugly on you! B: I see how you might feel that way, but I don't want to. A: It would make me very sad to see you with wrinkles. B: I appreciate you caring for my appearance, but I don't want to. [...] Obviously hair-pulled example, but you get the picture. Works A-OK for me, it quickly entered my daily conversation.

jimkleiber 5y ago
I find that in reading your example, if I imagine myself as person A, I might start to get really annoyed. When I read "I agree it's good to go to bed early, but I don't want to" I feel suspicious that you agree it's good to go to bed early. When I read "I see how you might feel that way, but I don't want to" I feel lots of pain arise from past "I'm sorry if you feel that way" kinds of responses. When I read "I appreciate you caring for my appearance, but I don't want to" I start to doubt whether you appreciate that I care for your appearance. I guess the overall pattern is that sometimes when I sense someone's emotions underneath and they don't say them first, I'm often not listening/trusting what they say about me first, waiting for the grand reveal of the bad news. That all being said, I can imagine it might work in standing firm on your ground and doing what you want to do. I just wonder the impact it has on the other person and how that might influence how they respond to you then or in the future. I think when someone repeats the same thing over and over to me I can also feel that pain, maybe it's the "because I said so" re-emerging from my childhood that used to drive me so crazy. Lastly, when I read "stay calm and friendly" and "calmly state your opinion" I imagine that, especially in conflict scenarios like this, I wouldn't be able to do so. When someone guilt trips me, I feel guilty and sometimes telling myself to "stay calm" doesn't work at all, because I feel even more guilty/frustrated. Are you able to stay calm in the 1st and 2nd steps? And if so, how?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bsder 5y ago

Unfortunately, I generally find that NVC comes off as patronizing in almost all circumstances where there is real conflict that has consequences. "I understand that you're feeling <X> because I did <Y>." generally comes off as "I disagree and I'm dismissing you." It's in the same class as "We're just going to have to agree to disagree." which is simply a polite "Fuck off and deal." If I'm angry and tell you "You did <Y> and that made me angry. Give me a good reason why you did that or don't do <Y> again." I better hear "I'm sorry. I won't do <Y> again." or "I thought I had good reason <Z> to do <Y>." We probably are going to get into a discussion about whether <Z> is a good reason, and it may be heated. That's life. If I hear "I'm sorry you're angry" you've probably just ratcheted my angry up a notch. In addition, I've now placed you in the "passive aggressive" category and will now deal with you as if that is your default stance--ie backstabbing manipulator.

BeetleB 5y ago
> "You did <Y> and that made me angry. Give me a good reason why you did that or don't do <Y> again". I better hear "I'm sorry. I won't do <Y> again." or "I thought I had good reason <Z> to do <Y>." This is horrible communication. I did Y, but I did not make you angry. You became angry. There's a huge distinction. Instead of taking ownership of your anger, you are blaming someone else for it. Instead of understanding and explaining why you became angry, you're making demands of me. You are demanding an explanation from me and/or a change of my behavior yet commit to nothing on your side - not even an explanation of your (likely misplaced) anger. You are forcing the conversation into a very narrow template (either explain or apologize). Some will perceive this as "manipulative", even though in reality it's just a sign you do not know how to handle such situations with any sort of grace. > If I hear "I'm sorry you're angry" you've probably just ratcheted my angry up a notch. In addition, I've now placed you in the "passive aggressive" category and will now deal with you as if that is your default stance--ie backstabbing manipulator. If you're going to so easily categorize folks, you are confining yourself to an eternity of misunderstandings, with yourself being the primary culprit. There's a reason all communications books that I've read emphasize introspection and understanding your own motives and emotions. Your communications skills will not improve if you jump to conclusions like this.

borski 5y ago

This is spot-on, tbh, and helps communication in many walks of life, but, and this is important: the “with trusted people” is paramount. This sort of conversation requires, as you mention, the assumption that both parties have only the best intent. I’ve run into a lot of people where that is decidedly untrue; they did not have the best intentions in mind. But also, I think this is orthogonal to assertiveness. Sometimes simply learning to say “no” when you’re overwhelmed or too busy, alone, is a great habit to build. How to do it gets easier with time, and how to communicate it does too.

burntwater 5y ago
> I’ve run into a lot of people where that is decidedly untrue; they did not have the best intentions in mind. The manipulative nature of "NVC" is precisely one of my triggers for assuming that someone does not have best intentions in mind. They're out to get something for themselves, and I'm being hoodwinked into agreeing to it.
- mattm 5y ago
  If you view NVC as manipulative, isn't all communication manipulative? Can you give an example of expressing yourself during a conflict that wouldn't be manipulative?