7 ms·

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.
- ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
  The method being called "non-violent communication" is a self referential intention for people practicing it to hopefully commit to communicate in a non-violent way. It is not making an interpretation or judgment on other communication styles which may or may not be violent. By calling itself "non-violent communication" it is in no way saying that all other communication styles are violent. I have seen and felt NVC is a hard skill to cultivate because it takes good will, patience, and a lot of introspection to learn. From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. Even learning the gamut of feeling words and types of needs is an eye opener. And then on top of that is when listening to others, the practice of hearing their feelings and needs even when they might not communicate it in a clearly non-violent way. It seems the key is valuing the relationship between the people communicating and having an intention of openness, honesty, and genuineness even if you might in the end agree to disagree. If one party does not want to participate then there isn't necessarily space to communicate this way. And either party can choose to remove themselves and not participate and, that is ok.
  - sombremesa 5y ago
    > From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins. My argument is that intentions of "openness, honesty, and genuineness" (in other words, transparency, candor, and trust) are by themselves enough to establish effective communication without requiring a framework that potentially shuts people out.
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      > This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins. If you've ever read the NVC book, you would realize that the notion of "enforcing an NVC communication style" is fundamentally an oxymoron.
      - sombremesa 5y ago
        Sure, but I’m talking about the corporate world, where these ideologies are enforced in via policy and mandatory trainings. From the Wikipedia article that started this thread: “CNVC certifies trainers who wish to teach NVC in a manner aligned with CNVC's understanding of the NVC process.[64] CNVC also offers trainings by certified trainers.”
        BeetleB 5y ago
        I'm quite aware of the NVC trainers/certification. I'm pro-NVC, but I recommend everyone to stay away from the "NVC cult", which includes such folks. I did not realize, however, that you had corporations utilizing them formally. That would really suck. Very reminiscent of agile vs Agile (TM). NVC is valuable only if you accept its principles - the NVC template alone is of little use. Mandating people communicate this way is very anti-NVC. The book is quite good. The local chapters in many cities are definitely not good. They'll usually embellish and add a lot to the content in the book, and a lot of it sucks. I too would be very put off by NVC if my primary exposure had been through them.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  > Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that more direct styles of communication are "violent", and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. The increasing use of the word "violence" to describe clearly non-violent things greatly disturbs me. It could lead to people reacting more strongly to words than literal, physical violence. And I think that is a very very bad direction for society to go.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > it's much better to simply commit to transparent and candid communication As your responses show, what constitutes transparency and candor is widely disputed, given that NVC is fundamentally about transparency and candor. It seems you're confusing a (suggested, but not required) template with intent. The template can be used for anything good or bad. The NVC book isn't about the template, but the principles. I've spent most of my life holding your view on this. Be direct. Don't take it personal. Etc. And my life's experiences showed me that merely committing to this is insufficient. Being well intentioned, and transparent, and candid, is not sufficient for effective communication, because there are usually barriers that prevent the other party from processing your words, no matter how clear or precise they are. What every communication book (not just NVC) teaches are methods to make it easier for the other party to listen to you. And in most cases you cannot do that without addressing the emotional aspect of humans. I would often "excuse" myself by realizing that I've been quite unambiguous and clear, and if the other person doesn't understand it, they are the problem. In reality, I was merely accepting that I do not want to improve my communication.
aaron-santos 5y ago
That's the heart of GP's critique. People are masking abusive and manipulative statements with the language of NVC. Here's a mild example: "Altcongnito, when I see you leave work and there are still tickets in the queue, I feel disappointed, because I need us to work as a team. Would you be willing to work late until we get through them?" What people rightly feel is a disconnect between the language of NVC and the spirit of NVC in these situations.
- tome 5y ago
  Interesting, what's your objection to that? Seems like a reasonable way to make a request to me. Also seems reasonable to agree to or deny the request.
  - jstx1 5y ago
    If I heard this, I would think that those words are coming either from a sociopath or from a very socially inept person who read a self-help book. There are probably cultural differences in how it's perceived but it sounds so fake, forced and manipulative that it would make me put my defences up immediately.
  - Majestic121 5y ago
    Not the parent, but my objection to that would be that your feelings are yours to handle, not me. And for this kind of request, saying that you feel disappointed because I don't have time to finish the tickets will definitely backfire, with a "you should adjust your expectations", and using emotion talk in this context will immediately frame the talk as manipulative.
  - mrRandomGuy 5y ago
    Anytime a manager/boss brings up "needing to work as a team" as a reason to stay late is a subtle threat of losing your job if you don't do OT.
    - Kranar 5y ago
      Would it then be preferable for the manager to be more direct and assertive and state "In order to continue being employed here, you will need you to work overtime." To me there needs to be a differentiation between communication style, and consequence. If it is the case that your job is at risk unless you work late nights, is it preferable to be direct about it, use assertive language, or is it preferable to use NVC, and express ones feelings and other details that form some sense of empathy?

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.
ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
The method being called "non-violent communication" is a self referential intention for people practicing it to hopefully commit to communicate in a non-violent way. It is not making an interpretation or judgment on other communication styles which may or may not be violent. By calling itself "non-violent communication" it is in no way saying that all other communication styles are violent. I have seen and felt NVC is a hard skill to cultivate because it takes good will, patience, and a lot of introspection to learn. From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. Even learning the gamut of feeling words and types of needs is an eye opener. And then on top of that is when listening to others, the practice of hearing their feelings and needs even when they might not communicate it in a clearly non-violent way. It seems the key is valuing the relationship between the people communicating and having an intention of openness, honesty, and genuineness even if you might in the end agree to disagree. If one party does not want to participate then there isn't necessarily space to communicate this way. And either party can choose to remove themselves and not participate and, that is ok.
- sombremesa 5y ago
  > From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins. My argument is that intentions of "openness, honesty, and genuineness" (in other words, transparency, candor, and trust) are by themselves enough to establish effective communication without requiring a framework that potentially shuts people out.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins. If you've ever read the NVC book, you would realize that the notion of "enforcing an NVC communication style" is fundamentally an oxymoron.
    - sombremesa 5y ago
      Sure, but I’m talking about the corporate world, where these ideologies are enforced in via policy and mandatory trainings. From the Wikipedia article that started this thread: “CNVC certifies trainers who wish to teach NVC in a manner aligned with CNVC's understanding of the NVC process.[64] CNVC also offers trainings by certified trainers.”
      - BeetleB 5y ago
        I'm quite aware of the NVC trainers/certification. I'm pro-NVC, but I recommend everyone to stay away from the "NVC cult", which includes such folks. I did not realize, however, that you had corporations utilizing them formally. That would really suck. Very reminiscent of agile vs Agile (TM). NVC is valuable only if you accept its principles - the NVC template alone is of little use. Mandating people communicate this way is very anti-NVC. The book is quite good. The local chapters in many cities are definitely not good. They'll usually embellish and add a lot to the content in the book, and a lot of it sucks. I too would be very put off by NVC if my primary exposure had been through them.
jimbokun 5y ago
> Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that more direct styles of communication are "violent", and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. The increasing use of the word "violence" to describe clearly non-violent things greatly disturbs me. It could lead to people reacting more strongly to words than literal, physical violence. And I think that is a very very bad direction for society to go.
BeetleB 5y ago
> it's much better to simply commit to transparent and candid communication As your responses show, what constitutes transparency and candor is widely disputed, given that NVC is fundamentally about transparency and candor. It seems you're confusing a (suggested, but not required) template with intent. The template can be used for anything good or bad. The NVC book isn't about the template, but the principles. I've spent most of my life holding your view on this. Be direct. Don't take it personal. Etc. And my life's experiences showed me that merely committing to this is insufficient. Being well intentioned, and transparent, and candid, is not sufficient for effective communication, because there are usually barriers that prevent the other party from processing your words, no matter how clear or precise they are. What every communication book (not just NVC) teaches are methods to make it easier for the other party to listen to you. And in most cases you cannot do that without addressing the emotional aspect of humans. I would often "excuse" myself by realizing that I've been quite unambiguous and clear, and if the other person doesn't understand it, they are the problem. In reality, I was merely accepting that I do not want to improve my communication.

aaron-santos 5y ago

That's the heart of GP's critique. People are masking abusive and manipulative statements with the language of NVC. Here's a mild example: "Altcongnito, when I see you leave work and there are still tickets in the queue, I feel disappointed, because I need us to work as a team. Would you be willing to work late until we get through them?" What people rightly feel is a disconnect between the language of NVC and the spirit of NVC in these situations.

tome 5y ago
Interesting, what's your objection to that? Seems like a reasonable way to make a request to me. Also seems reasonable to agree to or deny the request.
- jstx1 5y ago
  If I heard this, I would think that those words are coming either from a sociopath or from a very socially inept person who read a self-help book. There are probably cultural differences in how it's perceived but it sounds so fake, forced and manipulative that it would make me put my defences up immediately.
- Majestic121 5y ago
  Not the parent, but my objection to that would be that your feelings are yours to handle, not me. And for this kind of request, saying that you feel disappointed because I don't have time to finish the tickets will definitely backfire, with a "you should adjust your expectations", and using emotion talk in this context will immediately frame the talk as manipulative.
- mrRandomGuy 5y ago
  Anytime a manager/boss brings up "needing to work as a team" as a reason to stay late is a subtle threat of losing your job if you don't do OT.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    Would it then be preferable for the manager to be more direct and assertive and state "In order to continue being employed here, you will need you to work overtime." To me there needs to be a differentiation between communication style, and consequence. If it is the case that your job is at risk unless you work late nights, is it preferable to be direct about it, use assertive language, or is it preferable to use NVC, and express ones feelings and other details that form some sense of empathy?