3 ms·

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 f

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.

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.