6 ms·

Any action a human being ever takes is a strategy to meet a basic human need. - from Nonviolent Communication Start looking for the needs driving actions and

Any action a human being ever takes is a strategy to meet a basic human need. - from Nonviolent Communication Start looking for the needs driving actions and you will gain an x-Ray vision that will give you effortless compassion. Edit: Here’s a list of basic human needs: https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs-inventory https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs-inventory

noduerme 5y ago
Maybe so, but sometimes that need is grounded in a completely mistaken belief - or in a misguided search for approval of a peer group - such as being the loudest person at the ballgame, or the one who gets shot breaking into the senate chamber, or the one who straps explosives to his chest. These people do make an amazing impression on normies and institutions alike, but the basic need they're trying to address is not one that reflects a deeper meaning or bears a great deal of weighty analysis as to its merits. It's the common need of Twitter. It can be reduced to "I'll make you all shut up and listen to me." It deserves no reward - and it should probably not be countered with nonviolence.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  the basic need they're trying to address is not one that reflects a deeper meaning or bears a great deal of weighty analysis as to its merits This depends on who's doing the analysis. For example, self-immolation is often seen as an extreme form of desperate but rational protest. The only way to understand and prevent these types of events is to understand and address the underlying needs.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    Suicide is never a rational response, and can't be taken into account on the spectrum of human needs, since it's an abnegation of all human need. It doesn't need to be considered within the spectrum of rational economic responses. Viktor Frankl made it through without committing suicide, while thousands of happily brainwashed and well-fed kamikaze pilots went to their deaths. We are then in the philosophical realm of whether this is a world you simply choose not to live in. The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version, but still falls short of doing anything for this world. We don't and shouldn't take suicidal people's thoughts seriously. They failed to make a point, and gave up. Even if they think they're going to 72 virgins (which is even more cowardly). We are discussing the people who go on living and how to arrange the living world.
    - watwut 5y ago
      > Suicide is never a rational response History can be quite ugly. In a way that makes suicide the better option. > thousands of happily brainwashed and well-fed kamikaze pilots The source is needed for "happily". > The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version This is incoherent.
      - noduerme 5y ago
        > The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version >> This is incoherent. The living cannot - and don't - live for the dead, or the causes that the dead chose to die for. Dying for a cause doesn't make the cause nobler. It just takes you out of the conversation. That's why suicide is, by definition, incoherent.
        watwut 5y ago
        First, not every suicide is "for cause". Minority of them are. Second, many living in fact do value self sacrifice. Third, the "for cause" suicides are fairly often organized by living in the hope the living will get what they want. The one killing himself is agreeing to do it on behalf of other living. You may or may not disagree with cause, it does not really matter.
        noduerme 5y ago
        This is a view that reduces humanity to ants, or bots, or Borg. Especially divorced from any particular ideology or necessity, what you are advocating is the treatment of individuals as disposable units, directed to die by a faceless and unaccountable power structure. That was the case with the Kamikaze, and it's the case with jihadis now. Interestingly, it only seems to happen in the service of totalitarian ideologies. Revolutionaries who advocate for human rights or democracy don't tend to obliterate themselves. They want to be around to take care of their families. In short, your view doesn't just prioritize the group over the individual - it prioritizes the worst possible groups.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  So all political protest, especially if it's annoying to others or dangerous to the protestor? No. You clearly are just judging political protests that you personally don't happen to support the aims of. You're entirely missing the point of understanding people's needs and what empathy is. Everyone automatically has empathy for people they feel aligned or connected with. You don't even have to try.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    I'm talking about style, not substance. I find myself these days having empathy with people and agreeing with what they're protesting for, but hating the fact that they are historically ignorant and are only trying to score twitter points. So that doesn't mean they don't have a right to protest, it just means they're an embarrassment.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      > only trying to score twitter points "only"? What if that's their main goal? You're still judging them for having values that are different from yours, which is something that comes naturally to anyone. The whole point of learning to have empathy is so you can empathize with people whose values are incompatible with your own. You probably don't even understand their values and take their superficial statements literally because you're too keen to judge them as bad instead of understand their underlying feelings that they may not even be able to articulate themselves.
      - noduerme 5y ago
        How the hell is anyone supposed to not judge someone who acts stupidly because they can't articulate their own underlying feelings?
        exporectomy 5y ago
        With empathy of course!
  - 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dTal 5y ago
  >it should probably not be countered with nonviolence Just to be clear - we are still talking about "nonviolent communication", right? Because a careless reading would interpret this as a call to hit people with sticks solely because we hold their actions to be motivated by incorrect beliefs. In any case, it's still not true. Unless you have resigned yourself to hitting them with sticks, you're still in the realm of communication and persuasion. You'll always get further with that if you try to understand where they are coming from, which is what "nonviolent communication" is all about.
  - andrei_says_ 5y ago
    I was speaking about nvc but don’t expect for everyone to be aware of the intricacies. For the record NVC does not insist on never using force. Force is necessary for protection or for stopping clearly harmful actions.
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  The belief may be mistaken but the need is always real. Examples: Anti-Vaxxers’ protest - need for autonomy, for being heard. “I'll make you all shut up and listen to me.” - is the strategy to meet the needs to matter, to feel heard, need for competency. Explosives to the chest - need for autonomy (from occupation/apartheid/oppression), for understanding (“see how it feels for your people to die?!”), control (powerless to do anything except this), breaking into the senate chamber - need for autonomy (“freedom”), to matter (“stolen elections”), agency (being able to change things) In some cases the beliefs which caused these particular needs to arise can be manipulated (and were), and the strategies for meeting the needs are flawed (insurrection, boom best etc. ) but the needs are simple, universal and deeply human. I can never condone terrorism but can understand the powerlessness and pain behind it, the lack of agency, and the need to matter and have a voice that drive some of its acts. So stopping terrorism has to do with addressing oppression etc.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    >> I can never condone terrorism but can understand the powerlessness and pain behind it, the lack of agency, and the need to matter and have a voice that drive some of its acts. >> So stopping terrorism has to do with addressing oppression etc. This sounds so much like my former teacher and mentor - who was also an erstwhile member of the weathermen in the 60s. I do think that addressing oppression is half of the problem. But if you consider the problem to be humans killing other humans while taking their own lives in service of a belief ("right" or not), then it really can't be addressed without also giving individual humans the sense that their own individuality is wonderful and unique and worth preserving, even in the face of oppression or injustice. It goes deeper than whether the belief is wrong or right. It requires a form of self-respect and respect for life that can't come from a group identity. That overrides group identity and comes to its own conclusions. That is the basis of morality - the decision to refuse a wrongful order. It requires an internal moral compass and a desire for self-preservation and a sense of one's own life being valuable. And that's something that no organization or ideology will ever try to inculcate in its disciples, and which can't be achieved by e.g. America addressing oppression.
    - 5y ago
bserge 5y ago
Unless their brain is malfunctioning. Which one can't tell at a first glance (or second, or third).
musicale 5y ago
Human nature appears to have some negative aspects to it that may be related to need(s) but don't seem to be entirely explained by it. Most humans feel better when they can see that they are better off than someone else (and worse when they can see that they are worse off.) The desire to dominate and control others also seems very common. etc.

noduerme 5y ago

Maybe so, but sometimes that need is grounded in a completely mistaken belief - or in a misguided search for approval of a peer group - such as being the loudest person at the ballgame, or the one who gets shot breaking into the senate chamber, or the one who straps explosives to his chest. These people do make an amazing impression on normies and institutions alike, but the basic need they're trying to address is not one that reflects a deeper meaning or bears a great deal of weighty analysis as to its merits. It's the common need of Twitter. It can be reduced to "I'll make you all shut up and listen to me." It deserves no reward - and it should probably not be countered with nonviolence.

nitrogen 5y ago
the basic need they're trying to address is not one that reflects a deeper meaning or bears a great deal of weighty analysis as to its merits This depends on who's doing the analysis. For example, self-immolation is often seen as an extreme form of desperate but rational protest. The only way to understand and prevent these types of events is to understand and address the underlying needs.
- noduerme 5y ago
  Suicide is never a rational response, and can't be taken into account on the spectrum of human needs, since it's an abnegation of all human need. It doesn't need to be considered within the spectrum of rational economic responses. Viktor Frankl made it through without committing suicide, while thousands of happily brainwashed and well-fed kamikaze pilots went to their deaths. We are then in the philosophical realm of whether this is a world you simply choose not to live in. The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version, but still falls short of doing anything for this world. We don't and shouldn't take suicidal people's thoughts seriously. They failed to make a point, and gave up. Even if they think they're going to 72 virgins (which is even more cowardly). We are discussing the people who go on living and how to arrange the living world.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > Suicide is never a rational response History can be quite ugly. In a way that makes suicide the better option. > thousands of happily brainwashed and well-fed kamikaze pilots The source is needed for "happily". > The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version This is incoherent.
    - noduerme 5y ago
      > The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version >> This is incoherent. The living cannot - and don't - live for the dead, or the causes that the dead chose to die for. Dying for a cause doesn't make the cause nobler. It just takes you out of the conversation. That's why suicide is, by definition, incoherent.
      - watwut 5y ago
        First, not every suicide is "for cause". Minority of them are. Second, many living in fact do value self sacrifice. Third, the "for cause" suicides are fairly often organized by living in the hope the living will get what they want. The one killing himself is agreeing to do it on behalf of other living. You may or may not disagree with cause, it does not really matter.
        noduerme 5y ago
        This is a view that reduces humanity to ants, or bots, or Borg. Especially divorced from any particular ideology or necessity, what you are advocating is the treatment of individuals as disposable units, directed to die by a faceless and unaccountable power structure. That was the case with the Kamikaze, and it's the case with jihadis now. Interestingly, it only seems to happen in the service of totalitarian ideologies. Revolutionaries who advocate for human rights or democracy don't tend to obliterate themselves. They want to be around to take care of their families. In short, your view doesn't just prioritize the group over the individual - it prioritizes the worst possible groups.
exporectomy 5y ago
So all political protest, especially if it's annoying to others or dangerous to the protestor? No. You clearly are just judging political protests that you personally don't happen to support the aims of. You're entirely missing the point of understanding people's needs and what empathy is. Everyone automatically has empathy for people they feel aligned or connected with. You don't even have to try.
- noduerme 5y ago
  I'm talking about style, not substance. I find myself these days having empathy with people and agreeing with what they're protesting for, but hating the fact that they are historically ignorant and are only trying to score twitter points. So that doesn't mean they don't have a right to protest, it just means they're an embarrassment.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    > only trying to score twitter points "only"? What if that's their main goal? You're still judging them for having values that are different from yours, which is something that comes naturally to anyone. The whole point of learning to have empathy is so you can empathize with people whose values are incompatible with your own. You probably don't even understand their values and take their superficial statements literally because you're too keen to judge them as bad instead of understand their underlying feelings that they may not even be able to articulate themselves.
    - noduerme 5y ago
      How the hell is anyone supposed to not judge someone who acts stupidly because they can't articulate their own underlying feelings?
      - exporectomy 5y ago
        With empathy of course!
- 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dTal 5y ago
>it should probably not be countered with nonviolence Just to be clear - we are still talking about "nonviolent communication", right? Because a careless reading would interpret this as a call to hit people with sticks solely because we hold their actions to be motivated by incorrect beliefs. In any case, it's still not true. Unless you have resigned yourself to hitting them with sticks, you're still in the realm of communication and persuasion. You'll always get further with that if you try to understand where they are coming from, which is what "nonviolent communication" is all about.
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  I was speaking about nvc but don’t expect for everyone to be aware of the intricacies. For the record NVC does not insist on never using force. Force is necessary for protection or for stopping clearly harmful actions.
andrei_says_ 5y ago
The belief may be mistaken but the need is always real. Examples: Anti-Vaxxers’ protest - need for autonomy, for being heard. “I'll make you all shut up and listen to me.” - is the strategy to meet the needs to matter, to feel heard, need for competency. Explosives to the chest - need for autonomy (from occupation/apartheid/oppression), for understanding (“see how it feels for your people to die?!”), control (powerless to do anything except this), breaking into the senate chamber - need for autonomy (“freedom”), to matter (“stolen elections”), agency (being able to change things) In some cases the beliefs which caused these particular needs to arise can be manipulated (and were), and the strategies for meeting the needs are flawed (insurrection, boom best etc. ) but the needs are simple, universal and deeply human. I can never condone terrorism but can understand the powerlessness and pain behind it, the lack of agency, and the need to matter and have a voice that drive some of its acts. So stopping terrorism has to do with addressing oppression etc.
- noduerme 5y ago
  >> I can never condone terrorism but can understand the powerlessness and pain behind it, the lack of agency, and the need to matter and have a voice that drive some of its acts. >> So stopping terrorism has to do with addressing oppression etc. This sounds so much like my former teacher and mentor - who was also an erstwhile member of the weathermen in the 60s. I do think that addressing oppression is half of the problem. But if you consider the problem to be humans killing other humans while taking their own lives in service of a belief ("right" or not), then it really can't be addressed without also giving individual humans the sense that their own individuality is wonderful and unique and worth preserving, even in the face of oppression or injustice. It goes deeper than whether the belief is wrong or right. It requires a form of self-respect and respect for life that can't come from a group identity. That overrides group identity and comes to its own conclusions. That is the basis of morality - the decision to refuse a wrongful order. It requires an internal moral compass and a desire for self-preservation and a sense of one's own life being valuable. And that's something that no organization or ideology will ever try to inculcate in its disciples, and which can't be achieved by e.g. America addressing oppression.
  - 5y ago

bserge 5y ago

Unless their brain is malfunctioning. Which one can't tell at a first glance (or second, or third).

musicale 5y ago

Human nature appears to have some negative aspects to it that may be related to need(s) but don't seem to be entirely explained by it. Most humans feel better when they can see that they are better off than someone else (and worse when they can see that they are worse off.) The desire to dominate and control others also seems very common. etc.