Hacker News Reader

Comment by softwaredoug | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

What you described is not NVC communication. NVC communication requires at a bare minimum first listening to both sides needs.

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".

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.”

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

My personal objection is that it purposely confuses things.

It's worded in a way that connects declining with not being a team player. Obviously that's an intentional construction and to some people it makes perfect sense. It also is emotionally manipulative because it intentionally seeks to manipulate the receivers emotional state so that they comply. Some people will comply to resolve that discomfort. The inherent power imbalance distorts the situation.

It also confuses the language of personal relationships (affective statements) with the workplace. To me, this is in the same realm as getting employees to view the workplace as a family. Again it hijacks the our relationship cognition centers in order to engage in exploitation. Declining in a regular relationship has regular relationship consequences. Declining this kind of statement from a boss has livelihood consequences.

The solution in the workplace? Just say it plainly. Bringing NVC into the workplace is fertile ground for emotional manipulation.

Agreed.

Communication in the workplace should revolve around shared goals leading to shared rewards.

"Let's impress this client with a great product so we can all get big performance bonuses from the profits made from closing the sale."

I think that's all the emotional connection the vast majority of employees are looking for in their jobs.

Nothing is masked in that? It sounds to me pretty straightforward. The issue with that is content - the attempt to make you work late without good reason. There is no way to phrase the above to make it sounds good.

At least it sounds honest. The reason for late work is emotional (as often is) rather then rational reaction to unexpected business need.

Here's how the boss could deal with the same situation without sounding like a weasel:

"You're the only person we have who is able to fix these bugs, and if you don't fix them we'll go out of business. I need you to stay late until this backlog is cleared because if you don't, half our clients will drop us at the next renewal. I will make it up to you in your next performance evaluation."

(Substitute whatever urgent problem has lead to needing someone to work overtime.)

But that's not true, the idea that a company will go out of business if one person doesn't work overnight is simply and factually false.

The business desires that a person to work overtime to reduce costs, avoid hiring additional staff, etc... not because it's an existential threat.

>the idea that a company will go out of business if one person doesn't work overnight is simply and factually false.

If you don't think that can happen, you don't know much about startup chaos. :-)

I agree with your implication, though, that when there is no need for the employee to work overtime, there is no right way to ask them to work overtime.

No, not even in startups.

I don't understand your skepticism, if a deadline is in a contract, and the company is not heading towards meeting that deadline, someone has to speed up or else the client will be lost, or worse the penalty clauses will kick in. I think you're imagining B2C SAAS startups when making that assertion.

If your EULA indemnifies you from failure to provide service, and investor capital indemnifies you from failure to get revenue, then yeah it doesn't really matter what the engineers do - but that's hardly a universal principle of business.

Overworking people dont get you faster releases. It is magical thinking. This just feel good like doing something, but that is is.

Also, if you are really in this situation, you already lost, because mo way this late night code wont be complete crap. So you might just start prioritizing and negotiating now rather then later.

I am the sole founder of a startup that is now 10 years old and prior to this I've worked at 3 other startups either as a founder or CTO, so I think I know something about it.

At no point would I ever allow the existence of my company to rely on a single individual. That is simply irresponsible.

>That is simply irresponsible.

Then we agree, because we both know that people often do things that seem irresponsible in hindsight. It is especially common in business situations that require a lot of diverse expertise, in which case having any redundancy at all could mean doubling the size of your workforce. It is easier when you're talking about pure software, but even then a nontechnical founder could allow two programmers to segregate their responsibilities without realizing it was happening.

The thing about advice is it's easy to say, "don't get in to that situation," but every day managers wake up in that situation. If your startup grows enough, some of your own managers might find themselves waking up in that situation.

We do not agree because this is a matter of assigning causal relevance to a company failure and my position is that the causal relevance you're assigning is irresponsible and results in bad decision making and hence is wrong/invalid. If you are in charge of a business, it is invalid to assign causal relevance to a business failure over a single individual who does not work overtime.

A similar situation would be assigning causal relevance to an intern deleting the production database on a company failure. Based on how you're viewing the situation, it seems like you think that would be a plausible explanation to hold; certainly interns have deleted production databases by accident before and so certainly it would seem like such an action would cause a company to fail.

My argument is that the intern deleting the database is not the cause of the company failure and has no relevance in understanding the cause of a company failure. It is simply not possible to attribute a corporate failure to an intern deleting a database. The causal reason for the failure would be a failure to protect the production database from an intern.

Similarly it is simply not possible to see a company as failing because someone decided not to work overtime. That is never a criteria that a company failure can be attributed to.

I am confident based on my experience running a successful company that my assignment of causal relevance has stronger explanatory power and results in better judgement than the causal relevance you're assigning.

I would encourage other people looking to run a business to adopt my assignment over the one you're arguing in favor of. The company did not fail because someone didn't work overtime just like the company did not fail because of the intern. The company failed because someone in a position of authority failed to properly allocate resources, failed to have good policies in place to protect production databases, failed to have security policies in place, failed to properly incentivize work, overpromised beyond what could be delivered, or a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with blaming a small group of individuals. This assignment of causal relevance will yield greater insight into how to properly prepare for a vast array of scenarios and also appreciate the risks involved in running a business and strategies to mitigate those risks.

What you say about the ultimate root cause analysis of a company failure is spot-on.

However, if production is down regardless of root cause, having engineers work overtime to bring it back up is probably overwhelmingly the right thing for the situation.

If they don’t and the company fails, it’s not because they didn’t work overtime (agreeing with you), but it would have been better if the downtime was 8 hours rather than 3.5 days (what I think whatshisface is saying).

You mean, by lying? By pretending there is crisis that dont exists? This is way more manipulative and unethical.

You completely changed the reason for overtime.

It's only lying if you copy and paste the HN comment without following the last instruction:

(Substitute whatever urgent problem has lead to needing someone to work overtime.)

Obviously if there's no reason for them to work overtime, you won't be able to find a reason for them to work overtime, but then instead of asking, you should... not ask.

By the sound of original statement, the reason is the idea of teamwork and clearing all planned tickets.

It is completely absurd to change the situation into completely different one and then complain the original statement dont fit it.

The idea of teamwork and clearing all planned tickets aren't reasons to work overtime. Teamwork in isolation, $0. Tickets on the tracker, $0 in and of themselves. There must be some other reason behind suddenly caring more about the tickets than the manager did when making staffing decisions in the months leading up to the crisis, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

That is naive. If you try to say no to overtime, you will find they will just fire email they did not felt like writing.

And yes, there are managers who think common overtime to make fake deadline is good teambuilding.

I fully agree. Zooming in on your example: I think by the definition of NVC on Wikipedia, "I need us to work as a team" is not a need as in "universal human need". It's the deposition of an assertion ("team work means not leaving work before all tickets are resolved"), wrongly or maliciously expressed as a need.

IMO the best way to respond to that would be "Aaron-santos, I understand that you feel disappointed now. Unfortunately I absolutely need to leave at X o'clock. How about we make a plan for tackling this insane workload such that everybody on the team feels supported?"

Precisely this. The book refers to the difference between a 'need' and a 'request', and what differentiates the two. In this case, this would fall under the category of a request, and is not considered NVC.

Nice, flips the script and exposes their passive aggressive, manipulative language.

If it's coming from a manager it hides the power relationship and creates the false impression that the participants are peers who share and care about each others feelings. It's actually a worse way to tell someone they aren't doing a good job because not only does it criticize their performance it implies that they are inconsiderate.

If it's coming from an actual peer, it's just weird.

If the boss intended to manipulate the employee, wouldn't they be able to do that without NVC? Is the language of NVC the problem here?

I think what's missing is the consideration of how the other person is feeling. I use a three-step process 1) how I'' feeling 2) how I imagine they might be feeling and 3) say one thing to connect with love.

In this example above, if after saying "I need us to work as a team," the person were to say "and I imagine maybe you're leaving because you're worried about something at home or afraid you're gonna burnout or who knows what" and then ask "would you willing to work late (this time) until we get through them?"

I think what the NVC process lacks (or maybe I just don't know it well enough) is a way to show the other person we are considering how they feel. I have found it works absolute wonders at times, not only to show the other person I'm thinking of them, but also to actually get me to more consciously think of them, which can alter how I proceed. Maybe I even realize that the tickets aren't that important when I imagine they may be stressed to pick up their kids from school because their marriage might already be on the rocks and they don't want to push it overboard.

I've found the Kidpower Boundary Bridge to be a helpful framework when I know I need to speak up about something bothering me but I'm afraid of awkwardness and conflict.

It starts with a connecting statement where you put yourselves in the other person's shoes and you can include a disclaimer that you know they didn't mean to hurt your feelings. The rest of it seems similar to NVC.

One takeaway I got from Kidpower is that the minor conflicts I'm tempted to ignore because "it's not that big a deal" are actually great opportunities for me to practice being more assertive so I'll be prepared for situations where I do have to take action. Plus I think the act of resolving a conflict can strengthen and deepen a relationship when it's done well. So if I stay quiet out of fear of bad feelings, I'm leaving a lot on the table.

https://www.kidpower.org/library/article/kidpower-boundaries...

Ooo, I had never heard of this. Thank you for pointing it out, I'll check into it more.

At first glance, personally, I worry that I'll not remember all 7 steps so that's another reason why I like the three steps I use.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like you're saying you first communicate to them what you imagine their situation to be and that they have a good intention, I think that can work as well. I've seen that sometimes when I do that, I will passively still be angry or frustrated and the person is just waiting for me to say "but" or "and"—discounting what I'm saying in the beginning waiting for the metaphorical hammer to drop.

> the minor conflicts I'm tempted to ignore because "it's not that big a deal" are actually great opportunities for me to practice

I strongly agree. I feel less afraid apologizing for being late for a coffee than telling someone I want to get divorced and can be a great way to practice. Another way that I've found to practice is that I actually run classes and have created audios to practice dealing with such emotional conflict/attacks. I've found that role-playing it can help me gain more confidence and skills in resolving it.

Additionally, I'm starting to believe more and more that almost all big conflicts are built of many little conflicts. E.g., two people get divorced often not because of one thing, but because of many many events that created more distance over time. In this way, the better I get at resolving the micro-conflict, at the little events that drive us farther apart, the less likely big conflicts will happen.

At the end of the day, I feel excited for whatever framework/tool/strategy works for you. Again, thank you for sharing this one and for trying to do this work :-)

And what this reinforces to me is the importance of "professionalism" in a work place setting.

Requiring everyone in your workplace to engage coworkers with a level of emotional intimacy and care can impose even greater burdens on your employees. Sometimes it can be better to just try to impose fair rules on everyone, and straight forwardly convey to everyone where they stand in terms of expectations and performance.

Blame free retrospectives are also crucial in cases where things don't go well.

Instead of:

"You make me feel X way when you didn't close out your tickets."

Try:

"I generally hate asking anyone to work extra hours, but in this case if the ticket doesn't get fixed we are likely to lose the contract we are depending on to pay everyone's salary. Can you please stay late and get this done? We can work out a way to give you some extra PTO to make up for this in the near future."

If you want to handle abuses of NVC, then learn some NVC!

To begin with, a fundamental principle of NVC is that when you make a request, you cannot expect the other person to agree to the request and if you are frustrated when they decline (let alone show frustration), then you were not making a request, but a demand masked as a request. As such, call them out on it! His behavior that you're describing is literally something the book says is a violation of NVC.

Given that context, NVC is not an appropriate way to communicate an order/demand. No matter the words you use: If it's a demand, it's not NVC by definition.

So respond NVC style:

"When you say your need is to work as a team, I am confused as I do not understand how that is a need. Would you be willing to expand on that?"

Or even more boldly:

"When you say your need is to work as a team, I am confused as that sounds like a evaluation/judgement/narrative and not a need. Would you be willing to clarify your need?"

(Judgements are a fundamental violation of NVC. If he's trying to manipulate you this way, call them out on it)

"When I work late to finish the tickets, I am [exhausted/dissatisfied/insert-feeling-here] as I need rest. Would you explain what will go wrong if these tickets are addressed tomorrow?"

The other NVC lesson I'd like you all to learn is that it is very explicit:

You are not responsible for other's feelings.

If your perception is the other party is offloading feelings on to you because they use NVC, understand that NVC itself tells you not to be burdened by it. The ideal is that you respond to people's feelings out of a sense of compassion, not out of obligation. And you're never wrong if you ignore their feelings (it's merely not ideal to do so).

I teach NVC and that’s a crucial aspect.

One can only practice Nonviolent Communication if the goal is to remain connected.

If the goal is to use NVC to coerce a behavior, then even if the format remains identical, it is no longer NVC but as you said, passive/aggressive manipulation.

Learning the mechanical skills and language format and applying them without the internal alignment is possible and frequent but unfortunately retains the violent nature of coercive intentions.

The first step toward non-violence is to truly accept that others have their own needs and allow their autonomy, to remove the invisible pressure which comes with “outcome at any cost” and switch from demands to pure requests - requests where a refusal comes with zero negative consequences.

Without this safety, the rest crumbles.

My wife and I tried NVC for our first two years before binning it. I argue it's counterproductive outside a therapeutic context. When both parties are heated it's often that they just need a release valve. Placing a bunch of logical frameworks over real emotion can often stymie the other party who needs to release.

After four years now the real magic trick has been to just work on our problems individually and on the rare occasions we bicker either really, honestly, directly blow off steam (this is as about anti-NVC as you can get) like hey you piss me off right now and it's this thing you're doing and it sucks or leave the situation bodily and come back later.

The key thing for us has been to silo these arguments off from the rest of the relationship. The high drama that occurs inside the confines of an argument doesn't need to mean anything to the broader relationship. Of course if you have systemic issues then those need to be dealt with but no amount of modulating your tone or speaking in I statements or trying to reflect the other person is going to solve those.

We're so intent on logicking our way out of anything. But we're not Spocks. We're human beings with big big feelings.

Funny story, if you look at my comments history about two down, my father the massive criminal who raised me is the one who first introduced NVC to me. He fancied himself an armchair psychologist. He remains one of the most toxic individuals I have ever encountered to this day, certainly to my own life.

I think we're going to see a renaissance in plain speaking from the heart. That's my prediction for the next decade.

>The key thing for us has been to silo these arguments off from the rest of the relationship.

I think this is an ability that not everyone possesses.

For me and my (now ex-) wife our relationship comprised every waking moment of our existence. It was impossible to silo the fact that I said horrible things to her, and her to me. Sure these things made us each feel better at the time, but at what cost? The relationship, apparently.

Since then we've (while co-parenting a child) come to appreciate the value of separating our emotions from the issue(s) at hand. With it we've been able to successfully navigate extremely thorny issues that might otherwise compromise the well-being of our son were he to pick up on the fact that we've been sidelined by our own shit as opposed to looking out for his best interests and conducting ourselves accordingly.

Here’s how NVC is usually taught: use this special language and make sure to communicate needs and feelings and guess the other person’s.

The thing is, without the internal alignment and commitment, it is just a set of complicated language structures and mostly annoys people.

A tool I use and recommend in relationships is having a “session” with your partner. This means they get to vent and you listen - but when they vent about you they speak in third person. So your partner would be speaking to you saying “emptysongglass is a f-ing selfish jerk! Promised to empty the dishwasher and didn’t, for the third time! And when I reminded her about it, asked me who appointed me dishwasher police! I can’t trust a person who doesn’t take responsibility!!”

The point is to have a space to vent out the emotion and be heard and seen, in connection. And, speaking about a third person lightens things and prevents defenses from going up for the listener.

Also, timing the sessions helps. 10 min is usually enough.

NVC is mostly about internal alignment and commitment to connection and empathy (empathy=the recipient of empathy feels felt)

Honestly giving up control over the other person (making requests vs demands) and honestly listening for your own and the other’s state of being (what’s alive in them) and slowing down to drop into the body is where it’s at.

It’s not an intellectual exercise.

You said it beautifully - plain speaking from the heart, while feeling the heart.

"don't bring aggression to a microaggression fight".

And skillful NVC is like black belt level of microaggression fight skills.

"It's about coercing people into changing their behavior..."

Isn't that the point?

> But I often see NVC abused as passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open communication.

That's because it is a passive aggressive framework. Violence is primarily a physical concept, and made use as as a relational metaphor with varying degrees of internal consistency.

For example when one is being "violent" in a communication, what is it that they are actually violating? If you're in violation of a narcissistic other's grandiose self-image, are you really being violent? Is saying stop to an abuser without 'I feel' statements being violent? Aren't I-feel statements at best saving your particular interaction but still enabling such behavior to be put upon the next guy who is not as savvy in such overly nice, "please don't hurt me" tactics?

"Successful communication" frameworks are sold as virtuous, harmonious constructs, but they are really an invention of 21st century to enable getting minimally along with strangers you have to interact. It is a truncated version of human self-expression that helps you survive a day with narcissists of the hyper-individualized social spheres. They don't dare to put any demands of change on the other, and as such maintain the narcissists' arena.

Real virtuousness would include the possibility of being courageous to say "hey, that's wrong!", a correction which many others who interact with the corrected would benefit. Unlike NVC it would have a skin-in-the-game, lets-be-better telos. In such a setting, pathological characters wouldn't bubble up to top, and people wouldn't need to constantly pay the NVC tax.

If you've seen the movie A Quiet Place, it perfectly exemplifies this. People don't coordinate and speak up to throw the monsters off, they just auto-censor themselves more than the other guy, and in the end reduced to bare survival.

I'm confused by how there can be 'violent speech', I don't believe there can be. I believe there can be aggression, but I do not think there can be physical damage done by words alone.

The paranoid in me ponders if this abuse of terminology is part of an effort to classify speech as violence, meaning that something that 'hurts the feelings' is classified as assault.

"violent speech" is commonly understood to refer to speech which threatens or incites physical violence, what has commonly been referred to by courts as "incitement to imminent lawless action" or "fighting words."

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

I appreciate how you highlighted two things: 1) about how it can lead to disagreement and 2) how NVC seems to require both sides to participate.

For the first one, I agree with you in that if someone says to me "I feel like (or believe or worse, know) that statement was rude," I can quickly jump into a defensive mode, "Well I believe it wasn't," and reach a stalemate. I, however, also can jump into that mode when someone says to me "that statement was rude" because I 1) may not believe it or 2) find an example of someone who doesn't believe it and then am likely to start to argue. This is why I try to avoid labeling things with these adjectives and try to dig more deeply into how I'm feeling internally.

About two, with the two-way participation of NVC I strongly agree and have found it be one of the things that frustrates me the most about it, both on the receiving and giving side of it. On receiving, I feel forced, stuck, nudged, coerced, whatever, into playing the games even if I don't want to. On the giving side, I feel stuck if the other person won't play and then can feel frustrated and passively try to trick them into playing.

This is why I really like adding another step, whereas step 1 is to say how I feel, step 2 is to tell them how I imagine they might be feeling and then step 3 is to say one thing to connect with love. I've found that even if the other person isn't playing, I can consider how I'm feeling, consider how they're feeling, and feel closer to them.

I agree that those two statements can elicit different responses. I try to take the latter statement even closer to expressing myself. Instead of saying "I believe what you did is rude" I'll try to say "When you did that thing, I felt angry or if I'm more honest, sad."

I wrote a post on this back in the day calling it the subjective adjective, basically that when we use adjectives, often it carries an objective nature to it, aka "everyone believes this is the description" and even if you were to say to me "I believe what you did was rude" I may lock in on "rude" and forget it was your perspective. I may even ignore your emphasis on what I did and put it who I am. "This person is calling me rude!" Even though you weren't.

So I try as much as I can, especially in conflict scenarios, to avoid using adjectives about them or their actions and more so to use adverbs (I think?) about how I'm feeling.

"You're rude" to "I believe what you did is rude" to "I felt hurt when you did that."

Saying something like "I feel that statement is rude" goes against the entire point of "I" statements. You are supposed to connect a specific action of theirs with the emotional reaction it caused in you. "Feeling a statement is rude" isn't you expressing an emotion or feeling, its you expressing an opinion.

A more valid way phrase it would "When you say $statement, it makes me feel $emotion/feeling", where x is an actual emotion or feeling, like angry/upset/disappointed/disrespected/worthless/don't care about me/etc.

> "You're rude" vs "I feel like what you said to me was rude" will elicit different responses

No it won't. They both mean exactly the same thing.

If anything, the second one will elicit a more hostile response, as the person being addressed will believe you are trying to manipulate them by obfuscating your language.

While I agree with your overall point, there is a middle third option that doesn't involve labeling someone as rude. Drop the "I feel" and just say "what you said was rude".

Being labeled often requires a defensive response as it has a sense of permanence associated with it. Temporally, it is different from describing an action as rude.

“I am X” vs “I am feeling X” are very different statements.

The first leans more toward describing to attribute as permanent, while the second is more explicit that it is a temporary state.

> "I feel like what you said to me was rude" will elicit different responses

People responded negatively to you for good reason. Your statement above violates a fundamental NVC principle: Namely that you pretended to describe a feeling when you intended a judgement. It is precisely this that makes people think you're being manipulative.

I think for me I get frustrated when it seems too formulaic. I think that tends to happen a lot when people use NVC, it seems as if they are very strictly following a pattern.

For example, I started this by saying how I felt but not so cookie-cutter and even your statement of "I really can't stand" communicated to me how you were feeling but again, not so rigidly in the format of "I feel X."

Does that align with what you're saying?

I'm having trouble connecting:

> I really can't stand talking to people who frame everything in terms of how it makes them feel or other emotional responses.

With:

> don't try to get what you want by guilt-tripping

Why do you think an expression of emotion is tied to guilt-tripping. When someone tells you "I'm really annoyed at my boss for giving me last minute work", who is being guilt-tripped?

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.

> 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.

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?

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.

I absolutely love NVC and found this to be a great primer: 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.

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?

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.

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.

Honestly when you boil it down, almost all relationships we have are transactional to some degree (money, emotionally, physically...). Unconditional love is very hard.

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.

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.

> "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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com