[HN Gopher] Assertiveness is a virtue that anyone can develop wi...
___________________________________________________________________
Assertiveness is a virtue that anyone can develop with practice
Author : arkj
Score : 184 points
Date : 2021-07-14 15:07 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (psyche.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (psyche.co)
| danuker wrote:
| You'd be surprised how many people open up for your influence,
| when you "Seek first to understand, then to be understood".
|
| Thinking through their problems as well as yours helps come up
| with a better solution for both of you.
|
| All of Covey's advice resonated with me.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effecti...
| paulpauper wrote:
| I would like to become more assertive but I find that just
| complying makes the problem go away faster and is easier. I say
| yes way too often but it s easier often than trying to stand my
| ground. Assertiveness can work better if you have a position of
| authority
| jameal wrote:
| It might be helpful to think of assertiveness as a
| communication style rather than a problem-solving method. I
| like this definition:
|
| >Assertiveness is a communication style where you can express
| your thoughts and feelings in an open manner that doesn't
| violate the rights of others.
|
| You can't control how the other person responds or how the
| situation will play out, but you have the right to be
| assertive. People who aren't good with assertiveness tend to
| have lower self-esteem[^1], so if there is a problem
| assertiveness solves, it is more related to our relationship to
| ourselves than with any external problem.
|
| [^1]: https://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/CCI/Consumer-
| Module...
| browningstreet wrote:
| The path to positions of authority is often paved by diligent
| applications of assertiveness.
| galfarragem wrote:
| Spot on comment. It distills many books on leadership in one
| sentence. Thank you.
| [deleted]
| addflip wrote:
| This is an essential skill for everyone to learn. The article
| lightly touches on how to learn to be more assertive. If you want
| a more thorough guide I highly recommend the book, When I Say No
| I Feel Guilty.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Yup. The majority of leaders I know are just average people who
| are more comfortable being assertive. Often aggressively to shut
| down nay sayers. Listen in meetings and hear how the people
| talking are normally not the most correct or the right ones but
| the most assertive.
| staunch wrote:
| Sure, most leaders are bad leaders. They're assertive enough to
| get promoted but too stupid/ignorant/mean/lazy to actually lead
| well.
|
| Good leaders, by definition, are the kind of people that will
| elevate the voices of the non-assertive-but-right people.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _You can't stop people making demands on your time and energy,
| but you can develop the skills to protect yourself..._ "
|
| Wouldn't it be nice if the article had at least identified those
| skills?
| roody15 wrote:
| Plankton agrees!!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYuboi4GWO4
| sergiomattei wrote:
| Thank you for this, I laughed so hard.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| I dunno that I would rush to call it a virtue. It's def a
| valuable skill to have so you can defend yourself and others
| against bullies. But it also empowers YOU to be a bully or
| blowhard, so it's a double edged sword. Yes, assertiveness is a
| virtue in the hands of a mature, responsible, and benevolent
| person - but it's a disaster in the hands of an immature,
| uncivilized, or unscrupulous one. Martial arts come to mind
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| You are confusing assertiveness with aggression. Being
| assertive is a reaction to a stimulus (asserting a boundary),
| not the stimulus itself (pushing the boundary). The latter
| case, which is what you describe, is aggressive. There are two
| other interaction types: passive, and passive-aggressive. Only
| one of the four is healthy (generally).
| frontiersummit wrote:
| I've always maintained that
|
| Assertive = Aggressive + On my Team
|
| You are assertive if the community around you thinks you are
| justified in asking for your way, and aggressive if they feel
| you are unjustified. We perceive our allies as assertive and
| our opponents as aggressive.
|
| The GP is correct that "assertiveness" training gives someone
| tools which are equally useful in defending against a bully
| as they are in bullying. It's really just rudimentary
| influence training in the vein of Carnegie or Cialdini, and
| people can be influenced for ill just as they can be
| influenced for good.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| Hmmmm, if you say so
| [deleted]
| lolsal wrote:
| Read the article, there are paragraphs that explain why
| it's called a virtue.
| Dumblydorr wrote:
| Oxford defines virtue as "behavior showing high moral
| standards." I think assertiveness only conditionally
| falls into this category.
|
| First, as noted above, assertion to one can be aggression
| to another, thus questionable high moral standards.
| However, if both parties agree it's not aggressive, then
| is it indeed morally good to be assertive? To me, morally
| good is a higher bar than simply being non-aggressive.
|
| I think if virtue is defined on moral grounds,
| assertiveness is not consistently enough placed into that
| category.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| > , assertion to one can be aggression to another,
|
| Not if you understand what the two words mean.
|
| "assertiveness" - the quality of expressing opinions or
| desires in a strong and confident way, so that people
| take notice
|
| "aggression" - feelings of anger and hate that may result
| in threatening or violent behaviour.
|
| Edit: removed 92% of snark.
| Zircom wrote:
| I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. For
| example, one can express their hatred of a ethnic
| minority group in a strong and confident way such that
| people take notice, which by your definitions could
| qualify as assertive and aggressive.
| Dumblydorr wrote:
| The problem is those aren't mutually exclusive and it all
| comes down to personal perception. An asshole thinks he
| is just being strong and confident, NBD! Even a kind
| assertive person can become aggressive after amygdala
| hijack during an opinionated debate. Like myself once
| stupidly arguing Pavarotti is a superior singer to
| McCartney, lol I cringe now at how impassioned and rude I
| became.
|
| Others may perceive this "assertive" behavior as angry or
| threatening. So, even with those definitions, Jobs for
| instance would be considered both assertive and
| aggressive.
|
| So, labeling assertiveness as good or bad morally: IMO,
| it's conditional.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| I feel this may be an issue of semantics. To my
| understanding, in the NVC literature, once you start
| being aggressive, you are no longer being assertive - you
| are being aggressive. IE, they are not overlapping
| subsets.
|
| This is conceptually similar to the idea of addiction.
| Physical dependency is one component, but the definition
| I'm most familiar with is that it becomes an addition
| (instead of use/misuse) once it has a significant
| negative impact on your life.
|
| YMMV, but wanted to see if I could jump in to help clear
| up. It's not a comment on your definition, btw - just the
| context of the discussion.
| Kluny wrote:
| It's a virtue because it maintains balance between the two
| extremes of passiveness and aggressiveness. If you're being
| bully and a blowhard, then you're clearly being aggressive, not
| assertive.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Interestingly, the author uses the Aristotelian sense of virtue
| as moderation between extremes.
|
| > So, tact is a virtue, which we find on a spectrum between the
| vices of dishonesty and brutal honesty. Courage lies between
| recklessness and cowardice. Friendliness lies between surliness
| and obsequiousness.
|
| But unless I missed it, she fails to name the vices between
| which assertiveness lies.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Between Aggression -- Passivity ?
| errantmind wrote:
| Those are too broad to be the extremes of assertiveness.
|
| It would be something like 'Rigid / inflexible refusal to
| accommodate' and 'Total Accomodation irrespective of impact
| to personal objectives'.
|
| Yea, we need a single word for both of those for it to be
| more virtue-like
| z3ncyberpunk wrote:
| Soooo aggression vs passivity....
| dkarl wrote:
| As with other words like "frankness" and "ambition," some
| people use it to mean the right amount, applied appropriately,
| and other people use it to mean too much, abused.
|
| I agree with what you say about the dangers of assertiveness,
| but I think the picture also has to include the problems caused
| by lack of assertiveness. People who lack assertiveness often
| think it's only their problem, but it creates problems for the
| people around them, too. Their boss has to worry that they'll
| end up working on the wrong things and that the problems they
| discover won't get the proper attention. Their friends and
| family have to put in special effort to figure out how they
| really feel about things, and they have to partially mute their
| own personalities to avoid steamrolling them. There is an ideal
| amount of assertiveness in every situation, often difficult to
| get exactly right, which is why it can be seen as a virtue.
| whataremyvalues wrote:
| IMO Assertiveness is not a virtue but a behavior.
|
| It's a behavior that is not beneficial for every person.
| Neurodiversity requires flexibility of social systems in order to
| thrive and facilitate innovation. When a social system contains a
| large bias for assertive behavior then the participants of that
| system may overvalue the behavior and react to individuals that
| lack assertiveness as lesser (recognition of environmentally
| favored behaviors.)
|
| When character values are aligned in behavior and attitudes then
| the assertive behavior can manifest with different motives. In
| the article the author tells a story of their character decisions
| when choosing to accomplish their goals through stimulating
| activity (writing their document with a deadline) or focus their
| attention on the needs of a member of their group (benevolence
| and conformity.)
|
| The internal dilemma the author went through was the misalignment
| of their behavior and motives (cognitive dissonance.)
|
| "But I couldn't imagine myself saying those things. I wasn't that
| sort of person, and everyone knew it."
|
| The author's solution is to focus on protecting themselves
| (Safety, a conservation life focus.)
|
| "You can't stop people making demands on your time and energy,
| but you can develop the skills to protect yourself"
|
| I urge the author to escape the group mentality that feels safe
| and explore uncomfortable social environments with the objective
| of increasing awareness of what matters most to them, not just in
| theory but in practicality.
| factorialboy wrote:
| Assertiveness fundamentally is just clarity of thought. Everybody
| has experienced that at one point or another.
|
| Given enough experience or training, you can fake it.
|
| But nothing beats the real thing. Achieve clarity of thought in
| whatever you do, and assertiveness and other positive traits will
| follow.
|
| Practicing assertiveness without achieving clarity of thought is
| just disaster delayed slightly thanks to technique.
| wildmanxx wrote:
| > All-or-nothing thinking - which psychologists call 'splitting'
| - is a symptom of certain personality disorders.
|
| And yet it permeates American culture right through its core.
|
| With me or against me. Good or bad. Right or wrong. Amazing or
| horrible. Left or right. Freedom or communism. No compromise.
|
| As a corollary, I wonder if it follows that the American culture
| counts as a personality disorder. (Let the downvotes come!)
| supergirl wrote:
| news: everything can be developed with practice. being successful
| is 90% work and 10% opportunity.
| nkingsy wrote:
| "Tact is a virtue that we find somewhere on the spectrum of
| dishonesty and brutal honesty."
|
| I like the thought, but I don't think it's that simple.
|
| More like tact is mindful honesty. The tactful statement may in
| fact be more honest than the brutally honest statement, because
| it has examined the raw feeling and mined some kind of
| actionable/constructive information from it.
|
| That may be an obvious distinction for most, but as someone who
| struggles with tact, it's been valuable for me to recognize that
| the most honest statement is one that's been really thought
| through for context and impact.
|
| Tact, for me, is the act of adding why and how to an honest
| feeling before expressing it.
| epx wrote:
| When people see they can't push you, or can't counterargue your
| point, they play the good manners card "you are being brutally
| honest".
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I think "brutally honest" is often more like "brutally honest
| judgment." I guess I see the word honest and honesty more as
| openly expressing what is happening inside of me, often more
| related to feelings. Whereas I see people use the term "brutal
| honesty" often when they are about to 1) use the external
| orientation (2nd- or 3rd-person pronouns) and 2) make a
| negative judgment. E.g., "I'm gonna be brutally honest, that
| hat is ugly/your works sucks/you're super lazy." I think it
| tends to be more brutal and less honest. I'd see honest as "I
| don't like your hat/I wouldn't invest in your work/I'm
| frustrated by how little you're doing."
|
| I like your definition of tact and appreciate you highlighting
| this distinction, it's helping me to pause and reflect more on
| the terms I use and how I use them. Thank you!
| watwut wrote:
| I think that if someone's honesty tends to be brutal more then
| occasionally, then it says a lot about that person. There is no
| reason to assume that honesty must imply primary negative
| statements.
|
| Also, I think that a lot of what people call "brutal honesty"
| is often dishonest statement meant to cause maximum discomfort.
| "Brutal honesty" is often exaggeration of what is wrong rather
| then honest description.
| nkingsy wrote:
| "I don't like it" is a child's statement. It is almost never
| calculated, and I strongly disagree with the assertion that
| anyone's trying to cause discomfort.
|
| As someone who has said some really hurtful things, I can't
| tell you how much it pains me to have my thoughtlessness
| mistaken for cruelty.
|
| I recognize it's not someone else's job to be understanding
| of my thoughtlessness, which is why I must employ mindfulness
| at all times.
|
| I'm also 100% sure that some people come wired for tact, and
| some don't.
|
| My son is laser focused on the feelings of others, like my
| wife, while my daughter is totally oblivious, like me.
| watwut wrote:
| I have yet to see anyone classify "I don't like it" as
| "brutal honesty".
|
| > As someone who has said some really hurtful things, I
| can't tell you how much it pains me to have my
| thoughtlessness mistaken for cruelty.
|
| If it was throughtless or innacure, dont call it honesty
| then. It is not honesty no matter how brutal.
|
| And yes, people do say hurtful untrue things on purpose. Or
| they just say them, but then they insist on them knowing it
| was throughtless.
| nkingsy wrote:
| I'm speaking in the context of tact. When someone is
| being tactless, they are communicating to achieve a goal
| without regard for the social implications of said
| communication.
|
| The tactlessness has no relationship with the underlying
| honesty of the goal, though it makes the communication
| itself less honest.
| yCombLinks wrote:
| 100% agree, tact does not require dishonesty. At the same time,
| honesty does not require saying everything you think to
| everyone within earshot. Brutal honesty: Your eyebrows look
| awful shaved off. Tact : Those eyebrows are very unique.
| Dishonesty : Your eyebrows look great shaved off.
| Kluny wrote:
| Slight disagreement - tact is not mentioning the eyebrows at
| all. That way you're not being even slightly false. "Those
| eyebrows look very unique" reads as passive aggression.
| nkingsy wrote:
| "Those eyebrows are tickling my brain's facial recognition
| systems" would be my mindful take on the thought, though
| yeah, unless you're asked...
| z3ncyberpunk wrote:
| Congratulations after all those mental gymnastics now you
| just sound like a robot.
| yCombLinks wrote:
| Ha, that's true, I was thinking in the context of if they
| asked what is the most tactful response
| [deleted]
| antonzabirko wrote:
| It's not a virtue
| wombatmobile wrote:
| A great place to practice assertiveness is at home.
|
| If an unsolicited person knocks on your door, to sell you a
| product or a religion, here's your chance. It's your sandbox.
| Assert your right to privacy.
|
| Same if you get junk mail in your mailbox that prominently
| displays a sign "NO JUNK MAIL". Call them. Ask to speak to the
| person who put illegal advertising in your mailbox. When they
| blame it on the deliverer, say "Do you realise you are legally
| responsible for any illegal action you pay someone else to
| perform?"
|
| Awkward questions are a great way to be assertive. You never have
| to be rude - just persist with questions that have revealing
| answers.
| _manifold wrote:
| > Same if you get junk mail in your mailbox that prominently
| displays a sign "NO JUNK MAIL". Call them. Ask to speak to the
| person who put illegal advertising in your mailbox. When they
| blame it on the deliverer, say "Do you realise you are legally
| responsible for any illegal action you pay someone else to
| perform?"
|
| Asking barbed, rhetorical questions to a stranger over the
| phone isn't "being assertive", especially when the person
| you're speaking to most likely has little to no control over
| the thing you are complaining about.
|
| To quote The Big Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're
| just an asshole!"
| wombatmobile wrote:
| Why would anyone do that to someone who has little or no
| control over the thing they are complaining about? That would
| be a waste of everybody's time.
|
| First, ask for the name of the person responsible for the
| thing you want to talk about. Then ask to speak to that
| person by name.
| z3ncyberpunk wrote:
| So is the person/company who illegally puts junk mail into a
| person's mailbox which has been clearly marked with no
| soliciting.
| zen_alchemist wrote:
| I agree.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| From personal experience: I thought my lack of assertiveness came
| from the lack of self-confidence. But once my self confidence got
| fixed (which is a whole separate story), it turned out
| assertiveness is rarely needed. The fine art of not giving a shit
| trumps all other virtues.
| errantmind wrote:
| Agreed. Not feeling obligated to care is a valuable way to
| moderate overreaching requests. This is different than apathy,
| as it is not a nihilistic impulse. Instead it is a refusal
| agree to the implicit premise of level of 'importance'.
|
| Some people will be offended at this as not taking their
| request as seriously as they are but it can be expressed in
| such a way as to say "No, I'd like to be helpful but I have
| other priorities which require my attention". Or "No, I'd like
| to be helpful but this is outside the scope of my
| responsibilities".
| markus_zhang wrote:
| When you reach a certain age e.g. 40 you start to realize that
| you only need to appeal for yourself and no one else matters
| including you family members.
|
| And then suddenly everything goes much better from there.
| underwater wrote:
| I assume you mean parents and siblings, as opposed to spouse
| and children?
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Everyone. You have to be happy if you want your kid and wife
| to be happy. Otherwise one just becomes some grumpy husband
| that everyone tries to avoid.
|
| Individual->Family->Company/Organization/State, I believe
| that's the way it works. You have to take care of the things
| on left side to make the things on the right side to feel
| "happy".
| samsolomon wrote:
| I would love to see some suggestions on books or videos for
| assertiveness training. I saw the book suggestion "When I Say No
| I Feel Guilty" below and would love to hear any others the
| community has.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Here's a non-Amazon link to a very popular text:
|
| https://www.powells.com/book/nonviolent-communication-978189...
|
| Also, this book is questionable because of certain phrases and
| perspectives, but I enjoyed it because it is an attempt to
| boost confidence (another non-Amazon link):
|
| https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/no-more-mr-nice-guy-robert-...
|
| I think the author of this book wrote it _specifically_ for
| angry right-wing types who think therapy is a weakness, because
| inside the book is hidden messages of self-acceptance and
| assertiveness wrapped up in tough-guy sounding language.
| jameal wrote:
| A few years ago I stumbled on and worked through [this
| excellent content on assertiveness](https://www.cci.health.wa.g
| ov.au/Resources/Looking-After-You...) offered free of charge by
| a government health agency in Western Australia. It's includes
| methods for practical application and prompts for reflection.
| There are 10 PDF modules:
|
| 1. What is Assertiveness? 2. How to Recognise Assertive
| Behaviour 3. How to Think More Assertively 4. How to Behave
| More Assertively 5. Reducing Physical Tension 6. How to Say
| "No" Assertively 7. How to Deal Assertively with Criticism 8.
| How to Deal with Disappointment Assertively 9. How to Give and
| Receive Compliments Assertively 10. Putting it All Together
|
| It was incredibly beneficial for me and I'd highly recommend
| giving it a shot.
| mypalmike wrote:
| Some good advice here. But the author sure works hard to
| needlessly connect it to her background in philosophy, and to
| Aristotle in particular.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| 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
| tapia wrote:
| NVC is a very good tool for solving communication problems and
| I think it is definitely worth practicing. However, it is not
| always easy, as it requires that we identify and express our
| _feelings_ correctly.
|
| In the example you described, there is a problem in that you
| are _not really_ saying a feeling. "I feel that our
| relationship is transactional..." is not a feeling. The rule
| being: when you start with "I feel like ..." then you are not
| naming a feeling. This is the most difficult part as we are not
| used to talking with actual feelings (I am certainly not). For
| the case your described, one option could be to state it like
| this: "(1) When you put so much pressure on me, (2) I feel
| discouraged/uncomfortable, (3) because I need work
| relationships that are more than purely transactional. (4)
| Would you mind trying to do X next time?". And then you have
| the four required steps of NVC :)
|
| (I literally need to look at a list with words that are
| feelings to try to see which is the one that corresponds for
| the situation when it goes beyond happy, angry or sad.)
|
| (*edited some typos)
| softwaredoug wrote:
| 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.
| tssva wrote:
| Was this a work colleague? If so, isn't your relationship
| transactional and just part of a larger transactional
| relationship. That between each of you and your employer.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Human relationships just can't be boiled down to a single
| term in that way. My relationship with the cashier at the
| grocery store is obviously transactional, yet we can interact
| in a variety of ways, and how we do so will affect how we
| feel, how satisfied we are with {the job|the store}, etc.
| There's always room for two people in an interaction to be
| more or less trusting, compatible, enjoyable, etc.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| Honestly when you boil it down, almost all relationships we
| have are transactional to some degree (money, emotionally,
| physically...). Unconditional love is very hard.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| borski wrote:
| This is spot-on, tbh, and helps communication in many walks of
| life, but, and this is important: the "with trusted people" is
| paramount. This sort of conversation requires, as you mention,
| the assumption that both parties have only the best intent.
|
| I've run into a lot of people where that is decidedly untrue;
| they did not have the best intentions in mind.
|
| But also, I think this is orthogonal to assertiveness.
| Sometimes simply learning to say "no" when you're overwhelmed
| or too busy, alone, is a great habit to build. How to do it
| gets easier with time, and how to communicate it does too.
| burntwater wrote:
| > I've run into a lot of people where that is decidedly
| untrue; they did not have the best intentions in mind.
|
| The manipulative nature of "NVC" is precisely one of my
| triggers for assuming that someone does not have best
| intentions in mind. They're out to get something for
| themselves, and I'm being hoodwinked into agreeing to it.
| mattm wrote:
| 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?
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I really can't stand talking to people who frame everything in
| terms of how it makes them feel or other emotional responses.
| IDK why but it just seems like such a cop-out. Say what you
| mean, and don't try to get what you want by guilt-tripping and
| psychobabble.
| sangnoir wrote:
| You're going to get an emotional response whether you
| acknowledge it or not, and often times, such miscomunication
| results in anger/escalation of the misunderstanding. "You're
| rude" vs "I feel like what you said to me was rude" will
| elicit different responses; the former is likely to trigger
| self-defense or the listener taking offense, whereas the
| latter is a statement of opinion that does not escalate.
|
| Non-violent communication is how diplomacy gets done, as the
| stakes are often very high.
| noptd wrote:
| I disagree. Prefacing statements with "I feel" only acts to
| highlight the subjectivity of the statement which makes it
| much easier for the offending party to dismiss in practice.
|
| "That statement was rude" makes the speaker consider their
| statement from their own perspective vs "I feel like that
| statement was rude" which causes the speaker consider
| whether the other party rationally feels that way. If the
| speaker doesn't see the offended party as a rational
| individual, then any statement like that will automatically
| be dismissed.
|
| IMO this underscores the biggest failing of NVC - it
| requires both parties to abide by it. If the speaker does
| and has an adequate level of EQ to actually successfully
| use it, then they would most likely take you feelings into
| account even if you aren't using NVC so there's no benefit.
| Conversely, if they don't use it or see the benefits of EQ,
| explicitly adding "I feel" before every statement isn't
| going to achieve anything except annoying the speaker while
| they dismiss your feedback just as quickly as they would
| have anyways. Ironically, NVC strikes me as a way to _feel_
| like you're communicating more effectively without much or
| any net positive impact on the receiving end, which doesn't
| seem worth it to me.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| 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.
| jimbokun wrote:
| > "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.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| "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.
| errantmind wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| jimkleiber wrote:
| 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."
| Zircom wrote:
| 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.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| 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?
| endymi0n wrote:
| 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.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| 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?
| bsder wrote:
| 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.
| make3 wrote:
| 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.
| drewcoo wrote:
| In therapy that's one thing. But I often see NVC abused as
| passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open
| communication. This is almost always used after some alleged
| harm has been done. As in "let's talk about how I feel and
| somehow blame you for it" in some public forum with social
| pressures. It's about coercing people into changing their
| behavior and is the polar opposite of acceptance. It is a means
| of social control and should raise red flags whenever it's
| seen.
| altcognito wrote:
| What you described is not NVC communication. NVC
| communication requires at a bare minimum first listening to
| both sides needs.
| sombremesa wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| jimbokun wrote:
| > 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.
| ScoobleDoodle wrote:
| 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.
| aaron-santos wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| whatshisface wrote:
| 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.)
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| whatshisface wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| whatshisface wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| Kranar wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _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.
| Kranar wrote:
| 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.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _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.
| Kranar wrote:
| We do not agree because this is a matter of perspective
| and my position is that the perspective you're advocating
| for is irresponsible. If you are in charge of a business,
| it is irresponsible to ever have the perspective that
| your business can fail because of a single individual who
| does not work overtime.
|
| A similar analogy would be blaming a company failure
| because an intern deleted the production database. Based
| on how you're viewing the situation, it seems like you
| think that would be a plausible perspective to hold, even
| though you may admit that it's irresponsible, a manager
| may find themselves in that situation.
|
| According to my perspective, it is simply never 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 database from an intern.
|
| Under my perspective, 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.
|
| Should a business fail, it will be because I failed to
| properly manage the business and allocate resources.
|
| Certainly there are multiple perspectives that one may
| adopt. I am confident based on my experience running a
| successful company that my perspective has stronger
| explanatory power and results in better judgement than
| the perspective that a company can fail because someone
| didn't work more than what would be expected of them.
|
| I would encourage other people looking to run a business
| to adopt my perspective. The company did not fail because
| someone didn't work overtime, the company failed because
| someone in a position of authority failed to properly
| allocate resources, properly incentive 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.
| watwut wrote:
| No, not even in startups.
| whatshisface wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| potatoman22 wrote:
| 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?
| manmal wrote:
| 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?"
| Rapzid wrote:
| Nice, flips the script and exposes their passive
| aggressive, manipulative language.
| Malp wrote:
| 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.
| tome wrote:
| 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.
| aaron-santos wrote:
| 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.
| jimbokun wrote:
| 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.
| jstx1 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| jimbokun wrote:
| 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."
| rustybelt wrote:
| 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.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| 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.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| 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...
| jimkleiber wrote:
| 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 :-)
| mcguire wrote:
| " _It 's about coercing people into changing their
| behavior..._"
|
| Isn't that the point?
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| 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.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| 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.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| 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.
| jancsika wrote:
| > Perhaps she'd say: 'Let me get back to you tomorrow about
| that,' or: 'Ask me again in a week.'
|
| I think that example isn't strong enough to register as
| assertiveness.
|
| Assertiveness looks something like this:
|
| Someone asked me once if I'd be interested in being the musical
| director at a church. My response was something like:
|
| "I have zero interest in doing that. You know, before Phyllis
| died she'd seen me politely brushing off an offer to 'fill in'
| for the organist for an unspecified number of Sundays, for an
| unspecified amount of money. Phyllis pulled me aside after that
| and said, 'Don't you _ever_ take a position with a church. The
| politics are vicious. They will eat you alive. ' It was hilarious
| at the time but she was absolutely serious and I've taken it to
| heart."
|
| That typically works because most people in life have been
| _tasked_ by either circumstances or other people to suggest a
| course of action or sell you on something. Your assertion
| actually gives them some relief because they can stop selling. In
| this case, we immediately switched to gossiping about vicious
| church politics for the next few minutes.
|
| The difficult thing is to do something like that for the _first_
| time. It may feel a bit like jumping out of the plane when
| skydiving because you have no frame of reference for what will
| happen next. The key is to reflect ahead of time on a few key
| preferences you have-- when the time comes, just barrel through
| and force yourself to make a decision based on that preference.
| Once done, notice in the aftermath and days after that nothing
| bad actually happened. It 's revelatory-- future moments of low
| willpower feel like momentary slip ups (or perhaps just
| reasonable compromises) rather than a complete lack of agency.
|
| Edit: clarification
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Your response was sharp for no reason if they weren't
| responsible for the situation. And too indirect if they were.
|
| "Thanks. But I'm not interested. Someone warned me the politics
| are vicious. Please don't ask again."
| hcrisp wrote:
| The story in the article about not knowing how to conclude a
| conversation reminds me of a tip my brother-in-law gave me. He is
| a teacher, though a bit introverted, and he said he had problems
| wrapping up conversations during parent-teacher meetings. Some
| people just couldn't take a hint. Then he found that by saying,
| "Ok!" , while simultaneously slapping his palms on his lap (as if
| about to get up) would jolt everyone into wrap-up mode. I've
| tried this, and it mostly works. People respond to nonverbal
| communication (which is apparently more effective than verbal)
| quite well.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Yes! Reminds me of how my great uncle used to talk and talk and
| talk after family reunions until one time, I sat there and I
| think did exactly that, I slapped my hands on my lap, said,
| "Ok! I'm tired, I'm gonna head to sleep." And he seemed to snap
| out of his story and we all got up to go to bed. I had been
| feeling frustrated because he just kept going and my parents
| had been falling asleep but no one said anything.
|
| I agree nonverbals can often help by themselves or even as a
| starter to more verbal communication in these situations.
| Thanks for posting this :-)
|
| *edit: and my great uncle wasn't trying to harm us, he just
| liked to talk and probably just got caught up in the moment,
| not realizing how much he was talking :-)
| toomanyducks wrote:
| I mean I've read _some_ of the Aristotle mentioned, and I think
| it 's a very and unservingly individualistic approach.
|
| The bits that I read took into account your effects on others,
| but not others' effects on you, aside from the mention of
| teaching. If we accept that individual virtues are the
| determining factors of morality, we can't really ask any
| questions about the effect of others on my own morality, which,
| in my opinion and experience, is pretty important too. So yeah,
| be assertive and all, but Aristotle feels like the wrong place to
| root an analysis of inter-personal interaction.
| dijit wrote:
| This is definitely true.
|
| I was given assertiveness training when I was a young boy- I had
| a troubled time and was put through the training with other
| trouble makers.
|
| It really changed me, I went from being an anxious and shy person
| to being a generally motivated and quite confident person.
|
| Which, is strange given that assertiveness training is mostly
| identifying assertive behaviour as it differs from aggressive or
| non-direct behaviour. It doesn't (or didn't) force you to be
| assertive, but identifying it leads you to understanding that you
| can _be_ assertive.
| asah wrote:
| Successful assertiveness is a learned skill.
|
| successful assertiveness = speaking up (at the right time, being
| articulate, tone, etc)
|
| successful assertiveness = being heard (not just speaking)
|
| successful assertiveness = being prioritized (not just bl adding
| to the noise)
|
| successful assertiveness = not being penalized / oostracized (so
| next time you're heard+prioritized)
|
| successful != ambition, promotion, raises etc
|
| successful != hurting others
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-15 23:01 UTC)