NVC is a great framework. I've watched the 9 hour training by Marshall Rosenberg on YouTube more than once, and I keep finding ways that it can be useful in all relationships. It's basically a way to be both non-passive-aggressive and compassionate, while having boundaries. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPNVcESwoWu4lI9C3bhkY...

>It's basically a way to be both non-passive-aggressive and compassionate

But the examples given as "observation" read as passive-aggressive to me. Whether you say "Eleanor procrastinates" or "Eleanor wait to do all her studying the night before the exam" it's still the same thing. If you hear this type of comment regularly (eg you have ADHD) then it'll still affect you negatively.

> Whether you say "Eleanor procrastinates" or "Eleanor wait to do all her studying the night before the exam" it's still the same thing.

It is not. The latter is a fact. The former is an interpretation of that fact showing how the person saying it judges this fact. If you perceive the former while someone says the latter, then that is a result of your own expectation of judgement.

I have ADD and had to unlearn this myself.

Exactly. "Eleanor wait to do all her studying the night before the exam" doesn't attempt to insert the part of the story we don't know.

Maybe she waited because she's lazy, maybe because she was waiting for her anxiety to decrease, maybe because she was working two jobs.

When we make a judgement and say that she procrastinates, we shut ourselves out from the rest of the story and insert our own.

My understanding of this:

"Eleanor waited to do all her studying the night before the exam" — that's data: it would show up on a video recording of the scene.

"Eleanor procrastinates" — that's a judgement/interpretation/opinion: it exists in someone's mind (i.e. the person making the judgement).

This isn't to say "judgements bad, don't make judgements". That would be nonsensical. We all make judgements/interpretations all the time, they're a necessary part of the human experience.

But (in my experience) it's really _really_ helpful to differentiate between these two categories. It opens the whole thing up and allows things to proceed more smoothly and effectively (in conjunction with other tools in the toolset - but this is core).

To expand on the example: if, as Eleanor, I hear the judgement I'm probably, yes, more likely to shut down and get defensive - which gets none of us anywhere. OTOH if I hear the data, there is then perhaps more room to have a conversation about what's going on. It might be that my ADHD is contributing to this behaviour, and perhaps if I get that it has a negative impact on someone else, I might decide to ask them (or someone else) for support in working out a better way to deal with this. Or I might simply be asking for more understanding, different structures. I don't know. But the kind of mutual acknowledgement of experience, feelings and wants that I'm talking about tends to be shut down by unowned judgements presented as fact.

"Waited" is interpretation and "all" is generalization, both to avoid in basic nvc.

NVC would be more like: "I saw Eleanor study the night before and I did not see her study before then. I interpreted this as procrastination, which makes me anxious because something similar happened at time X, you want her to succeed, fear a pattern will prevent that, and feel powerless to change it."

Maybe Eleanor did study secretly. Or knew the stuff. Or had a death in the family. Or it is unimportant. Maybe she forgot and could use reminders.

ADHD was a great tool for me + team. Basically autopilot and a low bar. One downside is people mistake things like this and blameless.postmortems as you cannot confront people and publicly, or do not bc of the work... While in reality, it provides a baseline framework for it when you have nothing better.

Yes. Nice clarification — many thanks indeed.

I completely agree. Several members of my family are NVC practitioners, but I usually hear their comments as passive aggressive. As a result, NVC sometimes seems more confrontational to me due to the effort put into disguising what is said.

> We all kind of rolled our eyes and went along with the exercise. I now use it to great effect almost daily in both personal and professional relationships.

Reactions like that tell me once again that a lot of people really underestimate simple stuff like this. I hope that in the future simple and useful psychology topics will find their way into our schools so that the acceptance and understanding for the usefulness will increase (hopefully).

I think the skepticism is the "quick fix" "trendy" packages that get peddled to businesses or show up in pop culture--like Power Poses or The Secret. Nonviolent Communication isn't the greatest name, either.

Everything ends up being packaged as some get-<blank>-quick scheme in the US, including how to peddle get-<blank>-quick schemes. Don't blame the idea for the hucksters.

Heuristics in action. I can‘t possibly number all the different BS methodologies and frameworks that were supposed to do something, every time.

Applicable and actually highly successful ones like NVC are few and far between.

Can‘t blame anyone who smells a fad on hearing it the first time, but I‘m also using NVC by now whenever I need to untangle difficult conversations.

Violent communication is hitting someone to make a point. The name of this is insulting.

Violence isn't always physical.

Indeed. I'm also fairly sure that calling it non-violent communication was no quick decision and was at least partly chosen to make us consider whether our usual methods are in fact violent and thus harmful.

I agree with this but I still think it is a bad name. Maybe something like non-aggressive communication would fare better?

Violence is always physical, by definition. Sometimes the word is also used for poetic effect though.

May I refer you to the second definition of violence, per Merriam Webster?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Violence, by definition, is not always physical.

The same dictionary that defines literally as both literal and not literal. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, and so they also account for incorrect but common usage.

If enough people use literally in that manner than it is indeed correct. This is how language works, regardless if you like the change or not. Languages are always evolving and dictionaries reflect that.

In the same vein, language is constantly in flux, so defining a thing as "just so" is at best a temporary accuracy.

The eye rolling is often justified. The value of something like NVC is having an entire framework for managing relationships (and it is a fantastic framework, havn't seen a better one yet).

However a lot of vocal people are happy to take the words and not join the pieces together properly. There are a lot of mistakes in interpreting NVC that quickly lead to eye-roll-worthy corporate inductions. The nuance is critical and complicated.

Eg, I'd assume an average person trying to talk about NVC either thinks:

1) Thinks it is a tool to use after someone else is already upset.

2) Hasn't understood it and thinks that the point is to appease someone who is angry by not being aggressive.

When you actually read the book, you find it has a very awkward way of speaking which can induce eyerolls.

It drove me up the wall and I didn't finish it.

All this "if you answered c, e and f, we are not of the same opinion" feels passive-aggressive to me.

The whole thing feels manipulative to me. It makes me think that people try an insincere way of talking to me, in order to manipulate my feelings and reaction.

I've had huge discussions with friends who try to live the book, and neither of us could make the other see their point.

One of their examples was "My boyfriend likes to go DJing, but sometimes I'd love for him to stay home and cuddle with me. So I clearly tell him that him leaving makes me feel alone and that I would like some warmth. But I don't tell him what to do, to stay at home, for example. I only talk about my own perception and feelings."

– "Yes, that's great, but in communication there is the level of pragmatics above pure logical semantics. And you telling your boyfriend that him leaving makes you feel very alone is just another way of saying 'please don't go'".

> And you telling your boyfriend that him leaving makes you feel very alone is just another way of saying 'please don't go'".

It's a more informative way of saying it. You include information about what the reasoning behind your request is, and how important it is to you. Then he can consider whether going out is more important to him than your request is to you, or if there is a way to compromise on your conflicting desires. (Consider the difference between 'you leaving means I will be stuck at home without any food or transport' and 'you leaving will make me feel lonely').

But, for some people who aren't used to the idea of negotiating behavior and emotions explicitly like this, then explicit references to emotion seem like some kind of guilt trip or 'trump card' - it's some kind of understanding that emotions are meant to be kept private unless they are overwhelming, so mentioning them is implicitly saying that this is a Very Big Deal.

You're mentioning a request, but such a request is notably absent in op's example: "But I don't tell him what to do, to stay at home, for example. I only talk about my own perception and feelings."

It reads to me both like an expectation at reading minds and a mild form of emotional blackmail.

This might be non-violent, but it's also lacking clarity. In the end it's not clear if extra cuddling before leaving and after coming back would please the woman in the example. Or if calling her every day would. Or if she could just visit her sister to avoid her feeling of loneliness.

I did not notice an explicit negotiation or any negotiation at all in that example.

This is very good point. Often our tacit knowledge about how to communicate is much larger than the explicit theory. When people then use a framework to communicate, they sometimes actually get less intelligent in a way because it ignores all the implicit rules.

NVC sometimes seem a bit dry or rational and practioners ignore a lot of tacit knowledge they have, which is why it feels insincere. It also easily promotes a kind of disconnection from your feelings by taking a meta-stance, which can make it actually harder to communicate.

I do love the basic idea and spirit of the framework though, I just think it's not a good idea probably to approach it as a set of rules for how to communicate.

The linked page has four steps, the last of which is "make requests".

That's what makes it passive-aggressive, it can be perceived as three steps of manipulation to get to a fourth step. If your ultimate intent is to make a request, then make a request.

Ending at third step and leaving request unstated sounds highly manipulative to me, because the other party now has to figure out what you really want. Going straight to the request makes the tone do all the work - whether the exact request is even registered by the other party, or whether they feel forced to abandon their plans, all depends on how you voice your words.

Perhaps people are different, but I'm of the type that I absolutely want to hear both what you want and reasoning why you want it, and I tend to pick up and overanalyze the tone if you leave either part unstated.

> I'm of the type that I absolutely want to hear both what you want and reasoning why you want it.

Skipping straight to the 4th step doesn't preclude us from discussing that, we can always backtrack and talk about that. It's just skipping straight to the point.

Consider this: We've agreed to go to a specific restaurant tonight, you change your mind for whatever reason and feel strongly about it. You had a burger at lunch for a work meeting, and don't feel like having one again.

Just say so, maybe I don't care in the least what restaurant we go to as long as it has some form of nutrition and isn't inconvenient to get to.

> "Hey, mind if we go to Subway instead?"

> "Sure, no problem"

As opposed to some long step #1-#3 process where you start talking about not wanting the same type of food twice in one day before finally getting to the point.

Maybe I do feel really strongly about it, but we can still talk about it and be direct, observe:

> "Hey, mind if we go to Subway instead?"

> "Yeah actually. Weird thing, but my late brother and I had a thing about going to that burger place every year on his birthday. It's sort of a tradition, don't want to miss it, and you were only in town today"

> "Shit man, no problem I guess. Just asked because I had a burger for lunch, didn't realize it was a burger place"

> "Hey like Sushi? They actually make the most amazing Sushi. It's the weirdest combination I know, it's run by this Japanese/American couple and they made it work"

> "I love Sushi, didn't realize that. Awesome!"

Nice example, thank you.

I think the important thing is still that a negotiation happened - an exchange of information about feelings and desires, and an attempt at reaching a satisfactory outcome.

I've only heard of NVC the first time today, but I've noticed I developed something similar for myself in my own conversation, out of desire to a) maximize accuracy of my communication, and b) minimize accidental miscommunication that leads to hurt feelings.

Regarding your example, I said that going straight for point 4 makes the tone do the work. "Hey, mind if we go to Subway instead?" with appropriate intonation leads to the outcome you desired. But I can imagine that person saying "Let's go to Subway instead", or "I want to go to Subway instead", and now this would communicate to me that there are more serious reasons behind it.

The way I'd say it in real life to proactively minimize misreading from the other side would be: "Could we go to Subway instead? At work today, the customer wanted to go for a burger for lunch, so I already had one and don't feel like having another.".

I find that what NVC identified as the four steps gets more and more important the closer you are to someone, and the more emotional the topic is. Clearly separating facts from emotions and not saying someone caused your feelings are wonderful de-escalating tools.

This doesn't happen to me in the real world, this is how it goes with my wife:

> "Hey, mind if we do to Subway instead?" > "Okay" > a night of arguing > "I didnt even want to go to Subway, I wanted to go where we were going"

The article left out a key part of 'make a request', which is Rosenberg redefines the word slightly. It isn't really the right word to use; what it means is 'don't complicate a request with unrelated matters'.

"Clean this up before you do anything else." isn't necessarily a Rosenberg-demand and "would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?" isn't necessarily a Rosenberg-request. The test is what happens if the person says no.

If in the first case that is the end of the matter then it was secretly a request dressed up in hard language.

If in the second case there is an hour of cold-shouldering and recriminations then it was really a demand dressed up in flowery language.

A lot of times the steps are actually necessary, because the request isn't followed. That was my problem when I had a coach teaching me about NVC. I wasn't able to communicate effectively with them and I was really stressed out.

I think there are technical people who just care about getting things done and other people who need to have a nice package, because they want their feelings not to be hurt. These are the people who start their requests in chat with "Hi, how are you? Do you have time, I need something ..."

The only way to communicate with these people is NVC.

Though if you just follow the reasons behind the four points in the article and implement them your way, it would be fine too, no?

It's like with lots of these communication systems. (P.E.T. is similar, but more oriented at communicatuion with children) The authors have some specific examples of situations, and how they'd communicate, but it's all driven by some core principles and goals, and as long as you're also driven by and mind those all the time, you'll be fine using your own language, or the language of your peer.

Could you provide a link towards "P.E.T."? The term is not googleble..

Parent Effectiveness Training:

https://www.gordontraining.com/parent-programs/parent-effect...

https://www.parentskills.com.au/blog/pet-page-summary-skills...

Thank you!

I read it ages ago in it’s German translation and while I remember there was a bit of awkwardness, I always understood it as an exaggeration for the sake of the example. My main takeaway was not the kind of language described in the book, but the thoughts behind it: the effects of your phrasing on how your message is received etc.

I think I mostly use the ideas from the book without thinking at this point — and in order for that to work you most likely will have to find your own way.

Reactions like this tell me people despise corporate indoctrination.

This happens mostly because orgs are stuck in confrontational, or at least non-cooperative ways of working, and expect that communication tools will somehow make it acceptable.

When the tool is used, people soon realize that they won't get what they need, and that they now have to endure a speciific ceremonial.

I instead hope that parents start teaching it to children. While my online decorum has major room for improvements, I feel like I'm pretty conscientious in my in person interactions and gained a lot of that through explicit instructions from my parents.

This would require a large body of educators both equipped and empowered to educate, coupled with parents invested in the success of their children.

My experience in at least the California educational system -- where both of my parents were teachers, with Mom also serving on the school board for some time -- gives me little hope that this will ever be the case.

To be fair, I believe a big part of this kind of reaction often comes from being pushed trendy "easy fix for something important" from HR or top management quite frequently.

Or maybe when you pick your words carefully to get desired reactions it is manipulative. I'd rather not manipulate others, it leads to me oftentimes sticking my foot in my mouth, but at least others know what I am thinking and I know I'm not lying to others for personal gain.

A few points Re speaking your mind:

- Talking is an incomplete way capturing your thoughts. (Gets progressively worse with videos / phone calls / emails / telegrams ...). You will never capture all you're thinking in a few words. So IMO speaking your mind is essentially blurting what's floating on the top rather than actually speaking your mind. You probably can see how that can strain a conversation.

- Believe it or not, Communication is a 2 way problem: It doesn't matter even if you perfectly capture it, if the other party ain't listening. Or is only listening to cherry pick metaphors to rant on. Even if they are listening, the first few aggro sentences (or some that are sandwiched) can set them off - making them non-receptive to the rest. Again another reason people try to pick their words carefully so that they can put their best foot forward.

-A world where clairvoyance is the norm is where speaking your mind may make sense: Otherwise you are one of the few who is baring his soul every time while others are picking a time and place. Good or bad, I am sure you see this puts you at a great disadvantage.

- When bad news is delivered, we all process it differently. One of the common mechanics is attacking the messenger in some way or other OR trying to blame the messenger for delivering it badly. Again something to keep in mind when talking.

- Life is grey: If you want to define careful words as manipulation, that's polarizing the situation. In reality it could be manipulation or just plain old 'being careful'.

I am not going to be able to convince you in one post :) neither can I tell you how to live your life. These have been some of my observations that moved me from a 'speak your mind' person to a lot more 'reasonable' person model. So HTH!

This is the most convincing argument I've heard yet on why speaking your mind can lead to dissatisfactory outcomes. coming from a speak your mind type of person, this is the most compelling perspective I've seen yet.

Perhaps a better name would help, such as "Non-hostile communication". There is no such thing as violent communication, and the confusion between speech and violence is precisely what is driving the current pro-censorship wave.

I believe that communication can be violent, but I guess that depends on one’s definition of “violent.” I see “violent” as causing harm to another being and I can think of many examples how communication can be used for that. Also this is assuming “communication” means verbal communication, because I also see punching someone as a form of communication, or sending one message to another.

That all being said, I think when we receive communication that we perceive as violent, we often have a reaction to try to stop people from saying those things, thus the increase in censorship. I don’t think that works well. What I like about NVC is not about stopping someone from communicating in a violent way, but choosing to respond in a nonviolent way. Similar to MLK’s beliefs on nonviolent resistance. In the end, I believe the goal is to change the way people communicate, but not violently stopping someone from being violent.

I agree. If I'm not mistaken the name comes from Ahimsa [1]. So, Communication for Non-Violence and Compassion might be more accurate.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

I believe there was a movement to change the name to compassionate communication, maybe even led by Rosenberg himself, but I don’t think it has had as much traction as NVC.

The premise is naive speech may inadvertently force negative and clouding emotion in the recipient, and is aimed at critical scenarios, where misinterpretation of speech causes the recipient's body chemistry to activate, and then the conv goes off a cliff and things get even worse. If you don't believe that is happening, the techniques for identifying where it is happening and how to simply avoid them seems kind of pointless.

There may be some reason preventing your use of the word 'violent' for verbal ways to cause negative physical reactions and mental trauma. You may want to ask yourself why you are downplaying the core principle here and, I'm guessing, the agency of the speaker in it..

Can speech cause harm?

Absolutely. Social threat triggers the exact same pain response wiring in the brain as physical violence.

Hurt feelings are not violence. By that logic, the existence of gay people is violence against religious fundamentalists.

No, they're not violence. They are a possible consequence of it.

Violence, as per my dictionary, requires intentional action (but is not necessarily physical). The existence of gay people is not intentional, and therefore is not an act of violence against religious fundamentalists.

So a parent who relentlessly verbally bullies their child every day is what, just exchanging ideas?

I would say they are a terrible parent, they are a bully, and an awful human being.

But not violent.

Just the same as I wouldn't say pirating a movie was theft, but by saying that I'm not saying I think it's OK - these are just different concepts.

I understand, but completely disagree. I think the idea that physical harm is real but psychological harm doesn't exist is just wrong.

Who said psychological harm doesn't exist? It just isn't a form of violence, that's all.

It is important not to conflate the two concepts, because violence is widely criminalized and psychological harm is highly subjective. The immediate implication of bundling these completely disparate concepts is that somebody will have to arbitrate which verbal expressions constitute violent crime. This is not conjecture, activist groups have already regulated speech in several countries on the premise that words are violence.

The whole idea of "X is not being taken seriously but Y is, so I will start calling X Y instead, and anyone who corrects me tries to downplay X" is insane to me.

I said no such thing, and in fact was careful to disclaim such an idea. Perhaps not careful enough.

I meant to say it's not violent by my understanding of the term, not that it can't cause real harm. It absolutely can.