NVC does not encourage immediately asking questions to increase your intellectual understanding of the situation when someone is hurt/upset and it is not yet clear what that person wants from the interaction.
For example, take the author's example sentence: "I’m furious with my husband. He’s never around when I need him.". I would say that it's pretty clear that the person is feeling furious because their need for support isn't being met. What is less clear is what the person wants from me right now. My guess would be that the person wants empathy and understanding of their pain, but it may also be that they want some advice on how to solve the problem they're having with their husband.
Now this is where NVC says it's better to err on the side of the other person wanting empathy by guessing their feelings and needs (and this doesn't have to be done in the "classical" NVC way or even verbally at all depending on the situation). And if it turns out they actually wanted advice then of course it's fine to start asking questions to get a better intellectual understanding of the situation, but jumping immediately to "fixing" mode when the other person hasn't yet received sufficient empathy can be very hurtful.
The problem the author had with the example is the response has a little too much mirroring. Your response:
> I would say that it's pretty clear that the person is feeling furious because their need for support isn't being met.
Is better as it is rephrased, and mentions support.
Edit: oh, and there are a couple books with those names, so metioning the author would be nice :)
OTOH, CC attempts to prescribe how to behave are pretty poor. I would not focus too much effort on emulating those.
At first read, all 3 sound like fairly different books. A year after I read them, I was going over all the notes I had made for them, and was surprised to find out that all 3 are mostly saying the same things.
As for the authors:
Difficult Conversations: https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-...
Crucial Conversations: https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...
my issue is that 90% of the time, my sincerity would mean leaving the convo
Not being facetious at all, but that heuristic doesn’t work for anti-maskers. The information they have is widely viewable on Trump’s Twitter feed and Newsmax. I know what they know and I still have trouble understanding how they can think the way they do.
Ask yourself this: When an anti-vaxxer speaks to another anti-vaxxer, what is different compared to when they speak to you? Are they more guarded with you? Why?
The other point, which is often not emphasized enough: It's not enough to be something, you have to show it. You may know everything about why the person is an anti-vaxxer, but he doesn't know that. Asking open ended, nonconfrontational and nonjudgmental questions often signals to others that your goal is to listen, and not to change their mind.
Of course, if your goal is to change their mind, you'll make little progress.
https://theconversation.com/why-hard-core-trump-supporters-i...
It is often a facet of populists and underdogs, that they do not understand what is required of power. Also, if intimidation and lies have been tolerated in school and working lives without reprecussions, it may be part of the conditioning creeping up into seats of power. Look at it as a mirror of consequences.
Stay curious.
I'm fiscally moderate and socially liberal, but...
> that heuristic doesn’t work for anti-maskers.
> I still have trouble understanding how they can think the way they do.
Indeed you have watched some media, and you have observed some behavior, but you are extrapolating that into a confident perception of knowing what an entire group of people comprehensively think and believe, are you not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
If you were to observe someone else doing the same but with a different logical grouping, say, by ethnicity or certain religions, would you consider that acceptable?
Me: I read their media frequently and in-depth.
You: No, what I meant was the theory of the mind....
Me: Sure, pal.
Examples of mind reading:
- Not being facetious at all, but [that heuristic doesn’t work] for anti-maskers.
- [the information they have] is widely viewable on Trump’s Twitter feed and Newsmax.
- [I know what they know] and I still have trouble understanding how they can [think the way they do].
The amount of people who seem to have this self-perception is starting to look like a fairly substantial percentage of the userbase here. Will be interesting to see if this changes in 2021.
> There’s only one way to come to understand the other person’s story, and that’s by being curious. Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?” Instead of asking, “How can they be so irrational?” ask, “How might they see the world such that their view makes sense?” Certainty locks us out of their story; curiosity lets us in.
The heading of that section is Move From Certainty To Curiosity
I've always said that the NVC book is great on teaching the how but not the why, and that DC is the exact opposite. The latter gives you a lot of insight, but with a lot less practical guidance.
Similarly, the book Crucial Conversations specifies the following 4 ingredients to listening:
- Be sincere
- Show curiosity
- Stay curious (i.e. don't react)
- Be patient