Non-Violent Communication is all about being 'annoyingly precise'

[Subsidiarity]

I will apologize in advance that I tend to take in core principles then make them my own in practice and so with NVC. As such I am not sure exactly what of NVC is canonical and what I have made my own.

 

One of the core ideas of NVC is the idea of 'judgment' (or 'jackal'). And in defining what exactly is a judgment may be my first break with the canon. I have come to define an NVC judgment as 'language that confuses objective and subjective', or that confuses the world for one's experience of it. And there is little doubt that such language exists and causes problems.

 

We could begin with the statement 'Stef is funny'. This statement is of the same form as 'Stef is human' and yet says something very different. 'Stef is human' is talking about the world, objective reality, specifically Stef's relationship to other humans. (The truth of the statement doesn't change its status. The same can be said of the statement 'Stef is canine' though it is false.) 'Stef is funny' is talking about the speakers experience, subjective 'reality', of Stef while the language suggests that funny is an objective characteristic of Stef in the way that being human is an objective characteristic of Stef.

 

Why does this matter? The simplest example has taken the name 'jackal trap' in my home.

 

Child one: "You are stupid."
Child two: "No, I'm not."
Child one: "Yes, you are."
Child two: "No, I'm not!"

'You are stupid', assuming it is sincere, is confusing Child1's experience of Child2 with an objective characteristic of Child2. This makes it seem like they are disagreeing about something in the objective world. If Child1 were to be to be annoyingly precise and NVC compliant he would say something like 'My experience of you is stupidity.' Child2 could counter with 'My experience of myself is not stupidity'. This language makes it much more clear that they are not disagreeing about anything, merely having different experiences of the same thing.

This can get more complicated if words like 'funny' or 'stupid' are defined objectively. 'Funny' could be defined to include anybody that has made Joe Rogan laugh. 'Stupid' could be defined to include anybody that has scored less than 85 on an IQ test.

[J. D. Stembal]

I have a small problem with defining stupid and funny as objective. Perhaps an IQ score could work as an objective metric of the potential to learn, but that fundamentally doesn't define what the child says when they call each other stupid. Calling someone stupid is meant to be a personal attack. What does the word mean if people suddenly start trying to use it objectively? Does it mean willful ignorance or being "dense"?

 

I was trying to make a logical argument with my former girlfriend and when I finished, she came back with a "yeah, but..." line of reasoning, meaning she didn't listen to the whole argument and just focused on the conclusion. I suggested that she may be dense - willfully ignorant - but not stupid, because I know stupid is an inflammatory word. In the end, she took offense anyway. After that, I was unable to have any civil discussions with her so I just avoided discussions or being intimate. She then suggested that I start reading Non-Violent Communication, which I immediately suspected of being a crock of piss, but I have to be honest that I never gave it a chance. Perhaps I should have.

 

The ex definitely told me that I was being too judgmental when I told her that I wanted to raise children peacefully, meaning she couldn't brainwash them into being good God-fearing Catholics like her parents did to her. A judgment is simply coming to a decisive and sensible conclusion, which I did by leaving her. People who do evil turn the word into "narrow-minded" and make you out to be the bad guy.

[Subsidiarity]

I have a small problem with defining stupid and funny as objective. Perhaps an IQ score could work as an objective metric of the potential to learn, but that fundamentally doesn't define what the child says when they call each other stupid. Calling someone stupid is meant to be a personal attack. What does the word mean if people suddenly start trying to use it objectively? Does it mean willful ignorance or being "dense"?

Yes, objectively 'stupid' does not reflect what these children are doing. The main point there, I suppose, is that it is not a problem with the word but rather a problem with how it is used. For the geeks in the house, in regular expressions some functions are 'greedy'. There is no problem calling something greedy in programming despite some people using it as jackal attack.

 

The ex definitely told me that I was being too judgmental when I told her that I wanted to raise children peacefully, meaning she couldn't brainwash them into being good God-fearing Catholics like her parents did to her. A judgment is simply coming to a decisive and sensible conclusion, which I did by leaving her. People who do evil turn the word into "narrow-minded" and make you out to be the bad guy.

 

Note that even 'judgmental' is used as a jackal the way that your ex used it. In NVC 'judgment(al)' is not a jackal because it is being used as a substitute for objective characteristics. Yes, I am assuming that your ex did not objectively define her terms. Note that your use of 'sensible' is a jackal. It can be a difficult habit to break. But if you have strong relationships then it may not be a problem.

[J. D. Stembal]

I see what you mean. The word, sensible, I pulled straight from the Google definition of the word judgement. I do see how sensible could be used to color human interactions, "Be sensible for Pete's sake!" What is the bottom line, if you want to have non-violent communications? Do you have to objectively define every word before having a discussion, like in formal debates?

 

It could be difficult to universalize words such as funny, because some people will laugh at a particular joke, and some will not. Intelligent (or stupid) could be universalized, as you suggested, if we could run people through IQ tests on a semi-regular basis (results may change over time).

 

What are the opposite of jackal words? Can you give some examples?

[Subsidiarity]

A jackal is merely the confusion of objective and subjective. There are different ways around it. As we have mentioned one way is to define things objectively. Another way is to make it clear that your language show experiences are not objective characterises. Like in the OP Child1 said,'My experience of you is stupidity.' Another way around it is to educate the person you are talking to. If they come to understand that experiences are not a claim on objective reality then you can say 'you are funny' without the confusion. In NVC talk this would be to 'put on your giraffe ears'. As opposed to 'putting on your jackal ears' where a person hears claims on their characteristics despite your language not indicating any such thing.

[PatrickC]

One major problem I've always had with NVC is that it seemingly prefers to avoid confrontation. As far as I understand NVC doesn't like to make final judgments of people, but then again I could be wrong here perhaps.

[Subsidiarity]

One major problem I've always had with NVC is that it seemingly prefers to avoid confrontation. As far as I understand NVC doesn't like to make final judgments of people, but then again I could be wrong here perhaps.

 

In NVC judgement has meaning that is different than the common usage. An NVC judgement is a statement that confuses the world for ones experience of it. Let's consider a statement that is relevant to FDR, 'Mike is evil.' The common usage of this phrase would be similar to 'I don't like Mike, a lot.' This is a statement about the speaker's experience, even though 'Mike is evil' seems to be saying something about Mike. NVC tries to avoid these confusions.

 

On the other hand if by 'Mike is evil' an FDR'er meant that Mike knowingly violates principles of UPB, that really is a statement about Mike. There is no objective/subjective confusion. The statement is in objective form, and the content is about objective characteristics. This is NVC compliant, as I understand it.

 

The main reason to stress this ob/sub difference is for clear ('annoyingly precise') dialogue when going into a confrontation so that it can be meaningfully resolved.

 

If we go into a confrontation with the idea that the problem is that 'I am too angry' it implies a negative prescription to solve the problem. The problem is with me and my excess anger. Less anger will solve the problem. NVC shifts the focus to your experience and needs. Perhaps you feel agitated and disturbed. Then perhaps you need more tranquillity and empathy. You can then turn that into a request, like for me to speak to you more quietly and for us to discuss our feelings daily.

 

Resolving conflict and establishing empathy are the main goals of NVC.

[PatrickC]

The main reason to stress this ob/sub difference is for clear ('annoyingly precise') dialogue when going into a confrontation so that it can be meaningfully resolved.

 

Yes, I think 'judgment' should be annoyingly precise. It should be based on objective reason of course. I just think that NVC claims to be able to resolve ALL conflict where sometimes no resolve can be made. It's not a question of being 'too angry' whatever that means. More over it's just pointing out a fact.

[Subsidiarity]

I just think that NVC claims to be able to resolve ALL conflict where sometimes no resolve can be made.

You could come to such a conclusion in at least two ways. I am interested to know why you think some conflicts may not be resolvable.

 

Consider two children who both want the same toy. It is a finite resource that cannot be shared so at least one child will have to go without the toy. This may be what you mean about a conflict that cannot be resolved. The NVC method is to look past the toy, the 'strategy to meet a need', and look to the need itself. One child may want to connect with the past and the other may want self-expression. Once the needs are identified there are infinitely many, by definition of an NVC 'need', ways to address these needs. NVC assumes there are enough resources locally to have these needs met. That is another reason you may not think that all conflicts can be resolved.

 

Generally, conflicts arise on the level of strategies. We all have the same needs to varying degrees at different times. If we think creatively about how we can meet our needs, and don't merely cling to our preferred strategy, then I suspect that we could use the resources at hand to meet our physical and psychological needs.

 

NVC limits:

I wouldn't try to NVC my way out of a tax bill. You can't do creative problem solving with people who are following orders and not allowed to think. The idea of 'need' can be tricky to understand. So, if somebody couldn't figure out how to make the leap from 'strategy' to 'need' the conflict would get stuck. For other psychological reasons some people will not consider giving up their preferred strategy or will not negotiate with 'the enemy'. Those are some practical reasons why a conflict may not get resolved.

 

Otherwise the theory seems sound, and it has worked well for my family helping to repair damage over the last 1-2 years.

[Kaki]

What about a sadists need to hurt others?

[PatrickC]

Personally I don't have much wish to meet the needs of someone that has harmed me. The best I expect is an apology and to see a concerted effort to change their behaviour. It seems to me that NVC is just a way to of not passing judgement on individuals that actually deserve it as a means to appease them. Trying to meet the needs of someone else whilst simultaneously attempting to meet your own, where empirical judgement is necessary would not be possible under NVC as far as I can see. As you would be neglecting your own needs in favour of theirs.

 

Real Time Relationships (RTR) would in my opinion be a much better way of getting intimacy and trust between people. Or removing them permanently.

[LovePrevails]

NVC is a pretty good model for resolving conflict with people without provoking an excess of defensiveness. It provides means of diffusing resentment by connecting with the other persons feelings empathetically, showing you understand where they come from and inviting them to see it from your point of view and work together.  Having said that it is a complicated model, often unweildy, and takes quite a bit to quite a lot of practice to use with any fluency. It makes it very hard to be direct without erring in using some degree of jackal language, for example an honest statement such as "I'm pissed off at you" is discouraged, you would be urged to use something like, "When you x I feel angry, because I need y, would you please z."

 

One advantage of NVC is it is big on self-empathy, tuning into your own feelings and digging deeper to find the unmet needs that underlie those feelings. I found it very helpful in my personal development when I first discovered it but I don't practice it any more because I prefer to use a more direct approach, however some of its underlying principles have been internalised and help me in conflict situations and with my work.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that it is just one model of communication, and like all models it has its advantages and disadvantages. People who are really really into NVC tend to see it as the all, and people who are against it seem to overlook any merits it may have.

[PatrickC]

I agree that NVC might be useful for resolving conflict in a work environment, where intimacy is not particularly necessary and people are much more likely to be on a level playing field. But for intimate relationships hopelessly poor.

[TheRobin]

Something that bothers me reading it, is: Why only talk about needs? I mean, most of our day's problems and issues come with wants not needs, so it's seems kind of artificial.

[shirgall]

Something that bothers me reading it, is: Why only talk about needs? I mean, most of our day's problems and issues come with wants not needs, so it's seems kind of artificial.

 

Aye. The Harvard "Principled Negotiation" Project (Ury, Fisher, et. al., see the seminal Getting To Yes) uses the more neutral "interests" rather than get caught in the semantic trap of "needs", "wants", "desires", and "wishes".

[Bipedal Primate]

NVC is a pretty good model for resolving conflict with people without provoking an excess of defensiveness. It provides means of diffusing resentment by connecting with the other persons feelings empathetically, showing you understand where they come from and inviting them to see it from your point of view and work together.  Having said that it is a complicated model, often unweildy, and takes quite a bit to quite a lot of practice to use with any fluency. It makes it very hard to be direct without erring in using some degree of jackal language, for example an honest statement such as "I'm pissed off at you" is discouraged, you would be urged to use something like, "When you x I feel angry, because I need y, would you please z."

 

One advantage of NVC is it is big on self-empathy, tuning into your own feelings and digging deeper to find the unmet needs that underlie those feelings. I found it very helpful in my personal development when I first discovered it but I don't practice it any more because I prefer to use a more direct approach, however some of its underlying principles have been internalised and help me in conflict situations and with my work.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that it is just one model of communication, and like all models it has its advantages and disadvantages. People who are really really into NVC tend to see it as the all, and people who are against it seem to overlook any merits it may have.

Well said. :-)

[LovePrevails]

I agree that NVC might be useful for resolving conflict in a work environment, where intimacy is not particularly necessary and people are much more likely to be on a level playing field. But for intimate relationships hopelessly poor.

 

do you mean both voluntary ones? that has not been my experience, using NVC-like methods I find more effective in friendships and intimate relationships than standard approaches

Something that bothers me reading it, is: Why only talk about needs? I mean, most of our day's problems and issues come with wants not needs, so it's seems kind of artificial.

 

In the NVC worldview our wants derrive from our needs, it asks you to look at what needs underlie your wants and the wants of the person you are engaging with to give you several more options for getting your needs met than those you originally considered

[TheRobin]

In the NVC worldview our wants derrive from our needs, it asks you to look at what needs underlie your wants and the wants of the person you are engaging with to give you several more options for getting your needs met than those you originally considered

Is that accurate though? Maybe you can help me understand it by an example? Say, if I want to play some video game for an hour this afternoon, what need would that underlie, or how would I figure that out if and what need underlies that want?