In Defense of Nonviolent Communication

[ClearConscience]

I recorded a response to Stefan's arguments against Nonviolent Communication, in hopes that many of you who were mislead by him would reconsider both its validity and usefulness.  Take a listen and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the comments below.  Also, if you want to criticize the substance of my response, I would love to hear that as well.

Please don't criticize my speech or delivery of information.  I probably won't be very receptive to these types of comments.

https://soundcloud.com/thosewhostayuofm/in-defense-of-nonviolent-communication

[Kevin Beal]

Hey thanks for starting this important conversation!

 

Stef doesn't really post on the boards anymore, so he's not likely to respond. You'll have much better luck calling into the show if you want to offer him correction. (Although, I would avoid thought experiments about his daughter which are disturbing in nature). I hope you don't mind if I take a swing at it in his place.

 

I listened to your recording (and the recent call-in show) and gave it some consideration, and I think that I disagree with certain things you've said. And I think these disagreements are important. I'd like to continue this conversation and perhaps see where my own thinking is in error, or have the chance to correct you on something that I find very important and have given a lot of thought.

 

I've tried to recreate the propositions in the language you used (albeit condensed) so as not to misrepresent you. Please correct me where I fail to represent your position accurately.

 

My Disagreements

 

Proposition #1

 

Don't communicate the judgments and criticisms that you have about the other person, because it doesn't help them in any way. Only share what your feelings and needs are, and ask the other person what are their feelings and needs (via the NVC methodology).

 

I personally stand to lose a lot from people withholding their judgments and criticisms of me. The prospect of people not sharing that with me actually deeply troubles me.

 

There have been times in my life where I have done things which were lacking in integrity and even immoral in a few cases. A few people have sat me down and shared with me the truth of what I was doing: lacking integrity / acting immorally. It stung quite a bit at first and I had a defensive reaction. I retreated physically and emotionally from them, but I thought about it and they were totally 100% right. It was really difficult, but it was one of the most positive things that has ever happened in my life and led me to make serious commitments to principled living, and I haven't done any of those things since.

 

I have coworkers who aren't always the most tactful in their criticisms, but they rely on my programming and design to deliver the best possible product to them and to the customers. I don't like to think of my work as being crappy, but despite that, it occasionally is crappy (by cutting corners or carelessness). It took some getting used to, but I make a concerted effort to encourage criticism of my work because the end product is more important than my emotional investment in being a good programmer.

 

If I am in a romantic relationship with a woman, I am very eager to know what her judgments are. I want to know that a lot more than I want to know what observations she has. (I'm very sensitive to the difference). I want to know if she thinks that I do X too much or not enough, what she likes and doesn't like about her experience of me. It doesn't mean I'll just automatically change my behavior, but it's extremely important for me to know those things. I wouldn't get involved with a woman whose judgment I did not trust and want to hear about.

 

 

Proposition #2

 

The healthy, NVC way of getting your needs met is to talk to the other person about what your needs are and how their behavior is eliciting the feelings which reveal that these needs are not being met. You ask them (never demand) that they modify that behavior so that you may get that need met.

 

I have actually had some pretty destructive first hand experience with my mother asking me to change my behavior so that I could meet her needs. I'm doubtful that she would be considered a model NVC kind of person, but already we need to add extra layers of complexity on top of the theory in order to account for someone using this same form to selfishly manipulate her children into managing her emotions for her. (A layer of complexity that would be unnecessary as compared to UPB in describing violence).

 

I looked at the list of needs that NVC aims for people to get met which include things like appreciation and belonging. The word "need" also refers to things like food, water and air. If I were to engage in behavior which serves to prevent someone from getting their need to food and water, this clearly makes me the asshole, if not actively homicidal. If however I am engaging in behavior which prevents in some way that person from experiencing a subjective state called "belonging", I am obviously not responsible in the same way I would be by preventing them from breathing.

 

The word "need" paints a particular picture in the mind about not being able to live without, being entitled to the satisfaction of that need. It's precisely for this reason that my mother used the word, and why it was so toxic. She did not say "hey, I'm feeling insecure and I don't want to feel that way, and I have the desire that you manage my insecurity for me", which would have been honest.

 

I resolutely oppose using the word "need" precisely because of the way it can prevent win-win outcomes. Nobody else is responsible for my feelings of belonging, or trusting me, or appreciating me and all of the other "needs" listed. I don't want anything to feel obligated. I would rather them do it out of their natural compassion for me, or out of principle.

 

An alternative methodology which I think is better is Real Time Relationships (also a book by Stef).

 

 

Proposition #3

 

Violent communication (in contradistinction to Non-violent Communication) is "passing a moral judgment instead of observing". This is problematic (and violent) because it provokes a defensive response (or anything else which provokes this same defensive reaction). In other words, their own self image is being attacked. Making demands is similarly violent communication, because it takes away their freedom.

 

Starting your car can trigger a veteran's post traumatic stress disorder, and make them experience being attacked, and this is clearly not violent to start your car. Causing defensive feelings could be necessary, but is demonstrably insufficient a condition to conclude that it is violence. Other people's subjective experiences cannot logically be the basis for determining what is violence.

 

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I took offense to your statements and felt defensive in the same way I might if someone condemned me as a bad guy. Does that make it violence? Presumably not.

 

Perhaps this is my own ignorance, but I cannot comprehend how making demands of people takes away anyone's ability to choose, or limit their freedom; unless the demand is backed by some kind of violence, in which case it's not the demand which takes away their freedom but the threat of violence. When my niece was little, she demanded things of me. That was not violence. I was very happy to obey.

 

Maybe it's explained in Rosenberg's books, but I don't know why any of these definitions of violence are used as opposed to any arbitrary definition of violence. Like, if whatever produces defensiveness is violent is the conclusion, what is the logical basis for this? Why is this definition better than any other?

 

You said that any thinking person would consider statements like "you are vile and worthless and a slut" to be violence, but I really don't. Obviously it's really nasty and horrible, but as far as I could glean from your recording and in conversation with other NVC advocates is that violence is synonymous with horrible and nasty, and that horrible and nasty is violence, like they define each other. I could obviously be missing something important, but if that were the case, it would be a clear tautology, and would be meaningless, philosophically.

 

 

Proposition #4

 

Stef is claiming that any communication which doesn't fall under the NVC framework must be violent, and this is an example of the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent". (AKA a false dilemma).

 

I think that the actual logical sequence that Stef used was different than what you said. Here is my interpretation of his argument:

 

1. Moral judgment is violence

2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment

3. NVC says that certain types of communication are violent

Conclusion: NVC is passing moral judgment

 

Non-violent and violent is an actual true dichotomy. It really has to be one or the other. What Stef is talking about in your description of the alleged fallacy is not NVC the specific framework, but actual non-violence (anything different necessarily including violence). And because NVC the framework claims to be a methodology specifically to achieve non-violence, then it is internally inconsistent, leading to hypocrisy.

 

 

Proposition #5

 

Stef claims that NVC is in the realm of thoughts and UPB (as a moral philosophy) is in the realm of actions. This is wrong because NVC is all about how to communicate effectively, and he's even more wrong because moral philosophy is composed of thoughts, therefore he's actually got it backwards. (And people just passively accept his statements because he is verbose and talks quickly).

 

It's understandable that you would not know this if you haven't read the book, but he's actually talking about is what specifically is being evaluated under the framework. In UPB, behavior isn't true or false, rather it can be preferable or not preferable as satisfying the condition of universality. ("Preferable" describing how it fits the standard and not the subjective state of preferring something).

 

However, with NVC the determining factor of whether or not communication is violent is if it causes these subjective states of defensiveness and self loathing. So, in that sense, he's right.

 

Also, this characterization that you make about people blindly accepting anything Stef says is pretty damn insulting, and unjust. If I understanding your position correctly, you are actively working against your own stated values by saying this. (I only say this because it's hypocritical, and not because my offense means anything).

 

 

Conclusion

 

I have a powerful distaste for NVC, but I am no expert and am always open to counter argument and counter evidence. But whenever I have observed or been in an NVC conversation, it's clear that I'm being treated as if I am going to be defensive and that my ego is fragile, that I need to be handled delicately. I find that incredibly irritating and condescending. I also cannot treat myself as if my judgment is of no use to anyone else. I would feel disgusted with myself if I actually believed that.

 

I also find it suffocating in actual practice. It comes off like a script, it feels inauthentic and in order to maintain it, I have to suppress my judgment and any indication in body language or tone which would betray my act that I don't feel judgments about the observations.

 

I appreciate that you would disagree, and I hope that you do and tell me where I'm in error, and that you give this response serious consideration, even if anything I say provokes defensiveness or threatens your self image.

[Yeravos]

If you are interested in clarifying the NVC approach, I think you'd reach more people if you called in and had a conversation with Stef.

[J-William]

many of you who were mislead by him

 

if you want to criticize the substance of my response, I would love to hear that as well.

 

Please don't criticize my speech or delivery of information. I probably won't be very receptive to these types of comments.

 

Wow, I see here nothing but the approach... It screams out that I shouldn't bother listening to your argument.

[Kevin Beal]

1. Moral judgment is violence

2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment

3. NVC says that certain types of communication are violent

Conclusion: NVC is passing moral judgment

Whoops! I forgot add the final and most important step in logic:

 

therefore non-violent communication is violent.

[Matt D]

Are you trying to say you're not getting your needs met by Stef for understanding and acceptance?

 

When you say "This is just false" (16:20) I suppose this is exempt from the NVC edict not to criticize? Even if you're right communicating that isn't productive because it's just going to trigger a defense in other people. With all due respect, I really can't take you seriously when you don't follow your own advice. How would you react if someone who is three hundred pounds was trying to sell you a diet book while eating a slice of cake?

 

I recorded a response to Stefan's arguments against Nonviolent Communication, in hopes that many of you who were mislead by him would reconsider both its validity and usefulness.  Take a listen and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the comments below.  Also, if you want to criticize the substance of my response, I would love to hear that as well.

Please don't criticize my speech or delivery of information.  I probably won't be very receptive to these types of comments.

https://soundcloud.com/thosewhostayuofm/in-defense-of-nonviolent-communication

 

I don't have much to add on what Kevin posted above (well put, Kev), except to link to a video I did a while back critiquing NVC. I had not heard Stef's arguments on the subject, but I suppose I was following him blindly through osmosis of the Big Chatty Forehead.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZikmz6HR_4

[ClearConscience]

Hey thanks for starting this important conversation!

 

Stef doesn't really post on the boards anymore, so he's not likely to respond. You'll have much better luck calling into the show if you want to offer him correction. (Although, I would avoid thought experiments about his daughter which are disturbing in nature). I hope you don't mind if I take a swing at it in his place.

 

I listened to your recording (and the recent call-in show) and gave it some consideration, and I think that I disagree with certain things you've said. And I think these disagreements are important. I'd like to continue this conversation and perhaps see where my own thinking is in error, or have the chance to correct you on something that I find very important and have given a lot of thought.

 

I've tried to recreate the propositions in the language you used (albeit condensed) so as not to misrepresent you. Please correct me where I fail to represent your position accurately.

 

My Disagreements

 

Proposition #1

 

Don't communicate the judgments and criticisms that you have about the other person, because it doesn't help them in any way. Only share what your feelings and needs are, and ask the other person what are their feelings and needs (via the NVC methodology).

 

I personally stand to lose a lot from people withholding their judgments and criticisms of me. The prospect of people not sharing that with me actually deeply troubles me.

 

There have been times in my life where I have done things which were lacking in integrity and even immoral in a few cases. A few people have sat me down and shared with me the truth of what I was doing: lacking integrity / acting immorally. It stung quite a bit at first and I had a defensive reaction. I retreated physically and emotionally from them, but I thought about it and they were totally 100% right. It was really difficult, but it was one of the most positive things that has ever happened in my life and led me to make serious commitments to principled living, and I haven't done any of those things since.

 

I have coworkers who aren't always the most tactful in their criticisms, but they rely on my programming and design to deliver the best possible product to them and to the customers. I don't like to think of my work as being crappy, but despite that, it occasionally is crappy (by cutting corners or carelessness). It took some getting used to, but I make a concerted effort to encourage criticism of my work because the end product is more important than my emotional investment in being a good programmer.

 

If I am in a romantic relationship with a woman, I am very eager to know what her judgments are. I want to know that a lot more than I want to know what observations she has. (I'm very sensitive to the difference). I want to know if she thinks that I do X too much or not enough, what she likes and doesn't like about her experience of me. It doesn't mean I'll just automatically change my behavior, but it's extremely important for me to know those things. I wouldn't get involved with a woman whose judgment I did not trust and want to hear about.

 

 

Proposition #2

 

The healthy, NVC way of getting your needs met is to talk to the other person about what your needs are and how their behavior is eliciting the feelings which reveal that these needs are not being met. You ask them (never demand) that they modify that behavior so that you may get that need met.

 

I have actually had some pretty destructive first hand experience with my mother asking me to change my behavior so that I could meet her needs. I'm doubtful that she would be considered a model NVC kind of person, but already we need to add extra layers of complexity on top of the theory in order to account for someone using this same form to selfishly manipulate her children into managing her emotions for her. (A layer of complexity that would be unnecessary as compared to UPB in describing violence).

 

I looked at the list of needs that NVC aims for people to get met which include things like appreciation and belonging. The word "need" also refers to things like food, water and air. If I were to engage in behavior which serves to prevent someone from getting their need to food and water, this clearly makes me the asshole, if not actively homicidal. If however I am engaging in behavior which prevents in some way that person from experiencing a subjective state called "belonging", I am obviously not responsible in the same way I would be by preventing them from breathing.

 

The word "need" paints a particular picture in the mind about not being able to live without, being entitled to the satisfaction of that need. It's precisely for this reason that my mother used the word, and why it was so toxic. She did not say "hey, I'm feeling insecure and I don't want to feel that way, and I have the desire that you manage my insecurity for me", which would have been honest.

 

I resolutely oppose using the word "need" precisely because of the way it can prevent win-win outcomes. Nobody else is responsible for my feelings of belonging, or trusting me, or appreciating me and all of the other "needs" listed. I don't want anything to feel obligated. I would rather them do it out of their natural compassion for me, or out of principle.

 

An alternative methodology which I think is better is Real Time Relationships (also a book by Stef).

 

 

Proposition #3

 

Violent communication (in contradistinction to Non-violent Communication) is "passing a moral judgment instead of observing". This is problematic (and violent) because it provokes a defensive response (or anything else which provokes this same defensive reaction). In other words, their own self image is being attacked. Making demands is similarly violent communication, because it takes away their freedom.

 

Starting your car can trigger a veteran's post traumatic stress disorder, and make them experience being attacked, and this is clearly not violent to start your car. Causing defensive feelings could be necessary, but is demonstrably insufficient a condition to conclude that it is violence. Other people's subjective experiences cannot logically be the basis for determining what is violence.

 

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I took offense to your statements and felt defensive in the same way I might if someone condemned me as a bad guy. Does that make it violence? Presumably not.

 

Perhaps this is my own ignorance, but I cannot comprehend how making demands of people takes away anyone's ability to choose, or limit their freedom; unless the demand is backed by some kind of violence, in which case it's not the demand which takes away their freedom but the threat of violence. When my niece was little, she demanded things of me. That was not violence. I was very happy to obey.

 

Maybe it's explained in Rosenberg's books, but I don't know why any of these definitions of violence are used as opposed to any arbitrary definition of violence. Like, if whatever produces defensiveness is violent is the conclusion, what is the logical basis for this? Why is this definition better than any other?

 

You said that any thinking person would consider statements like "you are vile and worthless and a slut" to be violence, but I really don't. Obviously it's really nasty and horrible, but as far as I could glean from your recording and in conversation with other NVC advocates is that violence is synonymous with horrible and nasty, and that horrible and nasty is violence, like they define each other. I could obviously be missing something important, but if that were the case, it would be a clear tautology, and would be meaningless, philosophically.

 

 

Proposition #4

 

Stef is claiming that any communication which doesn't fall under the NVC framework must be violent, and this is an example of the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent". (AKA a false dilemma).

 

I think that the actual logical sequence that Stef used was different than what you said. Here is my interpretation of his argument:

 

1. Moral judgment is violence

2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment

3. NVC says that certain types of communication are violent

Conclusion: NVC is passing moral judgment

 

Non-violent and violent is an actual true dichotomy. It really has to be one or the other. What Stef is talking about in your description of the alleged fallacy is not NVC the specific framework, but actual non-violence (anything different necessarily including violence). And because NVC the framework claims to be a methodology specifically to achieve non-violence, then it is internally inconsistent, leading to hypocrisy.

 

 

Proposition #5

 

Stef claims that NVC is in the realm of thoughts and UPB (as a moral philosophy) is in the realm of actions. This is wrong because NVC is all about how to communicate effectively, and he's even more wrong because moral philosophy is composed of thoughts, therefore he's actually got it backwards. (And people just passively accept his statements because he is verbose and talks quickly).

 

It's understandable that you would not know this if you haven't read the book, but he's actually talking about is what specifically is being evaluated under the framework. In UPB, behavior isn't true or false, rather it can be preferable or not preferable as satisfying the condition of universality. ("Preferable" describing how it fits the standard and not the subjective state of preferring something).

 

However, with NVC the determining factor of whether or not communication is violent is if it causes these subjective states of defensiveness and self loathing. So, in that sense, he's right.

 

Also, this characterization that you make about people blindly accepting anything Stef says is pretty damn insulting, and unjust. If I understanding your position correctly, you are actively working against your own stated values by saying this. (I only say this because it's hypocritical, and not because my offense means anything).

 

 

Conclusion

 

I have a powerful distaste for NVC, but I am no expert and am always open to counter argument and counter evidence. But whenever I have observed or been in an NVC conversation, it's clear that I'm being treated as if I am going to be defensive and that my ego is fragile, that I need to be handled delicately. I find that incredibly irritating and condescending. I also cannot treat myself as if my judgment is of no use to anyone else. I would feel disgusted with myself if I actually believed that.

 

I also find it suffocating in actual practice. It comes off like a script, it feels inauthentic and in order to maintain it, I have to suppress my judgment and any indication in body language or tone which would betray my act that I don't feel judgments about the observations.

 

I appreciate that you would disagree, and I hope that you do and tell me where I'm in error, and that you give this response serious consideration, even if anything I say provokes defensiveness or threatens your self image.

"I personally stand to lose a lot from people withholding their judgments and criticisms of me. The prospect of people not sharing that with me actually deeply troubles me."

 

NVC is a strategy for resolving conflict between two opposing parties.  It's not a moral theory that states it is wrong to levy criticisms of others in a productive and constructive manner.  Once both sides of a conflict have met one another on the level of being able to identify the other's feelings and needs, then each will be far more receptive to identifying mistakes they have made in the past, and ensuring that the other person's needs will be taken care of in the future.  The identification of the other's feelings and needs, and the communication of one's own feelings and needs, must be established first, and normative statements ought not be mixed while performing this process.  This has been proven effective through empiricism.

 

Therefore, your first objection stems from a misunderstanding of the theory of Nonviolent Communication, and not from a flaw in it.

 

"f however I am engaging in behavior which prevents in some way that person from experiencing a subjective state called 'belonging',  I am obviously not responsible in the same way I would be by preventing them from breathing."

 

You clearly have never read NVC and do not understand the tenets of the theory.  I've found that most people on such philosophy forums who believe their education has enabled them to justly criticize without full knowledge, making similar mistakes.  Just because a person has a need, does not mean you're required to fulfill that need, nor does it mean you must act in any way that will enable others to fulfill that need.

 

If you use force to stop a person from eating or breathing, then you're immoral.  If you use force to stop a person from acting towards the goal of belonging, then you're equally immoral.  Their need does not define the morality of your actions.  It is the use of force that defines the morality of your actions.

 

Therefore, your second objection stems not from a flaw in Nonviolent Communication, but from a  misunderstanding of free will and moral responsibility.

 

"Starting your car can trigger a veteran's post traumatic stress disorder, and make them experience being attacked, and this is clearly not violent to start your car."

 

Yes it is.  If you know that starting your car will cause psychological harm, and you repeatedly start your car, than you are acting violently.  Now, if you accidentally harm a man by starting your car, because you didn't know he would have a violent, uncontrollable reaction, then you're accidentally violent, and not morally responsible.  The action was violent, but the actor was not morally responsible for the violence.  If you do not prefer this definition, and yes, it is a preference, then that is your prerogative.  However, when discussing Marshall Rosenberg's theory, it is best to accept Marshall Rosenberg's definitions.

 

Therefore, your third criticism is not a flaw in the theory, but a flaw in your understanding of moral responsibility and Marshall Rosenberg's definitions.

 

"1. Moral judgment is violence

2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment

3. NVC says that certain types of communication are violent

Conclusion: NVC is passing moral judgment"

Premise 1 is false.  Premise 1 does not appear in any of Rosenberg's teachings. This is another argument that Stefan made, so you are correct in saying this was his argument, however the argument that I refuted as being logically fallacious was also espoused by Stefan, and both arguments are unsound.

 

Therefore, your fourth criticism is not a flaw in the theory, but simply an unsound argument.

 

"It's understandable that you would not know this if you haven't read the book, but he's actually talking about is what specifically is being evaluated under the framework."

 

Thank you for this correction.  I did not understand UPB in the same exact way as Stefan did not understand NVC.  I now see that neither theory, under the framework, is talking about thoughts.

 

If I'm being honest, I did know this already.  It was admittedly attempting to demonstrate how you can use a strawman against UPB in the same way Stefan used a strawman (unintentionally, by not understanding the theory) against NVC.  However, to anybody not educated on UPB, it is convincing to say a theory on morality is about thoughts whereas a theory on communication is about actions.... I apologize for that if it's offensive to you.

[ClearConscience]

Shoot me an email and I'd be happy to schedule you for the show!

I'm Brian.  I called in.  I think you already know that because my email is linked to this account.  In the call in show, I was labelled as passive-aggressive.  When given justification for this diagnosis, it was reveled that I was misdiagnosed on all but one count, and I chose not to criticize Stefan on the same issues, because I felt as though this diagnosis had been retracted.  I then come to find that not only do you both still feel as though I was passive-aggressive, but you labeled the show after this misdiagnosis!

 

Stefan insulted my intelligence.  He insulted my education.  He said I was a poor representation for the field of philosophy.  And then he called into question my character.  The worst part, is that his argument was illogical.  The fact that violence is a concept, has nothing to do with the logical form of the argument that he presented.  That logical form is invalid, regardless of what subjects are placed in it.  Stefan says he likes logic.  Here is the logic.

 

Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy. Here is its form:

 

If P, then Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q

 

Let P = you adhere to NVC guidelines, Q = you are nonviolent

By doing this, you can create Stefan's argument.

If you adhere to NVC guielines, then you are nonviolent

You do not adhere to NVC

Therefore, you are violent

 

The argument above is logically invalid.  It is logically fallacious.  If this is not what Stefan was saying, then explain to me what it is that Stefan was saying.

 

p.s. Why do my comments require moderator approval?  If it's because my comments have received down votes on this forum, that's not because of any reason other than I post opposing views to Stefan, and Stefan is not an omniscient wizard of perfect accuracy like those who down vote me want to believe.  Fortunately, the truth is no subject to popular opinion, right?

[shirgall]

I don't think Stefan insulted you, I think he challenged you to back up your statements. When he works with folks on the verge of an emotional breakthrough this is a valuable technique.

 

I think the dead/alive, vacuum/matter and light/dark bichromatic discussion took way too much time. The problem is the prefix "non". That necessarily makes things bichromatic. It's either black or white, no shades of gray. (I know, that's what bichromatic means, I'm talking to the audience.)

 

Remember that naming something a fallacy is not an argument. You have to go one step further and point out how in the case presented it is a fallacy. If you don't, you commit the "fallacy fallacy."

 

Frankly, I think the entire discussion could have gone better if it had been described as "soothing versus agitating communication." It's proponents could be labelled "soothsayers" which is a great "breaking the ice" kind of intro.

[Kevin Beal]

This has been proven effective through empiricism.

And I said that another, mutually exclusive approach has proven effective. Your experience is more true than mine, somehow? 

 

 

You clearly have never read NVC and do not understand the tenets of the theory.  I've found that most people on such philosophy forums who believe their education has enabled them to justly criticize without full knowledge, making similar mistakes.  Just because a person has a need, does not mean you're required to fulfill that need, nor does it mean you must act in any way that will enable others to fulfill that need.

Passive aggressive much?

 

And I was simply talking about using the word "need" here and the clear implication. You yourself say that many people make this same mistake, which is exactly my point. Using the word "need" to describe two opposite things is a challenge, if not a very bad idea.

 

Note that I never said that NVC says I'm obliged to cause in you a subjective state called "belonging". You made that up.

 

 

Yes it is.  If you know that starting your car will cause psychological harm, and you repeatedly start your car, than you are acting violently.

No no no. That's not what I said. You're twisting it all around. I tried very hard to represent your statements the way you said them.

 

The definition of violent is now changing. Now it includes intent, as in, you have to intend to cause psychological harm. But judgments, moral arguments, etc can be made without any intention to cause psychological harm, so you have to abandon your previous definition, or this one. It can't be both.

 

 

Premise 1 is false.  Premise 1 does not appear in any of Rosenberg's teachings. This is another argument that Stefan made, so you are correct in saying this was his argument, however the argument that I refuted as being logically fallacious was also espoused by Stefan, and both arguments are unsound.

You very quite literally and explicitly said that moral judgment is violence (premise 1) (I quoted you). So, what? Are you just completely wrong about NVC? Why should I trust you that NVC doesn't say that when you yourself are saying that you are wrong about NVC? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[neeeel]

 

Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy. Here is its form:

 

If P, then Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q

 

Let P = you adhere to NVC guidelines, Q = you are nonviolent

By doing this, you can create Stefan's argument.

If you adhere to NVC guielines, then you are nonviolent

You do not adhere to NVC

Therefore, you are violent

 

The argument above is logically invalid.  It is logically fallacious.  If this is not what Stefan was saying, then explain to me what it is that Stefan was saying.

 

 

 

I dont understand why you are continuing with this line of argument. Violence / non violence, is a true dichotomy. 

 

If something is violent, then its not non-violent

if something is non violent, then its not violent

everything ( in the field of communication, which is what it was narrowed down to) is either violent, or non violent. There is no 3rd choice. 

 

So, if all non-violent communication is included under the label Non Violent Communication, then every other form of communication, which is not included under the label "non violent communication" ,is violent

 

I guess the key word is all. I assume you are saying that not all non violent communication is included under the label Non Violent Communication?

[andkon]

So, if all non-violent communication is included under the label Non Violent Communication, then every other form of communication, which is not included under the label "non violent communication" ,is violent

 

I guess the key word is all. I assume you are saying that not all non violent communication is included under the label Non Violent Communication?

 

That could be it. I think it may be that NVC proper is a subset of all generic non-violent communications yet the generic group name also refers to a distinct member of that group. As a parallel, in the South, coke is used to refer to the whole class of soft drinks of which the specific product Coca-Cola (coke) is also a member. See generic trademark for more examples (like how Kleenex can refer to any tissues): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark

[GYre0ePJhZ]

I have tried to investigate NVC with an open mind and have some thoughts I’d like to share and get everyone's thoughts on. I will focus on the three central concepts of NVC: self-empathy, empathy, and honest self-expression. In the end I will provide suggestions for improvement. I will not make full fleshed-out arguments for every statement that I make: I need to cut some corners so the post won’t become too long. Source is the Wikipedia-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

 

The definitions:

“[NVC is] a communication process that focus on three aspects of communication. Namely, self-empathy (defined as a deep and compassionate awareness of one’s own inner experience), empathy (defined as listening to another with deep compassion), and honest self-expression (defined as expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others).”

 

I consider pros to be that NVC has a focus on walking a mile in the other person’s shoes as well as one’s own. Communication-schemas that call attention to another person’s experience may in some cases be associated with self-erasure, which I generally think is unhealthy. NVC also emphasizes honest expressions that I, at least on face-value, can appreciate.

 

I consider cons to be the definitions of the three aspects: self-empathy, empathy, and honest self-expression. Regarding the definition of self-empathy (a deep and compassionate awareness of one’s own inner experience) I find problematic the use of the word deep and compassion. To me it seems vague. For example, what is the difference between deep and compassionate awareness? An alarm-bell rings for me when I see this because it seems to me to be an appeal to emotion. I felt a little annoyed when I read that, and I think it is because I evaluate it to be manipulative. “Inner” as prefix to “experience,” I also find redundant since the definition refers to “one’s own.” Is it possible to have an outer experience?  

 

I think the definition of empathy (listening to another with deep compassion) is problematic for the use of the words “deep compassion” for similar reasons of vagueness. Also, is listening to another person enough for it to be empathy? I think I am missing a component that refers to an act of processing what the other person is communicating as in integrating it into your own schemas of the world.

 

The definition of honest self-expression (expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others) I have some criticisms of as well. Again, I am not sure what compassion means. More importantly, I think the condition that your authentic expression has the goal of inspiring compassion in the other could be a set-up for inappropriate guilt, abdication of responsibility, and manipulation on both ends. Inappropriate guilt because if the other person does not become compassionate through your communication it can be evaluated as a failure that you yourself has the responsibility for. This may induce guilt. I think listening and processing what the other person is communicating is a responsibility of the receiver of the communication. If this is understood the honest self-expression is less likely to be associated with guilt if it fails to inspire compassion. This ties closely to abdication of responsibility to listen and process what the other person is communicating: “I didn’t inspire the other person to feel compassionate. I failed and I feel guilty” or “the other person didn’t inspire me to feel compassionate. The other person failed his or her responsibility to inspire my compassion.” Manipulation because this definition could entice a conflict of who has the responsibility to inspire compassion in who.

 

Maybe define self-empathy as awareness to and processing of one’s own experience?

Maybe define empathy as awareness to and processing of what the other is communicating?

Honest self-expression I find harder to find alternative definitions of. But maybe define it as describing your perceptions, describing your evaluations of those perceptions, and describing the consequent feelings those evaluations created?

 

I want to emphasize that I am not an expert on these matters by any stretch of the imagination so I find it likely that I am mistaken about some things I have written in this post (I only heard about NVC yesterday). I have more thoughts on the matter, but I think this is enough for now.

 

I look forward to everyone's thoughts

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I'm Brian.  I called in.  I think you already know that because my email is linked to this account.  In the call in show, I was labelled as passive-aggressive.  When given justification for this diagnosis, it was reveled that I was misdiagnosed on all but one count, and I chose not to criticize Stefan on the same issues, because I felt as though this diagnosis had been retracted.  I then come to find that not only do you both still feel as though I was passive-aggressive, but you labeled the show after this misdiagnosis!

 

Stefan insulted my intelligence.  He insulted my education.  He said I was a poor representation for the field of philosophy.  And then he called into question my character.  The worst part, is that his argument was illogical.  The fact that violence is a concept, has nothing to do with the logical form of the argument that he presented.  That logical form is invalid, regardless of what subjects are placed in it.  Stefan says he likes logic.  Here is the logic.

 

Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy. Here is its form:

 

If P, then Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q

 

Let P = you adhere to NVC guidelines, Q = you are nonviolent

By doing this, you can create Stefan's argument.

If you adhere to NVC guielines, then you are nonviolent

You do not adhere to NVC

Therefore, you are violent

 

The argument above is logically invalid.  It is logically fallacious.  If this is not what Stefan was saying, then explain to me what it is that Stefan was saying.

p.s. Why do my comments require moderator approval?  If it's because my comments have received down votes on this forum, that's not because of any reason other than I post opposing views to Stefan, and Stefan is not an omniscient wizard of perfect accuracy like those who down vote me want to believe.  Fortunately, the truth is no subject to popular opinion, right?

You are an oversensitive, passive aggressive jackass. Are you actually suggesting Mike knew who you were but pretended not to and still asked you to call in? Are you saying you are being singled out for moderator approval? Are you saying the only reason people down-vote you is because because you oppose Stefan or because we think he's perfectly accurate? Have you any proof for this? 

If there's a fallacy then that's your fault for using the term "non-violent". Don't use terms that don't mean what they appear to mean and then accuse others of fallacies because they may not be aware of certain caveats. 

[Matt D]

I dont understand why you are continuing with this line of argument. Violence / non violence, is a true dichotomy. 

 

If something is violent, then its not non-violent

if something is non violent, then its not violent

everything ( in the field of communication, which is what it was narrowed down to) is either violent, or non violent. There is no 3rd choice. 

 

So, if all non-violent communication is included under the label Non Violent Communication, then every other form of communication, which is not included under the label "non violent communication" ,is violent

 

I guess the key word is all. I assume you are saying that not all non violent communication is included under the label Non Violent Communication?

 

Much later in the call (once Stef had disposed of his supposed logical fallacy) Brian admitted that NVC was not a good name for this method of communication, and that Rosenberg has said as much himself. Of course, he did not lead off with this fact but only presented it once his argument had been dismantled.

 

Now, Brian is again bringing up the same denial of the antecedent fallacy on the board. And does he preface his argument by saying, "I know Non-Violent Communication is not a good name for Rosenberg's method of minimizing conflict but I would like to make the case that it is a subset of all possible non-violent communication."? No. Instead he accuses Stef and Mike of insulting him (which is a judgment if I've ever heard one) even after Mike tried to gently point out inconsistencies and ways in which Brian could improve his communication.

 

If this is representative of studying NVC, I'm inclined to stay as far away from it as possible.

[Kevin Beal]

I don't think that "NVC is a subset of all possible non-violent interactions" actually avoids the logical problem Stef raised.

 

If not X in order to be not Violence, then X is violence. "X is violence" is implied here because non-violence vs violence is a true dichotomy.

 

"Don't wear Payless shoes if you want to avoid being uncool like that dummy over there" (double negative). This clearly implies that wearing Payless shoes not cool.

 

Insofar as NVC claims to be non-violent, and says "thou shalt not" (in order to be NVC), it is contradicting itself in the way I described above (reproduced here):

 

1. NVC says Moral judgment is violence
2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment
3. NVC says that certain types of communication are violent
4. NVC is passing moral judgment

5. NVC is violent according to it's own standard

 

"Don't pass moral judgments in order to be non-violent" necessarily implies that that passing moral judgments is violent.

[webdever]

I don't think that "NVC is a subset of all possible non-violent interactions" actually avoids the logical problem Stef raised.

 

If not X in order to be not Violence, then X is violence. "X is violence" is implied here because non-violence vs violence is a true dichotomy.

 

"Don't wear Payless shoes if you want to avoid being uncool like that dummy over there" (double negative). This clearly implies that wearing Payless shoes not cool.

 

Insofar as NVC claims to be non-violent, and says "thou shalt not" (in order to be NVC), it is contradicting itself in the way I described above (reproduced here):

 

1. NVC says Moral judgment is violence

2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment

3. NVC says that certain types of communication are violent

4. NVC is passing moral judgment

5. NVC is violent according to it's own standard

 

"Don't pass moral judgments in order to be non-violent" necessarily implies that that passing moral judgments is violent.

 

I also find it interesting that in the quote from Rosenberg about how NVC was a bad name he states that he decided to continue to use the term 'Non Violent Communication' because he found it was more effective in communicating and spreading the ideas of NVC.

 

So if NVC makes the claim that if you want to communicate effectively you should use NVC, then choosing a name for NVC which is "violent" and passes a moral judgement because it is more effective directly refutes that claim.

[ClearConscience]

I don't think Stefan insulted you, I think he challenged you to back up your statements. When he works with folks on the verge of an emotional breakthrough this is a valuable technique.

 

He said I was a poor representation of the field of philosophy and said I was passive-aggressive, both of which are irrelevant to the conversation, ad hominem, and lies.

 

I think the dead/alive, vacuum/matter and light/dark bichromatic discussion took way too much time. The problem is the prefix "non". That necessarily makes things bichromatic. It's either black or white, no shades of gray. (I know, that's what bichromatic means, I'm talking to the audience.)

 

You're missing the same point that Stefan was missing.  At no point did I argue that there is some nonviolent, violent thing.  No, I am saying that NVC (the theory) can be nonviolent... fine... and things that aren't NVC (the theory) can also be nonviolent... fine... and still more things that aren't NVC (the theory) can be violent.  When I said this, Stefan said he wanted to restrict it just to communication.  BUT I ALREADY AM!  Just because x is nonviolent communication doesn't mean r,s, and t cannot be nonviolent communication as well!  Regardless, the logical form is fallacious... the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

 

Remember that naming something a fallacy is not an argument. You have to go one step further and point out how in the case presented it is a fallacy. If you don't, you commit the "fallacy fallacy."

 

I didn't name it a fallacy.  The discipline of logic named it a fallacy.  That doesn't mean his conclusion is false, but I also demonstrated that it is false.  If you read the book, NVC states that there are three ways of communicating that are violent and that everything else is nonviolent.  That's the claim NVC makes.  Stefan is the one making the false claim that NVC is stating otherwise.  When I told Stefan this, he said he doesn't care what Rosenberg says.  He cares about the logic!  BUT HIS LOGIC IS FALLACIOUS!

 

Frankly, I think the entire discussion could have gone better if it had been described as "soothing versus agitating communication." It's proponents could be labelled "soothsayers" which is a great "breaking the ice" kind of intro.

 

That's a great point, because ask yourself this:  Does it make any sense to discredit an entire theory because you don't like its title? Of course not.  That would be retarded.... right?  But that's precisely what Stefan did.

[ClearConscience]

Much later in the call (once Stef had disposed of his supposed logical fallacy) Brian admitted that NVC was not a good name for this method of communication, and that Rosenberg has said as much himself. Of course, he did not lead off with this fact but only presented it once his argument had been dismantled.

This is not true at all.  Stefan refused to admit he was wrong... so I stopped pushing him.  Stefan admitted that his argument "wasn't conclusive" which means it's not a sound argument... because sound arguments are conclusive.  It's quite shocking to me how you can read what a logically invalid argument looks like, see me apply Stefan's words to that form, and then come back from that a say anything at all other than the argument is invalid.  What kind of fantasy land are we living in where logic doesn't apply to concepts?

 

Now, Brian is again bringing up the same denial of the antecedent fallacy on the board. And does he preface his argument by saying, "I know Non-Violent Communication is not a good name for Rosenberg's method of minimizing conflict but I would like to make the case that it is a subset of all possible non-violent communication."? No. Instead he accuses Stef and Mike of insulting him (which is a judgment if I've ever heard one) even after Mike tried to gently point out inconsistencies and ways in which Brian could improve his communication.

 

NVC is a good name because of the reasons Rosenberg gave.  Rosenberg didn't like the name because he felt it wasn't a full description of the theory.  It really had nothing to do with Stefan's failed reasoning.

 

There is nothing wrong with judgments.  No matter how many times I say that, ignorant people are still going to shout that judgments are somehow inherently wrong.  I didn't say Mike's list of grievances were insults.  You're not even trying to approach this discussion honestly.  Get out.

 

If this is representative of studying NVC, I'm inclined to stay as far away from it as possible.

 

Bye.

[ClearConscience]

I also find it interesting that in the quote from Rosenberg about how NVC was a bad name he states that he decided to continue to use the term 'Non Violent Communication' because he found it was more effective in communicating and spreading the ideas of NVC.

 

So if NVC makes the claim that if you want to communicate effectively you should use NVC, then choosing a name for NVC which is "violent" and passes a moral judgement because it is more effective directly refutes that claim.

 

NVC doesn't make that claim.  NVC is about resolving conflicts of needs so that everybody's needs can get met.

[Kevin Beal]

NVC doesn't make that claim.  NVC is about resolving conflicts of needs so that everybody's needs can get met.

You yourself claimed that NVC said particular actions were violent communication. You made this claim multiple times.

 

1. Violent communication is violent.

2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment.

3. Moral judgments are violent communication, according to your own account of NVC.

-> hence the argument you allege is fallacious, but which I've demonstrated directly follows from premises we both accept.

[ClearConscience]

You yourself claimed that NVC said particular actions were violent communication. You made this claim multiple times.

 

1. Violent communication is violent.

2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment.

3. Moral judgments are violent communication, according to your own account of NVC.

-> hence the argument you allege is fallacious, but which I've demonstrated directly follows from premises we both accept.

I've already addressed this.  You're in luck that, in my current mood, I don't mind repeating myself.  MORAL... JUDGMENTS... ARE... NOT... VIOLENT... COMMUNICATION...

 

Making a judgment isn't communication by definition.  It's a thought.

 

That being said.  You didn't even make an argument in this post.  You just listed premises.  "hence the argument you allege is fallacious, but which I've demonstrated directly follows from premises we both accept" is just a statement completely unrelated to the previous premises.  I have no idea what argument you're referring to and I have no idea how this conclusion is relevant to premise 1, 2, and 3.  Here's some advice.

 

Premise 1 is totally unnecessary to any argument.  It's literally the same as me saying unnecessary premises are unnecessary.  Why would you even say that?  There is no possible way saying, "violent x is violent" could lead to a profound conclusion.  This is called a tautology, for those who don't know, and you will be punished for using them in academia.

 

Premise 2 is false.  Defining an act as violent is not a moral judgment.  It's just a definition.

 

Premise 3 is a lie.  I say this because I've made this correction so many times it's painful to see you construct this straw man over and over again.  There's no possible way you could have just made this mistake.  It's purposeful deception.

 

And the conclusion is completely unrelated to the premises for reasons I've already discussed.  You didn't even make an argument.  You just said some stuff.

 

EDIT: And for those wondering, I was not trained in debate.  I was trained in philosophy, which is writing papers and thinking.  In philosophical discussion, we don't yell at the other person.  Specifically, we don't yell that we already resolved a dispute that is rehashed.  We kindly remind the other that we thought it had been resolved, and ask if they may have thought of something new that would refute the previous conclusion.  Stefan doesn't do this.  In academia, we work with one another to arrive at truths, and we certainly don't try to justify logical fallacies.  That's silly.  You learn in the introductory classes that if your reasoning is logically fallacious, we work together to construct an argument that leads to the desired conclusion that is logically sound.  If we cannot, then we question whether the conclusion is true.

 

Stefan had no interest in doing that.  Stefan has never studied philosophy in an academic institution!  I studied philosophy at the #12 ranked philosophy institution in the world, according to QS world rankings.  I graduated with high honors.  People there don't behave like Stefan, and certainly they don't call a genuine interest in truth "passive aggression".  I've learned to speak in a way that offended Stefan.  I call a body of work "crap".  Note, I called my own work "crap" and not Stefan's, but that's just how I talk.  In an institution like the University of Michigan, you talk to people from all sorts of backgrounds.  I had discussions with students who grew up in the projects in Detroit, students who lived in India, China, the Netherlands, Flint (MI), and all sorts of other places.  Each of us uses terminology a little differently.  The difference is that nobody is fundamentally concerned with being right.  We're all there to gain an understanding, to learn.  That's why we chose the University of Michigan.  I did not feel Stefan had that same interest at heart.  He was there to impress an audience.  That's what I sensed from him.

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm having trouble understanding how communication can ever be strictly described as violent, other than a verbal threat of violence, and in that case, it is not the actual words that are violent, but the promised retaliation for disagreement with the words.

 

For example: Son, clean your room this minute or you'll be in for a trashing!

 

I suppose that words can also abet violence in the commission of fraud (i.e. pretending to be a tax agent to steal someone's personal information), but the communication involved is not inherently violent.

 

Sound could be physically described as violent if you scream into a person's ear loud enough to cause hearing damage, but other than that no communication is inherently violent. Yes, I'm also thinking of the weirding weapons from David Lynch's film, Dune.

[ClearConscience]

I'm having trouble understanding how communication can ever be strictly described as violent, other than a verbal threat of violence, and in that case, it is not the actual words that are violent, but the promised retaliation for disagreement with the words.

 

For example: Son, clean your room this minute or you'll be in for a trashing!

 

I suppose that words can also abet violence in the commission of fraud (i.e. pretending to be a tax agent to steal someone's personal information), but the communication involved is not inherently violent.

 

Sound could be physically described as violenent if you scream into a person's ear loud enough to cause hearing damage, but other than that no communication is inherently violent. Yes, I'm also thinking of the weirding weapons from David Lynch's film, Dune.

This is a very rational objection to the terminology, and fundamentally this is why Rosenberg didn't prefer the title.  However, he did define some forms of communication as being violent, and I would like to show you, at the very least, his reasoning.

 

When you use judgments, demands, or comparisons, you're either restricting freedom (the demand part which is fairly obvious - I hope), or in regards to saying that the person is lesser than what they previously believed, you're not attacking their physical body, but rather you're attacking the image of themselves.  This form of violence REQUIRES that the other identifies herself differently than you're accusation.  The destruction of her image is a form of violence under Rosenberg's definition.  When you say she is fat, when she believes herself to be normal or thin, when you say she is stupid, when she believes herself to be normal or bright, when you say she threatens, antagonizes, dismisses, or whatever else, this is a judgment and not an observable behavior.  That is the distinction Rosenberg wants to make.  Stefan has made a great fuss about ensuring that moral judgments are not wrong.  It is good to have moral principles.  Stefan wants to ensure his audience is firm in their moral objectives.  I do not blame him for this.  Morality is the most important thing to be firm in, in your entire life.  Objective morality is real.  Right and wrong is real!  This is the foundation of our dispute.  I see that.

 

Reject it.  That's the easiest way to refute the title.  You can say Nonviolent communication is a dumb title because communication cannot be violent by definition.  I have no response to this.  The conversation ends.  But I warn you that you are missing out on information that can help you in your future.  It's just a title.  

[Kevin Beal]

I've already addressed this.  You're in luck that, in my current mood, I don't mind repeating myself.  MORAL... JUDGMENTS... ARE... NOT... VIOLENT... COMMUNICATION...

 

Making a judgment isn't communication by definition.  It's a thought.

But we're talking about communication. I perfectly understand that NVC doesn't condemn thoughts. I don't believe that anything I said would indicate that I'm referring to thoughts. Does that clear it up for you? Just assume that I'm talking about communication. That is the context.

[Slavik]

    I heard the show that you were on.  You said Stefan made a fallacy since there might be other forms of non-violent communication.  That is true, but the title is not "10% of non-violent communication with other possible 10%"  The title is binary meaning the title itself proposes X-as non violent communication only leaving Y-for violent communication.  By you stating that there are other possible 10% that the author admits is an assumption isnt it?  I am not sure, maybe the author have indeed mentioned it somewhere.  The title is the only thing Stefan was talking about as in not liking it for its assumptions.

 

  Finally, when Stefan said that you are not a good representative of NVC, well look at how you are responding to people here.  I see a lot of anger from you and some things that are simply very unpleasant.  You told someone to just "get out"  then you said "you are in luck that you are in a good mood."   Im not sure if you are aware that your personal mood (meaning might be off for a personal reason) should never enter communication with another person, a skill where the mood is separated consciously.  And all of this after you have told this to Stembal "  Reject it.  That's the easiest way to refute the title.  You can say Nonviolent communication is a dumb title because communication cannot be violent by definition.  I have no response to this.  The conversation ends.  But I warn you that you are missing out on information that can help you in your future.  It's just a title.  "

 

How do you know that NVC will benefit him?  Does that mean that you have some knowledge of it yourself?  If you have personal knowledge then it doesnt look like its benefiting you at all.

[J. D. Stembal]

And all of this after you have told this to Stembal "  Reject it.  That's the easiest way to refute the title.  You can say Nonviolent communication is a dumb title because communication cannot be violent by definition.  I have no response to this.  The conversation ends.  But I warn you that you are missing out on information that can help you in your future.  It's just a title.  "

 

How do you know that NVC will benefit him?  Does that mean that you have some knowledge of it yourself?  If you have personal knowledge then it doesnt look like its benefiting you at all.

 

I want to clarify that I wasn't rejecting the premise, just asking for clarification on definitions. I am having trouble seeing how words directly translate to violence, as in a breach of the non-aggression principle. I mentioned two examples where the words are one step removed from the real violence (intimidation, threats, and fraud), and one example where sound that comes out of your mouth could cause physical damage (rupturing an ear drum), but is screaming considered communication or just noise?

 

Of course, there are aesthetically preferred behaviors such as listening while people are speaking, and being polite and respectful, but rudeness isn't a moral issue.

[Matt D]

...That would be retarded.... right?  But that's precisely what Stefan did...

 

 

 

...No matter how many times I say that, ignorant people are still going to shout that judgments are somehow inherently wrong... 

 

...That's silly....  

...I've learned to speak in a way that offended Stefan.  I call a body of work "crap".  Note, I called my own work "crap" and not Stefan's, but that's just how I talk....

 

Brian, I propose you donate $5 to FDR every time you break NVC by communicating a judgment of others. I mean, if you want anyone to take you seriously you've got to at least try to practice what you're advocating that others do.

[shirgall]

Brian, I propose you donate $5 to FDR every time you break NVC by communicating a judgment of others. I mean, if you want anyone to take you seriously you've got to at least try to practice what you're advocating that others do.

 

If we get enough money doanted, we might get Stef to sing "Soothe Operator" in the style of Sade on the next cast. If we get even more money, we might dissuade him.

[Mike Larson]

When I first started learning about NVC most of what Rosenberg proposed made intuitive sense to me and I quickly discovered that approaching my relationships from an NVC perspective had significant benefits. However, I was troubled by this idea that moral judgements should be completely avoided. It seemed like he was suggesting that we entirely dismiss the concept of good/evil, right/wrong. There was an apparent contradiction between my prior beliefs about morality and this fundamental principle of NVC.

 

After much consideration, I think I have come to an understanding of NVC and moral judgements that allows me to sleep at night

 

Here is my attempt to square the circle.

 

The first definition that comes up in a Google search is...

 

"Moral judgments are evaluations or opinions formed as to whether some action or inaction, intention, motive, character trait, or a person as a whole is (more or less) Good or Bad as measured against some standard of Good."

 

And here are 2 possible categories of moral judgements, neither of which contradict Google, but which are very distinct nonetheless.

 

Category A: Moral Judgements are opinions formed as to whether some intention, motive, or person as a whole is Good or Bad, where the standard for good or bad is not clearly defined, and often shifts to accommodate the purposes of the person making the judgement.

 

Category B: Moral Judgments are evaluations formed as to whether some action or inaction is good or bad, where...

     - An action is considered good if it enriches life without violating the non-aggression principle.

     - An action is considered bad if it diminishes life or violates the non-aggression principle.

 

While NVC considers moral judgements in category A to be "bad" (in the category B sense), it strongly encourages the use of moral judgements defined in category B. Furthermore, since category A judgements have been used so often (and so destructively) in world history and almost certainly in our own personal histories, NVC suggests that we even avoid using the language that is common to category A judgements (particularlarly when we are trying to resolve a conflict with a person that we want to continue a relationship with). So rather than stating that an action was good or bad, NVC encourages us to clearly state the observed action, and then to state specifically how it failed to enrich (or how it diminished) life. This is certainly a moral judgement, but it is delivered in a way that is less likely to trigger the defense system of the other person (a defense system which has likely developed as an automatic response to category A judgements during childhood).

[Kevin Beal]

Clearconscience, do you have a clear conscience? I'm not trying to trick you or imply anything. I'm genuinely curious about your answer. I wouldn't say that my own is clear. It seems like an interesting name.

[shirgall]

And here are 2 possible categories of moral judgements, neither of which contradict Google, but which are very distinct nonetheless.

 

Category A: Moral Judgements are opinions formed as to whether some intention, motive, or person as a whole is Good or Bad, where the standard for good or bad is not clearly defined, and often shifts to accommodate the purposes of the person making the judgement.

 

Category B: Moral Judgments are evaluations formed as to whether some action or inaction is good or bad, where...

     - An action is considered good if it enriches life without violating the non-aggression principle.

     - An action is considered bad if it diminishes life or violates the non-aggression principle.

 

While NVC considers moral judgements in category A to be "bad" (in the category B sense), it strongly encourages the use of moral judgements defined in category B.

 

Mike, this is an important insight, that it is critical to only verbalize moral judgements of behaviors and not of intentions. I appreciate your explanation.

[Mike Larson]

Thanks Shirgall.

 

I also wanted to mention that I think there is an additional reason (besides what has already been observed) why the name "nonviolent communication" is a poor choice of words to describe Rosenberg's approach to relationships. NVC is fundamentally a way of understanding human action that 1) avoids moral judgements (of the category A type),  2) encourages personal responsibility for getting one's needs met, and 3) promotes the idea of giving "from the heart" (closely related to the concept of "no unchosen positive obligations"). Very little of this has to do with tactical strategies of communication. If a person tries to use the techniques or strategies without internalizing the paradigm, it is not NVC as proposed by Rosenberg, but rather a counter-productive exercise in verbal manipulation.