I learned what non violent communication is a day ago and I’m using it to mend a friendship.
Have you however used it at the workplace?
I find it unpractical: there are so many things to do at the workplace and the last thing stressed people with deadlines need is to have a conversation about feelings, but maybe I’m wrong?
A question for nurses working bedside: do you actually use non violent communication at your ward with your patients and actually have time to do your other duties, like charting, preparing infusions and meds, dealing with providers, insurance, the alcoholic who fights you, the demented one who constantly tries to leave the unit, the one who wants to leave ama (against medical advice)?
Humanistic psychology has a way to describe things in very long and broad manners that might sell a lot of books to schools, but contain very little practical information.
Also, they often use specific terms that can mean one thing in psychology but means something completely different to anyone in any other field, who have not studied the exact psychology book that they’re referencing.
It’s a lot simpler than described on wikipedia, and you do not have to discuss feelings with your co-workers.
The point of including your own feelings in the sentence is to turn to the topic away from fruitless chasing of logical arguments where there are none or they are irrelevant. It’s about taking personal ownership of the problem, so that you don’t claim that it is the other persons problem, even if they are the one who needs to do something in order to solve it.
It’s a nice concept for interpersonal relationships regardless of the setting, but it’s got limited applicability in a results driven setting.
As it turns out… yes, although I was unaware that there was a codified definition for this. There are parts of this that I’m not doing, so thank you for linking such a useful resource!
IMO, doing this is really non-negotiable. Not behaving in this manner can be counterproductive at best, and land you in hot water with HR at the worst. People are on the lookout, and rightly so, for bias, discrimination, bullying, and malice. So having strong and warm relationships is important to make sure your worst days are not misinterpreted by others. This is even more crucial if you’re in management. Having a solid communication strategy is paramount to enabling the best in all relationships, and having a good experience for yourself at the same tie.
Going by the written-word on Wikipedia… yeah, this is a lot. I honestly think this is the kind of thing that goes better with practice, and maybe having a small note (phone, paper, whatever) with the critical points to hit, would make that easier than recalling two pages of instructions. You can also be up-front with people, explaining “I’m trying something new, please indulge me for a moment”. After all, who doesn’t mind getting extra care and attention?
At work you should be direct, and be polite. No need to bring feelings in.
No, we often communicate via messages attached to arrows and occasionally someone gets hit. And someone once got burned while doing smoke signals.
Nothing like pulling an arrow out of your arm or leg and seeing “fuck you” on an attached note. 😂
Personally I prefer communicating by repeatedly punching coworkers and customers in order to send a message in morse code.
Are you working at returns in retail?
No. It seems like pointless “HR” talk. I try to be direct and dry with my communication and very neutral so personalities dont clash while working. Generally I have no conflicts at work and the few I have had I work through it and make no attempt to resolve anything.
It’s charming to call some new communication style ‘non-violent’, as if it’s the first.
I learned to update in quick language in the army. I learned to argue a point in New Jersey.
In NJ, when I worked there, the staff of geniuses were incredibly passionate about doing a thing the best and right way. Sometimes the best route to achieving that wasn’t obvious ans a discussion would ensue. These would be obvious verbal heroism by the nerds in residence, but they only never argued the facts and the options; never the people.
It was effective and only sometimes needed a decision from above, and when everyone was done they didn’t hate each other.
I just don’t see where “I feel …” isn’t just slowing us down when time is short. But, if your environment has a surplus of time, then I hope you’ll see benefit from this idea.
No, but we don’t use violent communication. We use direct communication, and unfortunately sometimes CYA communication, though I push back on that.
Notable concepts include rejecting coercive forms of discourse, gathering facts through observing without evaluating, genuinely and concretely expressing feelings and needs, and formulating effective and empathetic requests.
Why the fucking fuck does that need a name? People incapable of such basic communication aren’t really going to be fixed by slapping a weird label on it.
Well clearly it’s making OP think twice about it. I think it’s completely possible for people to lack some component of these communication skills simply because they haven’t had anything that brought them to their attention before.
And to be fair, berating people who don’t understand these concepts doesn’t “fix” them either.
Because once it has a name, it makes it easier to describe and reference in research literature, and thus makes it easier to draw conclusions on.
Everything has some super specific name that professionals in some field use for it because they regularly need to distinguish it from other similar thing that the broader public does not care about.
We don’t have a name for non-golfers either.
We do, actually. We call ourselves ateeists.
Fair enough, but just because a term exists doesn’t mean it’s sensible.
Well. Except that one. Which lacks zazz
Removed by mod
Smart. That’s enough.
Great
Use a different name as this has nothing to do with violence and it is unhelpful. Violence is physical and as soon as you make any inconvenience in communication “violence” then you just get lost in pedantic semantics.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual
So coercion and other completely verbal applications of power are violence.
It’s not really semantics, it’s just the whole definition is more encompassing than the most basic/ ubiquitous case of the thing.
The creator of Nonviolent Communication didn’t like the name either. He said he used it because it connected him with people around the world to share his ideas.
Do all demands have an assumption of violence attached? (do this or I will force something to happen) I am failing to think of ways that demands don’t have implied physical violence if they are genuine.
The creator of Nonviolent Communication didn’t like the name either.
So they fucked up. Hey, words are hard. I get it.
You realize that when you speak up just to ask other people to use your specific definition of a word, you’re the one getting lost in pedantic semantics, and that can also be addressed by you not doing that, right?
It reminds me of people on LGBT forums and seeing shit like: “I’m a man, and I like women, but I don’t feel sexual attraction towards all of them, only the ones I feel a connection with; what are my labels?”…and wanting to scream “NORMAL! NORMAL IS YOUR LABEL! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?!”.
Meanwhile everyone is like “Oh, you’re ace+/romantic”…/sigh…
We really need to bring back the “it’s complicated” label but for sexuality instead of relationships. We can just dump 90% of people in there and call it a day.
Tribalism has run rampant. Stuff like this is fairly innocuous if a bit much. When people get militant about it then it becomes a problem.
deleted by creator
How is this bigoted? And who said I disagree with non-violent communication? You know what we call that? – Just communication.
You might want to re-read what I wrote. You either seem to have missed a key portion of it, or because you saw the letters “LGBT” you’ve somehow immediately primed yourself for confrontation…
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nobody is “dunking” on LGBT folks. The presented scenario is literally of a completely straight person invading those spaces. You really have a problem with reading comprehension, you know that? I’m even, quite literally, presenting them in a positive, helpful light in this scenario, as they’re being inclusive and presenting labels for this completely straight person to present with. So what’s your damn problem?
ah damn, it seems i am in the wrong here. sorry about that i tend to get like blind and delusional and shit with strong emotions and everything and the whole concept of NVC is tied to my own sexuality and personality and the therapy for the personality disorder and the and the… but yeah, uh nevermind me.
You’re making an argument of absurd literalism. You argue that the name “non violent communication” is inappropriate because all language is non-violent by definition.
But obviously any description of language will be in the context of language. Words can be fearful, as in they display clear fear by their speaker, even though obviously words themselves cannot experience emotion. Language could be called “confusing,” even though language has no will, can take no action, and cannot confuse anyone.
Obviously words themselves are not physical things. That doesn’t mean language cannot be violent. Language can be violent in the exact same way language can be proud, boastful, joyful, and a thousand other things that words themselves are incapable of directly being or doing.
You’re performing an exercise in literalist absurdity. Is your name Amelia Bedelia by any chance?
The problem with the term “non-violent communication”, is that we don’t preface things that we describe based on their lack of something.
You might as well call it “non-love communication”…get it?
We don’t call driving to work “non-violent driving”, we just call it driving.
We don’t call our jobs “non-slavery labor”. You’re practicing absurdity in order to proclaim some higher order of thinking, but you’re just being silly.
Wait till you learn about how language works …
Well, this is not something you do, as in a once and done action. Like, you don’t schedule a meeting to talk feelings. It’s an approach. The idea is to practice it consciously to reach the goal of just doing it spontaneously. Stressed people with deadlines are exactly the kind of people who can take advantage of and appreciate nonviolent communication. It can help teams in highly stressful circumstances reach high levels of performance while keeping dysfunctions from stress to a minimum. Not to mention negative effects in their personal lives. Angry, burnout and fatigued people are actually really lousy workers and the least effective overall. Dealing with negative feelings can help reduce these ill effects.
No I only communicate violently. /s
It is not unpractical. You don’t need to follow every bullet point for every conversation. In most cases a normal professional conversation just need to be respectful. Some of the non violent techniques are only important in specific situations (e.g. difficult colleague in a stressful scenario)
You have to, even if you don’t do the four steps out loud.
- Make an objective observation as it happens (don’t lump it with others in the past)
- Express how it makes you feel (if appropriate)
- Express your need (so the feeling can be attributed to it, and not your interlocutor)
- Make a specific, actionable request that would satisfy your need (which can be denied, it’s not an order)
You can use non-violent communication even if you only do steps 1 and 4 out loud, as long as you understand 2 and 3.
I seriously dislike these somewhat new wording because it trivializes actual problems.
In this case it makes anything that isn’t sweet and nice and places it directly at the same severity as actual violence
For those that can’t distinguish between actual violence and hurt feelings, I don’t know what to tell you, but there is a huge difference between me breaking your bones and me breaking your heart
I’m not trying to negate shitty bosses or toxic work environments, not at all, but I hate that this is now called violence.
It’s the same as people calling everything rape. You’re staying out late in a hotel lobby with some people and when going back up in the elevator you ask the girl that was with you of she would like to join you for a nightcap? Yeah, raaaape! (This happened)
I get the point of it but I feel that the definition of this very “non violent communication” literally makes it “violence” within itself.
The more I write about it in this thread the more I agree that “nonviolent communication” implies “violent communication” which feels like an equivalence between words and physical assault.
I’m all for people communicating in a way that is civil, unambiguous, and direct, but this lexical appropriation sure sounds like manufactured fragility at best, or—as you say—a trivialization of physical violence.
(And I sure hope — shows as an em-dash)
i really don’t know what you’re on about at the start, but exactly which definition of nonviolent communication literally makes nonviolent communication violence within nonviolent communication? i honestly can’t follow
Psychological violence is violence. It doesn’t matter if you disagree. Because you are wrong. I invite you to search online the stories of people who have been victimized and try to empathize with their lived experiences and emotions. If you cannot find this empathy and feel the urge to dismiss them as overreactions or as trivial, I suggest you seek psychiatric attention. Lack of empathy is the leading trait of sociopathy. Therapeutic and psychiatric treatment can help you to adapt well in a nonviolent manner to society.
So you choose violence eh? I invite you to practice what you are preaching so you don’t communicate like a violent sociopath.
… or an insufferable and supercilious lemming.
I don’t care who is “right” in a discussion about communication style, the last guy made some points in good faith and gave an opportunity for discussion, and instead of engaging you start suggesting this other person has mental problems?
Stop being this way.
I just want to take this time to thank you for teaching me a new word. It is important to learn everyday and I appreciate your contribution. However, I am sad that you considered my comment as violence. Some people are not aware that they’re sociopaths. And well adjusted sociopaths do exist in greater numbers than people assume.
However, unlike you, I do not consider it an insult. I’m sorry if it was misconstrued that way. Sociopathy is a disorder, a personality disorder specifically. Just like narcissism, borderline personality disorder and others. I understand that it is a heavily stigmatized word and used as an insult frequently, specially on the internet. But unless we talk about it appropriately and dispel misinformation, we won’t be able to bring mental healthcare to people who have such conditions. Mental disorders are not a moral failing on anyone’s part. And being aware of it is the first step to get help.
You wouldn’t be offended if I told someone with a broken leg to go see a doctor. Why is reminding people that lack of empathy is a disease and they might benefit from mental health care suddenly an offensive attack?
Were this the tone of your first comment I wouldn’t have written mine. This could have been the case even still alluding to alleged “sociopathy” from dissatisfaction with a neologism or turn of phrase.
I do still appreciate a gracious and cool headed response.
To the point of stigma, if I were on the receiving end, it’s less about the mental health suggestion and more about being dismissive of a perspective and writing it off as sociopathy. In your broken leg example, it would not be offensive to suggest a person gets help for a broken leg (you can see it’s broken), but it WOULD be offensive if you said “you wouldn’t have that broken leg if you lost some weight. You should go get some help” especially if that has nothing to do with why their leg is broken. People don’t usually respond positively to public speculations on medical conditions, and that’s double extra true when it’s derisive and offered up as a dismissal to a question, perspective, or circumstance.
Edit: I could have initially made a less pointed reply as well and I didn’t, so apologies for that. Some related $5 vocab words might include “vociferous reply” and “knee-jerk polemic”.
I believe it’s valuable to recognize that the knee jerk reaction was a result of tone and not content. It’s the whole point of nonviolent communication to refer explicitly to facts and to address emotions directly in order to prevent “tone issues”. However, I never implied any form of moral responsibility over the malaise, mental or otherwise. Communication is a two party process, it’s not just what is given as communication by the sending party, it’s also about what the receiving party does with it, how it is interpreted. So the tone problem is a result of two people communicating, the one writing and the one reading, in this case.
You see, I worked psychological care three years with people in detention and learned that mental illness, with the affected person, is better to address it directly without euphemisms or roundabouts. Most people (not all, just most) who end in detention, have or develop mental illness, many of which are personality disorders. These disorders mean people who have them don’t react too well to any sign that you’re hiding thoughts or secretly passing judgement of their conditions. So I did just that, actually debated over replying and wrote my reply with intent and complete transparency over my feelings and thoughts about the comment. Apologies if my intentions didn’t land, but they don’t come from a place of ill will or bad faith. Quite the opposite. Here’s my rationale.
If you are punched in the face that is, inequivocally, violence. If you insult a person calling them names or threatening to hurt them that is violence. If you do the opposite, being honest, direct and transparent with emotions, then that is almost impossible to be construed as violence. Most people know this intuitively. As you can see by other comments in this very post, most people find it baffling that you have to explain to other human beings that using insults or threats is a form of violence. However, the OC called nonviolent communication violence. How is that? Well, typically, most people understand the relationship of words, interactions and violence from a place of empathy. The ability to imagine and feel what others would feel like in such situations. To consider intentionally nonviolent communication as violence, one must dissociate actions from emotions. This is only possible if one either, can disconnect empathy selectively, or cannot feel empathy at all. Both are strong traits of sociopathy. Violence is not defined by harm, emotional or otherwise, to others in the mind of sociopaths, but as a form of negative transactional process. Material loss and functional inconvenience to a special party, them. The emotional side is erased, because they can’t relate to it healthily. A sociopath doesn’t consider a punch to the face as violence, unless it is detrimental to them, personally. I need to remove a person, so I do. You hurt someone I care about, so I hurt you back. People are objects. No feelings involved. This is how nonviolent communication can become violent, because it disarms the typical instruments of sociopathic behavior. Manipulation, lying, backstabbing, gaslighting, intimidation, etc. are viable tools for the sociopath that carry no remorse. If you take away their tools with clear, direct, honest communications, you disarm the veil of concealment that enables sociopaths to thrive. Thus it is violent, against them. Also, consider the underlying insinuation that people who are kind and compassionate have a hidden agenda or are being secretly hyprocrites and manipulative themselves.
What to do with it? I learned that addressing the elephant in the room is the best policy. I clearly stated what was wrong, to suggest that proper, clear, honest and direct communication is violence is incorrect. “Your kindness is violent” sounds mad and nonsensical, because it is. I can offer further examples, if you look closer to the comment:
distinguish between actual violence and hurt feelings
Separation of material actions and emotions. Dismissive of emotional consequences. Disconnect with other’s people emotional experiences. The term “actual violence” itself is troubling as it implies an objective definition of violence, which, by the way, implies that it is their definition, disregarding other’s subjective definitions, lived experiences or even socially normative definitions of violence.
I’m not trying to negate shitty bosses or toxic work environments, not at all, but I hate that this is now called violence.
Dismissal of emotional suffering as trivial or inconsequential.
calling everything rape
Disregard for emotions and trivialization of sexual violence.
anything that isn’t sweet and nice
Normalization of rudeness, plus the insinuation of hidden agendas from people who are genuinely being nice.
This kind of statements are not opinions I have heard any mentally stable and sound of mind individuals make. But I heard them a lot, in detention, from mentally ill inmates. So, my choice was to be direct and speak my mind. Because I’d rather offend a mentally ill person but get them to seek help and be less of a threat to others around them than to ignore it and let someone with a harmful belief system continue to think that what they’re thinking is ok or normal. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I don’t mind to risk mistakes that hurts nobody if it carries the chance of doing good.
Thank you for a thoughtful comment, unfortunately I don’t have time right now to read it as carefully as I would like, but I have two short points:
-
I think you misread the first guy (or one of us did). I understand the statement is not “nonviolent communication is violent” but rather calling distasteful communication “violent communication” both increases the threat posed by words alone and decreases the value of the word “violence” in a physical context. Basically it is better for me to call you an asshole than to punch you in the face, so let’s not equate them with terminology.
-
It may also be possible that your time in psych and corrections makes you more likely to see sociopathy when you’ve potentially misread or misunderstood which is, itself, potentially harmful to getting a message across.
I will basically never tell someone “seek help for XXX” unless I’m being wildly sarcastic or intentionally combative in either case.
Gotta get my kids but I’ll be around later.
Edit:
Basically speech and violence are inherently different things, and I agree with the original poster that I would prefer not to equate them.
Sure, lots of people here on Lemmy may say “obviously words are violence”, but I’m not inclined to trust commentary here to be a representative sample. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, flipping this around, would you expect to get tased and sent to jail for calling a cop a pig, just like if you punched him in the face? If no, then it seems to me there’s an opportunity for nuance. Sure, this is conflating violence and assault, but if we aren’t going to specifically define violence, then it seems to me that’s as good a definition as any other. Otherwise what? Any form of meanness is violence? I don’t buy it.
There is every reason to communicate directly and succinctly to actually make a point, which precludes tone or particular wording that is offensive, no complaints there. But I would say that by giving a common platform to words and actions we are putting a fair amount of weight behind what I will call “manufactured fragility”. It would be great to have the entire world adopt fair and equitable discourse, but that just isn’t going to happen with a fingersnap. And in the meantime we are going to ascribe the same verbiage to both mean posters on the Internet and people who batter their children? I see that as an insulting trivialization of “actual” (physical) violence.
This discussion HAS to start with a recognition and definition of terms, and assimilating terminology tastes bad in this case.
-
Yes. I focus on making direct requests and on trying to understand the unmet needs of others. A large part of what I do is train people to believe that they can say “no” to me without arbitrary repercussions.
Isn’t it directly related to ‘non-violent conflict resolution’ ? Maybe people should look at that first to get a grasp. As for real world benefits look at the outcomes (effects) in schools (Netherlands and other places in the world where it’s already taught).
