Hacker News Reader

"how you recognize when you are being patronizing"

That's a good point. I'm fairly adept at recognizing when someone is trying to negotiate with me based on some kind of taught methodology. Because most of what's taught is counter to how you would do it naturally...thus it stands out.

Once you recognize it, the natural reaction is to feel like you're being manipulated with some technique.

I think part of it is that the observation needs to be genuinely objective rather than veiled evaluation.

For example, when I did tech support I would occasionally get chat messages from my supervisor along the lines of:

"Hey, I see that you closed out Ticket #XYZ without any resolution or response sent to the requester."

(waits for response)

...and it would make me furious, regardless of whatever the situation was.

"Is there something you want me to do?" is a slightly less hostile way of saying "Get to the point."

"The petitioner did not make a request upon which relief can be granted." might set off a snark detector, and "The ticketing system already automatically notifies the requester that their ticket has been closed." might inadvertently imply that the supervisor does not know how to do their job.

My habitual response to these sorts of messages has been to just affirm the statement.

> "Hey, I see that you closed out Ticket #XYZ without any resolution or response sent to the requester."

> "yes" / "yup" / "indeed" / "true"

It's an effective way to sidestep having to pay attention until the person comes up with an actual question or request.

"That is a true statement." is one that is frequently used around here. It sounds very engineer-y, and has no inflectional or emotional connotations whatsoever. It's about as sterile as a SYN-ACK packet. I heard what you just said, and evaluated it for correctness. Current computation completed, and ready for additional input.

Is it even possible that that could not be an evaluation? I've been on both sides of that exchange, and it never even occurred to me that pointing out a ticket wasn't properly filled out was an evaluation. The ticket itself is often the only proof you actually did your job, after all.

Personally, if I'm on the receiving end of that, I'd rather the boss say, "please update this ticket with X and Y" rather than making an "observation." It can't be condescending nor manipulative since that person is plainly exercising their authority. And you can generally resolve problems with an instruction by pointing out that it won't work, or it conflicts with others, etc., which avoids it getting personal.

(This may be why I rarely had these issues in the military, and noticed that many veterans report a great deal of confusion when they get into civilian life because "nobody knows their lane.")

If I did that, there would be an implicit "I'd like to know why" on the end of it, with the understanding that there might be a very good reason. But now that you point it out, I could see how that could come across as a criticism, too.

That wouldn't bug me at all. People who totally respect me would ask me that. "Why didn't you put a resolution on Ticket XYZ?" blames me. "There is no resolution on Ticket XYZ" states a fact and lets me offer an explanation of why I do that kind of thing. Or, like as not, investigate how I closed the ticket by accident or assigned it to someone else who closed it. There are usually lots of good explanations and if you can't even raise the subject without getting mad, you miss those opportunities to not screw up. Maybe I thought no one cared about the resolution and this teaches me someone does look. It's a positive thing to do IMO.

At the same time, if it comes from a place of genuine concern, even unnatural communication can be empathetic. I once asked for help on an online forum, and one person responded with something along the lines of "I don't know how you feel, but if that happened to me I'd feel terrible". In the moment, it felt very carefully crafted, but the care with which the words were chosen really amplified their impact to me.

I've been in that scenario and NVC still worked. In that case the person I was talking to felt anxious when I practiced NVC in our conversations because they needed freedom: to think their own thoughts and make decisions etc.

I asked if there was some way I could speak to them that would help them meet their need for freedom. Then we both laughed and the situation defused.

Great question.

I use NVC frequently to people with a lot more power than me, and I'd actually suggest NVC is actually about putting yourself (and your needs) on the same level as those of the person your speaking with.

The fundamental premise is that fundamental needs are shared by all humans... and the ideal strategy is one where all needs are met.

So, you can avoid patronising someone by truly seeking to understand the other person's feelings and needs without judgement and taking those needs seriously. Again, easy to say, hard to do.

That's the key I think. Appreciated. By putting your universal needs on the same level (not your "self"), you are in effect appealing to principle, so there is likely a great deal of alignment between the methods as described. Looking forward to reading up more on this. Thank you.

Hey, just wanna point out your commenting style is tremendously good. Somehow each one has all the ingredients of a great comment for a discussion. Thanks for the effort!

That's a kind observation. If I worked for you that would be really satisfying to hear...

This is why it's important to be conscientious about spirals of passive aggression with this communication style. Mastering it is mastery, trying is, well, doing it wrong. Great thread.

"I use NVC frequently to people with a lot more power than me ..."

Examples? I'm struggling to understand how one could "frequently" have to use NVC with "people a lot more power".

Having to do this frequently itself is a problem with the organization, right?

Any conversation involving appreciation or a request can benefit from the principles of nvc which can be made in natural language.

Constantly relying on "observations" is incredibly patronizing and I've gotten away from it outside of very formal reporting / performance improvement plans / firing someone.

In my current line of work (and previous one, finance), if you cite observations as the main way of communicating, the other person is just going to cut you off and tell you to hurry the fuck up and tell them what they did wrong.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If someone says to me "Three of the numbers in the report were inaccurate" (an observation) that's a lot more helpful to me than "Your work is sloppy" (an evaluation). Did you have something else in mind?

"3 numbers were inaccurate" (great job, that's way below average)

"3 numbers were inaccurate" (just an FYI for next time, no big deal)

"3 numbers were inaccurate" (and I am annoyed that I had to deal with the consequences, please ensure it doesn't happen again)

"3 numbers were inaccurate" (but I understand the pressure you were under and the volume of work you had, so I don't see it as an ongoing problem)

"3 numbers were inaccurate" (and I see it as part of an ongoing, worrisome pattern of sloppy work coming from you, and I expect you to correct it)

Sometimes the recipient of the message really does need the speaker's evaluation, not just the bare factual observations, to put the message in proper context. "My order took 4 days to arrive" is a lot less useful than "Thanks, my order only took 4 days to arrive" or "I had to wait a whole 4 days for my order to arrive".

This is addressed later in the article. The whole formula is: "3 numbers were inaccurate. I feel frustrated because I keep having to [deal with the consequences]. Would you be able to [double-check all calculations from now on]?"

I don't see the purpose in sharing that I'm frustrated. Is it supposed to make the recipient feel bad?

It's because NVC has taken away the natural way for people to express frustration, which is by being short with the other person.

Personally, I don't get it either. No one I'm frustrated with seems to understand that if I tell them in an unhurried, matter-of-fact way. They may say that they prefer me to express frustration that way, but it gets no results. I don't see the appeal.

NVC is most effective if you share your feelings in an authentic and vulnerable way. This isn’t the same as being in the feeling (ex getting angry or frustrated) or staying them in a matter-of-fact way.

The magic of NVC comes from the recipient empathizing with the person making the request.

"This isn’t the same as being in the feeling"

I genuinely have no idea what this means. What are you trying to say here? So I can be in any feeling except frustration when I'm conveying that I'm being frustrated? This sounds like snake oil.

I feel like this also speaks to having to know your audience. Some people you have to tread lightly with. You might think you're being patronizing but to go any harder would cause them put up a major wall. Others just want you to lay it right out for them and not sugar coat it in any way.

And, in fact, people can be different in different scenarios.

In a work scenario I'm going to respond best if you're bringing up something I need to improve in a constructive way, with feedback that is actionable on my part, and doing so fairly dispassionately. "Hey Z. Here's what happened and how/why it was incorrect. Here's how you can make up for it/do better next time. No harm, no foul as long as you do better in this one area and keep rockin' it everywhere else."

But I need my wife to tread more lightly for some reason. Being dispassionate would be perceived by me as uncaring in that scenario.

Trying overly hard to make something seem more objective is in a sense an obfuscation of what you really think. Sometimes you need to cut the BS and tell people what's actually on your mind.

In my experience there are two types of coworkers: those that respond well to BS (read: couched language) and those that don't. You just have to recognize who is who.

People observe different things and even then, weight the memories of those observations differently. There are many who employ a barrage of "factual" observations. These are unavoidably biased even as the speaker attempts to pan the feelings out.

Often a speaker doing this feels that the sheer number of data points makes their strategy (that they will argue for shortly after finishing their list of observations) all but inevitable. People who have interacted with such arguers get understandably defensive when shown a barrage of facts painting them a certain way.

In the presence of a pattern of behavior, one example followed by every means necessary of keeping the offender on your side while building a strategy should be enough if the pattern is real and the offender has good intentions.

Great point. Growing up my mom must have read some book about how to comfort kids. She would always say “It sounds like you ...”. For example: “I hate my teacher.” Would receive a response of “It sounds like you are upset with your teacher.”

As soon as I was old enough to recognize the pattern it became an infuriatingly depersonal way to be talked to. Sometimes the lack of “umm, like, just, kind of, etc.” will reveal speech as inorganic and make the whole thing seem false. After awhile it’s hard to even relate to someone who speaks to you like that as a person.

It's called "active listening" and it's a powerful technique. There is no need though to sound dry or to avoid fillers when you are "actively listening". It's really not depersonal at all. Your mom was probably trying to comfort you but she failed to find the right tone.

The responses need to scale with the level of the kid. A response that is fine for teaching a 4-year-old to recognize their emotions might end up sounding scripted and pro forma to an 11-year-old.

Step #1 in this kind of conversation is to listen attentively to the other person. Trying to acknowledge someone’s feelings is much better than denying or ignoring them, but if the kid is obviously getting frustrated/annoyed at the response, then the parent needs to adjust what they are saying and doing. (Yes, this is hard.)

In particular, if the kid is very heatedly angry and the parent calmly tells them “it sounds like you are upset”, that can be incredibly frustrating. If the mom had said “Your teacher must have really pissed you off!” (or whatever) the kid might have felt more understood and been willing to elaborate.

Sounds like she was using it as a technique to calm you down/try ad change how you feel (best intentions manipulation) vs a way to understand you and be close with you.

The words by themselves can feel empty and patronizing.

The example doesn't sound manipulative at all. It sounds like she's calling attention to the underlying emotion that's driving her child to hate the teacher. Being able to recognize that is key to actually understanding why you do things. Hate is not an emotion, it's an evaluation of the teacher, and to behave like an adult you need to recognize why you have that evaulation.

I disagree. The example sounded like an attempt to manipulate the emotion by providing a mechanical response. It sounds a bit like a memorized technique applied without the underlying alignment necessary for true empathy.

NVC practice aims connection, not changing the other person’s emotional state. Thus the term manipulationnin my response.

Sure, restating what someone just told you about how they are feeling "What I hear you saying is ..." can start to sound mechanical.

But consider the alternative: most people never actually get any acknowledgement of their thoughts and feelings. They are fully expecting to just be ignored and responded to with the argument that the other party was building in their head while they were talking.

The Mom was preparing GGGP to expect people to give a sh*t when he speaks, he just hasn't realized it yet.

Again, I disagree. The owner of the emotional response is fully qualified to judge it. Dismissing this as “not getting it yet” is not something I agree with or let slide.

His own response was annoyance and disappointment with the mechanical approach. He did not experience connection and he did not feel understanding. That’s pretty much the perfect example of empty words vs true connection.

Not denying responsibility is essential to NVC.

It's patronizing if you have made your mind and only involve others into discussions to get support or ease them into going along and accepting. "I have to do X, I'm here to listen how you feel about X and empathize with you." is not real NVC. "Have to" is denying responsibility to outside conditions.

NVC is best used when you have to do something and have a problem and are willing to communicate it to others as way to learn and find a solutions..

That's always been one of my biggest questions about NVC, it seems to assume two parties with equal power. But that's seldom precisely true, and in some cases _very_ not true. It's not clear to me how that effects the method and how to account to for it. I wonder if people writing on NVC have written much on this.

NVC is often taught in a quite cerebral way which indeed may result in “proper nvc structure” conversations which are unfortunately emotionally disconnected and thus patronizing because they lack emotional alignment.

When I teach NVC I focus on finding a sincere space of care which always starts with self empathy. I was taqught as a language practice but I find it most productive to teach it as a body/emotional/somatic/language practice as the language becomes fake without full alignment.

Empathy as defined by M.R. In his nvc work is “I know what’s alive in you and you know that I know.” That’s it. There’s no other outcome.

Many business use fake empathy as manipulation. There’s no sincere interest in understanding, just a technique to try and make people less mad. South park’s skit on Comcast workers was spot on with this.

I think that is the main by-product of these things is forced empathy and introspection. It is too easy to get caught in one's head and this forces things to get structured and analyzed so they can be externalized.