When you actually read the book, you find it has a very awkward way of speaking which can induce eyerolls.
All this "if you answered c, e and f, we are not of the same opinion" feels passive-aggressive to me.
The whole thing feels manipulative to me. It makes me think that people try an insincere way of talking to me, in order to manipulate my feelings and reaction.
I've had huge discussions with friends who try to live the book, and neither of us could make the other see their point.
One of their examples was "My boyfriend likes to go DJing, but sometimes I'd love for him to stay home and cuddle with me. So I clearly tell him that him leaving makes me feel alone and that I would like some warmth. But I don't tell him what to do, to stay at home, for example. I only talk about my own perception and feelings."
– "Yes, that's great, but in communication there is the level of pragmatics above pure logical semantics. And you telling your boyfriend that him leaving makes you feel very alone is just another way of saying 'please don't go'".
Perhaps people are different, but I'm of the type that I absolutely want to hear both what you want and reasoning why you want it, and I tend to pick up and overanalyze the tone if you leave either part unstated.
Skipping straight to the 4th step doesn't preclude us from discussing that, we can always backtrack and talk about that. It's just skipping straight to the point.
Consider this: We've agreed to go to a specific restaurant tonight, you change your mind for whatever reason and feel strongly about it. You had a burger at lunch for a work meeting, and don't feel like having one again.
Just say so, maybe I don't care in the least what restaurant we go to as long as it has some form of nutrition and isn't inconvenient to get to.
> "Hey, mind if we go to Subway instead?"
> "Sure, no problem"
As opposed to some long step #1-#3 process where you start talking about not wanting the same type of food twice in one day before finally getting to the point.
Maybe I do feel really strongly about it, but we can still talk about it and be direct, observe:
> "Hey, mind if we go to Subway instead?"
> "Yeah actually. Weird thing, but my late brother and I had a thing about going to that burger place every year on his birthday. It's sort of a tradition, don't want to miss it, and you were only in town today"
> "Shit man, no problem I guess. Just asked because I had a burger for lunch, didn't realize it was a burger place"
> "Hey like Sushi? They actually make the most amazing Sushi. It's the weirdest combination I know, it's run by this Japanese/American couple and they made it work"
> "I love Sushi, didn't realize that. Awesome!"
I think the important thing is still that a negotiation happened - an exchange of information about feelings and desires, and an attempt at reaching a satisfactory outcome.
I've only heard of NVC the first time today, but I've noticed I developed something similar for myself in my own conversation, out of desire to a) maximize accuracy of my communication, and b) minimize accidental miscommunication that leads to hurt feelings.
Regarding your example, I said that going straight for point 4 makes the tone do the work. "Hey, mind if we go to Subway instead?" with appropriate intonation leads to the outcome you desired. But I can imagine that person saying "Let's go to Subway instead", or "I want to go to Subway instead", and now this would communicate to me that there are more serious reasons behind it.
The way I'd say it in real life to proactively minimize misreading from the other side would be: "Could we go to Subway instead? At work today, the customer wanted to go for a burger for lunch, so I already had one and don't feel like having another.".
I find that what NVC identified as the four steps gets more and more important the closer you are to someone, and the more emotional the topic is. Clearly separating facts from emotions and not saying someone caused your feelings are wonderful de-escalating tools.
> "Hey, mind if we do to Subway instead?" > "Okay" > a night of arguing > "I didnt even want to go to Subway, I wanted to go where we were going"
"Clean this up before you do anything else." isn't necessarily a Rosenberg-demand and "would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?" isn't necessarily a Rosenberg-request. The test is what happens if the person says no.
If in the first case that is the end of the matter then it was secretly a request dressed up in hard language.
If in the second case there is an hour of cold-shouldering and recriminations then it was really a demand dressed up in flowery language.
I think there are technical people who just care about getting things done and other people who need to have a nice package, because they want their feelings not to be hurt. These are the people who start their requests in chat with "Hi, how are you? Do you have time, I need something ..."
The only way to communicate with these people is NVC.
NVC sometimes seem a bit dry or rational and practioners ignore a lot of tacit knowledge they have, which is why it feels insincere. It also easily promotes a kind of disconnection from your feelings by taking a meta-stance, which can make it actually harder to communicate.
I do love the basic idea and spirit of the framework though, I just think it's not a good idea probably to approach it as a set of rules for how to communicate.
It's a more informative way of saying it. You include information about what the reasoning behind your request is, and how important it is to you. Then he can consider whether going out is more important to him than your request is to you, or if there is a way to compromise on your conflicting desires. (Consider the difference between 'you leaving means I will be stuck at home without any food or transport' and 'you leaving will make me feel lonely').
But, for some people who aren't used to the idea of negotiating behavior and emotions explicitly like this, then explicit references to emotion seem like some kind of guilt trip or 'trump card' - it's some kind of understanding that emotions are meant to be kept private unless they are overwhelming, so mentioning them is implicitly saying that this is a Very Big Deal.
It reads to me both like an expectation at reading minds and a mild form of emotional blackmail.
This might be non-violent, but it's also lacking clarity. In the end it's not clear if extra cuddling before leaving and after coming back would please the woman in the example. Or if calling her every day would. Or if she could just visit her sister to avoid her feeling of loneliness.
I did not notice an explicit negotiation or any negotiation at all in that example.
It's like with lots of these communication systems. (P.E.T. is similar, but more oriented at communicatuion with children) The authors have some specific examples of situations, and how they'd communicate, but it's all driven by some core principles and goals, and as long as you're also driven by and mind those all the time, you'll be fine using your own language, or the language of your peer.
I think I mostly use the ideas from the book without thinking at this point — and in order for that to work you most likely will have to find your own way.