Hacker News Reader

Comment by BasDirks | Hacker News Reader

I have my doubts about the honesty of these interpretations:

> I feel angry because you forgot about our coffee date -> I want people to value the feelings of their friends

Are you not angry because you want the person to value YOU and your time? What are these generic "people" and "the feeling of their friends" to you?

> You make me feel guilty when you text me all the time -> I want there to be less pressure on my to respond to your texts

What's the point of this pressure? If you feel guilty for not texting back, isn't there a chance that the other person wants to receive more than they are giving?

> You make me upset when you call other children names -> I want my child to be kind to others

Might the desire sometimes be: As a parent, I don't want to get embarrassed for (as I perceive it) not raising a kind child?

Being a bit cynical, because the underlying motives might be more useful to solve than the more generic desires.

View on HN

Part of NVC is also similar to '5 times why'.

These might be surface desires, with the ones you mention being another layer of underlying desires. It's an interesting exercise in itself to do this with your own desires.

These feel ill formed NVC. If you lead with feeling the entire exchange becomes confrontational. First state unambiguous facts.

Yeah for sure. One fundamental rule of NVC is to never state a feeling as being caused by anyone. Instead you state that something happened and what you felt when that happened. So the template is "this and this happened and I felt this and this emotion". Not "you did this and this and you made me feel this and this". This way you take responsibility for your own emotions, and don't make anyone else defensive or confrontational by accusing them of making you feel something.

"When you didn't show up for our coffee date, I felt hurt. I need my time to be respected. Would you please show up on time or send me text letting me know you can't come?"

More verbose for sure but clearer and more likely to de-escalate.

If someone spoke like that to me it would feel very forced and unnatural, I would assume it is fake

That tone tells me that the conversation is now in lawyer-mode. If I'm using it, it's because I'm no longer willing or able to communicate normally. If I cared about you, you'd see me angry. If I don't care about you, you'll see me having this style of conversation, which IMO is far more aggressive and dangerous than actual anger.

If I'm on the receiving side of that kind of tone, it's time to either re-engage with normal conversation and try to salvage the relationship, or now I'm also mirroring that tone and we can never have an honest conversation again.

I've yet to experience that. Been doing NVC for more than a decade. It helps a lot defusing tense situations. This example isn't very good. It shows the form but not the power.

Perhaps one can see them as simplified examples of the type of message you're aiming for, and it's left as an exercise to the reader to phrase it naturally.

Maybe the first few times.

We call these "I" messages and they show Emotional Responsibility for ourselves (and thus cause less friction and arguments). No one can "make" us feel anything emotionally, without our permission (physical, yes, but emotional, no). We make ourselves feel things... more specifically, our thoughts and meanings make us feel the way we feel.

The format is, "I felt __ when you __ because I thought/expected/believed __". Try it... it works well!

The flaw in that is the when you clause ends with something that usually is ambiguous or taken the wrong way can flare up an argument. I am a bit rusty in the theory since it's more than a decade since I took the course but the other form is what has done wonders for me. Me and the wife use NVC at least weekly to defuse situations.

I'm unfamiliar with NVC, but I've always held that you are, like you said, responsible for your emotions. I've tried with all my kids to teach them that. "She made me angry!" "No, nobody can make you feel anything, you are in charge of how you feel. What did they do that made you choose to be angry?"

It's good to teach children (and sometimes adults unfortunately) to be responsible for their emotions and explain what happened instead of vague statements like "She made me angry!", but you don't choose your emotions to situations, only how you respond to them.

My communication style is regularly challenged by myself, on reflection, and others to explain why something is important instead of what is important. To help avoid misunderstandings around my intent about presenting a fact, I have found that explaining the reason why something matters to me or the situation and then followed by the supporting fact improves my interactions.

I personally have found it a useful lens to look at communication in this form of presentation model after watching this video.

https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_insp...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com