Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The method being called "non-violent communication" is a self referential intention for people practicing it to hopefully commit to communicate in a non-violent way. It is not making an interpretation or judgment on other communication styles which may or may not be violent. By calling itself "non-violent communication" it is in no way saying that all other communication styles are violent.

I have seen and felt NVC is a hard skill to cultivate because it takes good will, patience, and a lot of introspection to learn. From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. Even learning the gamut of feeling words and types of needs is an eye opener. And then on top of that is when listening to others, the practice of hearing their feelings and needs even when they might not communicate it in a clearly non-violent way. It seems the key is valuing the relationship between the people communicating and having an intention of openness, honesty, and genuineness even if you might in the end agree to disagree.

If one party does not want to participate then there isn't necessarily space to communicate this way. And either party can choose to remove themselves and not participate and, that is ok.




> From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that.

This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins.

My argument is that intentions of "openness, honesty, and genuineness" (in other words, transparency, candor, and trust) are by themselves enough to establish effective communication without requiring a framework that potentially shuts people out.


> This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins.

If you've ever read the NVC book, you would realize that the notion of "enforcing an NVC communication style" is fundamentally an oxymoron.


Sure, but I’m talking about the corporate world, where these ideologies are enforced in via policy and mandatory trainings.

From the Wikipedia article that started this thread:

“CNVC certifies trainers who wish to teach NVC in a manner aligned with CNVC's understanding of the NVC process.[64] CNVC also offers trainings by certified trainers.”


I'm quite aware of the NVC trainers/certification. I'm pro-NVC, but I recommend everyone to stay away from the "NVC cult", which includes such folks.

I did not realize, however, that you had corporations utilizing them formally. That would really suck. Very reminiscent of agile vs Agile (TM). NVC is valuable only if you accept its principles - the NVC template alone is of little use. Mandating people communicate this way is very anti-NVC.

The book is quite good. The local chapters in many cities are definitely not good. They'll usually embellish and add a lot to the content in the book, and a lot of it sucks. I too would be very put off by NVC if my primary exposure had been through them.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: