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)?
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.
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.
Smart. That’s enough.
Removed by mod
Well. Except that one. Which lacks zazz
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 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.
what i really wonder is why you gotta bring out your bigotry if you just disagree with the concept of non-violent communication?
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…
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?
Wait till you learn about how language works …
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.
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
Maybe the reason why nonviolent communication seems foreign in the workplace is because there is violent communication inherent to the workplace relationship.
So…
- Do you always have deadlines?
- Do you have time to have breaks (preferably with coworkers), at least two separate apart from lunch (one before lunch break and one after)?
- Do your coworkers always talk about work during those breaks?
- Bathroom breaks do not count, and you shouldn’t anyhow bother colleagues with feelings during bathroom breaks.
For 2 and 3, yes, it’s normal to talk about emotions and feelings, as long as you’re not overshadowing other peoples need to vent.
For 1, get a different job if you’re not constantly striving for heart attacks, kidney failures or brain strokes.
For 4, I was going to make a very dumb joke, but… change work place.
Yes I do if I really need to clean the air or if I want something from the boss but I’m a factory worker so with my colleagues the need rarely arises. If it does it’s pretty funny to see how seamlessly you can actually switch between brutal workplace banter and sharing something genuine. It doesn’t have to take a lot of time if you’re upfront with it.
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.
deleted by creator
I like this playlist of sessions by the creator of Nonviolent Communication for anyone interested in learning more about the concept.
It sounds like a crock of shit for weasels who can’t look reality in the eye.
It sounds like someone hurt you and in turn you want to hurt others unnecessarily.
1/2. I calls em like I sees em.
