> No. I was describing what NVC is. The book, this thread, the culture of people like you pushing it in the workplace is what I wrote. The book encourages a language form, the proponents of the book push a language form, you are pushing a 'communication style'.
I'm sorry, but:
1. You haven't read the book.
2. You are falsely accusing me of pushing it in the workplace. Do you work at my workplace and know me?
3. I am not pushing a 'communication style'. Nowhere in this thread or anywhere else have I suggested that one should follow it. I've expressed my like for it - that's all.
If you have concluded all this about me, then I must say I do not trust at all what you say about the people "pushing" NVC at your work place. And frankly, your comments remind me of people who make all kinds of claims about, say, Muslims/Islam without understanding anything about them.
> you are hired for your individual skills at a particular task.
Rarely. This is true for contract jobs, but not employment. People are usually hired with a project in mind, and then anything else we give them.
> at the end of the day everybody does the work by themselves
Also rare. If you're committing code to a shared codebase, you are not working by yourself.
> I would look forward to working with people that want to talk about mission critical issues more than they want (apparently) to spend talking about feelings and structuring sentences.
As I said - I don't talk about communications issues at work unless it is clearly affecting people (e.g. someone complains). And when that happens, your communication style has become something that affects mission critical issues.
I may practice NVC on occasion[1], but NVC doesn't require or request others to do so, and insisting others do so pretty much violates the NVC approach.
> We have been working together as groups for thousands of years, it's unlikely a new fad book is going to have a solution to 'communication', one of the most fundamental things we do as humans.
Again, as one who has not read the book, you cannot appreciate how your comment sounds to those who have. To give an extreme example: Imagine a popular book today talking about the need to be truthful, and imagine someone on the Internet coming in and saying "People have been dealing with each other for thousands of years. I don't want to read some new fad book." As I said earlier, Rosenberg didn't invent NVC. He merely identified its existence. Most people I've seen who successfully destress a situation are using NVC without having heard of it. I listen to a radio show where the host does a fantastic job of getting people to speak honestly (local issues and conflicts in my cities). He doesn't get people to say "I feel X because of my need for Y", but he is practicing NVC. I should email him and ask if he's even heard of NVC.
I don't practice NVC because I think it's a new thing that's cool and awesome (BTW, the book is older than many people here). I practice it because after reading it, I noticed it everywhere in the world. It's not at all new.
[1] And it really is on occasion. Anyone who knows NVC can see I'm not practicing it in these comments.
I can’t abide these blatant contradictions. I just stood up for a guy who was swearing, that you tried to lock out in this very same thread. You are pushing NVC and in that very comment you mentioned that you would let this guy go for his communication style.
I know there are books that describe “the obvious”, we just had two years of Jordan Peterson telling common sense things to 500 million people and selling books on it. I don’t need another guru to tell me how to do the “obvious”.
You didn’t answer my question about who’s responsibility this problem communicating self evident ideas is. If you can answer that then you have a key to why NVC is silly.
You didn’t answer my point about NVC being more about papering over judgements of character or acknowledge that these treatments of communication necessarily fall into problems of attribution.
Associate me with religious critics however much you want. I have made solid points and you have lied. I’m done here.
I'm sorry, but:
1. You haven't read the book.
2. You are falsely accusing me of pushing it in the workplace. Do you work at my workplace and know me?
3. I am not pushing a 'communication style'. Nowhere in this thread or anywhere else have I suggested that one should follow it. I've expressed my like for it - that's all.
If you have concluded all this about me, then I must say I do not trust at all what you say about the people "pushing" NVC at your work place. And frankly, your comments remind me of people who make all kinds of claims about, say, Muslims/Islam without understanding anything about them.
> you are hired for your individual skills at a particular task.
Rarely. This is true for contract jobs, but not employment. People are usually hired with a project in mind, and then anything else we give them.
> at the end of the day everybody does the work by themselves
Also rare. If you're committing code to a shared codebase, you are not working by yourself.
> I would look forward to working with people that want to talk about mission critical issues more than they want (apparently) to spend talking about feelings and structuring sentences.
As I said - I don't talk about communications issues at work unless it is clearly affecting people (e.g. someone complains). And when that happens, your communication style has become something that affects mission critical issues.
I may practice NVC on occasion[1], but NVC doesn't require or request others to do so, and insisting others do so pretty much violates the NVC approach.
> We have been working together as groups for thousands of years, it's unlikely a new fad book is going to have a solution to 'communication', one of the most fundamental things we do as humans.
Again, as one who has not read the book, you cannot appreciate how your comment sounds to those who have. To give an extreme example: Imagine a popular book today talking about the need to be truthful, and imagine someone on the Internet coming in and saying "People have been dealing with each other for thousands of years. I don't want to read some new fad book." As I said earlier, Rosenberg didn't invent NVC. He merely identified its existence. Most people I've seen who successfully destress a situation are using NVC without having heard of it. I listen to a radio show where the host does a fantastic job of getting people to speak honestly (local issues and conflicts in my cities). He doesn't get people to say "I feel X because of my need for Y", but he is practicing NVC. I should email him and ask if he's even heard of NVC.
I don't practice NVC because I think it's a new thing that's cool and awesome (BTW, the book is older than many people here). I practice it because after reading it, I noticed it everywhere in the world. It's not at all new.
[1] And it really is on occasion. Anyone who knows NVC can see I'm not practicing it in these comments.