Non-Violent Communication

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Non-Violent Communication

Derric Atzrott
Hoy all,

I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't
gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I
figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.

Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a method of
communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and
resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic
Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to frame the
discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.  "Nonviolent
Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from
miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative
language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of
communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]

The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components:
Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs
("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?").
Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations.
Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one
doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one
feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are simply
that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to hear the
other person say no.

To take a recent example from the mailing list:
"Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking
a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to
me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC
framework)

This could have been expressed as:
When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because
my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met.  Would
you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?

NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this connection are
blaming others and blaming ourselves.

I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC.
I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the
website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of thinking
has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to
people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I
have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I really
think that it could do a lot of good here.

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
Computer Specialist
Alizee Pathology

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia
[1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
[2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself)
[3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Marc-Andre
On 02/17/2014 02:45 PM, Derric Atzrott wrote:
> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
> listening to those of others.

You know, I'm generally considered to be reasonably skilled at
communications; and I think that I have had some success in remaining
cordial and attentive to both my colleagues and the members of the
community I often interact with.

To be honest, if someone were to address me in the way you describe in
your examples, I would almost certainly be seriously offended.  You call
this Non-Violent Communication, but I find it both condescending and
dismissive, and would certainly perceive it as a deliberate attempt at
being passive-aggressive.

TL;DR: YVVM.  Not all methods of communication are appropriate for all
media, or of all audiences.

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Derric Atzrott
>> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
>> listening to those of others.
>
>You know, I'm generally considered to be reasonably skilled at
>communications; and I think that I have had some success in remaining
>cordial and attentive to both my colleagues and the members of the
>community I often interact with.
>
>To be honest, if someone were to address me in the way you describe in
>your examples, I would almost certainly be seriously offended.  You call
>this Non-Violent Communication, but I find it both condescending and
>dismissive, and would certainly perceive it as a deliberate attempt at
>being passive-aggressive.
>
>TL;DR: YVVM.  Not all methods of communication are appropriate for all
>media, or of all audiences.

I'm sorry if I offended you.  That was not my intent.  I was only trying to help us all communicate and get along better.

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Monte Hurd
In reply to this post by Derric Atzrott
+1

When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" principle is often forgotten.

Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?

To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.


> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hoy all,
>
> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't
> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I
> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
>
> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a method of
> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and
> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic
> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to frame the
> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.  "Nonviolent
> Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from
> miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative
> language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of
> communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
> participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
> perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
>
> The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components:
> Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs
> ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?").
> Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations.
> Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
> evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one
> doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one
> feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are simply
> that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to hear the
> other person say no.
>
> To take a recent example from the mailing list:
> "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking
> a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to
> me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC
> framework)
>
> This could have been expressed as:
> When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because
> my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met.  Would
> you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
>
> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
> listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this connection are
> blaming others and blaming ourselves.
>
> I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC.
> I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the
> website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of thinking
> has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to
> people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I
> have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I really
> think that it could do a lot of good here.
>
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
> Computer Specialist
> Alizee Pathology
>
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia
> [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
> [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really
> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself)
> [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very
> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Isarra Yos
I basically agree with everything Marc said, but you bring up a very
good point about assuming good faith. That seems like something that
would probably go the furthest towards addressing the underlying
problem. Can I tape you two together?

-I

On 17/02/14 20:45, Monte Hurd wrote:

> +1
>
> When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" principle is often forgotten.
>
> Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
>
> To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
>
>
>> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hoy all,
>>
>> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't
>> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I
>> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
>>
>> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a method of
>> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and
>> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic
>> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to frame the
>> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.  "Nonviolent
>> Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from
>> miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative
>> language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of
>> communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
>> participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
>> perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
>>
>> The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components:
>> Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs
>> ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?").
>> Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations.
>> Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
>> evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one
>> doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one
>> feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are simply
>> that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to hear the
>> other person say no.
>>
>> To take a recent example from the mailing list:
>> "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking
>> a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to
>> me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC
>> framework)
>>
>> This could have been expressed as:
>> When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because
>> my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met.  Would
>> you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
>>
>> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
>> listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this connection are
>> blaming others and blaming ourselves.
>>
>> I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC.
>> I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the
>> website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of thinking
>> has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to
>> people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I
>> have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I really
>> think that it could do a lot of good here.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Derric Atzrott
>> Computer Specialist
>> Alizee Pathology
>>
>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia
>> [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
>> [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really
>> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself)
>> [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very
>> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Jay Ashworth-2
In reply to this post by Derric Atzrott
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Derric Atzrott" <[hidden email]>

> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).

No, but I don't think it's an optimal choice of name.  In my view, it's
accusing of a malevolent motivation people who are not you, who may not
*hold* such a motivation... and whether they did or not, they won't be
all that thrilled with having you call it that.

One of the alternative names you suggest might end up being a better
long-term strategic choice.

For the record, I rewrote that at least 3 times.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       [hidden email]
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Derk-Jan Hartman
In reply to this post by Monte Hurd
On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" principle is often forgotten.
>
> Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
>
> To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.

+many

Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1] does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading. The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].

We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain something properly.
Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.

I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference. It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.

DJ

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick

PS.

> Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?

If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)

PPS.
I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :)
For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/
If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every single time :D
Slightly related fun: https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000


>> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hoy all,
>>
>> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't
>> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I
>> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
>>
>> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a method of
>> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and
>> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic
>> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to frame the
>> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.  "Nonviolent
>> Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from
>> miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative
>> language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of
>> communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
>> participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
>> perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
>>
>> The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components:
>> Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs
>> ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?").
>> Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations.
>> Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
>> evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one
>> doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one
>> feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are simply
>> that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to hear the
>> other person say no.
>>
>> To take a recent example from the mailing list:
>> "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking
>> a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to
>> me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC
>> framework)
>>
>> This could have been expressed as:
>> When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because
>> my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met.  Would
>> you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
>>
>> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically
>> listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this connection are
>> blaming others and blaming ourselves.
>>
>> I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC.
>> I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the
>> website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of thinking
>> has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to
>> people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I
>> have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I really
>> think that it could do a lot of good here.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Derric Atzrott
>> Computer Specialist
>> Alizee Pathology
>>
>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia
>> [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
>> [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really
>> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself)
>> [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very
>> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Adam Wight-2
Interesting...

I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called
NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any
real-life human situation.  IMO this approach boils down to getting your
way without looking like a dick.  Creeps me out.

That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others.
Unless you're pissed :p

love,
Adam


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good
> faith" principle is often forgotten.
> >
> > Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
> perceived consensus?
> >
> > To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,
> but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
>
> +many
>
> Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always
> particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1]
> does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading.
> The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
>
> We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English
> here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to
> understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express
> theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are
> simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than
> others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain
> something properly.
> Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is
> thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so
> difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too
> tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
>
> I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from
> both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out
> errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines
> where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either
> and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference.
> It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once
> in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
>
> DJ
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
>
> PS.
>
> > Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
> perceived consensus?
>
> If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what
> you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship
> and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
>
> PPS.
> I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :)
> For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their
> hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more
> professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/
> If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that
> there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically
> once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more
> so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or
> not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That
> doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every
> single time :D
> Slightly related fun:
> https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000
>
>
> >> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hoy all,
> >>
> >> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just
> hadn't
> >> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days,
> so I
> >> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this
> thread.
> >>
> >> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a
> method of
> >> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to
> reduce and
> >> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called
> Empathetic
> >> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to
> frame the
> >> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.
>  "Nonviolent
> >> Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups
> arise from
> >> miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or
> manipulative
> >> language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent'
> modes of
> >> communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
> >> participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
> >> perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
> >>
> >> The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four
> components:
> >> Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."),
> Needs
> >> ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing
> to...?").
> >> Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad
> generalizations.
> >> Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
> >> evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others
> (so one
> >> doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel
> betrayed, one
> >> feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are
> simply
> >> that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to
> hear the
> >> other person say no.
> >>
> >> To take a recent example from the mailing list:
> >> "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not
> picking
> >> a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that
> stood out to
> >> me as something that could have been much better expressed within the
> NVC
> >> framework)
> >>
> >> This could have been expressed as:
> >> When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated
> because
> >> my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being
> met.  Would
> >> you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
> >>
> >> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and
> empathetically
> >> listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this
> connection are
> >> blaming others and blaming ourselves.
> >>
> >> I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading
> into NVC.
> >> I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along
> with the
> >> website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of
> thinking
> >> has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express
> myself to
> >> people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the
> practice that I
> >> have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I
> really
> >> think that it could do a lot of good here.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Derric Atzrott
> >> Computer Specialist
> >> Alizee Pathology
> >>
> >> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on
> Wikipedia
> >> [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
> >> [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings
> Inventory (really
> >> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like
> myself)
> >> [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also
> very
> >> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like
> myself)
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Isarra Yos
If you're pissed, that's when you use something like NVC, except taking
it even further, perhaps. Put other people on edge too, but then if they
do anything about it, weeeell...

I think this may be the standard approach on a lot of discussion boards
on enwp.

On 18/02/14 03:26, Adam Wight wrote:

> Interesting...
>
> I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called
> NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any
> real-life human situation.  IMO this approach boils down to getting your
> way without looking like a dick.  Creeps me out.
>
> That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others.
> Unless you're pissed :p
>
> love,
> Adam
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good
>> faith" principle is often forgotten.
>>> Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
>> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
>> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
>> perceived consensus?
>>> To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,
>> but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
>>
>> +many
>>
>> Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always
>> particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1]
>> does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading.
>> The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
>>
>> We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English
>> here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to
>> understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express
>> theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are
>> simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than
>> others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain
>> something properly.
>> Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is
>> thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so
>> difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too
>> tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
>>
>> I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from
>> both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out
>> errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines
>> where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either
>> and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference.
>> It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once
>> in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
>>
>> DJ
>>
>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
>>
>> PS.
>>
>>> Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
>> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
>> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
>> perceived consensus?
>>
>> If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what
>> you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship
>> and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
>>
>> PPS.
>> I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :)
>> For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their
>> hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more
>> professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/
>> If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that
>> there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically
>> once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more
>> so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or
>> not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That
>> doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every
>> single time :D
>> Slightly related fun:
>> https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000
>>
>>
>>>> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hoy all,
>>>>
>>>> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just
>> hadn't
>>>> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days,
>> so I
>>>> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this
>> thread.
>>>> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a
>> method of
>>>> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to
>> reduce and
>>>> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called
>> Empathetic
>>>> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to
>> frame the
>>>> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.
>>   "Nonviolent
>>>> Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups
>> arise from
>>>> miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or
>> manipulative
>>>> language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent'
>> modes of
>>>> communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
>>>> participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
>>>> perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
>>>>
>>>> The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four
>> components:
>>>> Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."),
>> Needs
>>>> ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing
>> to...?").
>>>> Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad
>> generalizations.
>>>> Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
>>>> evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others
>> (so one
>>>> doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel
>> betrayed, one
>>>> feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are
>> simply
>>>> that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to
>> hear the
>>>> other person say no.
>>>>
>>>> To take a recent example from the mailing list:
>>>> "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not
>> picking
>>>> a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that
>> stood out to
>>>> me as something that could have been much better expressed within the
>> NVC
>>>> framework)
>>>>
>>>> This could have been expressed as:
>>>> When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated
>> because
>>>> my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being
>> met.  Would
>>>> you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
>>>>
>>>> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and
>> empathetically
>>>> listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this
>> connection are
>>>> blaming others and blaming ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading
>> into NVC.
>>>> I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along
>> with the
>>>> website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of
>> thinking
>>>> has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express
>> myself to
>>>> people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the
>> practice that I
>>>> have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I
>> really
>>>> think that it could do a lot of good here.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Derric Atzrott
>>>> Computer Specialist
>>>> Alizee Pathology
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on
>> Wikipedia
>>>> [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
>>>> [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings
>> Inventory (really
>>>> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like
>> myself)
>>>> [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also
>> very
>>>> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like
>> myself)
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Alex Brollo
While browsing the web for new trends of human-horse communication & horse
management, I found the website of Marjorie Smith, and I've been deeply
influenced by her; her thoughts about links between man-to-man and
man-to-horse communication - really an example of advantages of NVC - were
extremely interesting and inspiring.

I don't know why she removed her website from the web, but I saved a copy
of it into my own website, with an Italian translation (with Marjorie
permission) but - luckily - with original English front-text. You can find
it here: http://www.alexbrollo.com/people-for-peace/

If yoi like horses and peace, it's a very interesting text. It points
attention on fear, and to how fighting against fear is important for NVC.

Alex


2014-02-18 4:33 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos <[hidden email]>:

> If you're pissed, that's when you use something like NVC, except taking it
> even further, perhaps. Put other people on edge too, but then if they do
> anything about it, weeeell...
>
> I think this may be the standard approach on a lot of discussion boards on
> enwp.
>
>
> On 18/02/14 03:26, Adam Wight wrote:
>
>> Interesting...
>>
>> I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called
>> NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any
>> real-life human situation.  IMO this approach boils down to getting your
>> way without looking like a dick.  Creeps me out.
>>
>> That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others.
>> Unless you're pissed :p
>>
>> love,
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  +1
>>>>
>>>> When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good
>>>>
>>> faith" principle is often forgotten.
>>>
>>>> Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
>>>>
>>> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
>>> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
>>> perceived consensus?
>>>
>>>> To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,
>>>>
>>> but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
>>>
>>> +many
>>>
>>> Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always
>>> particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1]
>>> does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for
>>> reading.
>>> The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
>>>
>>> We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English
>>> here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to
>>> understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express
>>> theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people
>>> are
>>> simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than
>>> others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain
>>> something properly.
>>> Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and
>>> is
>>> thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is
>>> so
>>> difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too
>>> tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
>>>
>>> I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from
>>> both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out
>>> errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines
>>> where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either
>>> and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference.
>>> It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people
>>> once
>>> in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
>>>
>>> DJ
>>>
>>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
>>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
>>>
>>> PS.
>>>
>>>  Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
>>>>
>>> about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like
>>> mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual
>>> perceived consensus?
>>>
>>> If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what
>>> you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for
>>> adminship
>>> and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
>>>
>>> PPS.
>>> I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :)
>>> For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their
>>> hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more
>>> professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/
>>> 07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/
>>> If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that
>>> there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically
>>> once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even
>>> more
>>> so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether
>>> or
>>> not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with.
>>> That
>>> doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every
>>> single time :D
>>> Slightly related fun:
>>> https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <
>>>>>
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoy all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just
>>>>>
>>>> hadn't
>>>
>>>> gotten around to it.  Things have been rather heated the past few days,
>>>>>
>>>> so I
>>>
>>>> figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this
>>>>>
>>>> thread.
>>>
>>>> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).  It's a
>>>>>
>>>> method of
>>>
>>>> communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to
>>>>>
>>>> reduce and
>>>
>>>> resolve conflicts between people.  NVC has sometimes also been called
>>>>>
>>>> Empathetic
>>>
>>>> Communication or Needs Based Communication.  The idea of NVC is to
>>>>>
>>>> frame the
>>>
>>>> discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.
>>>>>
>>>>   "Nonviolent
>>>
>>>> Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups
>>>>>
>>>> arise from
>>>
>>>> miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or
>>>>>
>>>> manipulative
>>>
>>>> language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent'
>>>>>
>>>> modes of
>>>
>>>> communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
>>>>> participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their
>>>>> perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
>>>>>
>>>>> The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four
>>>>>
>>>> components:
>>>
>>>> Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."),
>>>>>
>>>> Needs
>>>
>>>> ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing
>>>>>
>>>> to...?").
>>>
>>>> Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad
>>>>>
>>>> generalizations.
>>>
>>>> Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
>>>>> evaluations.  Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others
>>>>>
>>>> (so one
>>>
>>>> doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel
>>>>>
>>>> betrayed, one
>>>
>>>> feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged).  Finally requests are
>>>>>
>>>> simply
>>>
>>>> that requests, but they are not demands.  You have to be willing to
>>>>>
>>>> hear the
>>>
>>>> other person say no.
>>>>>
>>>>> To take a recent example from the mailing list:
>>>>> "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not
>>>>>
>>>> picking
>>>
>>>> a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that
>>>>>
>>>> stood out to
>>>
>>>> me as something that could have been much better expressed within the
>>>>>
>>>> NVC
>>>
>>>> framework)
>>>>>
>>>>> This could have been expressed as:
>>>>> When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated
>>>>>
>>>> because
>>>
>>>> my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being
>>>>>
>>>> met.  Would
>>>
>>>> you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
>>>>>
>>>>> NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and
>>>>>
>>>> empathetically
>>>
>>>> listening to those of others.  Two things that really harm this
>>>>>
>>>> connection are
>>>
>>>> blaming others and blaming ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading
>>>>>
>>>> into NVC.
>>>
>>>> I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along
>>>>>
>>>> with the
>>>
>>>> website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication.  The NVC way of
>>>>>
>>>> thinking
>>>
>>>> has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express
>>>>>
>>>> myself to
>>>
>>>> people.  I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the
>>>>>
>>>> practice that I
>>>
>>>> have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others.  I
>>>>>
>>>> really
>>>
>>>> think that it could do a lot of good here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Derric Atzrott
>>>>> Computer Specialist
>>>>> Alizee Pathology
>>>>>
>>>>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on
>>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
>>>>> [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings
>>>>>
>>>> Inventory (really
>>>
>>>> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like
>>>>>
>>>> myself)
>>>
>>>> [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also
>>>>>
>>>> very
>>>
>>>> useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like
>>>>>
>>>> myself)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Jan Nieuwenhuizen
In reply to this post by Derric Atzrott
Derric Atzrott writes:

Hi Derric,

> Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).

NVC is amazing and I very much encourage anyone to take it up.  It goes
way beyond a method of thinking, it is a spiritual path.  Like other
spiritual paths that means it may work if you practise it yourself.

Also, there is no need whatsoever for others to practice NVC.  If you do
it yourself, benifits will follow.  While you may inspire others,
forcing your spiritual path onto them, or even suggesting they could do
so, may trigger very strong reactions.

A growing part of the Agile change management movement is adopting NVC,
as it fits very well with techies.  Google on NVC+Agile.

Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using
NVC?

Greetings, Jan

--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[hidden email]> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl 

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

pi zero
In reply to this post by Derk-Jan Hartman
I find it fascinating what a successful meme AGF is.  I was so successfully
indoctrinated by it during my first three years or so on en.wp that when I
first encountered en.wn, where they explicitly reject AGF as intrinsically
incompatible with news production, I wondered how they could possibly
operate without it (this is after having wondered, when I first arrived at
en.wp, how they could possibly function *with* it).  For a few years I
tried to satisfy both camps, with the idea that it was appropriate for
Wikipedia but not for Wikinews.  Eventually I've concluded that AGF has
done huge damage to en.wp, creating a highly toxic culture there.  The
en.wn alternative is Never assume (which I'm realizing, more and more, is
not just a code of social interaction, it's a philosophy of life).  AGF, if
taken literally by its name, advocates assuming something, which
contributors to an information provider should never be encouraged to do.
If taken the way it seems to be meant (per WP:ZEN), it teaches people to
say something different than what you mean, also not good.  And, AGF can
be, and is, used successfully by people of bad faith to avoid
responsibility for their own behavior and get their victims in trouble.

I note this<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html>
.

Pi zero
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Derric Atzrott
In reply to this post by Jan Nieuwenhuizen
>Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using
>NVC?

I was excited and in a hurry.  In retrospect I really think that I should have.

After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and frustrated, and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for understanding was met.

In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the list.  I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email was, well, violent.  That was not my intention at all.  I just began myself looking into and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so, and I am, as of now, still not terribly great at it.

Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't turn anyone off to the subject.  I guess all I was really trying to say in that email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel frustrated because my needs for calm and community are not met.  I end up not wanting to participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or understood.  I would like to request that people onlist look into strategies to help everyone get along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or something else, does not matter as much to me.  I suggested NVC because it has been a very useful tool for me in the past.

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Paul Selitskas
Thanks for a nice tasty bikeshed on a technical mailing list.

I assume your good faith, and I foresee its consequences. You couldn't
employ your NVC skills because you were, quote, in a hurry, end quote. That
means, NVC just doesn't work when it's needed. I don't think everyone here
has a lot of spare time to mix original thoughts with a dump of meaningless
requests and pardons. You want to share how you feel? I don't think it's
the right place to do this. Don't ask to ask, just ask, and so on.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Derric Atzrott <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> >Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using
> >NVC?
>
> I was excited and in a hurry.  In retrospect I really think that I should
> have.
>
> After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and
> frustrated, and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for
> understanding was met.
>
> In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the
> list.  I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email
> was, well, violent.  That was not my intention at all.  I just began myself
> looking into and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so, and I
> am, as of now, still not terribly great at it.
>
> Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't
> turn anyone off to the subject.  I guess all I was really trying to say in
> that email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel
> frustrated because my needs for calm and community are not met.  I end up
> not wanting to participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or
> understood.  I would like to request that people onlist look into
> strategies to help everyone get along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or
> something else, does not matter as much to me.  I suggested NVC because it
> has been a very useful tool for me in the past.
>
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



--
З павагай,
Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas
Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Dan Andreescu
>
> I assume your good faith, and I foresee its consequences. You couldn't
> employ your NVC skills because you were, quote, in a hurry, end quote. That
> means, NVC just doesn't work when it's needed. I don't think everyone here
> has a lot of spare time to mix original thoughts with a dump of meaningless
> requests and pardons. You want to share how you feel? I don't think it's
> the right place to do this. Don't ask to ask, just ask, and so on.
>

I think this and other responses to non-violent communication make a lot of
sense.  They're in line with the old quote "First they ignore you, then
they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."  But this process
takes years and we seem to be at the laugh and fight stage.

I think violence is a particularly efficient way of getting what you want.
 "Assume good faith" is just a way to apologize in advance for employing
violence.  And honestly, I come from a culture where violence is a totally
acceptable form of communication, and I'm a violent communicator.  I creep
myself out when I try to not be violent, but I recognize that much harmony
would result from adopting the principles of NVC.  Anyway I don't have any
opinion on either side of this discussion, just wanted to point out that
the responses are to be expected.  And to say to Derric thank you, your
post was not in vain and it did not turn me off to the subject.  On the
contrary, it made me admire that more people are willing to try it.


>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Derric Atzrott <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > >Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using
> > >NVC?
> >
> > I was excited and in a hurry.  In retrospect I really think that I should
> > have.
> >
> > After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and
> > frustrated, and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for
> > understanding was met.
> >
> > In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the
> > list.  I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email
> > was, well, violent.  That was not my intention at all.  I just began
> myself
> > looking into and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so,
> and I
> > am, as of now, still not terribly great at it.
> >
> > Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't
> > turn anyone off to the subject.  I guess all I was really trying to say
> in
> > that email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel
> > frustrated because my needs for calm and community are not met.  I end up
> > not wanting to participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or
> > understood.  I would like to request that people onlist look into
> > strategies to help everyone get along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or
> > something else, does not matter as much to me.  I suggested NVC because
> it
> > has been a very useful tool for me in the past.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Derric Atzrott
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> З павагай,
> Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas
> Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Isarra Yos
In reply to this post by pi zero
That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to
avoid assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of
the doubt without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even
more of one now).

But yeah, good points.

On 18/02/14 13:43, pi zero wrote:

> I find it fascinating what a successful meme AGF is.  I was so successfully
> indoctrinated by it during my first three years or so on en.wp that when I
> first encountered en.wn, where they explicitly reject AGF as intrinsically
> incompatible with news production, I wondered how they could possibly
> operate without it (this is after having wondered, when I first arrived at
> en.wp, how they could possibly function *with* it).  For a few years I
> tried to satisfy both camps, with the idea that it was appropriate for
> Wikipedia but not for Wikinews.  Eventually I've concluded that AGF has
> done huge damage to en.wp, creating a highly toxic culture there.  The
> en.wn alternative is Never assume (which I'm realizing, more and more, is
> not just a code of social interaction, it's a philosophy of life).  AGF, if
> taken literally by its name, advocates assuming something, which
> contributors to an information provider should never be encouraged to do.
> If taken the way it seems to be meant (per WP:ZEN), it teaches people to
> say something different than what you mean, also not good.  And, AGF can
> be, and is, used successfully by people of bad faith to avoid
> responsibility for their own behavior and get their victims in trouble.
>
> I note this<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html>
> .
>
> Pi zero
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

David Gerard-2
On 18 February 2014 16:34, Isarra Yos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to avoid
> assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of the doubt
> without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even more of one
> now).


"assume good faith" makes more sense when you realise it's a nicer
restatement of "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice". It
certainly doesn't mean "assume correctness".


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Chad
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:48 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18 February 2014 16:34, Isarra Yos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to avoid
> > assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of the
> doubt
> > without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even more of one
> > now).
>
>
> "assume good faith" makes more sense when you realise it's a nicer
> restatement of "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice". It
> certainly doesn't mean "assume correctness".
>
>
Indeed.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Daniel Zahn-2
summary: don't reply in a hurry or when you're pissed. Try not to piss off
others and don't assume they just mean bad. Don't waste time. Stay on
topic. Humans are still humans. Be nice. Try to do better tomorrow. Kthx.
News?
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Non-Violent Communication

Daniel Zahn-2
and yes I see the paradox that I also just wrote that in a hurry and was a
little frustrated because it honestly seemed to me like those things
weren't new. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. I'm just
personally like: 'would rather do technical stuff.. too busy..'.. finding a
balance between hostile environment and an overly regulated one without any
kind of snark seems appropriate to me.
On Feb 18, 2014 9:38 AM, "Daniel Zahn" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> summary: don't reply in a hurry or when you're pissed. Try not to piss off
> others and don't assume they just mean bad. Don't waste time. Stay on
> topic. Humans are still humans. Be nice. Try to do better tomorrow. Kthx.
> News?
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
12