NVC is a form of variable scoping for human communication. With it, you can write communication code that avoids the most common runtime conflicts.
Human brains are neural networks doing predictive processing. We receive data from the external world, and not all of that data is trusted in the computer security sense. Some of the data would modify parts of your world model which you’d like to be able to do your own thinking with. It’s jarring and unpleasant for someone to send you an informational packet that as you parse it moves around parts of your cognition you were relying on not being moved. For example, think back to dissonances you’ve felt, or seen in others, due to direct forceful claims about their internal state. This makes sense! Suffering, in predictive processing, is unresolved error signals, two conflicting world-models contained in the same system. If the other person’s data packet tried to make claims directly into your world model, rather than via your normal evaluation functions, you’re often going to end up with suffering-flavoured superpositions in your world-model.
NVC is safe-mode restricted subset of communication where you make sure the type signature of your conversational object makes changes to the other person’s fuzzy non-secured predictive processing state only in ways carefully scoped to fairly reliably not collide with their thought-code, while keeping enough flexibility to resolve conflict. You don’t necessarily want to run it all the time, it does limit a bunch of communication which is nice in high trust conversations where global scope lets you move faster, but it’s amazing as a way to get out or avoid of otherwise painful conflict spirals.
So! Safe scopes:
Feelings—these are claims that are only about your own internal state[1], as updating the other person’s model of you is something you have much more vision into and will rarely object to if you’re doing so visibly earnestly
Needs—stating universal / general needs of humans[2], as these are mostly not questionable (just don’t import strategies for meeting those needs that often collide)
Observations—specific verifiable facts about reality, that they can check if they don’t agree with (may generate dissonance but lets them resolve it, and quickly know they have a clear path to resolving it)
Requests—making asks that are well-defined enough that the other can evaluate cleanly
I think this is a good metaphor, but note that it is still very possible to be a dick, hurt other people, etc. while communicating in NVC style. It’s not a silver bullet because nothing is.
This still underscores the need for a shared protocol though!
Feelings fails if the other person does have a strong model of your feelings. They might do for various reasons, e.g. they’re a narcissist, or they think you’re lying about your feelings to take advantage of them.
Requests fails if the other person is from a guess culture where making a request puts an obligation on them which it would be impolite to refuse.
Thanks! NVC seems quite valuable but is difficult to learn and practice in its original form. This compression and the post you linked (I had missed it) seem quite valuable as compressions.
How about this attempted extra compression:
Don’t make claims someone is likely to disagree with.
That (perhaps surprisingly) just leaves obvious factual states of the world, and your own inner state.
And questions about whether someone would like to do things you want done (carefully gentle requests).
Of course humans are silly and cranky, so people will sometimes find ways to disagree even with those. But cutting it to those things really reduces disagreement and therefore negative valence and activation in the conversation.
Which keeps perceived conflict from derailing rationality.
Don’t make claims that plausibly conflict with their models, except if they can check the claims (you are a valid source for claims about purely your state). + Don’t make underspecified requests, and found your requests in general needs with space for those needs to be met other ways.
I was going for terms that are simple to convey to anyone, and to remember. I’ve bounced off of NVC several times even though I believe it’s valuable.
With that in mind “don’t pressure anyone” is another try to simplify the core even further.
Don’t pressure them to change their beliefs. And don’t pressure them to do anything. Telling them facts and how you feel isn’t pressuring them.
Needs as you’ve framed them have a fuzzy boundary between needs and wants. Do I need respect or just want it in this situation? So it’s easy to wonder if I’m pressuring someone by framing it as a need.
That’s why I like the question framing of requests: “would you be willing to” is often just an honest question about what someone wants to do.
Needs as you’ve framed them have a fuzzy boundary between needs and wants. Do I need respect or just want it in this situation? So it’s easy to wonder if I’m pressuring someone by framing it as a need.
Yeah, the idea is to go back to as basic a pattern that’s preferred as you can. If I was trying to make it super concrete I’d probably try to unpack it to be “thing grounded in basic human universal reinforcement signals” with a bunch of @Steven Byrnes’s neuroscience, esp this stuff.
I think everything is grounded in basic human universal reinforcement signals. If you look at Steve’s Valence series, it’s a sketch of how the critic portion of the steering system expands those basic signals, by association, to complex representations of complex situations. So in my considered opinion, there’s not a sharp line between needs and wants.
So we can have a need for justice that’s almost arbitrarily strong. it might be stronger then our hunger, even when we’re pretty hungry.
So it doesn’t make sense to say it’s a need if I’m hungry but it’s really mild, like just feeling a little peckish, and not a need if I’m wanting respect very badly.
This seems potentially useful if you find yourself regularly getting told you are manipulative or rude, but if not, I don’t see the value proposition.
I’m also skeptical general, universal, rules like this exist for everyone, as well as “dissonance” being bad in every circumstance for everyone.
As a concrete example, sometimes my friends will tell me they are stupid or inadequate, and also sometimes I know that’s dumb & stupid, so I tell them. This no doubt causes dissonance but a good kind because I know those people well enough to know they just aren’t thinking clearly (and if they were, my confident assertions would not much change their trajectory).
Less concretely, many people thrive in direct confrontation, and NVC seems opposed to that.
NVC is a form of variable scoping for human communication. With it, you can write communication code that avoids the most common runtime conflicts.
Human brains are neural networks doing predictive processing. We receive data from the external world, and not all of that data is trusted in the computer security sense. Some of the data would modify parts of your world model which you’d like to be able to do your own thinking with. It’s jarring and unpleasant for someone to send you an informational packet that as you parse it moves around parts of your cognition you were relying on not being moved. For example, think back to dissonances you’ve felt, or seen in others, due to direct forceful claims about their internal state. This makes sense! Suffering, in predictive processing, is unresolved error signals, two conflicting world-models contained in the same system. If the other person’s data packet tried to make claims directly into your world model, rather than via your normal evaluation functions, you’re often going to end up with suffering-flavoured superpositions in your world-model.
NVC is safe-mode restricted subset of communication where you make sure the type signature of your conversational object makes changes to the other person’s fuzzy non-secured predictive processing state only in ways carefully scoped to fairly reliably not collide with their thought-code, while keeping enough flexibility to resolve conflict. You don’t necessarily want to run it all the time, it does limit a bunch of communication which is nice in high trust conversations where global scope lets you move faster, but it’s amazing as a way to get out or avoid of otherwise painful conflict spirals.
So! Safe scopes:
Feelings—these are claims that are only about your own internal state[1], as updating the other person’s model of you is something you have much more vision into and will rarely object to if you’re doing so visibly earnestly
Needs—stating universal / general needs of humans[2], as these are mostly not questionable (just don’t import strategies for meeting those needs that often collide)
Observations—specific verifiable facts about reality, that they can check if they don’t agree with (may generate dissonance but lets them resolve it, and quickly know they have a clear path to resolving it)
Requests—making asks that are well-defined enough that the other can evaluate cleanly
e.g. I feel scared
e.g. I have a need for sleep
I think this is a good metaphor, but note that it is still very possible to be a dick, hurt other people, etc. while communicating in NVC style. It’s not a silver bullet because nothing is.
This still underscores the need for a shared protocol though!
Feelings fails if the other person does have a strong model of your feelings. They might do for various reasons, e.g. they’re a narcissist, or they think you’re lying about your feelings to take advantage of them.
Requests fails if the other person is from a guess culture where making a request puts an obligation on them which it would be impolite to refuse.
Thanks! NVC seems quite valuable but is difficult to learn and practice in its original form. This compression and the post you linked (I had missed it) seem quite valuable as compressions.
How about this attempted extra compression:
Don’t make claims someone is likely to disagree with.
That (perhaps surprisingly) just leaves obvious factual states of the world, and your own inner state.
And questions about whether someone would like to do things you want done (carefully gentle requests).
Of course humans are silly and cranky, so people will sometimes find ways to disagree even with those. But cutting it to those things really reduces disagreement and therefore negative valence and activation in the conversation.
Which keeps perceived conflict from derailing rationality.
I’d go with
I was going for terms that are simple to convey to anyone, and to remember. I’ve bounced off of NVC several times even though I believe it’s valuable.
With that in mind “don’t pressure anyone” is another try to simplify the core even further.
Don’t pressure them to change their beliefs. And don’t pressure them to do anything. Telling them facts and how you feel isn’t pressuring them.
Needs as you’ve framed them have a fuzzy boundary between needs and wants. Do I need respect or just want it in this situation? So it’s easy to wonder if I’m pressuring someone by framing it as a need.
That’s why I like the question framing of requests: “would you be willing to” is often just an honest question about what someone wants to do.
Yeah, the idea is to go back to as basic a pattern that’s preferred as you can. If I was trying to make it super concrete I’d probably try to unpack it to be “thing grounded in basic human universal reinforcement signals” with a bunch of @Steven Byrnes’s neuroscience, esp this stuff.
I think everything is grounded in basic human universal reinforcement signals. If you look at Steve’s Valence series, it’s a sketch of how the critic portion of the steering system expands those basic signals, by association, to complex representations of complex situations. So in my considered opinion, there’s not a sharp line between needs and wants.
So we can have a need for justice that’s almost arbitrarily strong. it might be stronger then our hunger, even when we’re pretty hungry.
So it doesn’t make sense to say it’s a need if I’m hungry but it’s really mild, like just feeling a little peckish, and not a need if I’m wanting respect very badly.
This seems potentially useful if you find yourself regularly getting told you are manipulative or rude, but if not, I don’t see the value proposition.
I’m also skeptical general, universal, rules like this exist for everyone, as well as “dissonance” being bad in every circumstance for everyone.
As a concrete example, sometimes my friends will tell me they are stupid or inadequate, and also sometimes I know that’s dumb & stupid, so I tell them. This no doubt causes dissonance but a good kind because I know those people well enough to know they just aren’t thinking clearly (and if they were, my confident assertions would not much change their trajectory).
Less concretely, many people thrive in direct confrontation, and NVC seems opposed to that.