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.
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.