On reflection do you think the quoted statement is actually doing exactly the thing you’re saying not to do?
In no way am I saying this is “fair” or anything, but feels worth noting: As someone who frequently has highly averse reactions to attempts to use or suggest NVC, and mostly thinks that the name should remove the N, I will note that my system 1 takes the quoted sentence and interprets it is as “You shouldn’t use should, also f*** you and I’m an asshole who is pretending not to use should.”
And on reflection this gets endorsed rather than dissolved. The statement protests way too much and is totally in the frame of someone who wants to be very clear that they totally, totally don’t think in should terms but wants you to know that you really shouldn’t be thinking in should terms.
When challenging myself to come up with a version of that sentence that doesn’t get that reaction, and tries to convey the actually useful thing that I’m thinking is motivating the statement, I get maybe something like:
“The concept of ‘should’ is overloaded and confusing, and leads to blame assignments that wouldn’t be endorsed if considered using more careful words. This is making communication harder, and going around blaming people in these ways causes you to suffer.”
I notice I removed the part where you say you’re OK with the other person suffering, because every time I try to add that into this context it comes off really badly, and also why is that statement being helpful here?
I will note that my system 1 takes the quoted sentence and interprets it is as “You shouldn’t use should, also f*** you and I’m an asshole who is pretending not to use should.”
I think a large part of the reason you react this way is that a good portion of the exposure you have with people who attempt to use NVC is with people who just taboo should while not really change their underlying worldview.
I notice I removed the part where you say you’re OK with the other person suffering, because every time I try to add that into this context it comes off really badly, and also why is that statement being helpful here?
There’s frequently a tradeoff between giving another person freedom and taking action to make their suffering go away.
It’s general medical ethics not to force a person who makes a decision against taking painkillers to take painkillers. A doctor has the responsibility to offer the choice of the painkillers and provide information but if the person rather wants to suffer then taking the painkiller, from the perspective of the doctor that’s ok.
Personal development frameworks that follow that ethical framework are less obnixious then those who think that the fact that a practioner found a way to make himself suffer less gives them an obligation to get others to do the same thing and also suffer less.
On reflection do you think the quoted statement is actually doing exactly the thing you’re saying not to do?
In no way am I saying this is “fair” or anything, but feels worth noting: As someone who frequently has highly averse reactions to attempts to use or suggest NVC, and mostly thinks that the name should remove the N, I will note that my system 1 takes the quoted sentence and interprets it is as “You shouldn’t use should, also f*** you and I’m an asshole who is pretending not to use should.”
And on reflection this gets endorsed rather than dissolved. The statement protests way too much and is totally in the frame of someone who wants to be very clear that they totally, totally don’t think in should terms but wants you to know that you really shouldn’t be thinking in should terms.
When challenging myself to come up with a version of that sentence that doesn’t get that reaction, and tries to convey the actually useful thing that I’m thinking is motivating the statement, I get maybe something like:
“The concept of ‘should’ is overloaded and confusing, and leads to blame assignments that wouldn’t be endorsed if considered using more careful words. This is making communication harder, and going around blaming people in these ways causes you to suffer.”
I notice I removed the part where you say you’re OK with the other person suffering, because every time I try to add that into this context it comes off really badly, and also why is that statement being helpful here?
I think a large part of the reason you react this way is that a good portion of the exposure you have with people who attempt to use NVC is with people who just taboo should while not really change their underlying worldview.
There’s frequently a tradeoff between giving another person freedom and taking action to make their suffering go away.
It’s general medical ethics not to force a person who makes a decision against taking painkillers to take painkillers. A doctor has the responsibility to offer the choice of the painkillers and provide information but if the person rather wants to suffer then taking the painkiller, from the perspective of the doctor that’s ok.
Personal development frameworks that follow that ethical framework are less obnixious then those who think that the fact that a practioner found a way to make himself suffer less gives them an obligation to get others to do the same thing and also suffer less.