> I feel like there's always something odd about some of these taught communication techniques, where I feel like there's a reason these communication styles don't come naturally to us, and there is a bit of a manipulative aspect to them.

This definitely can be true, but in practice these techniques shape your understanding of people. Motivational Interviewing and NVC both draw upon an attitude of acceptance—that is, treating the person you are talking to with accurate empathy for their perspective, support for their autonomy, affirmation of their strengths and efforts, and the belief that they have intrinsic worth.

Someone who is comfortable thinking of themselves as a manipulator could pretend to believe such things for the sake of coming up with the right thing to say, and if they're a skilled liar then they would likely get away with using the technique manipulatively at least some of the time, but if you interpret your interactions as if you are accepting of the people in your life then it is far more natural to genuinely think of them with an attitude of acceptance, which is fundamentally at odds with manipulative behavior.

That is, I would argue, the primary benefit of learning these conversational styles for a layperson: the language you use shapes the way that you think, and intentional non-violent communication begets non-violent thought until non-violent communication becomes natural.

I think certain principles of it are very simple yet may take time for people to learn. I also have found that sometimes I've felt overwhelmed with the number of steps of NVC and sometimes how it seems to require two people to participate.

So I created a three-step process that may be similar to NVC but with just three steps and only requiring one person, I find it pretty easy to remember and have seen people learn (the basics of) it quickly.

Step 1) truth

Step 2) fair play

Step 3) love

1) tell the truth about how you actually feel: most of us don't do this and when we do, other people will often better trust what we say.

2) tell the other person how you imagine they might be feeling: let's them know you're considering how they feel, with an emphasis on not knowing for sure.

3) say one thing to connect with love: I'm sorry, I hope you have a good day, etc.

I've found this to work very well in my life, and have had people use it successfully with very little training. At the same time, i feel confident it will take a lifetime to master :-)

Anyway, I hope that helps and you find it relevant to your repsonse.

Well, I definitely appreciate your response :-) I know this is kinda meta, but I was fascinated by how my comment yesterday jumped to +5, then down to zero, and seems to have ended up at +2 now.

I had no idea that NVC would be such a polarizing discussion. I'm wondering if maybe some other folks had some bad experiences with it?

I'm not sure, however, I think NVC has made people feel a lot of things. Some people feel incredibly grateful for it, as it may have saved their lives. Some people feel incredibly angry at it, as someone in their life almost forced them into using it when they didn't want to. Others may have lots of other reactions to it. Most people I've met, who have heard of it, seem to have a strong reaction to it, with few people seeming to feel indifferent to it.

I assume that a lot of the negative reaction to it is how others seem to force people into doing NVC because, as I mentioned, it often seems like a two-player game. So, if I learn NVC and you don't, then I can sometimes try to force you to speak the NVC language so that we're playing the same game.

But, again, I'm not quite sure. Although now I'm more curious to dive into the reviews of it to learn why people feel attracted to or repelled from it.

> ...Some people feel incredibly angry at it, as someone in their life almost forced them into using it when they didn't want to.

This is a really good point, and it's an angle I didn't honestly consider. NVC is a goddamn superpower for dealing with people who are being difficult... I guess it makes sense that there are people who have been on the receiving end, and couldn't get their own needs met.

I'm really glad we both participated in this discussion... Really nice to get an eye-opener like this.

>I guess it makes sense that there are people who have been on the receiving end, and couldn't get their own needs met.

I've run into similar challenges with those three steps I talked about. I haven't been deeply steeped in NVC so I may have it wrong—my impression is that it doesn't do step 2 very well, or articulating how I imagine the other person is feeling. Often it seems to leave that part to a question, requesting the other person answer what they need and often, people can't answer it or don't want to. While basic questions, I find they challenge me and many others: how do I feel, what do I want, what do I need? So with NVC, I think it almost requires the other person to answer that and get into a dialogue about what both people need and if the one person doesn't know or doesn't want to, it can almost become a standstill and then lead to more frustation..."I'm saying what I need, I need you to say what you need. What do you need???"

NVC is easy to teach but takes some time to learn. You can fit a description of NVC on an index card and yet it will still take you a while to put it into practice well. Theory is easy but praxis is hard.

I hear the criticism that stuff like NVC is “manipulative” and I think I get where the feeling comes from, but I also feel that systems like NVC are generally, on the balance, very helpful. The baseline for communication skills is shockingly low in most offices I’ve worked in. I like NVC because it focuses on things like communicating facts, communicating your personal feelings, and sharing your goals. A lot of people tend to skip out on basic stuff like communicating facts or sharing goals with people they work with, and what it ends up doing is sabotaging the ability of other people to give you what you want, or it moves too fast and puts people on the defensive.

> …where I feel like there's a reason these communication styles don't come naturally to us, and there is a bit of a manipulative aspect to them.

IMO people are naturally manipulative and it takes conscious effort to be honest with people. I don’t necessarily mean that we are consciously trying to manipulate people, just that we try different communication strategies and tend to keep using manipulative communication strategies if those strategies get us what we want. We send our children to school and church, we discipline them and tell them about right and wrong, all in the hope that they will grow up to be good people. Kids will lie their little mouths off from the day that they learn how to lie (usually around age 4-6) and then we have to teach them not to lie, which can be difficult.

The “natural” communication strategies include things like crying until you get what you want, or telling lies when you get caught doing things. Again, not trying to say human nature is evil, but that honesty is something you have to learn.