This is a very common dismissal in these circles (as referenced by many previous NVC and related HN discussions). I am saying the following to ask you to think a little more about this:
First off, "manipulative" is not an emotion. You could exchange "feels" with "seems" because language is important. It is not slightly ironic that programmer types can tend towards imprecise language when discussing EQ skills :-)
And sure, If by my words I am trying to avoid triggering your flight/flight/freeze response, I am technically "manipulating" you. In this context though, the manipulation is not obviously coming from a place of trying to get you to do something you don't intrinsically want to do (which is really the connotation you imply in your dismissal).
I had a coach teach me a valuable EQ skill that helps in these situations:
You made up a story in your head that the speaker was trying to manipulate you into doing something that you didn't want to do. That's one story. Now come up with 5 more stories that could also be accurate. Sure, the 1st story could be the right assessment, but the other 5 have possibility as well. Why are you jumping on the 1st story as the only real one? By making that assumption, you have changed the energy of the whole exchange into a negative one unnecessarily.
Another perspective you could take when confronted with stilted language is that the person is trying (however ungracefully) to communicate with you in a way that shows they care about your emotional reaction. No matter the reason, it at least shows that they are taking your perspective into account, which is inherently better than not.
You just spent an entire post dismissing someone as incorrect, but you did it in a very ambiguous way that makes it impossible to directly attack - you've created a motte and bailey where you can say "Well, I'm just suggesting that the assumption MIGHT be wrong" but you never actually entertain the possibility that it might be correct.
Why are you dismissing the possibility that you're doing violence? Why have you jumped on the first story that came to mind, instead of giving u a post that lists 5 other assumptions?
And why should I assume that someone creating a fuzzy, unaccountable attack against me is making any sort of effort to take my perspective in to account? If you were trying to take a perspective in to account, you'd actually address "this feels manipulative" instead of just dancing around and insisting that there are alternative perspectives.
You can't completely ignore someone's perspective and then claim you're a good, empathetic listener! And if you can't see how that's manipulative, I'm not honestly sure I can help you.
As much as it is manipulative per se, and might likely seem unnatural ("false"/"calculated"), it's at the same time quite effective. This form of communication accomplishes its stated goals, and being a natural, ummm, bloke is not it.
I've met quite a few other people who don't react well to NVC, so it seems at least worth giving NVC the caveat that it doesn't work universally.
I'm not really sure what the difference is, but I expect tact filters (https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html) probably play a big role. In particular, NVC seems fanatically about "speaker needs to apply tact", and geek culture is often deeply rooted in "listener needs to apply tact". That's just me guessing in the dark based on anecdotes, though.
Could you clarify which aspect of it is manipulative?
The commenter's advice is emphasized quite a bit in negotiations books/courses. If you want the other person to listen to you, it really does help if you can summarize his stance in his voice - such that he will say "This guy gets what I'm trying to say."
Probably the majority of heated discussions I've witnessed is where they are talking past one another, and as a 3rd party observer it's very clear neither side understands where the other party is coming from, and they waste most of the time addressing things the other person isn't saying.
NVC is less explicit about it, but the principle is there:
"So it sounds like you're frustrated because the script takes an hour to run and you believe it can run in 10 minutes, thus saving you some time?"
(Feeling: Frustrated, Needs: Competence and efficiency, Observation: Takes an hour to run)
On the contrary, I see it as good leadership. One could argue that getting a group of people aligned on a single objective manipulation, but knowing the right words to say to elicit actions from them is the hallmark of a good leader.
Yep, I was reading the examples thinking "god, I'd really hate someone talking to me like that". It feels very "corporate training speak" or something, very smarmy and false.
First off, "manipulative" is not an emotion. You could exchange "feels" with "seems" because language is important. It is not slightly ironic that programmer types can tend towards imprecise language when discussing EQ skills :-)
And sure, If by my words I am trying to avoid triggering your flight/flight/freeze response, I am technically "manipulating" you. In this context though, the manipulation is not obviously coming from a place of trying to get you to do something you don't intrinsically want to do (which is really the connotation you imply in your dismissal).
I had a coach teach me a valuable EQ skill that helps in these situations: You made up a story in your head that the speaker was trying to manipulate you into doing something that you didn't want to do. That's one story. Now come up with 5 more stories that could also be accurate. Sure, the 1st story could be the right assessment, but the other 5 have possibility as well. Why are you jumping on the 1st story as the only real one? By making that assumption, you have changed the energy of the whole exchange into a negative one unnecessarily.
Another perspective you could take when confronted with stilted language is that the person is trying (however ungracefully) to communicate with you in a way that shows they care about your emotional reaction. No matter the reason, it at least shows that they are taking your perspective into account, which is inherently better than not.