[awb]

The book Non-violent Communication is a great way to “do no harm” in challenging conversations.

As for practicing empathy and compassion I think real world experience is key. Check out anything to do with “authentic relating”. Here’s a group that offers online and in person classes: https://authenticrelating.co/

But empathy and compassion has to be there naturally (which I’m sure it is as it sounds like you’re empathizing with your friend’s situation that they don’t feel safe sharing with you).

The tools above will just help you feel into what’s already there.

[drewcoo]

I find NVC to be harmful and passive aggressive when wielded by some people. Any time we talk empathy it can turn into "what someone else just knows you're thinking" and the slippery slope into thought policing. And I've only heard of NVC folks using that.

Personally, I prefer what can be demonstrably shown via past behavior combined with a sense of charity.

[hughrr]

It’s even worse for some people. They promote that they read it which gives them undue credibility for their unpalatable ways of operating.

[technicolorwhat]

Hmm for me a course did wonders really. It really allowed me to better express my own needs and feelings and dial in the feelings of others.

What described above I've seen happen, but mostly with beginners or people that use this new found ideas as agenda but without actually connecting with the other, expecting miracles or use NVC as a tool for policing. Or people that were already manipulative in the first place, but now just try to use NVC.

It can also come off as manipulative in an already unhealthy situation, where the relationship consists of so much mistrust that bringing anything new to the table is frowned upon and already met with suspicion.

My personal take away from it was to ensure that I prevent destructive communication and prevent blame using words things like "You should have" because they don't give the other tools to work with and actually address the problem at hand. For me the bottom line of the book was that us expressing our emotions and needs to allow the other, if willing, to actually address the problem at hand. It also made me see that sometimes effective communication was blocked because I had to deal with my own things first.

Communication, empathy, and time to actually listen, is something that unfortunately in my culture isn't thought as a core skill.

[pell]

I think NVC is a dangerous tool in the wrong hands (or mouth if you will). Or to put it a bit more fairly: I think, it’s easy to miss some of the nuance when reading the book and applying its principles without proper nuance. One of its cornerstones are reflections of the other party’s comments and feelings. Yet statements which are meant to display empathy can sound rather condescending. In an agitated state I might consider the following to be the verbal version of a middle finger: “Okay, so what I’m hearing is you’re angry because I broke my promise to you.” And the book is filled with such examples.

That said, NVC can be a really powerful tool if used with proper delicacy however. The idea of listening, reflecting verbally what and that you heard and then speaking from your perspective with clear markers without aggression can be a very strong way of having challenging conversations.

[WA]

I find NVC silly, because how you pronounce something matters more than the exact words used:

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/amp/a-simple-sentence-wi...

[gnicholas]

I've heard of NVC several times here on HN, and whenever I've looked into it I've come away with the following conclusion:

This seems like something that might work if all involved were using it. But it seems like it would be ineffective and/or annoying to people who are not familiar with it or do not believe in it.

I'd be curious to hear from people who have used NVC techniques with the uninitiated. Are there situations in which it is more likely to work well? Are there tenets from NVC that work universally, regardless of the disposition of the people involved?

[KerryJones]

As someone in a community where NVC is highly valued, I agree with this. I think there are some standard good principles out there that are non-specific to NVC, but many of the people who study NVC seem to have their equal share of problems those who don't, and those who don't still have their fair share.

There are many "systems" of communication. Another one is the book Crucial Conversations and many online courses. Similar, there are some things that will work everywhere, but a lot that doesn't seem to go so smooth.

There are certain other things that pretty much universally help (listening to another person, for instance). Not being aggressive with your words, keeping yourself calm.

The best luck I've seen is learning a style of communication and then sharing it with those who matter.

[roenxi]

NVC is a relatively complicated framework because it calls on people to distinguish between what they think is obviously true ("you must be thinking this!") from what is actually true ("you did this, this and this and I felt that") in a more objective world.

But at the end of the day it is a framework for clear, effective communication that guides the practitioner to:

1) Ask for things that they might be given.

2) To investigate how other people are responding to what they observe.

If NVC doesn't work with a communication partner, the next best option is not to communicate. Other strategies are basically forced to either ask for things that can't be given and to ignore other people's responses. Neither of those is a clever approach to relationships.

Non sequiter, but addressing a common mistake, it isn't "Nice, Nonviolent Communication". In theory it'd be possible to tell someone that you're about to murder them while still applying the NVC principles. It is misnamed.

[jazzyjackson]

Having it introduced to a coop housing situation, it just gave us one more thing to disagree about. Always comes off as patronizing / condescending, but maybe I never met someone who was good at it. I think Bojack Horseman parodied it well, it just made the same arguments more verbose.

[krageon]

As with all communication methods, it just fundamentally works better (or at all) if you're already charismatic. And when you are already there, the form you use for conversation does not matter - all that matters is that the other party feels heard. Sadly, you cannot train charisma.

In situations where you have a gathering of people with very little charisma and they're all trying to not hate each other, it just won't work. Because nothing will work - this is how groups of people are.

That said, I would never say that in a work context. In a work context I would tell two people with a conflict that they cannot solve together to request mediation from someone that I already know is charismatic :)

[Glench]

> This seems like something that might work if all involved were using it.

Read the book! There's a story of someone using it successfully while someone is literally physically attacking them (and it stops the attack).

> I'd be curious to hear from people who have used NVC techniques with the uninitiated. Are there situations in which it is more likely to work well? Are there tenets from NVC that work universally, regardless of the disposition of the people involved?

Compassionate listening and communicating your needs clearly are skills that are useful in all situations. NVC is just one nice framework for that.

[immy]

One can practice NVC while the other starts out wanting to fight.

[aszantu]

There's a 3 hour workshop on YouTube it's much more useful since it adresses passive aggressiveness