[sethammons]

I feel that you desire agency on both parties. I believe that agency already exists. Like: "Let's play a game"; "I don't want to"; .... "ok?"

NVC, yes, is a cooperative framework. The agency is to accept that, propose something different, or withdraw from communication. This has nothing to do with denying agency. It is tooling for communicating needs. I don't find the criticism to make sense.

Perhaps you can help me understand by proposing an alternative or let me know where I am not understanding

[FollowingTheDao]

>I feel that you desire agency on both parties.

That is such an artificial way of talking and it is making me not want to talk to you. You are actively cutting of communicating with me if you keep talking to me this way.

Now you will blame me, and not yourself.

I have lived all my life, cooperated with people of all kinds. Never used NVC.

[sethammons]

>That is such an artificial way of talking and it is making me not want to talk to you. You are actively cutting of communicating with me if you keep talking to me this way

cool, communication for the win and I can modulate to hopefully better understand you. how would you like to be acknowledged or how would you like me to check understanding? NVC is a framework to do that and you don't want artificial sounding exchanges. Cool. Is this still artificial? I don't really know. I am attempting to communicate with you and that takes checking understanding. I haven't blamed you for anything. And, yeah, as a throw back to the previous comment, I have an agenda: I am trying to understand and evaluate criticisms against NVC and I am not convinced by what those posts said. I want to know these because if I am giving bad advice by recommending NVC I want to stop.

You may have cooperated with people of all kinds, but in this exchange, I feel I am working extra hard to understand your position and finding cooperation difficult.

> Perhaps you can help me understand by proposing an alternative or let me know where I am not understanding

>> I have lived all my life, cooperated with people of all kinds. Never used NVC.

I think you are attempting help me understand your position, but I am having to stretch. You've cooperated and self-report to never have used NVC. OK, and what am I supposed to take away from that? I never said that NVC is the only way cooperation can be achieved. The claim is that by stating unmet needs and communicating those in a way that both parties can acknowledge and understand, that conflicts can be resolved. Conflicts can be resolved lots of ways, including walking away. Cooperation can happen even when you don't intend it. NVC is but a tool and one that I am still not sure what you object too.

Are you against the suggested words and sentence structure proposed by NVC? If so, again, I think that is missing the point.

[CRConrad]

> I am trying to understand and evaluate criticisms against NVC and I am not convinced by what those posts said.

Sure came off as trying to dismiss or deflect from criticisms in your earlier comments. Sounded almost like you'd drunk too deeply of the Kool-Aid. (From all I've read and heard about "Non-Violent Communication" -- mostly from the pro side! -- it sounds rather like a cult.)

> I want to know these because if I am giving bad advice by recommending NVC I want to stop.

Yeah, please do.

[sethammons]

> Sure came off as trying to dismiss or deflect from criticisms in your earlier comments

yeah, because I am saying they are not convincing and I believe I stated why. Next in the exchange would be to say why my reasons against it are folly or why I misunderstood.

It sounds like you think I'm too deep in. So help me out: what, specifically, do I need to change my perspective on? By definition, if I'm too deep, I can't see it.

> yeah, please do

I will, when someone can help me understand _why_.