[HN Gopher] Assertiveness is a virtue that anyone can develop wi... ___________________________________________________________________ Assertiveness is a virtue that anyone can develop with practice Author : arkj Score : 184 points Date : 2021-07-14 15:07 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (psyche.co) (TXT) w3m dump (psyche.co) | danuker wrote: | You'd be surprised how many people open up for your influence, | when you "Seek first to understand, then to be understood". | | Thinking through their problems as well as yours helps come up | with a better solution for both of you. | | All of Covey's advice resonated with me. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effecti... | paulpauper wrote: | I would like to become more assertive but I find that just | complying makes the problem go away faster and is easier. I say | yes way too often but it s easier often than trying to stand my | ground. Assertiveness can work better if you have a position of | authority | jameal wrote: | It might be helpful to think of assertiveness as a | communication style rather than a problem-solving method. I | like this definition: | | >Assertiveness is a communication style where you can express | your thoughts and feelings in an open manner that doesn't | violate the rights of others. | | You can't control how the other person responds or how the | situation will play out, but you have the right to be | assertive. People who aren't good with assertiveness tend to | have lower self-esteem[^1], so if there is a problem | assertiveness solves, it is more related to our relationship to | ourselves than with any external problem. | | [^1]: https://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/CCI/Consumer- | Module... | browningstreet wrote: | The path to positions of authority is often paved by diligent | applications of assertiveness. | galfarragem wrote: | Spot on comment. It distills many books on leadership in one | sentence. Thank you. | [deleted] | addflip wrote: | This is an essential skill for everyone to learn. The article | lightly touches on how to learn to be more assertive. If you want | a more thorough guide I highly recommend the book, When I Say No | I Feel Guilty. | Taylor_OD wrote: | Yup. The majority of leaders I know are just average people who | are more comfortable being assertive. Often aggressively to shut | down nay sayers. Listen in meetings and hear how the people | talking are normally not the most correct or the right ones but | the most assertive. | staunch wrote: | Sure, most leaders are bad leaders. They're assertive enough to | get promoted but too stupid/ignorant/mean/lazy to actually lead | well. | | Good leaders, by definition, are the kind of people that will | elevate the voices of the non-assertive-but-right people. | mcguire wrote: | " _You can't stop people making demands on your time and energy, | but you can develop the skills to protect yourself..._ " | | Wouldn't it be nice if the article had at least identified those | skills? | roody15 wrote: | Plankton agrees!! | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYuboi4GWO4 | sergiomattei wrote: | Thank you for this, I laughed so hard. | wly_cdgr wrote: | I dunno that I would rush to call it a virtue. It's def a | valuable skill to have so you can defend yourself and others | against bullies. But it also empowers YOU to be a bully or | blowhard, so it's a double edged sword. Yes, assertiveness is a | virtue in the hands of a mature, responsible, and benevolent | person - but it's a disaster in the hands of an immature, | uncivilized, or unscrupulous one. Martial arts come to mind | SavantIdiot wrote: | You are confusing assertiveness with aggression. Being | assertive is a reaction to a stimulus (asserting a boundary), | not the stimulus itself (pushing the boundary). The latter | case, which is what you describe, is aggressive. There are two | other interaction types: passive, and passive-aggressive. Only | one of the four is healthy (generally). | frontiersummit wrote: | I've always maintained that | | Assertive = Aggressive + On my Team | | You are assertive if the community around you thinks you are | justified in asking for your way, and aggressive if they feel | you are unjustified. We perceive our allies as assertive and | our opponents as aggressive. | | The GP is correct that "assertiveness" training gives someone | tools which are equally useful in defending against a bully | as they are in bullying. It's really just rudimentary | influence training in the vein of Carnegie or Cialdini, and | people can be influenced for ill just as they can be | influenced for good. | wly_cdgr wrote: | Hmmmm, if you say so | [deleted] | lolsal wrote: | Read the article, there are paragraphs that explain why | it's called a virtue. | Dumblydorr wrote: | Oxford defines virtue as "behavior showing high moral | standards." I think assertiveness only conditionally | falls into this category. | | First, as noted above, assertion to one can be aggression | to another, thus questionable high moral standards. | However, if both parties agree it's not aggressive, then | is it indeed morally good to be assertive? To me, morally | good is a higher bar than simply being non-aggressive. | | I think if virtue is defined on moral grounds, | assertiveness is not consistently enough placed into that | category. | SavantIdiot wrote: | > , assertion to one can be aggression to another, | | Not if you understand what the two words mean. | | "assertiveness" - the quality of expressing opinions or | desires in a strong and confident way, so that people | take notice | | "aggression" - feelings of anger and hate that may result | in threatening or violent behaviour. | | Edit: removed 92% of snark. | Zircom wrote: | I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. For | example, one can express their hatred of a ethnic | minority group in a strong and confident way such that | people take notice, which by your definitions could | qualify as assertive and aggressive. | Dumblydorr wrote: | The problem is those aren't mutually exclusive and it all | comes down to personal perception. An asshole thinks he | is just being strong and confident, NBD! Even a kind | assertive person can become aggressive after amygdala | hijack during an opinionated debate. Like myself once | stupidly arguing Pavarotti is a superior singer to | McCartney, lol I cringe now at how impassioned and rude I | became. | | Others may perceive this "assertive" behavior as angry or | threatening. So, even with those definitions, Jobs for | instance would be considered both assertive and | aggressive. | | So, labeling assertiveness as good or bad morally: IMO, | it's conditional. | edmundsauto wrote: | I feel this may be an issue of semantics. To my | understanding, in the NVC literature, once you start | being aggressive, you are no longer being assertive - you | are being aggressive. IE, they are not overlapping | subsets. | | This is conceptually similar to the idea of addiction. | Physical dependency is one component, but the definition | I'm most familiar with is that it becomes an addition | (instead of use/misuse) once it has a significant | negative impact on your life. | | YMMV, but wanted to see if I could jump in to help clear | up. It's not a comment on your definition, btw - just the | context of the discussion. | Kluny wrote: | It's a virtue because it maintains balance between the two | extremes of passiveness and aggressiveness. If you're being | bully and a blowhard, then you're clearly being aggressive, not | assertive. | jimbokun wrote: | Interestingly, the author uses the Aristotelian sense of virtue | as moderation between extremes. | | > So, tact is a virtue, which we find on a spectrum between the | vices of dishonesty and brutal honesty. Courage lies between | recklessness and cowardice. Friendliness lies between surliness | and obsequiousness. | | But unless I missed it, she fails to name the vices between | which assertiveness lies. | Tagbert wrote: | Between Aggression -- Passivity ? | errantmind wrote: | Those are too broad to be the extremes of assertiveness. | | It would be something like 'Rigid / inflexible refusal to | accommodate' and 'Total Accomodation irrespective of impact | to personal objectives'. | | Yea, we need a single word for both of those for it to be | more virtue-like | z3ncyberpunk wrote: | Soooo aggression vs passivity.... | dkarl wrote: | As with other words like "frankness" and "ambition," some | people use it to mean the right amount, applied appropriately, | and other people use it to mean too much, abused. | | I agree with what you say about the dangers of assertiveness, | but I think the picture also has to include the problems caused | by lack of assertiveness. People who lack assertiveness often | think it's only their problem, but it creates problems for the | people around them, too. Their boss has to worry that they'll | end up working on the wrong things and that the problems they | discover won't get the proper attention. Their friends and | family have to put in special effort to figure out how they | really feel about things, and they have to partially mute their | own personalities to avoid steamrolling them. There is an ideal | amount of assertiveness in every situation, often difficult to | get exactly right, which is why it can be seen as a virtue. | whataremyvalues wrote: | IMO Assertiveness is not a virtue but a behavior. | | It's a behavior that is not beneficial for every person. | Neurodiversity requires flexibility of social systems in order to | thrive and facilitate innovation. When a social system contains a | large bias for assertive behavior then the participants of that | system may overvalue the behavior and react to individuals that | lack assertiveness as lesser (recognition of environmentally | favored behaviors.) | | When character values are aligned in behavior and attitudes then | the assertive behavior can manifest with different motives. In | the article the author tells a story of their character decisions | when choosing to accomplish their goals through stimulating | activity (writing their document with a deadline) or focus their | attention on the needs of a member of their group (benevolence | and conformity.) | | The internal dilemma the author went through was the misalignment | of their behavior and motives (cognitive dissonance.) | | "But I couldn't imagine myself saying those things. I wasn't that | sort of person, and everyone knew it." | | The author's solution is to focus on protecting themselves | (Safety, a conservation life focus.) | | "You can't stop people making demands on your time and energy, | but you can develop the skills to protect yourself" | | I urge the author to escape the group mentality that feels safe | and explore uncomfortable social environments with the objective | of increasing awareness of what matters most to them, not just in | theory but in practicality. | factorialboy wrote: | Assertiveness fundamentally is just clarity of thought. Everybody | has experienced that at one point or another. | | Given enough experience or training, you can fake it. | | But nothing beats the real thing. Achieve clarity of thought in | whatever you do, and assertiveness and other positive traits will | follow. | | Practicing assertiveness without achieving clarity of thought is | just disaster delayed slightly thanks to technique. | wildmanxx wrote: | > All-or-nothing thinking - which psychologists call 'splitting' | - is a symptom of certain personality disorders. | | And yet it permeates American culture right through its core. | | With me or against me. Good or bad. Right or wrong. Amazing or | horrible. Left or right. Freedom or communism. No compromise. | | As a corollary, I wonder if it follows that the American culture | counts as a personality disorder. (Let the downvotes come!) | supergirl wrote: | news: everything can be developed with practice. being successful | is 90% work and 10% opportunity. | nkingsy wrote: | "Tact is a virtue that we find somewhere on the spectrum of | dishonesty and brutal honesty." | | I like the thought, but I don't think it's that simple. | | More like tact is mindful honesty. The tactful statement may in | fact be more honest than the brutally honest statement, because | it has examined the raw feeling and mined some kind of | actionable/constructive information from it. | | That may be an obvious distinction for most, but as someone who | struggles with tact, it's been valuable for me to recognize that | the most honest statement is one that's been really thought | through for context and impact. | | Tact, for me, is the act of adding why and how to an honest | feeling before expressing it. | epx wrote: | When people see they can't push you, or can't counterargue your | point, they play the good manners card "you are being brutally | honest". | jimkleiber wrote: | I think "brutally honest" is often more like "brutally honest | judgment." I guess I see the word honest and honesty more as | openly expressing what is happening inside of me, often more | related to feelings. Whereas I see people use the term "brutal | honesty" often when they are about to 1) use the external | orientation (2nd- or 3rd-person pronouns) and 2) make a | negative judgment. E.g., "I'm gonna be brutally honest, that | hat is ugly/your works sucks/you're super lazy." I think it | tends to be more brutal and less honest. I'd see honest as "I | don't like your hat/I wouldn't invest in your work/I'm | frustrated by how little you're doing." | | I like your definition of tact and appreciate you highlighting | this distinction, it's helping me to pause and reflect more on | the terms I use and how I use them. Thank you! | watwut wrote: | I think that if someone's honesty tends to be brutal more then | occasionally, then it says a lot about that person. There is no | reason to assume that honesty must imply primary negative | statements. | | Also, I think that a lot of what people call "brutal honesty" | is often dishonest statement meant to cause maximum discomfort. | "Brutal honesty" is often exaggeration of what is wrong rather | then honest description. | nkingsy wrote: | "I don't like it" is a child's statement. It is almost never | calculated, and I strongly disagree with the assertion that | anyone's trying to cause discomfort. | | As someone who has said some really hurtful things, I can't | tell you how much it pains me to have my thoughtlessness | mistaken for cruelty. | | I recognize it's not someone else's job to be understanding | of my thoughtlessness, which is why I must employ mindfulness | at all times. | | I'm also 100% sure that some people come wired for tact, and | some don't. | | My son is laser focused on the feelings of others, like my | wife, while my daughter is totally oblivious, like me. | watwut wrote: | I have yet to see anyone classify "I don't like it" as | "brutal honesty". | | > As someone who has said some really hurtful things, I | can't tell you how much it pains me to have my | thoughtlessness mistaken for cruelty. | | If it was throughtless or innacure, dont call it honesty | then. It is not honesty no matter how brutal. | | And yes, people do say hurtful untrue things on purpose. Or | they just say them, but then they insist on them knowing it | was throughtless. | nkingsy wrote: | I'm speaking in the context of tact. When someone is | being tactless, they are communicating to achieve a goal | without regard for the social implications of said | communication. | | The tactlessness has no relationship with the underlying | honesty of the goal, though it makes the communication | itself less honest. | yCombLinks wrote: | 100% agree, tact does not require dishonesty. At the same time, | honesty does not require saying everything you think to | everyone within earshot. Brutal honesty: Your eyebrows look | awful shaved off. Tact : Those eyebrows are very unique. | Dishonesty : Your eyebrows look great shaved off. | Kluny wrote: | Slight disagreement - tact is not mentioning the eyebrows at | all. That way you're not being even slightly false. "Those | eyebrows look very unique" reads as passive aggression. | nkingsy wrote: | "Those eyebrows are tickling my brain's facial recognition | systems" would be my mindful take on the thought, though | yeah, unless you're asked... | z3ncyberpunk wrote: | Congratulations after all those mental gymnastics now you | just sound like a robot. | yCombLinks wrote: | Ha, that's true, I was thinking in the context of if they | asked what is the most tactful response | [deleted] | antonzabirko wrote: | It's not a virtue | wombatmobile wrote: | A great place to practice assertiveness is at home. | | If an unsolicited person knocks on your door, to sell you a | product or a religion, here's your chance. It's your sandbox. | Assert your right to privacy. | | Same if you get junk mail in your mailbox that prominently | displays a sign "NO JUNK MAIL". Call them. Ask to speak to the | person who put illegal advertising in your mailbox. When they | blame it on the deliverer, say "Do you realise you are legally | responsible for any illegal action you pay someone else to | perform?" | | Awkward questions are a great way to be assertive. You never have | to be rude - just persist with questions that have revealing | answers. | _manifold wrote: | > Same if you get junk mail in your mailbox that prominently | displays a sign "NO JUNK MAIL". Call them. Ask to speak to the | person who put illegal advertising in your mailbox. When they | blame it on the deliverer, say "Do you realise you are legally | responsible for any illegal action you pay someone else to | perform?" | | Asking barbed, rhetorical questions to a stranger over the | phone isn't "being assertive", especially when the person | you're speaking to most likely has little to no control over | the thing you are complaining about. | | To quote The Big Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're | just an asshole!" | wombatmobile wrote: | Why would anyone do that to someone who has little or no | control over the thing they are complaining about? That would | be a waste of everybody's time. | | First, ask for the name of the person responsible for the | thing you want to talk about. Then ask to speak to that | person by name. | z3ncyberpunk wrote: | So is the person/company who illegally puts junk mail into a | person's mailbox which has been clearly marked with no | soliciting. | zen_alchemist wrote: | I agree. | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | From personal experience: I thought my lack of assertiveness came | from the lack of self-confidence. But once my self confidence got | fixed (which is a whole separate story), it turned out | assertiveness is rarely needed. The fine art of not giving a shit | trumps all other virtues. | errantmind wrote: | Agreed. Not feeling obligated to care is a valuable way to | moderate overreaching requests. This is different than apathy, | as it is not a nihilistic impulse. Instead it is a refusal | agree to the implicit premise of level of 'importance'. | | Some people will be offended at this as not taking their | request as seriously as they are but it can be expressed in | such a way as to say "No, I'd like to be helpful but I have | other priorities which require my attention". Or "No, I'd like | to be helpful but this is outside the scope of my | responsibilities". | markus_zhang wrote: | When you reach a certain age e.g. 40 you start to realize that | you only need to appeal for yourself and no one else matters | including you family members. | | And then suddenly everything goes much better from there. | underwater wrote: | I assume you mean parents and siblings, as opposed to spouse | and children? | markus_zhang wrote: | Everyone. You have to be happy if you want your kid and wife | to be happy. Otherwise one just becomes some grumpy husband | that everyone tries to avoid. | | Individual->Family->Company/Organization/State, I believe | that's the way it works. You have to take care of the things | on left side to make the things on the right side to feel | "happy". | samsolomon wrote: | I would love to see some suggestions on books or videos for | assertiveness training. I saw the book suggestion "When I Say No | I Feel Guilty" below and would love to hear any others the | community has. | SavantIdiot wrote: | Here's a non-Amazon link to a very popular text: | | https://www.powells.com/book/nonviolent-communication-978189... | | Also, this book is questionable because of certain phrases and | perspectives, but I enjoyed it because it is an attempt to | boost confidence (another non-Amazon link): | | https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/no-more-mr-nice-guy-robert-... | | I think the author of this book wrote it _specifically_ for | angry right-wing types who think therapy is a weakness, because | inside the book is hidden messages of self-acceptance and | assertiveness wrapped up in tough-guy sounding language. | jameal wrote: | A few years ago I stumbled on and worked through [this | excellent content on assertiveness](https://www.cci.health.wa.g | ov.au/Resources/Looking-After-You...) offered free of charge by | a government health agency in Western Australia. It's includes | methods for practical application and prompts for reflection. | There are 10 PDF modules: | | 1. What is Assertiveness? 2. How to Recognise Assertive | Behaviour 3. How to Think More Assertively 4. How to Behave | More Assertively 5. Reducing Physical Tension 6. How to Say | "No" Assertively 7. How to Deal Assertively with Criticism 8. | How to Deal with Disappointment Assertively 9. How to Give and | Receive Compliments Assertively 10. Putting it All Together | | It was incredibly beneficial for me and I'd highly recommend | giving it a shot. | mypalmike wrote: | Some good advice here. But the author sure works hard to | needlessly connect it to her background in philosophy, and to | Aristotle in particular. | softwaredoug wrote: | With trusted people, I find its best to default to a non-violent | communication style[1]. Express your feelings with "I" | statements, etc. "I'm feeling X". Believe the other side has | positive intent (ie 'hanlons razor'). Express the 2-way nature, | and understand feelings can arise for many reason that may not be | anyones fault. | | Recently I had a conversation with to a colleague where I | expressed their earlier perceived 'pressure' made me feel my | relationship with them was "transactional". And I felt like my | value was about the work I did, not me as a person. I reiterated | throughout I didn't think it was their intention. I expressed | that this has as much to do with my personality & baggage with | how I perceive comments that might not bother others. | | I didn't do it perfectly (this is a hard skill to cultivate). | But... we left with a better way to communicate. "OK Doug reacts | to X statements a bit roughly". On my end, I take accountability | for maybe overreacting to X types of statements, and taking a | deep breath and being as forgiving as I can. Most importantly our | relationship and trust deepened, and we'll work more effectively | together... | | 1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication | tapia wrote: | NVC is a very good tool for solving communication problems and | I think it is definitely worth practicing. However, it is not | always easy, as it requires that we identify and express our | _feelings_ correctly. | | In the example you described, there is a problem in that you | are _not really_ saying a feeling. "I feel that our | relationship is transactional..." is not a feeling. The rule | being: when you start with "I feel like ..." then you are not | naming a feeling. This is the most difficult part as we are not | used to talking with actual feelings (I am certainly not). For | the case your described, one option could be to state it like | this: "(1) When you put so much pressure on me, (2) I feel | discouraged/uncomfortable, (3) because I need work | relationships that are more than purely transactional. (4) | Would you mind trying to do X next time?". And then you have | the four required steps of NVC :) | | (I literally need to look at a list with words that are | feelings to try to see which is the one that corresponds for | the situation when it goes beyond happy, angry or sad.) | | (*edited some typos) | softwaredoug wrote: | agree. That's what I meant that I knew was imperfect would | have done differently :) It's often hard to find words for | feelings. Sadly I didn't have as much time to prep to think | (and really feel) what I was feeling as much as I'd like. | tssva wrote: | Was this a work colleague? If so, isn't your relationship | transactional and just part of a larger transactional | relationship. That between each of you and your employer. | GavinMcG wrote: | Human relationships just can't be boiled down to a single | term in that way. My relationship with the cashier at the | grocery store is obviously transactional, yet we can interact | in a variety of ways, and how we do so will affect how we | feel, how satisfied we are with {the job|the store}, etc. | There's always room for two people in an interaction to be | more or less trusting, compatible, enjoyable, etc. | softwaredoug wrote: | Honestly when you boil it down, almost all relationships we | have are transactional to some degree (money, emotionally, | physically...). Unconditional love is very hard. | [deleted] | [deleted] | borski wrote: | This is spot-on, tbh, and helps communication in many walks of | life, but, and this is important: the "with trusted people" is | paramount. This sort of conversation requires, as you mention, | the assumption that both parties have only the best intent. | | I've run into a lot of people where that is decidedly untrue; | they did not have the best intentions in mind. | | But also, I think this is orthogonal to assertiveness. | Sometimes simply learning to say "no" when you're overwhelmed | or too busy, alone, is a great habit to build. How to do it | gets easier with time, and how to communicate it does too. | burntwater wrote: | > I've run into a lot of people where that is decidedly | untrue; they did not have the best intentions in mind. | | The manipulative nature of "NVC" is precisely one of my | triggers for assuming that someone does not have best | intentions in mind. They're out to get something for | themselves, and I'm being hoodwinked into agreeing to it. | mattm wrote: | If you view NVC as manipulative, isn't all communication | manipulative? Can you give an example of expressing | yourself during a conflict that wouldn't be manipulative? | throwawayboise wrote: | I really can't stand talking to people who frame everything in | terms of how it makes them feel or other emotional responses. | IDK why but it just seems like such a cop-out. Say what you | mean, and don't try to get what you want by guilt-tripping and | psychobabble. | sangnoir wrote: | You're going to get an emotional response whether you | acknowledge it or not, and often times, such miscomunication | results in anger/escalation of the misunderstanding. "You're | rude" vs "I feel like what you said to me was rude" will | elicit different responses; the former is likely to trigger | self-defense or the listener taking offense, whereas the | latter is a statement of opinion that does not escalate. | | Non-violent communication is how diplomacy gets done, as the | stakes are often very high. | noptd wrote: | I disagree. Prefacing statements with "I feel" only acts to | highlight the subjectivity of the statement which makes it | much easier for the offending party to dismiss in practice. | | "That statement was rude" makes the speaker consider their | statement from their own perspective vs "I feel like that | statement was rude" which causes the speaker consider | whether the other party rationally feels that way. If the | speaker doesn't see the offended party as a rational | individual, then any statement like that will automatically | be dismissed. | | IMO this underscores the biggest failing of NVC - it | requires both parties to abide by it. If the speaker does | and has an adequate level of EQ to actually successfully | use it, then they would most likely take you feelings into | account even if you aren't using NVC so there's no benefit. | Conversely, if they don't use it or see the benefits of EQ, | explicitly adding "I feel" before every statement isn't | going to achieve anything except annoying the speaker while | they dismiss your feedback just as quickly as they would | have anyways. Ironically, NVC strikes me as a way to _feel_ | like you're communicating more effectively without much or | any net positive impact on the receiving end, which doesn't | seem worth it to me. | jimkleiber wrote: | I appreciate how you highlighted two things: 1) about how | it can lead to disagreement and 2) how NVC seems to | require both sides to participate. | | For the first one, I agree with you in that if someone | says to me "I feel like (or believe or worse, know) that | statement was rude," I can quickly jump into a defensive | mode, "Well I believe it wasn't," and reach a stalemate. | I, however, also can jump into that mode when someone | says to me "that statement was rude" because I 1) may not | believe it or 2) find an example of someone who doesn't | believe it and then am likely to start to argue. This is | why I try to avoid labeling things with these adjectives | and try to dig more deeply into how I'm feeling | internally. | | About two, with the two-way participation of NVC I | strongly agree and have found it be one of the things | that frustrates me the most about it, both on the | receiving and giving side of it. On receiving, I feel | forced, stuck, nudged, coerced, whatever, into playing | the games even if I don't want to. On the giving side, I | feel stuck if the other person won't play and then can | feel frustrated and passively try to trick them into | playing. | | This is why I really like adding another step, whereas | step 1 is to say how I feel, step 2 is to tell them how I | imagine they might be feeling and then step 3 is to say | one thing to connect with love. I've found that even if | the other person isn't playing, I can consider how I'm | feeling, consider how they're feeling, and feel closer to | them. | jimbokun wrote: | > "You're rude" vs "I feel like what you said to me was | rude" will elicit different responses | | No it won't. They both mean exactly the same thing. | | If anything, the second one will elicit a more hostile | response, as the person being addressed will believe you | are trying to manipulate them by obfuscating your language. | dwaltrip wrote: | "I am X" vs "I am feeling X" are very different | statements. | | The first leans more toward describing to attribute as | permanent, while the second is more explicit that it is a | temporary state. | errantmind wrote: | While I agree with your overall point, there is a middle | third option that doesn't involve labeling someone as | rude. Drop the "I feel" and just say "what you said was | rude". | | Being labeled often requires a defensive response as it | has a sense of permanence associated with it. Temporally, | it is different from describing an action as rude. | [deleted] | jimkleiber wrote: | I agree that those two statements can elicit different | responses. I try to take the latter statement even closer | to expressing myself. Instead of saying "I believe what you | did is rude" I'll try to say "When you did that thing, I | felt angry or if I'm more honest, sad." | | I wrote a post on this back in the day calling it the | subjective adjective, basically that when we use | adjectives, often it carries an objective nature to it, aka | "everyone believes this is the description" and even if you | were to say to me "I believe what you did was rude" I may | lock in on "rude" and forget it was your perspective. I may | even ignore your emphasis on what I did and put it who I | am. "This person is calling me rude!" Even though you | weren't. | | So I try as much as I can, especially in conflict | scenarios, to avoid using adjectives about them or their | actions and more so to use adverbs (I think?) about how I'm | feeling. | | "You're rude" to "I believe what you did is rude" to "I | felt hurt when you did that." | Zircom wrote: | Saying something like "I feel that statement is rude" goes | against the entire point of "I" statements. You are | supposed to connect a specific action of theirs with the | emotional reaction it caused in you. "Feeling a statement | is rude" isn't you expressing an emotion or feeling, its | you expressing an opinion. | | A more valid way phrase it would "When you say $statement, | it makes me feel $emotion/feeling", where x is an actual | emotion or feeling, like | angry/upset/disappointed/disrespected/worthless/don't care | about me/etc. | jimkleiber wrote: | I think for me I get frustrated when it seems too formulaic. | I think that tends to happen a lot when people use NVC, it | seems as if they are very strictly following a pattern. | | For example, I started this by saying how I felt but not so | cookie-cutter and even your statement of "I really can't | stand" communicated to me how you were feeling but again, not | so rigidly in the format of "I feel X." | | Does that align with what you're saying? | endymi0n wrote: | I absolutely love NVC and found this to be a great primer: | https://medium.com/s/please-advise/the-essential-guide-to-di... | | However, NVC mainly talks about _giving_ constructive | criticism, not about _receiving unconstructive_ one and I still | missed that piece for my own assertiveness until I recently | found something that clicked with me on that part: | | I got some great insights from the book "When I say No, I feel | guilty" that were especially easy to put in practice and helped | me to massively boost my own assertiveness and to me is an | extremely valuable extension to NVC on dealing with attacks on | the own assertiveness. | | The book goes into much more detail, but I can sum up the | essence in just three paragraph here: | | You have the fundamental right to be your own judge on | everything. That includes being wrong, illogical or changing | your opinion. Now how do you put that in practice if someone | wants to impress their opinion on you? | | First, stay calm, friendly and agree with something that they | said -- and if that something is just their own feeling! (They | call it "fogging" as if trying to hit a fog bank) | | Second, calmly stay with your opinion. ("broken record"). Don't | stop until the other side has given up. Never explode, never | yell. And that's already it. | | I found that combo to be extremely effective in practice, | because you don't actually give any attack surface. Here's a | sample dialogue: | | A: I think you should go to bed earlier, otherwise you get | wrinkles. B: I agree it's good to go to bed early, but I don't | want to. A: Come on, wrinkles would be ugly on you! B: I see | how you might feel that way, but I don't want to. A: It would | make me very sad to see you with wrinkles. B: I appreciate you | caring for my appearance, but I don't want to. [...] | | Obviously hair-pulled example, but you get the picture. | | Works A-OK for me, it quickly entered my daily conversation. | jimkleiber wrote: | I find that in reading your example, if I imagine myself as | person A, I might start to get really annoyed. When I read "I | agree it's good to go to bed early, but I don't want to" I | feel suspicious that you agree it's good to go to bed early. | When I read "I see how you might feel that way, but I don't | want to" I feel lots of pain arise from past "I'm sorry if | you feel that way" kinds of responses. When I read "I | appreciate you caring for my appearance, but I don't want to" | I start to doubt whether you appreciate that I care for your | appearance. I guess the overall pattern is that sometimes | when I sense someone's emotions underneath and they don't say | them first, I'm often not listening/trusting what they say | about me first, waiting for the grand reveal of the bad news. | | That all being said, I can imagine it might work in standing | firm on your ground and doing what you want to do. I just | wonder the impact it has on the other person and how that | might influence how they respond to you then or in the | future. | | I think when someone repeats the same thing over and over to | me I can also feel that pain, maybe it's the "because I said | so" re-emerging from my childhood that used to drive me so | crazy. | | Lastly, when I read "stay calm and friendly" and "calmly | state your opinion" I imagine that, especially in conflict | scenarios like this, I wouldn't be able to do so. When | someone guilt trips me, I feel guilty and sometimes telling | myself to "stay calm" doesn't work at all, because I feel | even more guilty/frustrated. | | Are you able to stay calm in the 1st and 2nd steps? And if | so, how? | bsder wrote: | Unfortunately, I generally find that NVC comes off as | _patronizing_ in almost all circumstances where there is real | conflict that has consequences. | | "I understand that you're feeling <X> because I did <Y>." | generally comes off as "I disagree and I'm dismissing you." | It's in the same class as "We're just going to have to agree to | disagree." which is simply a polite "Fuck off and deal." | | If I'm angry and tell you "You did <Y> and that made me angry. | Give me a good reason why you did that or don't do <Y> again." | I better hear "I'm sorry. I won't do <Y> again." or "I thought | I had good reason <Z> to do <Y>." We probably are going to get | into a discussion about whether <Z> is a good reason, and it | may be heated. That's life. | | If I hear "I'm sorry you're angry" you've probably just | ratcheted my angry up a notch. In addition, I've now placed you | in the "passive aggressive" category and will now deal with you | as if that is your default stance--ie backstabbing manipulator. | make3 wrote: | Wtf you're coworkers. The relationship will always be, at its | core, transactional. People should be nice, but nice doesn't | mean the relationship isn't transactional. Someone nice can | still fire you at a moment's notice. | drewcoo wrote: | In therapy that's one thing. But I often see NVC abused as | passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open | communication. This is almost always used after some alleged | harm has been done. As in "let's talk about how I feel and | somehow blame you for it" in some public forum with social | pressures. It's about coercing people into changing their | behavior and is the polar opposite of acceptance. It is a means | of social control and should raise red flags whenever it's | seen. | altcognito wrote: | What you described is not NVC communication. NVC | communication requires at a bare minimum first listening to | both sides needs. | sombremesa wrote: | I agree with GP here, it's much better to simply commit to | transparent and candid communication, without forcing | people into some preset paradigm that may not fit at all | with their communication style. If a pre-requisite for NVC | communication is trust and the application of hanlon's | razor in any case, I don't see how adding it to the | equation improves upon just letting people hash it out in | the way that jives best with their personalities. | | Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that | more direct styles of communication are "violent", and | veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. | | The reason NVC is "a hard skill to cultivate" is because | it's an unnatural method designed to suppress candor and | transparency in favor of feel-good vibes, the interpersonal | equivalent of corporate "synergy". | potatoman22 wrote: | I agree that NVC isn't best for all scenarios and it can | feel unnatural, but I don't understand how it's not | transparent. To me, I think telling someone about your | feelings and needs requires a great deal of transparency | and vulnerability. I see it as very directly conveying | what the issue is, why it's an issue, and how one can | help solve that issue. | | One issue with "candid conversation" that NVC tries to | address is that the language we use can often imply blame | or thrust the onus of your emotions onto someone else, | even when not intended. NVC provides a more standard | framework for working out issues while reducing the | likelihood that your intentions are misinterpreted. | jimbokun wrote: | > Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies | that more direct styles of communication are "violent", | and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. | | The increasing use of the word "violence" to describe | clearly non-violent things greatly disturbs me. | | It could lead to people reacting more strongly to words | than literal, physical violence. And I think that is a | very very bad direction for society to go. | ScoobleDoodle wrote: | The method being called "non-violent communication" is a | self referential intention for people practicing it to | hopefully commit to communicate in a non-violent way. It | is not making an interpretation or judgment on other | communication styles which may or may not be violent. By | calling itself "non-violent communication" it is in no | way saying that all other communication styles are | violent. | | I have seen and felt NVC is a hard skill to cultivate | because it takes good will, patience, and a lot of | introspection to learn. From the speakers side they have | to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and | then additionally what needs are prompting those | feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. | Even learning the gamut of feeling words and types of | needs is an eye opener. And then on top of that is when | listening to others, the practice of hearing their | feelings and needs even when they might not communicate | it in a clearly non-violent way. It seems the key is | valuing the relationship between the people communicating | and having an intention of openness, honesty, and | genuineness even if you might in the end agree to | disagree. | | If one party does not want to participate then there | isn't necessarily space to communicate this way. And | either party can choose to remove themselves and not | participate and, that is ok. | aaron-santos wrote: | That's the heart of GP's critique. People are masking | abusive and manipulative statements with the language of | NVC. Here's a mild example: "Altcongnito, when I see you | leave work and there are still tickets in the queue, I feel | disappointed, because I need us to work as a team. Would | you be willing to work late until we get through them?" | What people rightly feel is a disconnect between the | language of NVC and the spirit of NVC in these situations. | watwut wrote: | Nothing is masked in that? It sounds to me pretty | straightforward. The issue with that is content - the | attempt to make you work late without good reason. There | is no way to phrase the above to make it sounds good. | | At least it sounds honest. The reason for late work is | emotional (as often is) rather then rational reaction to | unexpected business need. | whatshisface wrote: | Here's how the boss could deal with the same situation | without sounding like a weasel: | | "You're the only person we have who is able to fix these | bugs, and if you don't fix them we'll go out of business. | I need you to stay late until this backlog is cleared | because if you don't, half our clients will drop us at | the next renewal. I will make it up to you in your next | performance evaluation." | | (Substitute whatever urgent problem has lead to needing | someone to work overtime.) | watwut wrote: | You mean, by lying? By pretending there is crisis that | dont exists? This is way more manipulative and unethical. | | You completely changed the reason for overtime. | whatshisface wrote: | It's only lying if you copy and paste the HN comment | without following the last instruction: | | _(Substitute whatever urgent problem has lead to needing | someone to work overtime.)_ | | Obviously if there's no reason for them to work overtime, | you won't be able to find a reason for them to work | overtime, but then instead of asking, you should... not | ask. | watwut wrote: | By the sound of original statement, the reason is the | idea of teamwork and clearing all planned tickets. | | It is completely absurd to change the situation into | completely different one and then complain the original | statement dont fit it. | whatshisface wrote: | The idea of teamwork and clearing all planned tickets | aren't reasons to work overtime. Teamwork in isolation, | $0. Tickets on the tracker, $0 in and of themselves. | There must be some other reason behind suddenly caring | more about the tickets than the manager did when making | staffing decisions in the months leading up to the | crisis, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue. | watwut wrote: | That is naive. If you try to say no to overtime, you will | find they will just fire email they did not felt like | writing. | | And yes, there are managers who think common overtime to | make fake deadline is good teambuilding. | Kranar wrote: | But that's not true, the idea that a company will go out | of business if one person doesn't work overnight is | simply and factually false. | | The business desires that a person to work overtime to | reduce costs, avoid hiring additional staff, etc... not | because it's an existential threat. | [deleted] | whatshisface wrote: | > _the idea that a company will go out of business if one | person doesn 't work overnight is simply and factually | false._ | | If you don't think that can happen, you don't know much | about startup chaos. :-) | | I agree with your implication, though, that when there is | no need for the employee to work overtime, there is no | right way to ask them to work overtime. | Kranar wrote: | I am the sole founder of a startup that is now 10 years | old and prior to this I've worked at 3 other startups | either as a founder or CTO, so I think I know something | about it. | | At no point would I ever allow the existence of my | company to rely on a single individual. That is simply | irresponsible. | whatshisface wrote: | > _That is simply irresponsible._ | | Then we agree, because we both know that people often do | things that seem irresponsible in hindsight. It is | especially common in business situations that require a | lot of diverse expertise, in which case having any | redundancy at all could mean doubling the size of your | workforce. It is easier when you're talking about pure | software, but even then a nontechnical founder could | allow two programmers to segregate their responsibilities | without realizing it was happening. | | The thing about advice is it's easy to say, "don't get in | to that situation," but every day managers wake up in | that situation. If your startup grows enough, some of | your own managers might find themselves waking up in that | situation. | Kranar wrote: | We do not agree because this is a matter of perspective | and my position is that the perspective you're advocating | for is irresponsible. If you are in charge of a business, | it is irresponsible to ever have the perspective that | your business can fail because of a single individual who | does not work overtime. | | A similar analogy would be blaming a company failure | because an intern deleted the production database. Based | on how you're viewing the situation, it seems like you | think that would be a plausible perspective to hold, even | though you may admit that it's irresponsible, a manager | may find themselves in that situation. | | According to my perspective, it is simply never possible | to attribute a corporate failure to an intern deleting a | database. The causal reason for the failure would be a | failure to protect the database from an intern. | | Under my perspective, it is simply not possible to see a | company as failing because someone decided not to work | overtime. That is never a criteria that a company failure | can be attributed to. | | Should a business fail, it will be because I failed to | properly manage the business and allocate resources. | | Certainly there are multiple perspectives that one may | adopt. I am confident based on my experience running a | successful company that my perspective has stronger | explanatory power and results in better judgement than | the perspective that a company can fail because someone | didn't work more than what would be expected of them. | | I would encourage other people looking to run a business | to adopt my perspective. The company did not fail because | someone didn't work overtime, the company failed because | someone in a position of authority failed to properly | allocate resources, properly incentive work, overpromised | beyond what could be delivered, or a host of other | reasons that have nothing to do with blaming a small | group of individuals. | watwut wrote: | No, not even in startups. | whatshisface wrote: | I don't understand your skepticism, if a deadline is in a | contract, and the company is not heading towards meeting | that deadline, someone has to speed up or else the client | will be lost, or worse the penalty clauses will kick in. | I think you're imagining B2C SAAS startups when making | that assertion. | | If your EULA indemnifies you from failure to provide | service, and investor capital indemnifies you from | failure to get revenue, then yeah it doesn't really | matter what the engineers do - but that's hardly a | universal principle of business. | watwut wrote: | Overworking people dont get you faster releases. It is | magical thinking. This just feel good like doing | something, but that is is. | | Also, if you are really in this situation, you already | lost, because mo way this late night code wont be | complete crap. So you might just start prioritizing and | negotiating now rather then later. | potatoman22 wrote: | If the boss intended to manipulate the employee, wouldn't | they be able to do that without NVC? Is the language of | NVC the problem here? | manmal wrote: | I fully agree. Zooming in on your example: I think by the | definition of NVC on Wikipedia, "I need us to work as a | team" is not a need as in "universal human need". It's | the deposition of an assertion ("team work means not | leaving work before all tickets are resolved"), wrongly | or maliciously expressed as a need. | | IMO the best way to respond to that would be "Aaron- | santos, I understand that you feel disappointed now. | Unfortunately I absolutely need to leave at X o'clock. | How about we make a plan for tackling this insane | workload such that everybody on the team feels | supported?" | Rapzid wrote: | Nice, flips the script and exposes their passive | aggressive, manipulative language. | Malp wrote: | Precisely this. The book refers to the difference between | a 'need' and a 'request', and what differentiates the | two. In this case, this would fall under the category of | a request, and is not considered NVC. | tome wrote: | Interesting, what's your objection to that? Seems like a | reasonable way to make a request to me. Also seems | reasonable to agree to or deny the request. | aaron-santos wrote: | My personal objection is that it purposely confuses | things. | | It's worded in a way that connects declining with not | being a team player. Obviously that's an intentional | construction and to some people it makes perfect sense. | It also is emotionally manipulative because it | intentionally seeks to manipulate the receivers emotional | state so that they comply. Some people will comply to | resolve that discomfort. The inherent power imbalance | distorts the situation. | | It also confuses the language of personal relationships | (affective statements) with the workplace. To me, this is | in the same realm as getting employees to view the | workplace as a family. Again it hijacks the our | relationship cognition centers in order to engage in | exploitation. Declining in a regular relationship has | regular relationship consequences. Declining this kind of | statement from a boss has livelihood consequences. | | The solution in the workplace? Just say it plainly. | Bringing NVC into the workplace is fertile ground for | emotional manipulation. | jimbokun wrote: | Agreed. | | Communication in the workplace should revolve around | shared goals leading to shared rewards. | | "Let's impress this client with a great product so we can | all get big performance bonuses from the profits made | from closing the sale." | | I think that's all the emotional connection the vast | majority of employees are looking for in their jobs. | jstx1 wrote: | If I heard this, I would think that those words are | coming either from a sociopath or from a very socially | inept person who read a self-help book. There are | probably cultural differences in how it's perceived but | it sounds so fake, forced and manipulative that it would | make me put my defences up immediately. | Majestic121 wrote: | Not the parent, but my objection to that would be that | your feelings are yours to handle, not me. And for this | kind of request, saying that you feel disappointed | because I don't have time to finish the tickets will | definitely backfire, with a "you should adjust your | expectations", and using emotion talk in this context | will immediately frame the talk as manipulative. | mrRandomGuy wrote: | Anytime a manager/boss brings up "needing to work as a | team" as a reason to stay late is a subtle threat of | losing your job if you don't do OT. | Kranar wrote: | Would it then be preferable for the manager to be more | direct and assertive and state "In order to continue | being employed here, you will need you to work overtime." | | To me there needs to be a differentiation between | communication style, and consequence. If it is the case | that your job is at risk unless you work late nights, is | it preferable to be direct about it, use assertive | language, or is it preferable to use NVC, and express | ones feelings and other details that form some sense of | empathy? | jimbokun wrote: | And what this reinforces to me is the importance of | "professionalism" in a work place setting. | | Requiring everyone in your workplace to engage coworkers | with a level of emotional intimacy and care can impose | even greater burdens on your employees. Sometimes it can | be better to just try to impose fair rules on everyone, | and straight forwardly convey to everyone where they | stand in terms of expectations and performance. | | Blame free retrospectives are also crucial in cases where | things don't go well. | | Instead of: | | "You make me feel X way when you didn't close out your | tickets." | | Try: | | "I generally hate asking anyone to work extra hours, but | in this case if the ticket doesn't get fixed we are | likely to lose the contract we are depending on to pay | everyone's salary. Can you please stay late and get this | done? We can work out a way to give you some extra PTO to | make up for this in the near future." | rustybelt wrote: | If it's coming from a manager it hides the power | relationship and creates the false impression that the | participants are peers who share and care about each | others feelings. It's actually a worse way to tell | someone they aren't doing a good job because not only | does it criticize their performance it implies that they | are inconsiderate. | | If it's coming from an actual peer, it's just weird. | jimkleiber wrote: | I think what's missing is the consideration of how the | other person is feeling. I use a three-step process 1) | how I'' feeling 2) how I imagine they might be feeling | and 3) say one thing to connect with love. | | In this example above, if after saying "I need us to work | as a team," the person were to say "and I imagine maybe | you're leaving because you're worried about something at | home or afraid you're gonna burnout or who knows what" | and then ask "would you willing to work late (this time) | until we get through them?" | | I think what the NVC process lacks (or maybe I just don't | know it well enough) is a way to show the other person we | are considering how they feel. I have found it works | absolute wonders at times, not only to show the other | person I'm thinking of them, but also to actually get me | to more consciously think of them, which can alter how I | proceed. Maybe I even realize that the tickets aren't | that important when I imagine they may be stressed to | pick up their kids from school because their marriage | might already be on the rocks and they don't want to push | it overboard. | PebblesRox wrote: | I've found the Kidpower Boundary Bridge to be a helpful | framework when I know I need to speak up about something | bothering me but I'm afraid of awkwardness and conflict. | | It starts with a connecting statement where you put | yourselves in the other person's shoes and you can | include a disclaimer that you know they didn't mean to | hurt your feelings. The rest of it seems similar to NVC. | | One takeaway I got from Kidpower is that the minor | conflicts I'm tempted to ignore because "it's not that | big a deal" are actually great opportunities for me to | practice being more assertive so I'll be prepared for | situations where I do have to take action. Plus I think | the act of resolving a conflict can strengthen and deepen | a relationship when it's done well. So if I stay quiet | out of fear of bad feelings, I'm leaving a lot on the | table. | | https://www.kidpower.org/library/article/kidpower- | boundaries... | jimkleiber wrote: | Ooo, I had never heard of this. Thank you for pointing it | out, I'll check into it more. | | At first glance, personally, I worry that I'll not | remember all 7 steps so that's another reason why I like | the three steps I use. | | If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like you're | saying you first communicate to them what you imagine | their situation to be and that they have a good | intention, I think that can work as well. I've seen that | sometimes when I do that, I will passively still be angry | or frustrated and the person is just waiting for me to | say "but" or "and"--discounting what I'm saying in the | beginning waiting for the metaphorical hammer to drop. | | > the minor conflicts I'm tempted to ignore because "it's | not that big a deal" are actually great opportunities for | me to practice | | I strongly agree. I feel less afraid apologizing for | being late for a coffee than telling someone I want to | get divorced and can be a great way to practice. Another | way that I've found to practice is that I actually run | classes and have created audios to practice dealing with | such emotional conflict/attacks. I've found that role- | playing it can help me gain more confidence and skills in | resolving it. | | Additionally, I'm starting to believe more and more that | almost all big conflicts are built of many little | conflicts. E.g., two people get divorced often not | because of one thing, but because of many many events | that created more distance over time. In this way, the | better I get at resolving the micro-conflict, at the | little events that drive us farther apart, the less | likely big conflicts will happen. | | At the end of the day, I feel excited for whatever | framework/tool/strategy works for you. Again, thank you | for sharing this one and for trying to do this work :-) | mcguire wrote: | " _It 's about coercing people into changing their | behavior..._" | | Isn't that the point? | andrei_says_ wrote: | I teach NVC and that's a crucial aspect. | | One can only practice Nonviolent Communication if the goal is | to remain connected. | | If the goal is to use NVC to coerce a behavior, then even if | the format remains identical, it is no longer NVC but as you | said, passive/aggressive manipulation. | | Learning the mechanical skills and language format and | applying them without the internal alignment is possible and | frequent but unfortunately retains the violent nature of | coercive intentions. | | The first step toward non-violence is to truly accept that | others have their own needs and allow their autonomy, to | remove the invisible pressure which comes with "outcome at | any cost" and switch from demands to pure requests - requests | where a refusal comes with zero negative consequences. | | Without this safety, the rest crumbles. | emptysongglass wrote: | My wife and I tried NVC for our first two years before | binning it. I argue it's counterproductive outside a | therapeutic context. When both parties are heated it's | often that they just need a release valve. Placing a bunch | of logical frameworks over real emotion can often stymie | the other party who needs to release. | | After four years now the real magic trick has been to just | work on our problems individually and on the rare occasions | we bicker either really, honestly, directly blow off steam | (this is as about anti-NVC as you can get) like hey you | piss me off right now and it's this thing you're doing and | it sucks or leave the situation bodily and come back later. | | The key thing for us has been to silo these arguments off | from the rest of the relationship. The high drama that | occurs inside the confines of an argument doesn't need to | mean anything to the broader relationship. Of course if you | have systemic issues then those need to be dealt with but | no amount of modulating your tone or speaking in I | statements or trying to reflect the other person is going | to solve those. | | We're so intent on logicking our way out of anything. But | we're not Spocks. We're human beings with big big feelings. | | Funny story, if you look at my comments history about two | down, my father the massive criminal who raised me is the | one who first introduced NVC to me. He fancied himself an | armchair psychologist. He remains one of the most toxic | individuals I have ever encountered to this day, certainly | to my own life. | | I think we're going to see a renaissance in plain speaking | from the heart. That's my prediction for the next decade. | SavantIdiot wrote: | Always excited to hear about another person who sees the value | in NVC. I've got the books on my shelf and periodically have to | re-read them (and I always cringe at having to re-train myself | because it is such a hard initial effort!). It is a great | framework, and even better if the audience or recipient is | familiar with it. | | > I didn't do it perfectly (this is a hard skill to cultivate). | But... we left with a better way to communicate. | | Sounds like you did just fine! The framework allows you to at | least identify people who reject this type of communication, | because not everyone is open to it. | jancsika wrote: | > Perhaps she'd say: 'Let me get back to you tomorrow about | that,' or: 'Ask me again in a week.' | | I think that example isn't strong enough to register as | assertiveness. | | Assertiveness looks something like this: | | Someone asked me once if I'd be interested in being the musical | director at a church. My response was something like: | | "I have zero interest in doing that. You know, before Phyllis | died she'd seen me politely brushing off an offer to 'fill in' | for the organist for an unspecified number of Sundays, for an | unspecified amount of money. Phyllis pulled me aside after that | and said, 'Don't you _ever_ take a position with a church. The | politics are vicious. They will eat you alive. ' It was hilarious | at the time but she was absolutely serious and I've taken it to | heart." | | That typically works because most people in life have been | _tasked_ by either circumstances or other people to suggest a | course of action or sell you on something. Your assertion | actually gives them some relief because they can stop selling. In | this case, we immediately switched to gossiping about vicious | church politics for the next few minutes. | | The difficult thing is to do something like that for the _first_ | time. It may feel a bit like jumping out of the plane when | skydiving because you have no frame of reference for what will | happen next. The key is to reflect ahead of time on a few key | preferences you have-- when the time comes, just barrel through | and force yourself to make a decision based on that preference. | Once done, notice in the aftermath and days after that nothing | bad actually happened. It 's revelatory-- future moments of low | willpower feel like momentary slip ups (or perhaps just | reasonable compromises) rather than a complete lack of agency. | | Edit: clarification | pseudalopex wrote: | Your response was sharp for no reason if they weren't | responsible for the situation. And too indirect if they were. | | "Thanks. But I'm not interested. Someone warned me the politics | are vicious. Please don't ask again." | hcrisp wrote: | The story in the article about not knowing how to conclude a | conversation reminds me of a tip my brother-in-law gave me. He is | a teacher, though a bit introverted, and he said he had problems | wrapping up conversations during parent-teacher meetings. Some | people just couldn't take a hint. Then he found that by saying, | "Ok!" , while simultaneously slapping his palms on his lap (as if | about to get up) would jolt everyone into wrap-up mode. I've | tried this, and it mostly works. People respond to nonverbal | communication (which is apparently more effective than verbal) | quite well. | jimkleiber wrote: | Yes! Reminds me of how my great uncle used to talk and talk and | talk after family reunions until one time, I sat there and I | think did exactly that, I slapped my hands on my lap, said, | "Ok! I'm tired, I'm gonna head to sleep." And he seemed to snap | out of his story and we all got up to go to bed. I had been | feeling frustrated because he just kept going and my parents | had been falling asleep but no one said anything. | | I agree nonverbals can often help by themselves or even as a | starter to more verbal communication in these situations. | Thanks for posting this :-) | | *edit: and my great uncle wasn't trying to harm us, he just | liked to talk and probably just got caught up in the moment, | not realizing how much he was talking :-) | toomanyducks wrote: | I mean I've read _some_ of the Aristotle mentioned, and I think | it 's a very and unservingly individualistic approach. | | The bits that I read took into account your effects on others, | but not others' effects on you, aside from the mention of | teaching. If we accept that individual virtues are the | determining factors of morality, we can't really ask any | questions about the effect of others on my own morality, which, | in my opinion and experience, is pretty important too. So yeah, | be assertive and all, but Aristotle feels like the wrong place to | root an analysis of inter-personal interaction. | dijit wrote: | This is definitely true. | | I was given assertiveness training when I was a young boy- I had | a troubled time and was put through the training with other | trouble makers. | | It really changed me, I went from being an anxious and shy person | to being a generally motivated and quite confident person. | | Which, is strange given that assertiveness training is mostly | identifying assertive behaviour as it differs from aggressive or | non-direct behaviour. It doesn't (or didn't) force you to be | assertive, but identifying it leads you to understanding that you | can _be_ assertive. | asah wrote: | Successful assertiveness is a learned skill. | | successful assertiveness = speaking up (at the right time, being | articulate, tone, etc) | | successful assertiveness = being heard (not just speaking) | | successful assertiveness = being prioritized (not just bl adding | to the noise) | | successful assertiveness = not being penalized / oostracized (so | next time you're heard+prioritized) | | successful != ambition, promotion, raises etc | | successful != hurting others ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-15 23:01 UTC)