Hoy all,
I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't gotten around to it. Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC). It's a method of communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and resolve conflicts between people. NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic Communication or Needs Based Communication. The idea of NVC is to frame the discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests. "Nonviolent Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components: Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?"). Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations. Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and evaluations. Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged). Finally requests are simply that requests, but they are not demands. You have to be willing to hear the other person say no.
To take a recent example from the mailing list: "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC framework)
This could have been expressed as: When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met. Would you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically listening to those of others. Two things that really harm this connection are blaming others and blaming ourselves.
I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC. I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication. The NVC way of thinking has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to people. I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others. I really think that it could do a lot of good here.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself) [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)
On 02/17/2014 02:45 PM, Derric Atzrott wrote:
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically listening to those of others.
You know, I'm generally considered to be reasonably skilled at communications; and I think that I have had some success in remaining cordial and attentive to both my colleagues and the members of the community I often interact with.
To be honest, if someone were to address me in the way you describe in your examples, I would almost certainly be seriously offended. You call this Non-Violent Communication, but I find it both condescending and dismissive, and would certainly perceive it as a deliberate attempt at being passive-aggressive.
TL;DR: YVVM. Not all methods of communication are appropriate for all media, or of all audiences.
-- Marc
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically listening to those of others.
You know, I'm generally considered to be reasonably skilled at communications; and I think that I have had some success in remaining cordial and attentive to both my colleagues and the members of the community I often interact with.
To be honest, if someone were to address me in the way you describe in your examples, I would almost certainly be seriously offended. You call this Non-Violent Communication, but I find it both condescending and dismissive, and would certainly perceive it as a deliberate attempt at being passive-aggressive.
TL;DR: YVVM. Not all methods of communication are appropriate for all media, or of all audiences.
I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent. I was only trying to help us all communicate and get along better.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
+1
When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" principle is often forgotten.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Hoy all,
I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't gotten around to it. Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC). It's a method of communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and resolve conflicts between people. NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic Communication or Needs Based Communication. The idea of NVC is to frame the discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests. "Nonviolent Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components: Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?"). Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations. Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and evaluations. Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged). Finally requests are simply that requests, but they are not demands. You have to be willing to hear the other person say no.
To take a recent example from the mailing list: "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC framework)
This could have been expressed as: When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met. Would you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically listening to those of others. Two things that really harm this connection are blaming others and blaming ourselves.
I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC. I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication. The NVC way of thinking has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to people. I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others. I really think that it could do a lot of good here.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself) [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I basically agree with everything Marc said, but you bring up a very good point about assuming good faith. That seems like something that would probably go the furthest towards addressing the underlying problem. Can I tape you two together?
-I
On 17/02/14 20:45, Monte Hurd wrote:
+1
When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" principle is often forgotten.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Hoy all,
I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't gotten around to it. Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC). It's a method of communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and resolve conflicts between people. NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic Communication or Needs Based Communication. The idea of NVC is to frame the discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests. "Nonviolent Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components: Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?"). Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations. Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and evaluations. Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged). Finally requests are simply that requests, but they are not demands. You have to be willing to hear the other person say no.
To take a recent example from the mailing list: "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC framework)
This could have been expressed as: When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met. Would you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically listening to those of others. Two things that really harm this connection are blaming others and blaming ourselves.
I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC. I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication. The NVC way of thinking has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to people. I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others. I really think that it could do a lot of good here.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself) [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd mhurd@wikimedia.org wrote:
+1
When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good faith" principle is often forgotten.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters, but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
+many
Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1] does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading. The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain something properly. Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference. It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
DJ
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
PS.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
PPS. I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :) For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends... If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every single time :D Slightly related fun: https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000
On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Hoy all,
I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just hadn't gotten around to it. Things have been rather heated the past few days, so I figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this thread.
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC). It's a method of communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to reduce and resolve conflicts between people. NVC has sometimes also been called Empathetic Communication or Needs Based Communication. The idea of NVC is to frame the discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests. "Nonviolent Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent' modes of communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four components: Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."), Needs ("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing to...?"). Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad generalizations. Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and evaluations. Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others (so one doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel betrayed, one feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged). Finally requests are simply that requests, but they are not demands. You have to be willing to hear the other person say no.
To take a recent example from the mailing list: "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not picking a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that stood out to me as something that could have been much better expressed within the NVC framework)
This could have been expressed as: When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated because my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being met. Would you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and empathetically listening to those of others. Two things that really harm this connection are blaming others and blaming ourselves.
I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading into NVC. I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along with the website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication. The NVC way of thinking has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express myself to people. I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the practice that I have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others. I really think that it could do a lot of good here.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on Wikipedia [1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings Inventory (really useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like myself) [3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also very useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like myself)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Interesting...
I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any real-life human situation. IMO this approach boils down to getting your way without looking like a dick. Creeps me out.
That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others. Unless you're pissed :p
love, Adam
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman < d.j.hartman+wmf_ml@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd mhurd@wikimedia.org wrote:
+1
When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good
faith" principle is often forgotten.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,
but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
+many
Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1] does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading. The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain something properly. Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference. It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
DJ
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
PS.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
PPS. I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :) For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends... If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every single time :D Slightly related fun: https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000
On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
Hoy all,
I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just
hadn't
gotten around to it. Things have been rather heated the past few days,
so I
figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this
thread.
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC). It's a
method of
communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to
reduce and
resolve conflicts between people. NVC has sometimes also been called
Empathetic
Communication or Needs Based Communication. The idea of NVC is to
frame the
discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.
"Nonviolent
Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups
arise from
miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or
manipulative
language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent'
modes of
communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four
components:
Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."),
Needs
("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing
to...?").
Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad
generalizations.
Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and evaluations. Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others
(so one
doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel
betrayed, one
feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged). Finally requests are
simply
that requests, but they are not demands. You have to be willing to
hear the
other person say no.
To take a recent example from the mailing list: "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not
picking
a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that
stood out to
me as something that could have been much better expressed within the
NVC
framework)
This could have been expressed as: When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated
because
my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being
met. Would
you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and
empathetically
listening to those of others. Two things that really harm this
connection are
blaming others and blaming ourselves.
I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading
into NVC.
I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along
with the
website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication. The NVC way of
thinking
has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express
myself to
people. I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the
practice that I
have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others. I
really
think that it could do a lot of good here.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on
Wikipedia
[1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings
Inventory (really
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like
myself)
[3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also
very
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like
myself)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
If you're pissed, that's when you use something like NVC, except taking it even further, perhaps. Put other people on edge too, but then if they do anything about it, weeeell...
I think this may be the standard approach on a lot of discussion boards on enwp.
On 18/02/14 03:26, Adam Wight wrote:
Interesting...
I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any real-life human situation. IMO this approach boils down to getting your way without looking like a dick. Creeps me out.
That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others. Unless you're pissed :p
love, Adam
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman < d.j.hartman+wmf_ml@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd mhurd@wikimedia.org wrote:
+1
When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good
faith" principle is often forgotten.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,
but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
+many
Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1] does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading. The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain something properly. Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference. It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
DJ
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
PS.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
PPS. I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :) For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends... If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every single time :D Slightly related fun: https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000
On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
Hoy all,
I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just
hadn't
gotten around to it. Things have been rather heated the past few days,
so I
figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this
thread.
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC). It's a
method of
communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to
reduce and
resolve conflicts between people. NVC has sometimes also been called
Empathetic
Communication or Needs Based Communication. The idea of NVC is to
frame the
discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.
"Nonviolent
Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups
arise from
miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or
manipulative
language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent'
modes of
communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four
components:
Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."),
Needs
("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing
to...?").
Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad
generalizations.
Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and evaluations. Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others
(so one
doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel
betrayed, one
feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged). Finally requests are
simply
that requests, but they are not demands. You have to be willing to
hear the
other person say no.
To take a recent example from the mailing list: "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not
picking
a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that
stood out to
me as something that could have been much better expressed within the
NVC
framework)
This could have been expressed as: When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated
because
my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being
met. Would
you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and
empathetically
listening to those of others. Two things that really harm this
connection are
blaming others and blaming ourselves.
I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading
into NVC.
I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along
with the
website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication. The NVC way of
thinking
has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express
myself to
people. I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the
practice that I
have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others. I
really
think that it could do a lot of good here.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on
Wikipedia
[1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication [2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings
Inventory (really
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like
myself)
[3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also
very
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like
myself)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
While browsing the web for new trends of human-horse communication & horse management, I found the website of Marjorie Smith, and I've been deeply influenced by her; her thoughts about links between man-to-man and man-to-horse communication - really an example of advantages of NVC - were extremely interesting and inspiring.
I don't know why she removed her website from the web, but I saved a copy of it into my own website, with an Italian translation (with Marjorie permission) but - luckily - with original English front-text. You can find it here: http://www.alexbrollo.com/people-for-peace/
If yoi like horses and peace, it's a very interesting text. It points attention on fear, and to how fighting against fear is important for NVC.
Alex
2014-02-18 4:33 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com:
If you're pissed, that's when you use something like NVC, except taking it even further, perhaps. Put other people on edge too, but then if they do anything about it, weeeell...
I think this may be the standard approach on a lot of discussion boards on enwp.
On 18/02/14 03:26, Adam Wight wrote:
Interesting...
I have very little authority to stand on, but in my exposure to so-called NVC, it seems more appropriate for diplomatic negotiations than for any real-life human situation. IMO this approach boils down to getting your way without looking like a dick. Creeps me out.
That said, yes it's important to always deal generously with others. Unless you're pissed :p
love, Adam
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman < d.j.hartman+wmf_ml@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 feb. 2014, at 21:45, Monte Hurd mhurd@wikimedia.org wrote:
+1
When I read certain threads on this list, I feel like the "assume good
faith" principle is often forgotten.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
To be sure, if you don't assume good faith, your opinion still matters,
but you unnecessarily weaken both your argument and the discussion.
+many
Yes on this list we have some strong opinions and we aren't always particularly careful about how we express them, but assume good faith[1] does indeed go a long way and that should be the default mode for reading. The default mode for writing should of course be "don't be a dick" [2].
We have to remember that although many people are well versed in English here, it is often not their mother tongue, making it more difficult to understand the subtleties of the opinions of others and/or to express theirs, which might lead to frustration for both sides. And some people are simply terse where others are blunt and some people have more time than others to create replies or to wait for someones attempts to explain something properly. Being inclusive for this reason is usually regarded as a good thing and is thus a natural part of assume good faith. It is why 'civility' often is so difficult too map directly to community standards, because it is too tightly coupled with ones own norms, values and skills to be inclusive.
I'm personally good with almost anything that keeps a good distance from both Linus Torvalds-style and NVC. We shouldn't be afraid to point out errors or have hefty discussions and we need to keep it inside the lines where people will want to participate. But this is no kindergarten either and some of the more abrasive postings have made a positive difference. It's difficult to strike the right balance but it's good to ask people once in a while to pay attention to how we communicate.
DJ
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
PS.
Because this behavior makes me not want to participate in discussions
about issues I actually care about, I wonder how many other voices, like mine, aren't heard, and to what degree this undermines any eventual perceived consensus?
If that's what you think of wikitech-l, I assume it is easy to guess what you think about the talk page of Jimmy Wales, en.wp's Request for adminship and en.wp's Administrator noticeboard ? :)
PPS. I'm quite sure Linus would burn NVC to the ground if he had the chance :) For those who haven't followed it and who have a bit of time on their hands: There was a very 'interesting' flamewar about being more professional in communication on the Linux kernel mailinglist last July.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/ 07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel-developers/ If you distance yourself a bit and just read everything, you'll find that there is some basic truth to both sides of the spectrum and it basically once again sums up to: we often forget how potty trained we are, even more so that there are different styles of potty around the world and whether or not a human/animal actually needs training to go potty to begin with. That doesn't give an answer, but it's an interesting/lively discussion every single time :D Slightly related fun: https://twitter.com/wyshynski/statuses/430734034113536000
On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
Hoy all,
I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, but just
hadn't
gotten around to it. Things have been rather heated the past few days,
so I
figured now would be as good a time as any to go about starting this
thread.
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC). It's a
method of
communicating, well really more a method of thinking, that aims to
reduce and
resolve conflicts between people. NVC has sometimes also been called
Empathetic
Communication or Needs Based Communication. The idea of NVC is to
frame the
discussion in terms of needs and feelings, followed up by requests.
"Nonviolent
Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups
arise from
miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or
manipulative
language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These 'violent'
modes of
communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the
participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict." [0]
The core of NVC is an NVC expression, which is made up of four
components:
Observations ("When I see/hear/notice..."), Feelings ("...I feel..."),
Needs
("...because I need/value..."), and Requests ("Would you be willing
to...?").
Observations are the facts themselves, and are not broad
generalizations.
Feelings are emotions, they are distinct from stories, thoughts, and
evaluations. Feelings are also self-owned and not attributed to others
(so one
doesn't feel attacked, one feels angry, likewise one doesn't feel
betrayed, one
feels hurt or stunned, or perhaps even outraged). Finally requests are
simply
that requests, but they are not demands. You have to be willing to
hear the
other person say no.
To take a recent example from the mailing list: "Cool, I'll just pop in. Oh, wait." (David, I want you to know I am not
picking
a quote from you specifically for any reason, it was just one that
stood out to
me as something that could have been much better expressed within the
NVC
framework)
This could have been expressed as: When people talk about things off-list, I feel resentful and frustrated
because
my needs for community, consideration, and to be heard are not being
met. Would
you be willing to keep the discussion on-list so that I can participate?
NVC values honestly expressing your own needs and feeling and
empathetically
listening to those of others. Two things that really harm this
connection are
blaming others and blaming ourselves.
I really encourage everyone on this list to do a little bit of reading
into NVC.
I've linked to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of this email along
with the
website for the Center for Non-Violent Communication. The NVC way of
thinking
has really made a huge difference in how I understand and express
myself to
people. I'm by no means perfect at it myself, but even with the
practice that I
have I've already seen a huge improvement in how I relate to others. I
really
think that it could do a lot of good here.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication NVC on
Wikipedia
[1] http://www.cnvc.org/ Center for Non-Violent Communication
[2] https://www.cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory Feelings
Inventory (really
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our feelings, like
myself)
[3] http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory Needs Inventory (also
very
useful for those of us who aren't in touch with our needs, again, like
myself)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I find it fascinating what a successful meme AGF is. I was so successfully indoctrinated by it during my first three years or so on en.wp that when I first encountered en.wn, where they explicitly reject AGF as intrinsically incompatible with news production, I wondered how they could possibly operate without it (this is after having wondered, when I first arrived at en.wp, how they could possibly function *with* it). For a few years I tried to satisfy both camps, with the idea that it was appropriate for Wikipedia but not for Wikinews. Eventually I've concluded that AGF has done huge damage to en.wp, creating a highly toxic culture there. The en.wn alternative is Never assume (which I'm realizing, more and more, is not just a code of social interaction, it's a philosophy of life). AGF, if taken literally by its name, advocates assuming something, which contributors to an information provider should never be encouraged to do. If taken the way it seems to be meant (per WP:ZEN), it teaches people to say something different than what you mean, also not good. And, AGF can be, and is, used successfully by people of bad faith to avoid responsibility for their own behavior and get their victims in trouble.
Pi zero
That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to avoid assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of the doubt without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even more of one now).
But yeah, good points.
On 18/02/14 13:43, pi zero wrote:
I find it fascinating what a successful meme AGF is. I was so successfully indoctrinated by it during my first three years or so on en.wp that when I first encountered en.wn, where they explicitly reject AGF as intrinsically incompatible with news production, I wondered how they could possibly operate without it (this is after having wondered, when I first arrived at en.wp, how they could possibly function *with* it). For a few years I tried to satisfy both camps, with the idea that it was appropriate for Wikipedia but not for Wikinews. Eventually I've concluded that AGF has done huge damage to en.wp, creating a highly toxic culture there. The en.wn alternative is Never assume (which I'm realizing, more and more, is not just a code of social interaction, it's a philosophy of life). AGF, if taken literally by its name, advocates assuming something, which contributors to an information provider should never be encouraged to do. If taken the way it seems to be meant (per WP:ZEN), it teaches people to say something different than what you mean, also not good. And, AGF can be, and is, used successfully by people of bad faith to avoid responsibility for their own behavior and get their victims in trouble.
Pi zero _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 18 February 2014 16:34, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to avoid assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of the doubt without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even more of one now).
"assume good faith" makes more sense when you realise it's a nicer restatement of "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice". It certainly doesn't mean "assume correctness".
- d.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:48 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 February 2014 16:34, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
That's interesting - my take on AGF always was that it was a way to avoid assumptions - another way of saying to give people the benefit of the
doubt
without being such a cliché (even though it's probably even more of one now).
"assume good faith" makes more sense when you realise it's a nicer restatement of "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice". It certainly doesn't mean "assume correctness".
Indeed.
-Chad
summary: don't reply in a hurry or when you're pissed. Try not to piss off others and don't assume they just mean bad. Don't waste time. Stay on topic. Humans are still humans. Be nice. Try to do better tomorrow. Kthx. News?
and yes I see the paradox that I also just wrote that in a hurry and was a little frustrated because it honestly seemed to me like those things weren't new. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. I'm just personally like: 'would rather do technical stuff.. too busy..'.. finding a balance between hostile environment and an overly regulated one without any kind of snark seems appropriate to me. On Feb 18, 2014 9:38 AM, "Daniel Zahn" dzahn@wikimedia.org wrote:
summary: don't reply in a hurry or when you're pissed. Try not to piss off others and don't assume they just mean bad. Don't waste time. Stay on topic. Humans are still humans. Be nice. Try to do better tomorrow. Kthx. News?
+1
Balance is always the trick.
On Feb 18, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Daniel Zahn dzahn@wikimedia.org wrote:
and yes I see the paradox that I also just wrote that in a hurry and was a little frustrated because it honestly seemed to me like those things weren't new. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. I'm just personally like: 'would rather do technical stuff.. too busy..'.. finding a balance between hostile environment and an overly regulated one without any kind of snark seems appropriate to me.
On Feb 18, 2014 9:38 AM, "Daniel Zahn" dzahn@wikimedia.org wrote:
summary: don't reply in a hurry or when you're pissed. Try not to piss off others and don't assume they just mean bad. Don't waste time. Stay on topic. Humans are still humans. Be nice. Try to do better tomorrow. Kthx. News?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I'd even condense it further: If you are really pissed off by a mail, sleep over it before you reply. The more you are pissed off, the more let it settle for a while.
This is even law in many places like in german, austrian or british armies: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit%C3%A4rische_Nacht
/Manuel
There are multiple readings of "Assume Good Faith". I think pi zero was pointing out that it can be used to justify 'violent' communications. "Oh, sure, it might seem like I just punched you in the nose, but you must AGF and respond as I were just trying to kill a mosquito that happened to have landed there." David Gerard's "stupidity" reading of AGF would be, "...respond as if you just clumsily knocked into my nose, since clumsiness is more common than malice". Both variants of the assumption can be abused by malicious actors.
The problem in all societies is how to establish mutual trust; part of which requires protecting the society from malicious actors. AGF is only one part; it works to soothe "common clumsiness" while malicious actors need to be dealt with via other means. We shouldn't really evaluate it in isolation from the other mechanisms in our society
It's certainly an interesting point that AGF excuses incivil conversation and puts the burden on the listener to compensate, which is a rather Torvalds-ian approach. But the linux-kernel mailing list seems to be WP:AGF without WP:CIVIL. WP:CIVIL puts the burden on the speaker. Balance! --scott
Il 18/02/2014 21:12, C. Scott Ananian ha scritto:
There are multiple readings of "Assume Good Faith". I think pi zero was pointing out that it can be used to justify 'violent' communications. "Oh, sure, it might seem like I just punched you in the nose, but you must AGF and respond as I were just trying to kill a mosquito that happened to have landed there." David Gerard's "stupidity" reading of AGF would be, "...respond as if you just clumsily knocked into my nose, since clumsiness is more common than malice". Both variants of the assumption can be abused by malicious actors.
The problem in all societies is how to establish mutual trust; part of which requires protecting the society from malicious actors. AGF is only one part; it works to soothe "common clumsiness" while malicious actors need to be dealt with via other means. We shouldn't really evaluate it in isolation from the other mechanisms in our society
It's certainly an interesting point that AGF excuses incivil conversation and puts the burden on the listener to compensate, which is a rather Torvalds-ian approach. But the linux-kernel mailing list seems to be WP:AGF without WP:CIVIL. WP:CIVIL puts the burden on the speaker. Balance! --scott
In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad faith :D
Vito
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Vito vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad faith :D
And I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be focusing our attention on WP:CIVIL and other rules which are supposed to protect against malicious actors, not blaming WP:AGF for something it's not meant to do. --scott
Il 18/02/2014 21:26, C. Scott Ananian ha scritto:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Vito vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad faith :D
And I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be focusing our attention on WP:CIVIL and other rules which are supposed to protect against malicious actors, not blaming WP:AGF for something it's not meant to do. --scott
Agree, also, generally speaking I think we should take ourselves less seriously since, setting apart from hired devs, that's just one of our hobbies.
Vito
On 18 February 2014 20:26, C. Scott Ananian cananian@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Vito vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad faith :D
And I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps we should be focusing our attention on WP:CIVIL and other rules which are supposed to protect against malicious actors, not blaming WP:AGF for something it's not meant to do.
I'm really nice in person, I'm just terrible on line. Pity where I spend most of my life ...
- d.
On Feb 18, 2014 4:12 PM, "C. Scott Ananian" cananian@wikimedia.org wrote:
There are multiple readings of "Assume Good Faith". I think pi zero was pointing out that it can be used to justify 'violent' communications. "Oh, sure, it might seem like I just punched you in the nose, but you must AGF and respond as I were just trying to kill a mosquito that happened to have landed there." David Gerard's "stupidity" reading of AGF would be, "...respond as if you just clumsily knocked into my nose, since clumsiness is more common than malice". Both variants of the assumption can be abused by malicious actors.
Well i agree with your point, i think malicious actors are pretty rare in our community.
Submitting a (useful) patch is hard work. This cuts down on the number of trolls significantly.
-bawolff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derric Atzrott" datzrott@alizeepathology.com
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).
No, but I don't think it's an optimal choice of name. In my view, it's accusing of a malevolent motivation people who are not you, who may not *hold* such a motivation... and whether they did or not, they won't be all that thrilled with having you call it that.
One of the alternative names you suggest might end up being a better long-term strategic choice.
For the record, I rewrote that at least 3 times. :-)
Cheers, -- jra
Derric Atzrott writes:
Hi Derric,
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).
NVC is amazing and I very much encourage anyone to take it up. It goes way beyond a method of thinking, it is a spiritual path. Like other spiritual paths that means it may work if you practise it yourself.
Also, there is no need whatsoever for others to practice NVC. If you do it yourself, benifits will follow. While you may inspire others, forcing your spiritual path onto them, or even suggesting they could do so, may trigger very strong reactions.
A growing part of the Agile change management movement is adopting NVC, as it fits very well with techies. Google on NVC+Agile.
Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using NVC?
Greetings, Jan
Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using NVC?
I was excited and in a hurry. In retrospect I really think that I should have.
After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and frustrated, and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for understanding was met.
In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the list. I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email was, well, violent. That was not my intention at all. I just began myself looking into and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so, and I am, as of now, still not terribly great at it.
Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't turn anyone off to the subject. I guess all I was really trying to say in that email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel frustrated because my needs for calm and community are not met. I end up not wanting to participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or understood. I would like to request that people onlist look into strategies to help everyone get along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or something else, does not matter as much to me. I suggested NVC because it has been a very useful tool for me in the past.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Thanks for a nice tasty bikeshed on a technical mailing list.
I assume your good faith, and I foresee its consequences. You couldn't employ your NVC skills because you were, quote, in a hurry, end quote. That means, NVC just doesn't work when it's needed. I don't think everyone here has a lot of spare time to mix original thoughts with a dump of meaningless requests and pardons. You want to share how you feel? I don't think it's the right place to do this. Don't ask to ask, just ask, and so on.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using NVC?
I was excited and in a hurry. In retrospect I really think that I should have.
After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and frustrated, and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for understanding was met.
In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the list. I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email was, well, violent. That was not my intention at all. I just began myself looking into and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so, and I am, as of now, still not terribly great at it.
Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't turn anyone off to the subject. I guess all I was really trying to say in that email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel frustrated because my needs for calm and community are not met. I end up not wanting to participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or understood. I would like to request that people onlist look into strategies to help everyone get along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or something else, does not matter as much to me. I suggested NVC because it has been a very useful tool for me in the past.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I assume your good faith, and I foresee its consequences. You couldn't employ your NVC skills because you were, quote, in a hurry, end quote. That means, NVC just doesn't work when it's needed. I don't think everyone here has a lot of spare time to mix original thoughts with a dump of meaningless requests and pardons. You want to share how you feel? I don't think it's the right place to do this. Don't ask to ask, just ask, and so on.
I think this and other responses to non-violent communication make a lot of sense. They're in line with the old quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." But this process takes years and we seem to be at the laugh and fight stage.
I think violence is a particularly efficient way of getting what you want. "Assume good faith" is just a way to apologize in advance for employing violence. And honestly, I come from a culture where violence is a totally acceptable form of communication, and I'm a violent communicator. I creep myself out when I try to not be violent, but I recognize that much harmony would result from adopting the principles of NVC. Anyway I don't have any opinion on either side of this discussion, just wanted to point out that the responses are to be expected. And to say to Derric thank you, your post was not in vain and it did not turn me off to the subject. On the contrary, it made me admire that more people are willing to try it.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
Question for Derric: why didn't you formulate your suggestion using NVC?
I was excited and in a hurry. In retrospect I really think that I should have.
After reading some of the replies I felt rather disappointed and frustrated, and even a little sad as I didn't feel my need for understanding was met.
In the future I will try to take a little more time writing emails to the list. I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended by it or felt that my email was, well, violent. That was not my intention at all. I just began
myself
looking into and trying to practice NVC in the past six months or so,
and I
am, as of now, still not terribly great at it.
Again, I want to express my apologies, and I really hope that I didn't turn anyone off to the subject. I guess all I was really trying to say
in
that email is that when conversation on this list gets heated, I feel frustrated because my needs for calm and community are not met. I end up not wanting to participate because I don’t think that I will be heard or understood. I would like to request that people onlist look into strategies to help everyone get along, whether that is AGF, or NVC, or something else, does not matter as much to me. I suggested NVC because
it
has been a very useful tool for me in the past.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- З павагай, Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Derric Atzrott writes:
Have any of you ever heard of Non-Violent Communication (NVC).
NVC is amazing and I very much encourage anyone to take it up. It goes way beyond a method of thinking, it is a spiritual path. Like other spiritual paths that means it may work if you practise it yourself.
This is a pretty violent name for such a relaxed concept. Related essays: - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Excessive_growth - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Catalytic
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org