and I'll leave one of them — unenlightened

Thanks for sharing. Looks so interesting. I am going to check it out :cheer:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nonviolent-communication-marshall-rosenbergs-nvc-training/id1497893802

There is an audio archive in podcast form (I also found it on Podcast Addict, the provider I use)

Here's another piece that gets a bit deeper into anger.

I just remembered this very old thread of mine, that focussed mainly on anger, and that this thread can be thought of as sort of the successor to.

So we have this process of "translation" from Jackal language to Giraffe language, from static language to process language.

"I always hear the need behind the 'no', the compliment, the insult, the refusal to engage."

So compare this with this thread "Be a good person but don’t waste time to prove it."

The suggestion is that one can be a good person (or a bad person) but that a good person does not worry about making sure everyone knows how good they are. But someone who thinks this knows for themselves that they are even better for the fact that they 'don’t waste time to prove it'.

They pride themselves on their humility.

Giraffe ears translate this, I think, into "I need to see myself as better than others". One sees, perhaps the insecurity that needs reassurance. Giraffe ears do not hear identifications like 'good person' at all.

The suggestion is that one can be a good person (or a bad person) but that a good person does not worry about making sure everyone knows how good they are. But someone who thinks this knows for themselves that they are even better for the fact that they 'don’t waste time to prove it'.

They pride themselves on their humility. — unenlightened

Yes. It's very hard to escape this structure. Is it possible to decide what is a gift (valuable knowledge, freely offered) and what is self-praise? Probably it's a mix, which is not all bad. We want people (I think) to value themselves as those who bring gifts to the tribe. But we can question the value of their gifts, and we can question the motives and judgment of those who question such gifts, and so on.

We want people (I think) to value themselves as those who bring gifts to the tribe. — j0e

In this thread, as opposed to that thread, we don't want people to value themselves, because we have discovered that the valuation of people - others or self - is violent. So we say that everyone in their talk and in their action is intending to fulfil their needs. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, and people who self harm are fulfilling their needs as best they know how. You can call this "unconditional positive regard" as proposed by Carl Rogers. Because it is unconditional, it does not compare or measure, it does not separate by identification.

"I don't want to be a burden." One hears this from old folks and disabled folks often. But when one questions the value of their gifts, one makes a burden of those that have no valuable gifts, a burden that one carries in order to be oneself a valuable member of the tribe. Thus one does violence in the act of kindness. I don't want to be a burden, but you have made me one.

If your kindness is a gift for me and brings you no joy, then I cannot afford it, and I would rather die. I don't want to be a burden. Compare: "He ain't heavy; he's my brother."

In this thread, as opposed to that thread, we don't want people to value themselves, because we have discovered that the valuation of people - others or self - is violent. — unenlightened

Excellent reply and I pretty much agree. I do think it's hard though to avoid the unequal valuation of people.

it's hard though to avoid the unequal valuation of people. — j0e

Marshall tells a story of a Mum coming to his seminar and saying she was worried about her 5 yr old son not wanting to go to school. And he says to ask the child if he could say what they didn't like, next day she arrives with the answer; "It's all about tomorrow, Mummy."

The culture is saturated with preparation for a life that is never reached, because there is always another phase of life to prepare for. A child cannot run round a field for joy, without some adult measuring it with a stopwatch and drawing up a league table. On television, cooking, sewing, gardening, pottery, every aspect of life is turned into a competition in which the mantra is recited "there can only be one winner". I fully expect the next big thing to be The Great British Fuck off, in which contestant are judged for their performance by experts and professionals and set unrealistic orgasmic time-limits.

It's hard to avoid the enculturation of thousands of years, sure enough. So we carry on fighting.

It's maybe worth looking at this to understand better how the needs based process language functions.
the distinction between the need and the strategy is important and subtle. I need food; McDonald's is my strategy. I need love; you are my strategy.

In this thread, as opposed to that thread — unenlightened

why not get angry and violent in a space where its ok to do so?

There's a violence and anger in any moral dialectic, no matter how far you zoom out. They're bad because they think they're good (and i'm good because I know I"m bad), fed through the dialectic machine, can spiral out into infinity (I'm a severely wounded veteran of that spiral.)

I feel you, strongly, but what if you just are mean somewhere with an equal who equally wants to be mean?

(i know this sounds dumb, but I can cite my sources to make it intellectually plausible. I don't say this as someone with an attraction to life-as-violence; I say it as someone with an abusive relationship with an internal moral-voice, which can dialectically unravel any attempt at being good I can muster. I agree that nonviolent conversation is the way to go; I also think that we can't will ourselves into it. Personal landing-point, as of now: accept original sin, hope for grace. But meanwhile, do meditation, help friends and family when they need, cook good meals, so forth. And maybe sometimes be the grumpy person when doing it?)

Think of J Krisnamurti and the process. There's always a shadow-undergoing underlying the goodness, right? If we can't process like jk, maybe we have to find a release for our anger elsewhere, until we're graced with freedom from it?

There's a violence and anger in any moral dialectic, no matter how far you zoom out. They're bad because they think they're good (and i'm good because I know I"m bad), fed through the dialectic machine, can spiral out into infinity (I'm a severely wounded veteran of that spiral.) — csalisbury

:up:

Exactly. A string of wounds, a necklace of ideologies.

accept original sin, hope for grace — csalisbury

:up:

Keep showing up for the jazz, forgive as you would be forgiven.

why not get angry — csalisbury

For fuck's sake dude! :razz:

No one's telling you not to get angry. There's nothing 'nice' about all this. Anger is a strategy folks can use to express and fulfil their needs. It's not a very good one.

To paraphrase our man while talking about the need for autonomy and the many autonomy wars around the globe, you cannot make your children do what you want, you can only make them regret not doing it. And then they will make you regret making them regret...

Get angry, have regrets. Be my guest.

I say it as someone with an abusive relationship with an internal moral-voice — csalisbury

So you are your own abusive parent and stubborn child. Of course there is a video for that.

'We both wanted to be seen. We didn't realize that when you see the other, you create the world.'

--protagonist of Homunculus

sometimes it's hard to follow the advice... if someone says an insult to me it's difficult not to strike back or analyse them and why they said the insult.

Do you feel hurt when people insult you? Is it because you want people to treat you with kindness or respect? I'm wondering if some insults anger you lead to you feeling angry more than others.



Thanks for sharing this. NVC has been hugely helpful for me, in that it's given me new tools to look inward and understand why I'm doing things, and of course to understand why others are doing things - so that I can help them, or I can help them help me, etc. It's amazing. Total paradigm shift for me.

I'm wondering if some insults anger you lead to you feeling angry more than others — TLCD1996

Being called brainless or someone saying I have a fucked up mentality.

Yeah no kidding it's hard!

But don't beat yourself up about it! There's 8,000 years of habit and social structure to overcome, and Rome wasn't carefully dismantled and repurposed in a day.

It's interesting how close this is to conventional psychology as we know and despise it.

*Condescending mechanistic blah about "fight or flight response".*

Oh, so there's always a choice?

I'm wondering if some insults anger you lead to you feeling angry more than others
— TLCD1996

Being called brainless or someone saying I have a fucked up mentality. — The Opposite

Feeding that through google giraffe translate, I get something like "I need you to respect my intellect".

Total paradigm shift for me. — TLCD1996

I'm sooo glad someone else 'gets it'. For me, it's like -of course, I already knew all this, but I couldn't quite bring it together so that it worked.

I need this to be false because my anger is redemptive.
I need this to be a partial truth because sometimes I must force people to meet my needs.
I need this to be wrong because no one could meet those needs.
I need this to be wrong because my needs are wrong.

Feeding that through google giraffe translate, I get something like "I need you to respect my intellect". — unenlightened

That's personalised so as to become a tactic, not just a need. It should be "I need my intellect respected."

I want to keep this discussion more along the lines of discussion and not therapy, so I'll try to keep probing minimal. And I want to emphasize that one of the things about NVC that would make it helpful is not just that the framework allows us to connect to others, but that it allows us to clarify and make explicit what it is we're feeling, and what it is we want. If it doesn't help us connect with others, it can help us connect with ourselves; so if we find ourselves getting a bit flustered in our interactions, we can look inward to see why that is, and then take responsibility for that.

I'm assuming you would like them to recognize that you have some sort of knowledge, or that your views/thoughts/ideas/mentality are all humane/ethical/rational etc?

I need this to be false because my anger is redemptive.
I need this to be a partial truth because sometimes I must force people to meet my needs.
I need this to be wrong because no one could meet those needs.
I need this to be wrong because my needs are wrong. — fdrake

I had a little think, and tried to remember something you said ages ago about your own experience of violence, but I cannot make it add up to something, and I want to. Can you say more?

We are taught that retribution is redemptive?
Sometimes one has to intervene forcefully - perhaps the school shooter needs to be shot. Sometimes it is not the moment for communication of any sort. Afterwards, we can talk, maybe.
But how can needs be wrong? How can they be unmeetable?

But how can needs be wrong? — unenlightened

I can need you to be subservient to me. I can need you to play a role which destroys you or others. I can codepend, I can confine, I can dominate. My ego can require thus.

You might say that this is not a need, but I wonder where the line is drawn, if "I need you to respect my intellect" counts, but "I need you to shut up and do what I say forever" isn't.

We are taught that retribution is redemptive? — unenlightened

Anger is useful in reclaiming oneself or one's voice against a slight, intrusion or violation. If a riot is the language of the unheard, anger is its intonation. Sometimes you need to be a jackal to rip apart a chain.

How can they be unmeetable? — unenlightened

You can need something which cannot be given. The modality of that cannot is practicality rather than abstract possibility - I might need flexible working hours, but my contract might say otherwise. Needs become unmeetable given a context.

Or a person, perhaps:

I'm sooo glad someone else 'gets it'. For me, it's like -of course, I already knew all this, but I couldn't quite bring it together so that it worked. — unenlightened

Perhaps some will not have the scope, introspective ability, insight, emotional integration, integration of self concept with behaviour, to see the peace giraffe speak would conjure into being. In other words, one must be in a place where they can make the choice not to be another's jackal.

Me? I'm sure I'm a jackal, I'm just not sure who I need to eat. Wolves reproduce wolves.

I can need you to be subservient to me. — fdrake

Well the theory, if I understand aright, is that you might need someone to to be subservient,{I'm not sure about that} but you cannot be so specifically dependent on my subservience. Choosing me is a tactic to fulfil the more general need.

- I might need flexible working hours, but my contract might say otherwise. Needs become unmeetable given a context. — fdrake

So one needs to change the context. Change job. But certainly one can die of starvation. Needs don't always get met. Unmeetable needs never get met - by definition - and that I think indicates that they are not needs.

The example Marshall gives is Mcdonalds. One needs food; one does not need a Big Mac; that's a tactic, {though they want you to think it's a need}. And anger is a tactic I employ to keep me away from Big Macs.

Perhaps some will not have the scope, introspective ability, insight, emotional integration, integration of self concept with behaviour, to see the peace giraffe speak would conjure into being. In other words, one must be in a place where they can make the choice not to be another's jackal. — fdrake

Of course. If everyone had this understanding, the system of domination, of reward and punishment, would cease to be, there would be no wars, and we'd all be happy and friendly.

Me? I'm sure I'm a jackal, — fdrake

I'm sure you're not. Though it is rather a jackal relation you are making with yourself, to declare what you are, rather than what you need. That's what we are taught to do and it's a 5,000 yr habit, so it isn't easy to stop. But give it a go, you might like it.

Well the theory, if I understand aright, is that you might need someone to to be subservient,{I'm not sure about that} but you cannot be so specifically dependent on my subservience. Choosing me is a tactic to fulfil the more general need. — unenlightened

The example Marshall gives is Mcdonalds. One needs food; one does not need a Big Mac; that's a tactic, {though they want you to think it's a need}. And anger is a tactic I employ to keep me away from Big Macs. — unenlightened

I guess this brings up what demarcates a need from a tactic. If I have a need for love and respect, is my
relationship with my romantic partner a tactic? Or can I have a need for my partner in specific?

I think there's an angle of attack on the problem with declaring that a need is a motivator for a tactic; aligning tactics with an attempt to actualise/satisfy a need. And that would tie into

Unmeetable needs never get met - by definition - and that I think indicates that they are not needs. — unenlightened

the idea that an unmeetable need is a grammatical mistake/inconceivable - since needs must have a tactic that could satisfy them, by the above anyway.

What would this taxonomy make of trauma? A frustrated, festering past need which no tactic could address in context, leading to a frustrated present need - or a shadow of one. The past need is still implicated as an anchor in the psyche. "I need them to stop (tormenting me)". I imagine that some of this turns on the distinction between a need and a tactic?

But give it a go, you might like it. — unenlightened

I've been trying to do similar language adjustments for a while, learning a more E-prime.mentalese "I am" talk translates to "I did" talk, "I should" talk translates to "I will" or "I want" talk, "never/always" talk -> "here/now" talk. "It is" goes to "It seems to me".

What would this taxonomy make of trauma? A frustrated, festering past need which no tactic could address in context, leading to a frustrated present need - a shadow of one. The past need is still implicated as an anchor in the psyche. "I need them to stop (tormenting me)". I imagine that some of this turns on the distinction between a need and a tactic? — fdrake

This is an interesting question. I'll try a naive answer and see how it goes. Someone who has been abused as a child, say, probably has 'trust issues'. So the festering need is for security in a nurturing relationship. The need for security results in the tactic of relationship testing (eg will you still love me if ...). Testing relationships distorts and sometimes breaks them. Hence the festering.

So the taxonomy would be that a need for the past to be different is not a need as it is unfulfillable. But the trauma brings a present need, for quiet, for security, for comforting, or some such. Of course if if someone is actually being tormented in the present then that needs to stop. But then that's not the trauma we're talking about is it?

Isn't there something violent in this whole schema of needs and tactics, and the rest? Who talks about people in terms of needs and tactics, like this? The R D Laing of Knots, the Eric Berne of Games People Play, the Gregory Bateson of Many Books, the Alan Watts of Many Lectures.

We know of all these people that they were difficult in their own lives - their own relationships fell ever apart - but razor-sharp and charming while appraising the situations of others. Why is that?

I read a blogpost by an anonymous psychiatrist to the effect of: there are a disproportionate number of psychiatrists' children hospitalized with personality disorders. Why is that?

That's personalised so as to become a tactic, not just a need. — unenlightened

Underlines mine.

[Believing that tactics means personalized, and personalizing means tactics]
^
|
V
[going up a level to impersonally map the tactics of others]

Cause & Effect isn't clear (hence the weird format) but the two seem deeply related.

(I'm guilty here too, but do you see what I mean?)

We know of all these people that they were difficult in their own lives - their own relationships fell ever apart - but razor-sharp and charming while appraising the situations of others. Why is that? — csalisbury

'Those who can, do; those who can't, teach'. It's G B Shaw, not the Tao Te Ching. I've often found that the person who knows how others should live is often a deeply flawed or dangerous individual.

I'd add "and those who can do neither, post." I think I'm deeply flawed, hopefully not dangerous, but certainly confused and frustrated & deeply mistrustful of everyone (myself included)