It's not a "direct ask". The "would you be willing to" hides the direct question behind weasel words and adds confusion. The additional phrase equivocates the person's initial point; now it is ambigious if the person asking about the food cares at all about the food itself, or is just curious about if the person would be willing.
The person could say "Yes" and then nothing will change, because this is not a "direct ask" to them in the first place.
Adding "would you be willing" does serve a purpose, it makes it easier for the other person to say "yes" since they don't yet have to commit. This is very important in any negotiation.
For example, the other person could respond with "Yes, I would if you clean the kitchen after making food".
It lets the other person know that you think so little of them that you're willing to communicate with them in an artificial manner meant to manipulate them into complying. It's the antithesis of humane; it's an impersonal and heartless mode of communication masking itself as empathetic.
When somebody communicates with me using NVC, it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. They're approaching the conversation with a goal-oriented mindset, where engineering circumstances that result in my compliance is a puzzle they've been tasked with solving.
The appearance of caring about my feelings, the apparent empathy, is only a facade. The other party doesn't care about my feelings, they care about my compliance. The apparent care for my feelings is motivated by their belief that presenting themselves as empathetic will make my compliance more likely.
How would you have phrased (empathetically) the ask that someone stop eating your food? Let's pretend you're asking me.
If I wanted to, I could take anything you say the wrong way. NVC is generally good for avoiding most of the easy pitfalls.
They're approaching the conversation with a goal-oriented mindset, where engineering circumstances that result in my compliance is a puzzle they've been tasked with solving.
That covers everything from persuasion to manipulation to managing to parenting.
I doubt that this is actually your criterion, because in the course of a single week you will approach a conversation in a goal oriented way many times. Every human does this unconsciously. People who claim they don't just don't realize that they do.
You're missing the point. There is no formula for natural human interaction, it's something that comes from inside of you. That's the entire point. The way it should be worded is a function of the two personalities and specific circumstance. You can't sell tickets to corporate seminars for this.
Humor me. How would you phrase it based on personality types? Give me some examples.
I'm explicitly pushing you on this point because you have yet to make any suggestions for how to actually construct what to say. It's like if I asked an engineer how they would implement a sorting algorithm and they stopped their answer at "I would make sure it satisfied the requirements of the problem." That answer doesn't require you to put real stakes on the table.
Everyone I have ever asked had their own framework. What's yours? How would you actually do it?
> it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting.
You’re using the NVC pattern in this comment, almost exactly. It’s very close. The part missing is where you suggest a course of action. How would you like to be treated?
I've received NVC training and I think using it in this discussion is an ironic way of getting my point across, since the point is that I have no respect for people who use NVC.
Suggested course of action: stop talking to people using modes of communication you learned at corporate seminars.
I can see why you feel dehumanized—since you weaponize your words against others, it’s understandable that they would take an exaggerated high ground in their tone with you.
Believe it or not, but I'm generally a pretty pleasant person. But when somebody adopts an formal impersonal tone like NVC, they make it clear that they don't see me as their friend and that I shouldn't consider them my friend either.
As you said, NVC is good for 'forcing people to do something they don’t want.'
NVC does not mean using a formal impersonal tone. NVC is about content and context. If people are using a formal tone with you it’s for a variety of reasons—maybe that’s the appropriate tone, maybe they are frazzled and meet a framework to express themselves, and maybe they’re simply bad at it.
I’m not sure why the “not a friend” part comes into it. Most people I talk to are not my friends. When people who aren’t friends treat me like a friend, it is creepy and alarming.
NVC is factually impersonal and formal. Instead of having a genuine human interaction with somebody, NVC aims to lay out a method of choosing ones words carefully to influence the receiver in the desired way. Nothing about it is casual nor genuinely personal, no matter how many times you utter the word "feel".
Feel free to substitute "friend" with "somebody you treat pleasantly with the typical degree of respect". A manager who uses NVC is little different from a used car salesman who gives firm handshakes and throws around warm smiles.
I think any communication technique that you are just starting to practice sounds unnatural.
Just think of NVC as a tool in the toolbox, for how to initiate a difficult conversation and be understood without being as likely to provoke a defensive or derisive response... that then can grow into that genuine, comprehensive human interaction.
> NVC is a framework for direct communication. To quote the article:
> 1. Observe Facts - observe the specific facts that are > affecting our wellbeing, and bring them up with the other person
> 2. Note Feelings - introspect about what exactly we are feeling in response to what we've observed, and communicate these feelings
> 3. Uncover Desires - figure out the desires, wants and values that are creating our feelings, and explain them to the other person
> 4. Make Requests - ask for concrete actions to help resolve the situation
I think why you may find it dehumanizing is that, if I were using those four steps above, I would just be reflecting on my own humanity, and not on yours. So, by the time I end those four steps, the only connection I've really had to you is asking if you will do something.
--
I use three steps (yes, another formula) that seem to solve the dehumanizing problem:
Step 1) TRUTH: Tell the truth about how you actually feel in the moment.
Step 2) FAIR PLAY: Tell the other person how you imagine they might feel.
Step 3) LOVE: Say one thing to connect with love.
Step 1 is not so different from the second step of NVC, really just focusing on me and what I feel/need/want/etc and being honest about that. In the workshops I've run, I've seen most of us skip this step.
Step 2 is the kicker, it's not about connecting with me, but connecting with what you might feel/need/want/notice/etc. And it's about imagining what the person might be feeling, not knowing that the person is feeling X.
Step 3 is the closer, finalizing the connection between the two: thank you, I'm sorry, I hope you have a good day, will you help me, etc.
--
I'm stoked that this conversation is happening on HN, excited that you said what you said (in typing this response I have learned even more about NVC and my work), and tired—I definitely should head to bed after this. And I imagine you might be frustrated with all this NVC stuff, perhaps nauseated by another formula or maybe even curious, or perhaps pleasantly surprised, I have no idea. Thank you for making this conversation happen.
I agree it serves a purpose; I believe it serves a purpose by adding a layer of indirection in there, making the conversation flow easier.
I think it's passive aggressive, yes, but I also understand why it is done. It's not done to make it a "direct ask" though, as this process specifically makes the requests less direct as part of the strategy.
The less-direct wording is both able to be seen as passive aggressive (as evidenced by other comments here) as well as a helpful hint to more smoothly continue a conversation.
"Passive" means inaction, it doesn't mean indirect or sneaky. You can be actively indirect, but it still originates with an (active) action. There is no passive action, just as there is no active passivity. This doesn't mean the wording is perfect, just the passive aggressive label doesn't apply here.
The direct ask is "would you be willing to", if that's what you want to know. If the goal is to make sure your food isn't eaten, then "stop!" might work better. If the goal is better understanding of the people around you, and a connection to what's happening for them, then the ask is about what they want, and what they'd be willing to do.
The person could say "Yes" and then nothing will change, because this is not a "direct ask" to them in the first place.