>Felix, you always leave your dirty socks on the floor! It’s disgusting! Clean this up before you do anything else.
>Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table, I feel irritated because I want more order in the rooms that we share in common - would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?
These two sentences convey the same information. The speaker finds the sock to be out of order, which is a disgust reaction in some, irritation in others. It also communicates that this event has happened more than once, though it is only implied in the second text. The only explicit difference is the demand to do it immediately.
I can understand why people perceive it to be manipulative, it implies a feelings cost to the speaker if the socks are not picked up that is described to be Felix's responsibility. The first speaker makes no comment about Felix's responsibility over his feelings, but instead simply states that the fact that socks are out makes him feel disgusted with no further feelings based implications.
The first speaker makes a clear and overbearing command (assuming this is some social interaction and not a job) to drop everything that Felix is doing and clean up. That is easy to identify and rebel against, it implies no feelings cost, no cost to the speaker, just a disagreement over actionable orders. The second speaker implies a feelings cost that she is has handed responsibility over to Felix. That can feel manipulative if you're not used to negotiating over the impact actions have on feelings. Negotiating over feelings ends up being the same as negotiating over spoken orders. A competent person must be able to deal with both speakers.
Describing words as violence fundamentally undermines the "old" (aka what I grew up with) liberal western order that was do whatever you want as long as it brings no harm. If you escalate "direct orders" to the level of "harm" you're requiring authority to govern speech to protect from harm rather than a liberal 'stick-and-stones' attitude we used to enjoy. An endless disappointment, to say the least.
>The only explicit difference is the demand to do it immediately.
No. The first speaker exaggerates the issue to make a point ("you always"), makes a roundabout reference to societal norms ("it's disgusting") instead of describing what actually annoys them (socks lying on the floor right now) and why (I don't want to see them because I personally find them disgusting, not because Felix failed to meet some outside standard).
>A competent person must be able to deal with both speakers.
Sure, but you can't change how others deal with your words. You can only choose how you yourself communicate.
>Describing words as violence fundamentally undermines the "old" (aka what I grew up with) liberal western order that was do whatever you want as long as it brings no harm.
I think you describe two problems here:
* The name is indeed unfortunate.
* It is percieved as an objective standard against which to judge all communication, rather than a guide for one's own actions.
As I see it, it's generally pointless to expect others to behave in a certain "right" way that you can reasonably suspect they might not, and then get annoyed when they indeed don't. Speaking in a pointlessly confrontational manner (such as making arguments from omniscience, like "you always", or "you are a ___ person" etc) is more likely to provoke an aggressive reaction than sticking to the facts (observations about your own feelings are also facts). Why not choose the latter?
>No. The first speaker exaggerates the issue to make a point ("you always"), makes a roundabout reference to societal norms ("it's disgusting") instead of describing what actually annoys them (socks lying on the floor right now) and why (I don't want to see them because I personally find them disgusting, not because Felix failed to meet some outside standard).
The only reason the second speaker would say "When I see xyz on the floor" is because she has seen it before and that feeling happens every time. It's not as explicit as "you always", but it still implies a recurring and reliable event. Disgust is a societal trend at the moment that has started at 2015-2016 and will end in 2028. There is a deeper trend in the culture that will pass. But more importantly than that some people are genuinely more likely to have higher disgust sensitivity. It's a measurable trait. I am curious that the social trend comes to you as a priority in "it's disgusting", that's not a perspective I would see.
>making arguments from omniscience, like "you always", or "you are a ___ person" etc) is more likely to provoke an aggressive reaction
I agree "you always" is bad. You are burying the point by saying observations about feelings are facts. It could very well be true from the first speaker's observations Felix always does leave his socks out. I don't think 'always' and 'never' are useful categories because it gives the listener no place to go. They are totalitarian and nihilistic categories.
> it's generally pointless to expect others to behave in a certain "right" way that you can reasonably suspect they might not, and then get annoyed when they indeed don't.
I mean that's all well in good in a normal social atmosphere, but you certainly demand people to behave well when you are in a rough neighbourhood and get upset when they do not. You lock your door every night and get pissed off when thugs and criminals to break in, despite the fact it's reasonable to expect that was going to happen in a rough neighborhood.
>* It is percieved as an objective standard against which to judge all communication, rather than a guide for one's own actions.
I think the name is riffing off a political idea (unfortunately) that sought to make small infractions in social exchange and language a political tool for change. For better or worse one could draw the parallel between that political idea and this book.
>The only reason the second speaker would say "When I see xyz on the floor" is because she has seen it before and that feeling happens every time. It's not as explicit as "you always", but it still implies a recurring and reliable event.
Hmm yeah, I agree that including that information (but more precisely than "you always") is useful here.
>I am curious that the social trend comes to you as a priority in "it's disgusting", that's not a perspective I would see.
Okay, disgusting socks may not be the best example, because it's pretty clear cut that leaving them in the open is not an acceptable roommate behavior. Can't think of something better right now. Maybe something like stereotypical "leaving the toilet seat up" or "hanging the toilet paper towards the wall or not"? thing is, that framing the discussion in terms of what is acceptable or not is a roundabout and, frankly, manipulative, by elevating personal view to an objective fact.
>You are burying the point by saying observations about feelings are facts.
At the end of the day, feelings are physiological reactions that have already happened. One can discuss whether one side should change, or the other should suck it up next time.
>It could very well be true from the first speaker's observations Felix always does leave his socks out.
That's not a feeling, that's an extrapolation from a mental model, that can't possibly hold in the real world. This leaves Felix no real recourse outside of some pointless back-and-forth.
>I mean that's all well in good in a normal social atmosphere
I think it's the entire point of NVC. No one in their sane mind suggests talking like that to a mugger or thief (though any other kind of talking would be equally ineffective).
>For better or worse one could draw the parallel between that political idea and this book.
Well I didn't notice that parallel before. I don't think the whole idea should be thrown under the bus because of it in any case.
> Felix, I see that you have once again left your dirty socks on the floor. This is unacceptable to me; we have agreed as roommates to not leave dirty laundry about the house. I'm not touching your socks; could you imagine having to touch mine? So I'm leaving it to you to pick them up.
I'm a fair amount more "violent" than NVC, I guess. But by communicating with my feelings, rather than about my feelings, I can be more effective.
>Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table, I feel irritated because I want more order in the rooms that we share in common - would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?
These two sentences convey the same information. The speaker finds the sock to be out of order, which is a disgust reaction in some, irritation in others. It also communicates that this event has happened more than once, though it is only implied in the second text. The only explicit difference is the demand to do it immediately.
I can understand why people perceive it to be manipulative, it implies a feelings cost to the speaker if the socks are not picked up that is described to be Felix's responsibility. The first speaker makes no comment about Felix's responsibility over his feelings, but instead simply states that the fact that socks are out makes him feel disgusted with no further feelings based implications.
The first speaker makes a clear and overbearing command (assuming this is some social interaction and not a job) to drop everything that Felix is doing and clean up. That is easy to identify and rebel against, it implies no feelings cost, no cost to the speaker, just a disagreement over actionable orders. The second speaker implies a feelings cost that she is has handed responsibility over to Felix. That can feel manipulative if you're not used to negotiating over the impact actions have on feelings. Negotiating over feelings ends up being the same as negotiating over spoken orders. A competent person must be able to deal with both speakers.
Describing words as violence fundamentally undermines the "old" (aka what I grew up with) liberal western order that was do whatever you want as long as it brings no harm. If you escalate "direct orders" to the level of "harm" you're requiring authority to govern speech to protect from harm rather than a liberal 'stick-and-stones' attitude we used to enjoy. An endless disappointment, to say the least.