Heres the video I helped to produce (writing prep work, some script, my performance of the day, which has luckily improved): https://youtube/watch?v=XWY3jC3haR0 Here is an interesting critique by someone: I had a number of issues with Mr. Beckers presentation on NVC at Tragedy and Hope. I was quite put off by it. In fact it is the last thing Ive consumed over there. I had watch a T&H video where Mr. Grove cut off a speaker by proclaiming Jackal Language then moved on... to me this was proclaiming peace in a very hostile manner. Bit of a disclaimer: It is obviously important to be able to communicate effectively and to ensure your style of communication doesnt interfere with getting your point across. However: 1)..to use language itself as the means to create persuasion is sophistry. The strength in your argument must come from sound evidence and valid logic NOT the use of language. 2) If during a debate you are stopping the conversation to request a different communication style, you have at that moment changed the debate from evidence and logic to one about communication - it is to address the communication style with the same weight as evidence and logic. 3) The request for your needs being met etc. has an added dimension, one which shifts the power in the conversation from equity (being based on sound evidence and logic) which both sides share - to the side of the NVC, as they now dictate the terms of how the conversation is to proceed. 4) Rewording your requests, to reword declarative statements to requests etc is a technique used in NLP for creating rapport (in other words is is a tactic of manipulation). 5) Presuming that a person who doesnt see your side of the argument must not have taken 100% responsibility for themselves and their emotions is an ad hominem - so if you are disregarding the person and their arguments on these grounds you are falling for fallacious thought. 6) If a person has just posited an argument - the expectation is the response would be based on WHAT they said. When the response they get is based on HOW they said, this redirection, causes a moment of confusion. In NLP this is called pattern interruption. Pattern interruption causes a momentary trace, or moment of suggestibility, where a suggestion is implanted.... when NVC addresses the HOW of the argument followed by a request it could be viewed as the same technique. 7) Taking 100% responsibility for my self and emotions becomes sticky when you attempt to take 100% responsibility for another persons actions. (I slap your face, call you stupid. You feel hurt and humiliated. I say take 100% responsibility for your emotions) This is a technique used by emotional manipulators - in fact most of what I see in NVC is emotional manipulation. At the least it is a sophist technique at its worst it is mind rape. 8) Assessing the other person as not responsible for their emotional responses and fallacious thinking and in need of help - then, through infinite compassion attempt to aid them through, is a very arrogant and condescending position of power to take - remember ones freedom ends at the others nose. Nobody has any business taking a position of authority over someone elses well-being without request. Think of it this way - Strong, combative communication can be used as a means to persuade and is considered fallacious/unethical when used this way... soft, passive communication can also be used to persuade and should be considered fallacious/unethical because persuasion should stem from the soundness and validity of the premises and argument NOT the eloquence and means of communication(sophistry) JMHO So..... now I can take the time to address these concerns, because they are all valid concerns and observations, though they are not at all things which I specifically advocated in the above video or at any point that Im aware of in the past or present or foreseeable future. But first, does anyone else wish to make any observations or remarks? Here is my response with copy and pasting for clarity: I will copy and paste each of the above claims and concerns again, so that I can respond to each of them: I had watch a T&H video where Mr. Grove cut off a speaker by proclaiming Jackal Language then moved on... to me this was proclaiming peace in a very hostile manner. So,.... I never, ever advocated that anyone, especially Richard Grove, give someone else a diagnosis of speaking in giraffe or jackal language. I always said to keep this to yourself, and be humble about it, because in noticing someone else using such tactics we are reminded of when we, ourselves, used to use this method of communicating. Bit of a disclaimer: It is obviously important to be able to communicate effectively and to ensure your style of communication doesnt interfere with getting your point across. However: 1)..to use language itself as the means to create persuasion is sophistry. The strength in your argument must come from sound evidence and valid logic NOT the use of language. Ok. I never said the purpose of the tactics which I advocate (The Trivium + NVC) are to persuade or convince people of various things. The purpose was to make a bridge (of empathy) and be better able to discuss and convey cargos of logic back and forth between individuals, to be better able to collaborate, innovate and have more effective and harmonious relationships in general. I was never intending for these tools I promote to be used to fool, persuade or convince anyone of anything. 2) If during a debate you are stopping the conversation to request a different communication style, you have at that moment changed the debate from evidence and logic to one about communication - it is to address the communication style with the same weight as evidence and logic. I never advocated that anyone stop a debate to request a certain style of communication. In a loving relationship of any kind, Id recommend that the style of communication be analyzed and found palatable by all concerned individuals. In a debate, things are different. In a discussion, it is possible for both parties to care about the as any aspects of themselves and the other person(s) as possible, but I never said it was required. 3) The request for your needs being met etc. has an added dimension, one which shifts the power in the conversation from equity (being based on sound evidence and logic) which both sides share - to the side of the NVC, as they now dictate the terms of how the conversation is to proceed. I would never advocate that anyone request for others to meet their needs, unless this request is directed at someone who truly loves them and has made some formal or informal commitment to care about such needs. If no such agreement has been made, it is likely counterproductive to make such a request of others, which is why I advocate NVC skills to be largely internal, rather than used as a form of communication. I do not use these skills the way many NVC teachers do, obviously, and combining such skills with the Trivium was meant to indicate that this is not your average Rosenberg video you are viewing, but something aiming for as much consistency as can be attained, intellectually and empathetically. 4) Rewording your requests, to reword declarative statements to requests etc is a technique used in NLP for creating rapport (in other words is is a tactic of manipulation). It is established that forming a rapport is the stated goal of using the Trivium and NVC, for the purpose of having greater clarity of knowledge, understanding, harmony, creativity, connection and innovation, if possible. NLP is similar, but kind of like the Dark Side of NVC (which has a stated goal of harmony and the win/win scenario). I do not advocate using the Trivium and NVC to manipulate and fool people. But this can be done, as can a circular saw be used to build a house, or cut up a person. The tools are what I advocate, and the purposes are up to the user, who I credit as being benevolent unless evidence seems to support a differing conclusion. 5) Presuming that a person who doesnt see your side of the argument must not have taken 100% responsibility for themselves and their emotions is an ad hominem - so if you are disregarding the person and their arguments on these grounds you are falling for fallacious thought. I never advocated giving other people the diagnosis of not taking 100% responsibility of their emotions. Quietly noting the possibility of this diagnosis in ones head is actually quite useful, as long as this analysis was directed at ones self first, and everyone else second. I dont recommend using such a diagnosis to support or deny any claims or concerns of others, I would rather a rational analysis of all the evidence proceed, with as much harmony as possible. 6) If a person has just posited an argument - the expectation is the response would be based on WHAT they said. When the response they get is based on HOW they said, this redirection, causes a moment of confusion. In NLP this is called pattern interruption. Pattern interruption causes a momentary trace, or moment of suggestibility, where a suggestion is implanted.... when NVC addresses the HOW of the argument followed by a request it could be viewed as the same technique. This is a fine observation. It is might sometimes be confusing to other people, when the Trivium and NVC are used in the manner which I advocate. Stating the goals of why one is discussing or communicating something with someone, putting all the cards on the table, essentially, is what I have generally been advocating. Once again, these tools might easily be used to fool people, just like the circular saw might be used in unfortunate ways by some people. This genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Caveat emptor, and Im quite happy to respond to these observations, which help everyone to see the edge these tools have. 7) Taking 100% responsibility for my self and emotions becomes sticky when you attempt to take 100% responsibility for another persons actions. (I slap your face, call you stupid. You feel hurt and humiliated. I say take 100% responsibility for your emotions) This is a technique used by emotional manipulators - in fact most of what I see in NVC is emotional manipulation. At the least it is a sophist technique at its worst it is mind rape. I was advocating both the Trivium (keeping cause and effect very much in mind) and NVC (100% responsible for as much of ones own internal emotional terrain as possible). This doesnt mean that getting beaten goes unnoticed and steps arent taken, far from it. Self defense is key, and that includes being as durable, flexible, strong and endurance filled as possible.....but we all have limits. Our limits help to form our boundaries. When we communicate our boundaries, we can take steps to limit situations of exposure to emotional manipulators, or the words or actions done by people who are given this diagnosis. We own our own time and space (especially here on FB) and you are only voluntarily reading this, not perforce. 8) Assessing the other person as not responsible for their emotional responses and fallacious thinking and in need of help - then, through infinite compassion attempt to aid them through, is a very arrogant and condescending position of power to take - remember ones freedom ends at the others nose. Nobody has any business taking a position of authority over someone elses well-being without request. Giving other people a diagnosis of being not responsible for their emotional responses is serious. I have always advocated that people be careful with diagnoses, especially if there is no treatment plan attached to the diagnosis, and if no one has paid you (or asked you) to make the diagnosis. I dont suggest or condone arrogance or condescension, and I always wished to promote these tools to create harmony, not to demonstrate superiority or to hurt people. Think of it this way - Strong, combative communication can be used as a means to persuade and is considered fallacious/unethical when used this way... soft, passive communication can also be used to persuade and should be considered fallacious/unethical because persuasion should stem from the soundness and validity of the premises and argument NOT the eloquence and means of communication(sophistry) JMHO I have been more and more vocal to suggest people use whatever language style they wish, but perhaps to measure the effects of the tactics which they employ. There are edges to using the Trivium and NVC (or throwing NLP tactics into the mix, and GTD (Getting Things Done, methods by David Allen, I believe). I suggest we all get out there and use such tools with knowledge, understanding and be trained in practical applications of such knowledge and understanding, until such time as we are able to innovate other skills which prove useful in providing predictable and desirable results.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:05:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015