Freedomain Radio

About six months ago, I read the book "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg,  as a part of my interest in negotiation and alternative methods of dispute resolution.

With all the hubub around RTR lately, I figured it would be a good time to reprint my original preliminary review of that book here, as an example of why Real-Time Relationships really is a much more insightful idea than anything you're likely to find on the psychology, self-help, or even philosophy bookstore shelves, today.

Hope you enjoy it:

Marshall Rosenberg describes his life's work, as the pursuit of two questions: "What happens to disconnect us from our compassionate nature, leading us to behave violently and exploitatively? And conversely, what allows some people to stay connected to their compassionate nature under even the most trying circumstances?" With the authoring of the book "Nonviolent Communications", Rosenberg believes he has discovered the answer to these essential questions, and lays out a methodology for "speaking and listening that leads us to give from the heart, connecting us with ourselves and with each other in a way that allows our natural compassion to flourish".

My goal with this review, is to provide an overview of the theory and methodology as described in the book, to highlight the philosophical concepts underlying that, and to assess the effectiveness of the methodology at achieving Rosenberg's stated goal of teaching us to "stay compassionate".

An Overview of Compassionate Communication

Rosenberg defines compassion as the "natural state" of man, after "violence has subsided from the heart", and argues that the language we use every day conditions us to one state or the other ("violent" or "compassionate").

Identifying a "natural state" and voicing a preference for it, is something subtly yet significantly different than attempting to define the "nature of man". Rosenberg makes it clear his aim is the former, because he doesn't explicitly argue that "violence" isn't also a natural state. He merely implies through his work in this book, that a state of "compassion" - described as a state of "giving and receiving purely from the heart" - is preferable, if the goal is establishing a deep connection with other human beings. This, then, is why he developed NVC - to provide an effective means through which we can condition ourselves to maintain a consistent state of compassion, in order to improve the opportunity for, and maximize the breadth and depth of, those connections.

The methodology he devised can be summed up in two fundamental processes:

1) Express honesty through the "four components"

2) Receive emphatically through the "four components"

Before examining the "four components" of this process in detail, I want to stop here to draw attention to something key underlying Rosenberg's goal, that I'm not sure he was aware of. "Language" and "communication" are constant themes in this book, but what can be clearly seen by this summation, is that for him, "compassionate communication" is merely a euphemism for a means to achieve two core virtues of a philosophical life: Honesty and Empathy. The "four components", then, is really a procedural prescription for living a life of philosophical integrity. Understood in this context, NVC is Rosenberg's treatise on ethics. Is the prescription successful? Let's look at the four components in detail, to find out:

1. Observations - "We observe what is actually happening in a situation: what... others are saying or doing that is either enriching or not enriching our life... The trick is to be able to articulate these observations without introducing any judgement or evaluation..."

2. Feelings - "We state how we feel when we observe this action: are we hurt, scared, joyful, amused, irritated, etc.?"

3. Needs - "We say what needs of ours are connected to the feelings we have identified."

4. Requests - "Address what we are wanting from the other person that would enrich our lives or make life more wonderful for us"

By giving this information honestly, and then receiving the same information from another emphatically, Rosenberg believes we can achieve a deep connection with others that is rooted in that honesty and empathy, and in so doing, nurturing our "compassionate nature".

An Critical Analysis Of The Methodology

I share Rosenberg's desire to achieve compassionate connection with those around me, and I was excited to read this book, because of how similar it is to other more philosophically oriented texts I've read, while still focusing on the underlying psychology involved in human interactions.

To begin with, he states that one of the goals of the four components, is to elevate our level of consciousness - to "focus attention" - on the facts, thoughts, feelings, and desires we experience in the moment. This, then, restores a power previously hidden: to consciously choose how we want to act toward ourselves and others, in real time. Secondly, the method stresses empiricism - asking us to observe without qualification or judgment, both the facts before us, and our feelings about them. Focusing on facts and feelings is one way to give ourselves time to assess a situation, and provides an opportunity for the conscious mind to intervene in the decision-making process. Thirdly, it encourages the gentle expression of needs and desires, which must be part of any healthy relationship, if it is to flourish. As another favorite author once put it: Without needs, there is no relationship.

However, I believe a more careful examination of Rosenberg's own description of the four components exposes a crippling problem with NVC.

Firstly, he rightly instructs us to observe "without judgment or evaluation", but then in the same description, makes room for exactly that: to observe what others are saying or doing "that is enriching or not enriching our lives". Later, he goes on to tell the reader to note whether he "likes" and "doesn't like" those things. How is that not introducing judgments into the data collection process? One could argue that "like" and "dislike" is simply taking note of personal preferences (i.e., more of the data collection process), but that doesn't explain how "enriching" or "not enriching" isn't an evaluation.

Secondly, in step three, Rosenberg then instructs us to make an immediate leap between how we are feeling, and what we believe we need in connection to those feelings. How did we get from A to B? What process of evaluation or estimation or introspection or dialog has given us the knowledge of what our needs are, in connection with these feelings? Why should we trust the first impulse to be the correct one? This is something I've taken to calling a "failure of the BECAUSE test", and It is instructive to take note of the hypothetical example Rosenberg provides in the book, to illustrate what I mean by that:

"...a mother might express these three pieces of information to her teenage son by saying, 'Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table and another three next to the TV, I feel irritated because I am needing more order in the rooms that we share in common'..."

Note the passage I have highlighted. It is automatically assumed that Felix's mother "needs more order" to "resolve" her irritation. How did she come to that conclusion? Why was there no attempt at exploring the irritation further? Why should we assume that her stated "need for order" is in fact, why she is irritated? There are those of you who will experience the expression of that distinction as 'snarky' or irritating in itself, but I'd ask you to take a step back and consider the possibility that her irritation might have other causes. For example, let's not forget that we're dealing with a teen here. How do we know that it's not Felix who is actually irritated, and that he has projected that irritation onto his mother by acting in ways that are sure to irritate her? What would be one way we could discover whether that's true or not?

Most instructive - and in preparing to answer that last question - is the fact that Felix was not given a voice in this hypothetical example. The reader is lead down an unconscious garden path, to simply imagine that Felix is going to happily jump up and comply, because his mother expressed her "need" in a "compassionate" way. There are a number of fatal presumptions in that. Primarily, it requires us to ignore the fact that this is a parent-child relationship. Why is Felix's mother not asking about Felix first? Why should we assume that it is Felix's obligation to not irritate his mother? Why is Felix acting this way in the first place? Which is interesting. What if we were to turn this hypothetical around? Imagine:

"Mother, when I hear you telling me that you need more order, I feel frustrated because I am needing less constraint and more freedom in the rooms we share in common..."

What then? Again, I haven't read the whole book just yet, but thus far, NVC doesn't explain how these two diametrically opposed - and automatically assumed - "needs" will resolve themselves. Indeed, it would appear that the result is likely to be escalation. If the two parties are simply going to state observations and feelings, assume needs, and then request fulfillment of those needs from the other, the process as described in this turn-around, could only end in frustration.

Lastly, the final step closes the loop on "enrichment" in a rather frightening way. In the first step, we judged someone's actions to be either "enriching" or "not enriching" to us, and in the last step, we "request" what we've assumed we need from them, to either cease the non-enrichment, or perpetuate the enrichment. The reason I describe that last step as "frightening", is because the way it appears to me, I could perform all four steps in the absence of any other person. In other words, Rosenberg describes NVC as a process that is supposed to connect us to each other emphatically, but what I see, is a process that simply locks two closed loops into a repetitive struggle for "air time" with each other. In the case of the hypothetical example, it is particularly troubling, because the child will always lose that fight.

A Potential Solution To The Problem

Though I've only examined chapters one and two of NVC so far, I believe that what is missing from NVC, is some form of collaboration within the four components. To put it in the language of a programmer: there is no "exit point" out of the four components, until the request is made. Each person steps through them in a loop, and then waits for a response from the other, who then executes the same process. I am not offering the other party any incentive during my recitation, to actually comply with my requests in step four. I'm simply handing the initiator token off to him, to start the four step process again himself (complete with potentially unfounded assumptions about "needs" and "wants").

I believe the path to escaping this problem, and achieving the collaboration needed (and thus, gaining full engagement and "deep connection"), begins by breaking down the automatic thinking in steps one and three, and involving the other person in discovering exactly what the true nature of the emotions are, and where the true needs lie. Stefan Molyneux's book, "Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love", provides the essential mechanism. In step 2, Rosenberg asks us to observe our emotions: "I am feeling X". At this point, Molyneux suggests taking the Socratic approach to ourselves: "...and I'm not sure why!". Rosenberg's process simply expects us to assume not only why, but to go so far as to project what is "needed" to resolve that assumed need. Molyneux's approach, on the other hand, invites the other person into the discussion, encouraging Socratic questioning: "Tell me more about X", "What are the thoughts around X?", "Under what other circumstances does X arise?", "Where do the thoughts lead?", and so on.

Comparatively, then, what is fundamentally missing from Rosenberg's approach (so far as I can tell yet), is a third essential virtue of the life of integrity that I spoke of above: curiosity. Without curiosity, NVC is simply a synchronous simplex exchange of unidirectional "requests" to be "met". With curiosity, however, the interaction becomes a simultaneous, bidirectional exchange, primarily focused on discovery of the truth, rather than the "satisfaction" of someone's subjective (and assumed) "needs". This distinction deserves to be highlighted. When the focus of our attention is exclusively on ourselves, and we see others as merely a means of satisfying what we rightly or wrongly assume are our particular "needs", we cannot possibly "connect" with others in the sense that Rosenberg expects. But when we change the focus of our attention to the actual truth, even if it is viewed relative to our own experience in the moment, we can acknowledge the presence of others in the pursuit of that truth, in an objective reality, in which our subjective experiences are only one part of a larger picture.

Let's have another look at that hypothetical example, again. Only this time, let's apply curiosity to the scenario:

"Felix, when I see your soiled sock lying in the living room, I feel irritated. I have this impulse to ask you to be more 'orderly', but I'm not sure if that's really the source of my irritation. Can you tell me, what were you feeling when you put your socks there?"

What stands out immediately and starkly in this example, compared to the first, is the exposure of yet another judgement - one that was thickly veiled in the first example. By assuming her "need" was "more order", Felix's mother communicated to him, that she believes he is "disorderly" - i.e., "a slob". So, even in this opening statement, we can see that curiosity, coupled with honesty and empathy, takes us to a level we could not have gotten to, without it. By passing the baton before she states any needs or makes any requests, she invites Felix into the discovery process, and treats him as an equal. She also models concern for others - a trait she must be interested in passing on to her son. While getting Felix to pick up his socks certainly may be a desired effect of an exchange like this, it cannot be the goal. If Felix is a sensitive boy, he will most assuredly notice that, and experience it as manipulation, or worse, bullying. Felix, then, might respond something like this, to our new example:

"You know, mom, lately I've been feeling really frustrated and depressed. I'm not certain why, either, but the thought I had, when I tossed my socks there, was 'I wish I could be my own boss, for a change!' "

Suddenly, it's crystal clear that this exchange has nothing at all, really, to do with dirty socks, "order", or "laziness". It's about Felix's desire to take control of his own life, and about his mother's lack of visibility to this change in him. They both now have some powerful information to help guide them in re-organizing the nature of their relationship, as it grows into the future. But this is just one possibility. Let's suppose Felix responded like this:

"I didn't feel anything particularly strongly, around that action, mom. Can you tell me a little more about the irritation?"

At this point, Felix has asked his mother to explore the irritation with him, and has opened the door for receiving her preferences as part of that. In this example, Felix indeed, might be more than glad to comply, since he has participated as a collaborator in the discovery process, rather than simply being "told" what is expected of him. By offering to consider Felix's feelings first, his mother demonstrates that she is open to reason, cares about what is going on in her son's inner life, and earns the respect of her authority, rather than demanding it. What's more, there is no irreconcilable dichotomy. Regardless of the direction the conversation takes, Felix's mother never has to surrender her own needs or desires. All she is doing, is insuring that she is clear about what those really are.

Conclusion To the First Segment

When we are committed to discovering the truth - both in our relationships, and in the world - we are open to meeting others together, in an objective reality where subjective experiences can be shared and compared. But when we are merely committed to the goal of meeting our subjective "needs", we have no choice but to treat others as objects, to whom we can only make requests and wait for compliance. Searching for the truth together, however, our needs are discovered and met in reality, as an effect of that process, not the end goal in itself. This is, as I see it, the essential flaw in NVC (so far as I've read), and the core distinction between NVC, and much better methodologies like RTR.

Were you going to write the second part of this?

Yeah, now that I'm settled and have some time, I will finally be revisiting this book. I have more to say about the absense of a philosophical framework, and why it's essential for a book of this nature to have one.

Hey, I'm glad I found this thread. After listening to a podcast by Wes Bertrand of Complete Liberty (Episode 126, Pitfalls of Moralizing, Introduction to Non Violent Communication) , I became very, very interested in NVC. So much so that yesterday I sat and watched a bunch of videos of a workshop Marshall Rosenberg gave that was all on youtube. (Links are in the same podcast link I just gave above.) I didn't quite make it to the end but I learned a lot. I thought your preliminary review was interesting Greg and I do seem to have some different impressions of NVC as I understand it so far.

In watching the videos of the workshop, Marshall says more than once I believe, that when a need is stated, it's entirely possible that it could be incorrect. But you don't know that until and unless you act on it. I remember him saying at one point that if you go through the process and don't feel better, then there must be a different need you haven't connected with yet. I guess we are all in  a continual process of self discovery and self awareness.

Also as you describe the situation with Felix, the interaction would include investigating and assesssing Felix's needs too. One thing Rosenberg pointed out over and over was that our actions are a "tragic display of unmet needs" and so a parent using NVC would already understand this about Felix and understand that discovering this is a big part of solving any conflict.

And as far as solutions, Rosenberg points out in the videos that once you've communicated to understand each other's needs, then you've opened up the avenue to be able to think creatively and this is what brings the two parties to possible solutions. Once the "enemy image" is taken away, creativity opens up, which is exactly what's necessary to acheive a resolution.

I am particularly interested in NVC because of the move away from the enemy image and using moral judgments against others. I know that after having been involved here at FDR, I've been a pretty strong moralizer. But as Wes says in his podcast, NVC may be a better way to start really communicating with the people we really need to communicate with (our prejudged "enemies") if we do indeed want to achieve a peaceful voluntary stateless society.

What do others thing about this?

I have recently been viewing the same NVC YouTube videos and reading the NVC book, and separately have listened heavily to podcasts by Stefan for the past few months (although haven't read the book stated, yet, about relationships).

That said, I think many of the points that Dtomboy makes about Marshall correctly defend, if that's what you want to call it, the NVC methodology as I felt was illustrated by him in the YouTube recordings (of a workshop run by himself). I think from what I've seen he would seem to agree with the original points by GregG about the 'problems' (or would say, that is part of the process; although to be fair, maybe that isn't covered excellently in the book and shows up better in video/workshop).

That said, I really appreciate the hint on the Real-Time Relationship book being a good compliment... definitely plan on checking that out. Thanks all!

Dear Greg,

It seems like facinating work you are doing and I read with interest your commentary about NVC. It seems important for you to find the best methodology for people to use, as it is for me. Perhaps I can respond as someone who has found NVC to be tremendously helpful (even as it has taken me significant time to internalize its teachings).

I must excuse that some replies have already taken into account some of what I will say.

In my experience, those who have not found NVC useful have not understood NVC yet. The most difficult barrier to understanding NVC is that to do so, we must let go of the concept, deeply ingrained in us by our society that "There is a right way to do any thing" and "Someone knows what that is".

If we continue to believe that bosses should command employees, teachers should command students, parents should command (or even own) children, we will find NVC very challenging to understand. And if we believe that, it is not a far jump to justify using blame, criticism, shame, guilt, punishment, or reward to get people to do what we want.

Violence is normal in our society. However, it is not natural. It isn't fun for the giver or receiver. If you leave people alone, they will usually try to find ways to get everyone's needs met without it. Only if they feel they must, do they resort to violence. Were it otherwise, there could be no society.

Honesty and empathy are important for NVC, however, who defines what honesty and empathy even are? Thus, Rosenberg shows what we do to 'make life more wonderful' without resorting to moralistic judgements.

First,the point of NVC is not getting others to comply. (The son in the example above). The point of NVC is to 'make life more wonderful for everyone'. If our goal is getting people to respond affirmatively to all our requests, NVC is not for us. We will have to move to violent communication to put more 'pressure' or 'force' on our request, turning it into a demand. We will thus, at least momentarily, sacrifice the relationship for the desired outcome.

Second, feeling and speaking my needs is not, in NVC speak, 'making a judgement'. Saying I am hungry does not make the other person wrong or bad (referring to the need for order). As Marshall Rosenberg says, we do make judgements, but they are life-serving judgements and not judgements that make the other person bad or wrong. When a child cries because of hunger, it is doing the same thing--asking for a need to be met (as well as it knows how). It isn't judging the parents to be wrong or bad because they aren't feeding it. So NVC (feelings and needs) is how babies communicate for the first year of life...

Third, you are right. Maybe the need for order isn't the real need. That doesn't really matter. In fact, even if the son fulfills the request, perhaps the need still isn't being met. That doesn't really matter, either. What mattered is that the person in question is trying to get their needs met and respond to their own feelings. This is not only a lost but a repressed impulse in our society. Others tell us what is good for us and what we need. As we begin to try to feel our feelings and express our needs, our life will, through this increased consciousness, become more enriched.

If the mother in the example continued too long with 'deep analysis' of her needs, she would probably move away from expressing anything at all--for fear of being 'wrong' about the need! This would be step backward for her getting her needs met and for the relationship as a whole.

As someone pointed out earlier. If Felix is irritated, and expressing that through socks under the table instead of through stating his feelings, his mother's statement will provide him with an opportunity to directly find and express his feelings, thus bringing them together. If he is defensive or angry, she provides empathy and asks him if he is feeling x or y. So, by her stating her needs, she has used a direct way for her to find out how he is feeling.

Again, as pointed out below, once these needs are all spoken, creative solutions can be found (Rosenberg says that once both sides have heard and can repeat the need not being met for the other that the solution to any conflict does not take more than 20 minutes).

If either mother or the son uses NVC to hear the other person's needs, they both have the best chance of getting their needs heard and finding a solution. That is what I love about NVC. It only takes one to tango! The other person does not have understand, like, or participate in NVC for it to be effective for both parties. There will be no 'closed loop' because when the other responds defensively or angrily, I step into empathy with them until they have been heard. Then I ask if I can express what I need.

It seems simple, but NVC has many many details that become evident only upon trying it or participating in a workshop. So, not fully understanding is a big block. I totally understand that it seems like an ineffective method through [partial] reading of the book. I would encourage a bit more study or participation at a workshop to see its full power. Marshall travels the world and resolves issues between Palestinians and Israelis, Tutsis and Huttus--and couples with 40-year-long conflicts.

Here is a link to a complete NVC workshop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-129JLTjkQ&feature=player_embedded

I hope this was helpful and appreciate the opportunity to speak about this topic of compassionate communication.

Ryan

http://www.bayraba.com

GregG:

A very profound analysis of a subject that is new to me. Many thanks for giving me new enlightenment about relationships.

Like Rosenberg, I have often pondered "What happens to disconnect us from our compassionate nature, leading us to behave violently and exploitatively?"  Whether due to genes or environment, I have always been a non-confrontational person and have avoided potentially violent situations.  While, I'm no saint, I generally try to behave in a way that produces the least amount of harm while at the same time, I'm not really very thoughtful..I tend to overlook non verbal cues that would help me relate better (slight Asberger's..lol???)

I've studied (and somewhat  applied) principles from Zen Buddhism and Taoism and it's observed that much violent behavior stems from a desire for something that one cannot obtain or that is ultimately fruitless to living according to their nature (wanting the square peg to fit into the round hole). Understanding the root (the mother or teen’s frustration for example and the root cause of that frustration) can certainly be a fruitful starting point.

One problem I think may enter into relational harmony is plain-ole' biology. The amygdala, the oldest evolutionary part of the human brain, seems to be able to override reason when a threat is perceived - fight or flight.

Sometimes, we can perceive even the most innocuous remark (i.e. the "socks in the living room" scenario) as a personal attack and the amygdala is more than happy to pump up feelings of anger and resentment and a desire to defend or even attack (verbally or physically).

Perhaps delving into the biology of relational discourse would also be helpful (and maybe Rosenberg does). One of my friends often says, upon witnessing someone else's behavior, may say "How can someone think like that?"  

An understanding of how "brain wiring" affects our behavior may go a long way in helping us to relate more compassionately.   As someone who has been treated for a neural imbalance (manic depressive), I think I better understand seemingly unthoughtful or harmful behavior.....I suspect no one has a chemically perfect brain and I assume that this person may not have much of a choice in how they behave unless they address their specific imbalance. 

Finally, the use of Socratic processes can certainly be helpful but I've also found some people view at as interrogation or an attack on their closely held beliefs. An acquaintance once asked me if I believed someone could actually sell their soul.  I had long been interested in the question of the soul: What is it to most people? Is it real? If so where is it located?  So, I began to ask a series of questions that (later I discovered) threatened his baseline assumptions (i.e. religion).  Lesson learned...use Socrates with caution.

But..I could be wrong....

·     

"But you don't know that until and unless you act on it."


I find that disastrous and potentially traumatic.  Not too sound too much like Hoppe but you don't need and test out things that are not consistent, or rather as Stef would say, the hypothesis needs to be logically consistent and rely on some previous true premise before you go and test it, otherwise it's playing with dynamite and actually acting out if you ask me.  Remember also that there is an onus on the parent to meet the childs needs whereas the child has no responsibility in meeting the parents needs as that is not the nature of the relationship.  

Ryan, I read your response to Greg and hope he will reply himself.

What I took from Greg was that NVC doesn't necessarily move in the direction to resolve conflicts of interest, it just insures that the communications remain cordial and that peoples wants get heard. That's a huge step up in relationship safety no doubt.

I disagree with your assertion that there are not people who know the right way to do things. I know the right way to replace a lightbulb, my youngest son does not. A car mechanic knows the right way to replace my cam belt, I do not. Authority in fields of knowledge exists.

In terms of personal preferences, like having socks tidied up, these situations can be framed in terms of what behaviours tend to maintain certain preferences. For example, if I want to live in a tidy house, I should clean up, or hire a cleaner (and so forth).

If person A has a preference to live untidily and person B has a preference to not live under a constant need to do chores, then there is a potentially irreconcilable difference of requirements. These can only potentially be resolved by exploring further each others reasons and motives. That process requires a need for people to be open to reason, and adopt an essentially objective philosophical approach.

argus:

Lesson learned...use Socrates with caution.

My experience with those who will not submit to a socratic process is that they are impossible to have meaningful relationships with. Any attempt to examine their behaviour rationally is too painful for them. They have not gained any closure on their childhood traumas.

Simon, 

I agree...keep in mind, we're (or at least U.S.) living in a society where Jersey Shore and the museum of human oddity that is Reality TV is being followed by millions..

For these kind of people, finding a person who even recognizes the socratic method is a challenge...

That said, the fact makes finding friends who do engage in reasoned dicourse is even more important. 

cheers

Personally I came across NVC after RTR and found it a major upgrade

there was so much of NVC that had an overlap with books I really appreciated on childrearing such as "How to alk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk"

When I started practicing NVC it changed my life, I stopped thinking of conflicts I had in guilty terms but on a curve towards communicating better from the heart, I always came out as doing a better job each time, I was diffusing conflicts more and more

yes it take some practice, and yes when you're really angry you don't feel like using it at all!
The thing is that's not against NVC - Marshall Rosenberg would be the first one to say if you really don't want to NVC with these people and would rather just not see them again because you don't enjoy their company then go right ahead and deFOO or whatever - be true to your feelings
Yes some people have completely unreasonable "needs" and if you don't feel happy fulfilling them then NVC would coucil you to find companions who you found it more easy to give from the heart with because you enjoy more and they enjoy more

The formula is just a "map from the head to the heart" and that's what it is. Once you get the principles down you can bend the rules quite a lot,

I see it as superior to RTR in that it actually gives a methodology for moving through the conflict into a better relationship which I find better than
"I'm feeling this...... ok now I'm feeling this.... right, now I feel this."

Another way that it is superior is it gives a methodology for connecting with what the other person wants and paraphrasing it in a way that makes them more likely to want to improve the relationship with that and part of that is from removing any moral judgements from the discourse - speaking in subjectives I find very helpful, as soon as you use a moral judgement term in conversation, I find, you instantly see the other person explode with aggression as they go on the defensive.

In that it gives you the opportunity to bring up things with your friends when they have done something and you feel you have been rubbed up the wrong way
and have a conversation that actually maks the friendship stronger in the end - I've had a great many of these since discovering NVC
I also find tha tsince I started expressing myself this way in relationships I started bring those friends up to that level of honesty, they came up with me and were more honest when
they had an irk with me... and that created a higher expectation of quality in other relationships as well

I also find much more useful Marshall Rosenberg's "Are you feeling..... because you're needing...." to Stefs "So what are you feeling right now?"
I have tried the NVC mode of empathic listening countless times, more than any other single part of the progam and I have to say it really f'king works
I instantly see tension come out of people when they get this kind of understanding....
The question "how are you feeling" is a bit bewildering, whereas I find paraphrasing leads other people to their true feelings because even if you don't hit the bullseye
your suggestion is like a point on a radar that helps them get their bearings and a handle on what they're feeling

I find the "So you're feeling x because y" amazingly helpful for others.

I just listened to podcasts 1836 and 1837 and i think stef made some good points there. The main point is i think that there is no reciprocity when doing NVC. The other person can simply stay aggressive and judgmental. Instead of focussing on your own feelings as you do in RTR you have to focus on the feelings of other people. Unless you are a therapist i dont think it is your job to make everyone in your life better. It also assumes that some personality disorders can be cured, while there are personality disorders like borderline that doesnt seem to be curable.

When I hear about incurable personality disorders, I think, why would a person want to be cured?

If being cured means behaving like a peaceful,mindful person, as opposed to behaving like a sociopathic, narcissistic, or paranoid person... what's the incentive for that?  What's the incentive to be cured, in a world where being cured conveys little material advantage?

Besides, these personality disorders come from interalized childhood humiliation by hypocritical, moralizing adults.  Until the psychological community, and the world at large, starts talking about that abuse, and doing everything it can to stop it, I don't see why a dyed-in-the-wool narcissist or psychopath should take seriously anyone planning to cure him.