I’m also in the position of, strangely, finding it mechanically difficult to figure out how to ask for the “why” here in a way I expect will be received as sincere.
Can I just give you permission to talk about me, and then spell out what the problem is from your perspective?
Isn’t that implicit in all disagreements? You’re implicitly (or actually explicitly, in many cases) claiming social/moral/epistemic superiority over people who think NVC and related concepts are good and useful.
When you say “actually explicitly” I take that to mean that it’s “worse” when the claim is explicit, but that ain’t necessarily so. If I call you an idiot, you can defend yourself by pointing out how you’re not an idiot, and everyone around will understand that you’re responding to my criticism. But if I say things that just presume you’re an idiot, you typically can’t do that without coming across as weirdly defensive and/or dickish and/or oversensitive, so I get to sneak in the idea that you’re stupid without giving you a fair chance to respond.
I prefer this particular thread to be discontinued (starting with Valentine’s “I would like to understand why” comment). Sensing serious demon thread potential. Do not want to feed it. As always, if you decide to discard this message, that is fine and your prerogative.
Explicit claims are more honest, and thus better, than implicit claims. Claiming status explicitly opens you up to someone else contesting it; claiming status implicitly makes it harder to be criticized.
This probably maps cleanly to Ask/Guess Culture. I’m certainly an Ask partisan. (On that front. I am not strongly opinionated on Ask vs. Tell vs. other novel variations).
I would in fact like to understand why.
I’m also in the position of, strangely, finding it mechanically difficult to figure out how to ask for the “why” here in a way I expect will be received as sincere.
Can I just give you permission to talk about me, and then spell out what the problem is from your perspective?
It’s a implicit claim of social/moral/epistemic superiority.
Isn’t that implicit in all disagreements? You’re implicitly (or actually explicitly, in many cases) claiming social/moral/epistemic superiority over people who think NVC and related concepts are good and useful.
When you say “actually explicitly” I take that to mean that it’s “worse” when the claim is explicit, but that ain’t necessarily so. If I call you an idiot, you can defend yourself by pointing out how you’re not an idiot, and everyone around will understand that you’re responding to my criticism. But if I say things that just presume you’re an idiot, you typically can’t do that without coming across as weirdly defensive and/or dickish and/or oversensitive, so I get to sneak in the idea that you’re stupid without giving you a fair chance to respond.
I prefer this particular thread to be discontinued (starting with Valentine’s “I would like to understand why” comment). Sensing serious demon thread potential. Do not want to feed it. As always, if you decide to discard this message, that is fine and your prerogative.
Explicit claims are more honest, and thus better, than implicit claims. Claiming status explicitly opens you up to someone else contesting it; claiming status implicitly makes it harder to be criticized.
This probably maps cleanly to Ask/Guess Culture. I’m certainly an Ask partisan. (On that front. I am not strongly opinionated on Ask vs. Tell vs. other novel variations).