I know it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but does it implicitly judge non-judgement to be better than judgement, and thereby contradict itself?
You can prefer one thing over another. And nvc does plenty of evaluation. You need to be able to evaluate your own needs and work out what you want to request from people.
It can be thought of as a map and territory distinction. Judgement is in the map not the territory.
So yes. My map says that I prefer A over B. But if I get B and not A the “sadness” is in the map and not the territory. The territory is not trying to spite me. It just is.
Okay, firstly, thanks for the post and the response!
Are you saying that we can prefer judgement over non-judgement, it’s just that NVC predicts that this will lead to ineffective communication and/or damage the relationship? ( I had conversations like this in mind when I asked about moral truth). I’m still confused about how it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but I get that they are both part of the map and not the territory (although the map exists within the territory).
Evaluation and judgement are the same. What matters is how you communicate the thing.
You don’t have to like everyone but it’s probably healthy to recognize your subjective judgement is not universal. “I think you are too tall for my liking” is my judgement. You don’t have to agree. But it would probably be unreasonable to say “you are too tall.” alone.
Does NVC undermine the concept of Moral Truth?
I know it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but does it implicitly judge non-judgement to be better than judgement, and thereby contradict itself?
You can prefer one thing over another. And nvc does plenty of evaluation. You need to be able to evaluate your own needs and work out what you want to request from people.
It can be thought of as a map and territory distinction. Judgement is in the map not the territory.
So yes. My map says that I prefer A over B. But if I get B and not A the “sadness” is in the map and not the territory. The territory is not trying to spite me. It just is.
Okay, firstly, thanks for the post and the response!
Are you saying that we can prefer judgement over non-judgement, it’s just that NVC predicts that this will lead to ineffective communication and/or damage the relationship? ( I had conversations like this in mind when I asked about moral truth). I’m still confused about how it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but I get that they are both part of the map and not the territory (although the map exists within the territory).
Evaluation and judgement are the same. What matters is how you communicate the thing.
You don’t have to like everyone but it’s probably healthy to recognize your subjective judgement is not universal. “I think you are too tall for my liking” is my judgement. You don’t have to agree. But it would probably be unreasonable to say “you are too tall.” alone.