People’s feelings do sometimes get hurt when you say “no”. And people’s feelings get hurt when you’re honest with them sometimes. My thesis is that it’s easier, as a community, to recover from hurt feelings than from ignorance and deceptions.
My thesis is that it’s easier, as a community, to recover from hurt feelings than from ignorance and deceptions.
If you pretend that someone’s “No” won’t hurt you is often deception.
Take a sentence from your examples: “I just realized this interaction will be far more productive if my brain has food. I think we should head toward the kitchen.”
This is not open communication. It hides the main motivation of the feeling of hunger and instead tries to find a intellectual justification for a proposal. The nonviolent communication (NVC) way would be to say: “I’m hungry, how about we head towards the kitchen?”
That sentence has the emotion motivating it in it. It also contains no should.
There no need to invented a new “tell culture” framework when frameworks like nonviolent communication are out there.
A lot of the “This kind of trust does not develop overnight.” comes from the fact that you are not open. If I’m completely open with emotions and don’t put a intellectual front and intellectual justifications before them I can sometimes go quite deep in 10 minutes.
If I have a deep conversation with you that might leave you hurt I care about what you feel more than I care whether you tell me “You are completely free to say ‘no’, or to tell me what you’re thinking right now, and I promise it will be fine.”
“I just realized this interaction will be far more productive if my brain has food. I think we should head toward the kitchen.”
This is not open communication. It hides the main motivation of the feeling of hunger and instead tries to find a intellectual justification for a proposal. The nonviolent communication (NVC) way would be to say: “I’m hungry, how about we head towards the kitchen?”
I agree with both of you. I would phrase this as something like: “My hunger is making it hard for me to focus; I’d prefer to go to the kitchen for some food before we continue.”
The part about it making it hard for you to focus is important, because otherwise maybe the other person thinks it’s more optimal for you to eat later. I also eschew using should-based language.
I agree with both of you. I would phrase this as something like: “My hunger is making it hard for me to focus; I’d prefer to go to the kitchen for some food before we continue.”
In that sentence you disassociate your hunger. You aren’t focusing on feeling your hunger but you are treating it as an external object.
That makes it harder for the person you are talking with you to empathize with you and go with you to the kitchen because that would make you feel better.
If you are my friend and I’m talking with you I want to make you feel better. That’s often enough to agree with a proposal like going to the kitchen.
You are still turning what could be an exchange about your desire and the other person having a option to make you feel better into a straight cold utility calculation.
If I’m on a Lesswrong meetup and someone appear to communicate as if he’s a Straw Vulcan, I don’t mind. In most cases you however don’t want to signal being a Straw Vulcan. Your sentence doesn’t send that signal as strong as the original one, but to me it still goes in that direction.
Being open about your emotional needs and expecting that your friend cares about them enough to want to make you escape that unpleasant hunger, to motivate him to come with you to the kitchen, is a signal.
That’s the sort of signal that you want to send if you want to build mutual trust and friendship.
If you instead provide intellectual justifications, and especially if they are just made up because you think you need to justify yourself that’s not good for trust building.
Of course if you honestly do have trouble focusing there nothing wrong with saying so. “I’m hungry and it makes me lose focus on the conversation, how about we go to the kitchen.”
People’s feelings do sometimes get hurt when you say “no”. And people’s feelings get hurt when you’re honest with them sometimes. My thesis is that it’s easier, as a community, to recover from hurt feelings than from ignorance and deceptions.
If you pretend that someone’s “No” won’t hurt you is often deception.
Take a sentence from your examples: “I just realized this interaction will be far more productive if my brain has food. I think we should head toward the kitchen.”
This is not open communication. It hides the main motivation of the feeling of hunger and instead tries to find a intellectual justification for a proposal. The nonviolent communication (NVC) way would be to say: “I’m hungry, how about we head towards the kitchen?”
That sentence has the emotion motivating it in it. It also contains no should.
There no need to invented a new “tell culture” framework when frameworks like nonviolent communication are out there.
A lot of the “This kind of trust does not develop overnight.” comes from the fact that you are not open. If I’m completely open with emotions and don’t put a intellectual front and intellectual justifications before them I can sometimes go quite deep in 10 minutes.
If I have a deep conversation with you that might leave you hurt I care about what you feel more than I care whether you tell me “You are completely free to say ‘no’, or to tell me what you’re thinking right now, and I promise it will be fine.”
I agree with both of you. I would phrase this as something like: “My hunger is making it hard for me to focus; I’d prefer to go to the kitchen for some food before we continue.”
The part about it making it hard for you to focus is important, because otherwise maybe the other person thinks it’s more optimal for you to eat later. I also eschew using should-based language.
In that sentence you disassociate your hunger. You aren’t focusing on feeling your hunger but you are treating it as an external object.
That makes it harder for the person you are talking with you to empathize with you and go with you to the kitchen because that would make you feel better.
If you are my friend and I’m talking with you I want to make you feel better. That’s often enough to agree with a proposal like going to the kitchen.
You are still turning what could be an exchange about your desire and the other person having a option to make you feel better into a straight cold utility calculation.
If I’m on a Lesswrong meetup and someone appear to communicate as if he’s a Straw Vulcan, I don’t mind. In most cases you however don’t want to signal being a Straw Vulcan. Your sentence doesn’t send that signal as strong as the original one, but to me it still goes in that direction.
Being open about your emotional needs and expecting that your friend cares about them enough to want to make you escape that unpleasant hunger, to motivate him to come with you to the kitchen, is a signal.
That’s the sort of signal that you want to send if you want to build mutual trust and friendship.
If you instead provide intellectual justifications, and especially if they are just made up because you think you need to justify yourself that’s not good for trust building.
Of course if you honestly do have trouble focusing there nothing wrong with saying so. “I’m hungry and it makes me lose focus on the conversation, how about we go to the kitchen.”