User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC/archive

[Introduction]

I'm currently just in the middle of reading the book "Nonviolent Communication", so I have to do triage; I'm starting with the easier cases. Especially in Sri Lanka related issues, people are dealing with a lot of "pressure in our heads", as one friend put it. Currently, I'm not ready to tackling cases like this yet, but I may take a stab at that one. I'll keep you posted! — Sebastian 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Nonviolent Communication

Hello - got your message on my talk page. While I'd love to help, I unfortunately have zero experience with the Nonviolent Communication process. My edit(s) to the article were strictly basic cleanup - spam removal, in fact. Sorry! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply about NVC

Thank you for your note. In response to your request for assistance with NVC on Wikipedia, I can tell you that I have been most interested in the consensus process as mediated through this (electronic) medium. I've taken a basic course in NVC and have taken conflict resolution traiining at the Centre for Conflict Resolution at the Justice Institute[1] in New Westminster, British Columbia. However, it is complex to apply principles such as NVC here.

Amongst NVC practitioners, I have heard the term "street NVC," implying that the practitioner can apply the methods of NVC without seeming to use the "You feel... because..." format. In non face-to-face interactions such as on Wikipedia, it seeems that other adaptations are needed as well. One thing I've found useful is the use of open questions preceded by "what" or "how." For example: What do you mean by X? How would you see that happening? and so forth. I have found policies such as Civility and guidelines such as Consensus and Assume good faith helpful. Good luck with your endeavors and let me know if there are specific situations I can assist you with. Sunray 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's a good tip about open questions. While they also help in oral conversations, they may be even more effective here, since people can see questions more easily, and presumably perceive them less as a "rhetorical question" or hidden accusation, because they have some time to think about it. Would you recommend the Justice Institute? (I'm in Seattle, but I know some people in BC.) — Sebastian 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly recommend the JI to anyone interested in conflict resolution, although they don't teach NVC per se. Sunray 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! — Sebastian 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since "street NVC" (or "colloquial NVC/giraffe" etc.) came up, I just thought I'd point out that when people involved are all working to learn NVC together, then continuing the classical language *can* be very useful even once you're used to speak colloquially as well. But yeah, when one person is plugged into NVC and the other is not, there are people who are put off by classical language so learning how to make it colloquial is key. In street NVC you could hear all kinds of things that don't sound like they are "nonviolent" at all. It's helpful to remember that ultimately it's not about the words but about connecting, with compassion and integrity. --John_Abbe (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of NVC with wiki disputes

Sebastion, hi. Thanks for providing this link. Here's what I initially wrote at IPCOLL talk in response to Tiamut requesting assistance with an edit dispute at Palestinian people. To what extent is this an appropriate or useful approach? Does it improperly air my thoughts/assumptions about feelings and motives? Is it overly dramatic or heavy? Also, should I be directing this at the "pro-Israel" editors and a different 4 steps toward Tiamut (her needs, etc)? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(Originally posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Palestinian people:)

HG. Dear Tiamut: Thanks for the notice. I can imagine that this may feel frustrating and unfair. For better or worse, I see that I've signed up in IPCOLL for Nonviolent Communication. NVC has 4 steps: non-judgmental observation; look for feelings behind expressed words; look for unmet needs tied to those feelings; make a life-enriching request. While I know you'd like help with this specific incident, I would ask your patience as I delve into some feelings and needs... 1. My observation is that the conflict is over who gets be called Palestinian and, partly, how/whether Jews are left out of the narrative of who is Palestinian. Do you observe this as well? 2. Feelings? At the surface level, I sense feelings of wanting to exert control, avoid being out of control. Underneath, I sense a kind of desperation, as if the stakes are high over a few words. Why? Behind what's expressed, I'd look for fear. I wonder if the "strong pro-Israel side" (better term?) is feeling a fear of being marginalized from or wiped out of the Palestinian article's text. The fear of being wiped out is a common experience for many Jews, often inexpressible. I think Jews may fear their being wiped out or annihilated at the physical level (a feeling reasonably linked to anti-Israel violence). This feeling may be experienced as fear of being wiped out of texts and discourse. erasure. To be wiped out of a discourse -- whether by being made invisible or less-than-fully-human (aka antisemitism) -- can have dire physical consequences. So, behind any words expressed, I would look for the feeling of fear of Jews being wiped out. Do you see what I see? Another feeling I would look for, behind the words, is that both sides here feel victimized by various articles and by the process by which articles are (or not) altered. 3. Unmet needs connected to these feelings? I sense that the "strong pro-Israeli side" feels they have unmet needs -- both in the Palestinian people article and in the broader topic area. They need Wikipedia to be written in a manner that does not wipe out, marginalize or dehumanize Jews (incl Zionist & Israeli Jews). NVC suggests that I next evaluate whether this need is not yet met. Perhaps it's enough to say now that some articles would have to portray Jews/Zionists/Israelis better in order to meet this need. (Not sure about the incident at hand; but the need cannot be met thru a single article anyway. Does this make sense to you? 4. Make a request? You might request that the "pro-Israel" side give us a full picture of their grievances and problems within the topic area. You might ask them to list where articles (or common motifs) erase, marginalize or dehumanize Jews/Zionists/Israelis. You might ask them if they would listen to your grievances, too. You might request that they join you in IPCOLL, or another forum, to work with you to resolve both broad and detailed problems. As you'll see in NVC, essential with such requests "is that the other person is to be left free to honour or decline the request." Tiamut, I've responded to you by sharing how I would NVC (empathy and self-expression) your interlocutors. My request to you is that, besides dealing with the specific edit dispute at Palestinian people, you join me in using such incidents as a bridge to tackling the overall battleground here. Thank you. HG | Talk 14:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian, that's the end of my initial post. Your thoughts welcome. Feel free to make any immediate deletion or strikeout you think is warranted. Cheers, HG | Talk 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

---

First off, thanks a lot for being so open as to discuss it here! This is a rare chance for us to learn NVC together. It's rare because most of the conversations that go so far into personal feelings don't take place on public talk pages.

This leads into my first criticism: Usually, I prefer e-mail for such private conversations. If you have to discuss someone's action in public, I would recommend using their talk page, and being brief, as I did here. But that's probably not NVC proper. In that sense, I understand my pledge for NVC such that I always will do an earnest attempt to look for an NVC way to say things, and if I can't find one I will at least come close. A good compromise may be to add to the note that you invite the other person to talk about their motivation by e-mail.

You ask if it was overly dramatic or heavy. This is actually three questions in one:

1. Was it dramatic? My Encarta dictionary defines "dramatic" as: "1. for the theater; 2. exciting and intense; 3. sudden and marked; 4.striking; 5. having powerful expressive voice." I don't think that characterizes it well. You were honest; you opened your heart. You were sincerely trying to understand the other person. I think anybody with a heart will see that.
2. Was it heavy? Yes, but that naturally comes with the territory. Some people have the gift to turn even the worst of situations into something light, but for the rest of us, it's OK to feel heavy about the I-P conflict.
3. Were you overdoing it? I would say, yes. NVC is a dialogue, and you were holding a monologue. That's a natural mistake, it comes with the medium. I think if you had talked with Teq in person, you would have made a pause to wait for a reply. But I have never seen you in a real dialogue; maybe when you're tired you act like most other people: When the other person doesn't reply, it is a common reaction to keep talking to bridge the silence. If that's the case then you may want to remind your self that there is value in silence. However, you are only learning NVC now. Most people, when they learn things, start by doing them step by step, and by doing each step very meticulously, which often is much more effort than the light way experts do them.

I will reply to your other questions later. — Sebastian 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You say "Teq" above, you mean Zeq? But I didn't think I was addressing Zeq specifically at all, more trying to give Tiamut a way to think about where a range of "other side" editors may be coming from. Well, I can see where it may look like it's about Zeq and I certainly agree that, were that the case, I would start with user Talk. (Indeed, that's what I've said as moderator regarding user complaints and IPCOLL. So I must have looked rather inconsistent.) I look forward to your further comments. HG | Talk 23:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Minefield feedback

Hi Sebastian, in addition to my reply on my talk page, I have some feedback regarding your "an idea how I could have handled this better".

It is a minefield indeed, and it looks like you stepped right in Licorne's mine. Although I was not aware of the connection with a banned user, I had seen it coming from miles and decided to tease (without feeding) the troll a bit. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that, as, after all, this is not sci.physics.relativity on Usenet, where these people are just called (and treated like) something I will not spell out here.

Given the fact that you were not aware of this, I think your handling was really okay, although you could have refrained from removing my statements. My first one was actually a statement of fact, albeit perhaps a rather embarrassing one. Indeed, many (if not most) engineers do not understand the difference between Einstein's physical and Poincare's mathematical insights, just like indeed, many (if not most) physicists don't bother to check the historical record. But of course, those physicists who do, don't find that "Einstein copied relativity from Henri Poincaré". So, although my statements were a bit harsh (for which I took a warning), I am inclined to think that they should be restored.

Welcome in the "Einstein Was a Plagiarist Minefield". Tread carefully :-) - DVdm (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I now regret a bit that I directed you here, because the discussion is now spread over three different pages. So I'll just reply to the more private points here, and to the rest on your talk page.

I now see that it probably wasn't helpful to remove the statements. I have made positive experiences with that in the Sri Lanka conflict, where some people even encouraged me to do so with their own posts. But the situation there was different; a main concern there was preventing escalation, which was not a problem here. The way I acted now reminds me of the principal here (from "I was visiting a friend, a school principal" on.) I now think I probably could have made my point without deleting your posts. The interesting lesson is that the same action that can deescalate one conflict, can escalate another. — Sebastian 23:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, escalation was the very last thing I wanted to happen there. The entire goal was to gently but firmly tease him away. I played with the idea of either ignoring, or replying just once with a simple ":-)", but then I realized that the first part of his statement was actually correct, so I decided to have a bit of fun and play this little game.

Thanks for the interesting PDF-link - a bit like Dale Carnegie's classic that I found (and subsequently devoured) in my father's library - a rather long time ago. By the way, the story of the principal reminds me of a mother's "I've told you a thousand times: do not exagerate!" :-)

Keep up the good work! DVdm (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)