This is a very serious claim, and one that I couldn’t find a single good example of if you put a gun to my head. Even when someone attempts speaking Giraffe and messes up, it still works out more beneficially for cooperation than the average comment. I have practiced NVC in my darkest of hours, and it has never failed me. And because it’s based on trading implying wrongness for openly stating desires, anything spoken from true Giraffe will automatically be geared for resolution while elegantly bypassing all the fighting and negativity.

You had might as well say that it’s disruptive for people to openly state their issues in groups in the most unoffensive way they can word it. Assuming this was written by someone who’s not trolling, by someone who actually does feel this way, then I would love it if you could include some real-world examples of this ‘disruption’. it might really help us giraffes.

I would also love to hear what alternatives you’ve found, at this point I’m rather curious.

I’m also baffled by the idea of a consensus terrorist, is that what you call someone who’s more interested in finding a consensus than you are? Can we get an example? I’ve seen people use their need for finding consensus to imply wrongness of others, however Giraffe specifically teaches people to not do that. So, yeah, example please.

Having been there, some directness and not avoiding conflict whenever possible would have made a huge difference in actually moving things ahead. What I saw was not NVC, it was digging your head in the sand wishing the reality around had enough sense to dissolve itself from bugging you.

“Well people are not going to take being pushed around any more and we want other people to be direct without being abusive or critical.”

The last word spells out exactly what I perceive a critical error of judgement in CS (or NVC in general if that’s the case?): How can you make a difference for the better without being critical of the status quo? To me, critical also spells analytical – so is it just that some cultures perceive any analysis not in accordance to their existing views as “threatening”, “bullying” or “nasty”.

Besides that, I would call NVC typical “concensus terrorism”, to match your “bullying and threatening”.

The people opposed to using NVC are the same types of people we see in any organization that want to get their own way by bullying and threatening others. Oh they call it different names like “being direct” or by saying conflict doesn’t hurt anyone. Well people are not going to take being pushed around any more and we want other people to be direct without being abusive or critical.

I am glad to see that the consensus here on the group is that NVC is a very positive communication process despite the uninformed criticism and nasty comments that started the discussion.

@Valeri
Please clarify what you mean by a NVC-session for ourselves, i.e. between whom would you like to have it?

Yes, the trust is the only thing I have right now.

Concerning NVC: I find that this guy summarizes quite well what this is about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2d7LosnXoI

If I’d want a history of what happened, where were I to look for it?

Couchsurfing is not a place where everything is archived and kept in one place . Also a lot took part on chat clients.

Google groups (closed by casey)
Brainstorm group on couchsurfing (old thread archived )
Ambassadors private (you have to be trusted by casey or the next tier or advisor’s to get in there ( again old thread archived)
Couchsurfing wiki ( you would need to know where to find stuff )
Open couchsurfing wiki (have about 60% ? of information)

This trust has the highest priority!

Is the ONLY thing you have right now .Trust will be the key to all the locked archives or help from the people who matter on couchsurfing for you to gain access to those resources.

The prospect of making this a case study of successfull mediation and communication in a community which resembles networking in general thrills me and gives me a lot of energy. I’d be very happy to be part of this.

One last question: If I’d want a history of what happened, where were I to look for it?

I realize this entire thread is getting buried in new blog posts and comments far and wide. I still hope you’re going for it and, should anything not work out, that you’ll keep us informed. Information of any kind is much appreciated!

Vortik has said: no communication technique will work if the initial intentions are to entrap and dominate.

For casey to get talking there would have to be no talk about the NDA(techs) and not account legal action (pickwick)
But again it goes to whose advice casey listens to.Who can poison his mind .His legal team does a good job of making him looks like on of those hollywood celebs who have everything routed through “official channels”.Casey was not like this but has become that way and jim strone ,ttt and rachel have done nothing to change this. They have instead put up more barriers to communications. FENIX LAKSHMI would be a better communicator(maybe)

we need to convince the CS leadership of what’s in it for them….

Thinking from thier point of view. Talking about show the barrier put up by a lot of the people close to casey and this would not look good. So the people who would be affected by this (present developers ,present LT) would twist things around to make sure this would not happen.Also there is nothing they can get from it.
They would lose their NDA (secrets – weapons of mass communication)
this present flawed structure (transparency and accounting ) will reduce thier piece of pie

Also, everyone: this conversation would have to be absolutely sincere. As Vortik has said: no communication technique will work if the initial intentions are to entrap and dominate. No way it’ll work without broad assurances that there will be no plugging BW, assigning blame, or twisting words in an attempt to use gotcha-exposure maneuvers. I hope those attitudes fall by the wayside regardless…as, truly, they only discredit this blog.

I too have limited hope that this little peace conference will ever take place…since the LT have their hands full just running the site….and perhaps have no desire to win OCS people back to the fold. But if there’s any chance of this occurring, we need to convince the CS leadership of what’s in it for them….in my opinion: plenty.

So its better to run and hide and fight another day.

If opencouchsurfing deletes all their threats(legal action posts) and also stops anonymous posts i think casey may may talk .But it again comes down to survival and self interest (couchsurfing is his ,ttt’s,rachels? and the pulplenomad (jim stones) bread and butter).And they will fight to preserve their cash cow .

Zakor, forget all the emo-whatever you are calling it, isn’t an open comm channel the first step towards anything? And if Casey et al would be willing to respond in an NVC framework, would you say it’s better than nothing?

For myself, i admit i’ve given up completely on any substantive communication with the CS leadership. However, the issues we have seen at CS in terms of human, group, cultural and community dynamics are quite global in scope and impact and a massive problem in many arenas. Social networking and the relative transparency of the web are simply making things a bit more clear than they usually are.

However, i’m always willing to give things a shot – if Casey et all are truly studying NVC, then through it would be the correct way to approach them, and their turning it down would simply illustrate the lack of integrity many attribute to them. In other words, either they believe NVC is useful, so will agree to try it, or they are just using it for propaganda purposes, in which case they won’t.

Since CS and its background could be viewed as a case history for later analysis of social networking, perhaps it would be useful to start a thread that outlines the types of problems, the history and sequence, and the resulting divergent experiences, beliefs, and priorities for addressing the issues in conflict. We have new tech and new social structures in social networks – the question for me is, why do we see the same old dynamics, and what can we do to change them?

Vortik, perhaps the best way for you to proceed might be to get the history as perceived by the many sides, including that of the LT, many ambassadors, the tech people who left CS and initiated opencs, etc. Quite an endeavor, but would be a super challenge of your skills! I realize that’s not the normal way this proceeds, but assume this is something like the Balkan conflict . Or, just email Donna or even better, Mandie, the new communications person, to see if this is really a possibility. Margaret, i truly think you would be the best intermediary here for that!

Besides that, I think one of the major justifications at this point is: “it (OCS and related stuff) is a waste of time, no one cares”. That’s probably going to be your first hurdle…

As an aside: opencouchsurfing.org expires on the 26th of April (if we don’t prolong it). So, it has been a while indeed.

@zak0r
I understand your fear that I/we will “sell out” to this NVC thing. I doubt that could happen, considering how aware we are of possible dangers in the approach. If it’s untruthful, closed or becomes a spiritual thing, my guess is we’ll just withdraw. If it’s “just” a slower, more prudent way of communicating, I think we can muster some patience, if only as an experiment. I strongly believe we should exhaust all possible approaches to improve CS.

In general Vortik, I’m sceptical you’ll be able to make it work. But, you have my cooperation and encouragement!

When the history of conflict spans a year or more it is a good idea to study and talk to both site.

Talk to donna first . The rest of the LT would be pretty difficult to access (most in thailand).

So if I’d like to get in contact with them, what could I try? Any suggestions?
While Thomas hasn’t answered yet, I’d like to ask the rest of you too, what your ideas are about what could keep e.g. Casey from being open to communication? The more ideas we’d have, the better.
I expect the conflict to be easily soluable once each party can say what the other party’s needs are.

I have another question: once more open communication is established, what would you want to do with it? How would you like to use it? What would be the request, after you have chance to speak?

@zak0r
From your post I guess, you count yourself to the people who want simple and definite statements, is that correct? What kind of statement would you want?
Do you have the skype accounts of the leadership team?

Also with all the new server online why is the site under heavy load? This is wierd.

the whole implicit idea that was put forward that using some proxy would be a good idea to start communicating with the lt is absurd, if anyone here wants to get a grab of the leadership team, go the direct way, install skype and just friggin call them.

A chat would be best, basically. And they would be extremely wary of who was included. Once there, some NVC and you as a moderator or whatever could probably work.. but frankly i just don’t see such accessibility ever arising, in a public way. That would be miraculous, but on the other hand, i’m ok with miracles

.. it IS basically a test of their integrity, to see if they agree to open a channel to heal some of what has happened, with an skilled NVC person such as yourself, so let’s leave some space open for the possibility!

@tgoorden
I also thank you for your understanding. It helps me to relax a little. It did really feel like argueing and I put myself into a corner where I didn’t want to be. You words help me to come out of it again.

So we’d want to work for openness and transparancy? Sounds like important values/needs we all share. And your request would be to have a reliable communication access to the head of CS, like a chat or an email adress where things are answered personally, and to have a possibility for polls or a “news-site” on couchsurfing. Seems pretty clear to me.

Before going on, I’d like to have your ideas about what might keep Casey or Matthew from agreeing to this. You mentioned a “threat to the CS organization”. How could that look like? What would be the worst consequence, Casey would anticipate? It seems quite obvious to me that he wants to protect something. What could that be?
That’s important for me, because I’m confident that whatever it is, it can be talked about and that it’s just a matter of creativity that we find a solution to this, once we got the needs clear. So I invite you to put yourself in his shoes and do a “heartstorm”.

I’m curious.

I do see a ray of hope and am willing to go for it. I have thought about your questions (“What is it we want from CS?”, etc) and they are not very easy to answer. A lot of damage has been done already, so it would seem we’d have to set our expectations pretty low for it to have any kind of success. I mean, there are some “campaigns” you could read about in the OCS Wiki, but I think we have moved too far from those to put them on the table. What I do see as a possibility:
- Synchronous communication would be a nice start. Just talk or chat in real-time, not one-way or semi-anonymous communication (what we have now). One issue might be openness/transparency, because we were usually asked (when last attempted) to keep everything off the record, which obviously doesn’t work well for us (me). Who to invite is a though question as well, since OCS is not an organization but more a collection of relatively like-minded people and thoughts. Of course, Casey and Matthew would be primary candidates.
- Another nice thing to see is if the CS communication channels were in some way opened again for us. It is extremely hard to reach the members of CS for anything that might be threatening to the CS organization. A poll on some topics would be nice, as would be a chance to provide some “latest news” on couchsurfing.com.

That’s it. I would see that as true progress.

i am amused by your lack of knowledge of actual scientifical method. you believe, i prefer knowing things. you are talking about something where you have no remote clue about, please, get used to http://www.antiquark.com/img/scientific_method.jpg and then come back to debate.
on the other hand, i am aware that such simple procedure as scientific method is, for reasons i can not explain, absolutely absurd towards even educated “spiritualists” who ought to have the “brains” to understand it.

Don’t be discouraged, this is a tough crowd . And to overgeneralize, many here are not at the point where they communicate without projecting their own assumptions onto each other. As we both know, this it’s a difficult endeavor, and takes so much time, in text, to deconstruct!!

I have a lot of disagreements with wht everyone has said lol — especially i would note that people’s perspectives on the brain are pretty uninformed, but then i find neuroscience as a field to be still a bit in the Dark Ages as well. Since that’s what is out there to read, what can we expect! People still contort every finding to fit their prejudices and desires for validation, even within science, yet that personal aspect of it is rarely acknowledged.

Personally, as a scientist, i have no trouble with many ideas of spirituality, especially those developed Buddhist and similar paths that have analytical components far more sophisticated and deeper than most ‘standard’ religions (which shall remain unnamed, and no offense intended!). Conversely, I’ve also seen scientific research and scientists be quite irrational, egotistical, territorial and sociobiological about things toward which they could be rational, but in doing so their own beliefs, now hardened, would be challenged. (The extent to which this is true would boggle most, if it were known). So i don’t mind at all myself when spirituality and rationality are coupled, but equally clearly a lot of ‘spiritual language’ simply has a ton of baggage already attached to it that induces unwarranted assumptions in the minds of many. (it sounds fishy even to me, and i understand what is meant!) A non-sceptical tone on your part simply confirms to those people that the brain has been left behind, when really it is that experience has forced the integration of all these arenas into a more encompassing and diverse set of perspectives.

Non-receptivity blocks thought AND feeling. If one is really open to understanding, there’s no reason for attack, and lots of room to listen without assumptions of what the other means. All this is truly difficult, takes practice, good intention, and lots of time. I understand NVC tries for these things and for that reason, i respect it, even if my own experience with it has not proven its value to *me*. That doesn’t mean it does not have worthy applications in the right context!!

Vortik, i’d be very interested if you could bring some of the CS leadership to the table for an NVC discussion. A chat online would perhaps be better to discuss how to set this up. Could be extremely interesting, and very illuminating!

However, i would guess that many would be quite sceptical that this could be accomplished – great if you can prove that not to be so!

I’ll save my other comments as this seems a bit more important

all the best and hugs,
Valerie

“Maybe we can invent a “god pill” which makes you instantly experience spirituality, how would you like that?”
Oh, I’m sure this will be possible in not so much time. And it might be fun to have it. At the same time I say again: While the state of consciousness induced by these pills might be the same for everybody, the interpretation will be according to the worldview the person has. So someone in the biblebelt might claim to be Jesus, while someone in Tibet is enlightened. And you can’t alter or expand the worldview just by pills. If that was possible, that’d be quite cool…

“You seem not to have found an underlying system to validate/invalidate these needs and therefor can only pick them blindly, based on how good they sound. Me? I have an entire arsenal at my disposal:”
I don’t find anything in your arsenal that I leave out in my own ideas about these matters. I’m not sure whether you trust me on this one. I kind of doubt it, given how you seem to interpret what I say. At the moment I’m too tired and also a bit discouraged to even try, so I leave it there.

“Your interpretation of scientific laws is remarkably flawed.”
Thanks for the free diagnosis. I’m remarkably helped by this statement in understanding how you feel and what you’d like to have.
Sorry. I see value in what you say. It does make sense to me too, to see it that way. I don’t see anything wrong with it aside from other possibilities which also make sense.

“The whole “there must be a creator” argument is a naive extrapolation of your human experience: chickens lay eggs, so the universe must also come from somewhere. Why does everything have to have an origin?”
Maybe you noticed that I never said it has to. And I haven’t said a word about a creator. That you assume I have lets me guess that you see my arguments in the same corner as the ideas about creationism. To me the universe doesn’t have to have an origin. Actually it makes much more sense to me that it’s circular and everything that has happened, has happened before and will happen again. That it’s like a play, a dance, music. But I don’t know. I wouldn’t try to convert anybody or convince anybody that this is true. I just like to play with the idea. After all, who knows?

“Even an arbitrary universe without a divine presence would be amazing, don’t you think?”
Sure it would. And like I said, I never said I believed in a divine presence. At least not if you mean by that a divine presence which is seperate from the universe itself. To me it isn’t, it’s one process. “Divine energy” is just a figure of speech like the “it” in “it’s raining”. There is not “it”, only the rain.

“I’m by the way not so sure NVC is so easily falsifiable.”
I see the danger of that, because the crucial thing about it is, that the intention comes across. The technique offered by the NVC-model helps to do that. But the intention has to be there beforehand. Actually this has been said before on this forum and I regret that I didn’t recognize it really. If the intention is there, it’s very likely that NVC helps. If it isn’t, it probably won’t do much, due to lack of trust.

Are you proposing that I use NVC to bring the CS leadership to the table? That sounds interesting. I’d be happy to do that.

But before that I’d need more information. What is it actually you want? What is the hottest issue? What does “bring to the table” mean? Who is CS Leadership? I heard the names of Casey and Matthew. Anyone else? What are their positions? And where do you get stuck?

I understand you. A person has had a spiritual experience when s/he knows that it’s real…but cannot explain it rationally. That’s fine and good. Also that people, and their well-being, are more important than winning arguments…I like and agree with that sentiment.

also in regards to killing things, be it plant or animal: life=death=gratitude (as opposed to entitlement) for the said-life.

also Thomas: I agree. there is *plenty* out there beyond our ability to sense it.

How do you interpret the experiment where stimulation of the brain in certain parts induces a “light at the end of the tunnel” sensation? Is the experiment “inducing god”? Actually, it’s interesting that you bring your god to the physical realm (brain patterns), because that means he can be tested and experimented upon! Maybe we can invent a “god pill” which makes you instantly experience spirituality, how would you like that?

Using trial-and-error for defining your needs/values/principles (use whichever word you like) is exactly the problem (I feel I’m repeating myself here). You seem not to have found an underlying system to validate/invalidate these needs and therefor can only pick them blindly, based on how good they sound. Me? I have an entire arsenal at my disposal:
- I posit my existence by way of “I think therefor I am”. This automatically rejects all completely relativistic theories (the ones where everything is doubted, including our own existence and consciousness).
- I can build a moral system based on the theory of indirect consequences: A lot of values make sense if you keep in mind the possible ramifications for your own existence. (eg. Violence begets violence, so I choose nonviolence in general.) This is summed up in one of the few doctrines modern Christians should take better care of: “Do upon others as you would do them do upon you.” Many values can be directly derived from that (even not cheating in your tax return). The logic here is stunningly simple.
- I can use statistics in sociology and psychology to better understand (or at least predict) my fellow humans and to adjust my behavior accordingly.
- I can use scientific “tools” to detect falsehoods: Occam’s razor, the falsifiability test, the measurability test, positing and testing theories, etc.

Your interpretation of scientific laws is remarkably flawed. First off all they are theories that model (to great accuracy) our universe. They are not the cause of the universe: they can simply not be separated from it. Our universe is as much defined by its underlying model as its model (the theories) is defined by the universe. You are looking for cause and effect where there is none. The whole “there must be a creator” argument is a naive extrapolation of your human experience: chickens lay eggs, so the universe must also come from somewhere. Why does everything have to have an origin? One of the best explanations I’ve heard for this is: Perhaps the universe is the way it is, because this is the only universe where we (humans) could exist to observe it. If the gravitational constant was 1% different, life would simply be impossible. So, such a universe might exist, but nothing could exist in it to observe it!

I am a happy man, I know how to love and how to care. I can place these feelings in a larger context of biology, sociology and neurology and yet, I value them as much as you do (perhaps even more). Perhaps my sense of wonder is even larger than yours: I see the laws underneath the world around me and am simply amazed. Even an arbitrary universe without a divine presence would be amazing, don’t you think?

I’m by the way not so sure NVC is so easily falsifiable. If an investigation into this would have negative results for NVC, you would probably state that it was conducted improperly, that the test subjects weren’t cooperative or something like it. We already have an example of this: in CS, NVC is praticed and yet, negativism has spread widely. (Here you, as predicted, state that it is used incorrectly.) In fact, I would like to turn it around: Use your best NVC skills to bring the CS leadership to the table. I would be more than willing to go along in such an experiment and would even promise to use your communication skill (which I’m relatively confident I could adopt for the duration). If that works, I will concede that it is valuable in doing something we weren’t capable of.

I know the problem of circular reasoning and the non-falsifiability. But I think this is not so important, since this is actually the case for every model that’s out there. The materialistic interpretation of the world is just as non-scientific as the spiritual interpretation or any other mythology. It is based on the idea that the world is made of stuff which is brought into motion by some mechanism or the laws of nature. What would that stuff be? Where would the laws come from? There is no such thing in my view, at least you don’t have to assume there is. There is pattern, structure. And claiming that the patterns we perceive with our five senses are the only real ones doesn’t make sense to me at all, because there is so much more to my experience than that. What would we win by this reductionism?

What seems to be falsifiable to me is this: Are the chances that a conflict is resolved and an issue is talked out in way that everybody is content higher, if one uses NVC or not? Actually I’m not interested in anything else than this. And given my experience with it I don’t see any reason to doubt that chances of mutual understanding increase to a considerable degree.
Any explanation of why this is so is storytelling. And I like to tell stories, because I hope that what I say, might be something you can relate to through your own experience, so you might be open to the possibility, that it doesn’t hurt to learn and use NVC. It might actually help.

@Pickwick
“Your technique can do nothing wrong.”
Okay, let’s say it this way: If somebody knows the technique he can of course use it in a way, that would not be in harmony with my needs. I grant that. At the same time, what I want to say is that the worldview that is behind it, implies that you would always lose in the long run if you would use NVC in a way that doesn’t consider everybody’s needs. And that is so, because as I see it, you are not seperate from other people, you are also the relationships with them. Your happiness and your well-being depend on it. You can of course take advantage of them and go on to another place, so you’re not affected by the consequences directly. But my question is, if you had the choice to be happy by taking advantage of somebody or be happy by cooperationg with somebody, what would you choose? NVC helps a lot to have the latter. So if you want that, you can use it. If not, leave it be. I’m not here to tell you what you should or shouldn’t do.

In my own humble opinion I see no reason whatsoever why someone would not like to have relationships that are enriching and powerful, carried by care and trust and along the saying “Loving you, being me”. And that’s the only thing that this is about.

@tgoorden
“I have long ago been liberated from the shackles of spirituality and believe it to be a self-inflicted illusion at best. It is pretty clear to me now that NVC is just another meme with the intent of controlling some aspect of my life.”
I’m actually sad to hear that you take it that way. I had hoped to be able to communicate it differently, so that you could trust that your autonomy is valued.

“Where is your actual philosophy, the reasoning by which you judge your needs/values?”
It’s just trial-and-error. People seem to understand me instantly better when I talk about needs instead of thoughts or concepts. It’s something they can relate to and it takes way less time. I can’t really explain why, but it seems to work. To my knowledge there is no proof for the existence of needs. Abraham Maslow made up his hierarchy of needs by studying people he thought to be actualized highly developed. But what does that prove? Marshall Rosenberg uses the list that the economist Manfred Max-Neef came up with in order to create an economic system based on needs. Again a concept that has the purpose to clarify goals.
I’ve thought this through on my own, because you’re not the first one to ask me. If everything people would do or say is not evidence for a need but a strategy, then it’s impossible to say that needs exist. But that doesn’t bother me at all, because needs are just an expression of how we want life to look like in general terms. And it seems to me that there are certain principles which we all can agree on! Whether you call them values or needs or principles – who cares? The important thing is to me whether we understand each other and whether this kind of talking/thinking contributes to an interchange, in which everybody likes to contribute to the other person’s well-being. This is the criterion, nothing else!

“Why? Because, once you get down to it, the only thing you can come up with to justify your value system is by calling on “the divine”, more specifically things like “I had a spiritual revelation” (which is what Rosenberg does). The list of things that have – at some point – been justified in this way is simply ridiculous in both length and content.”
Well, I most definitely agree. This would be the old paradigm of “Because I say so” or “it’s the tradition” or “I’m closer to God than you are.” What Rosenberg does in my view is saying nothing but “Connecting with people in this way which I found, seems to have the natural consequence that you feel a certain kind of communion, love and meaning.” And given his experience with people who first wanted to kill each other and who would cooperate and share their vulnerabilities afterwards this is no surprise to me. Whether that is so you can check for yourself. You don’t have to believe anything! And if you don’t and you don’t want to check, that’s fine too. It would just be a pity in my eyes, because I love to share what I love.

(By the way, how can I use the quote sign?)

@zak0r
“to add to this, there is mounting evidence that spirituality is a disfunction of certain parts of the brain, which would also explain why some people seem to have this spiritual stuff whilst for others it is totally absent and seems absurd.”
Are you referring to studies which show that there is activity in part of the temporal lobe when people have an experience which they describe as a connection with god?
If you mean this, I’d say calling this a dysfunction and claiming that God is just in your brain, has as much logic as saying, because there is a certain activity in the brain, when I see an apple, the apple is just an illusion. The experience is real! How you interpret it, in what kind of worldview you put it and therefore how you communicate it (calling it God, Buddha, Allah, a feeling of connection, or whatever name you come up with), is a completely different matter! Don’t mix up experience with interpretation!

The reason why they are “immune to reason” is because you can’t talk somebody out of his worldview – or at least it’s very difficult. Something has to happen which clearly proves that the way this person is explaining the world to him/herself doesn’t work. Otherwise the price of letting go is just too high for this person. How willingly would you give up your rational worldview, once you see there are things YOU are experiencing which can’t be explained by that?

@Margaret
The spiritual side is really not necessary, because it doesn’t contribute to the success of the method. To me it seems to be a natural consequence that someone who does it will have experiences he might call “spiritual”. But he doesn’t have to. He might call them “loving relationships” as well or “peaceful resolution”. It would amount to the same.

I agree with Pickwick too that the philosophical depth has exceeded the vehicle: it’s just a communication technique. I like the related discussion and think it’s cool to talk openly about all of this…i really appreciate it….but to repeatedly launder this NVC topic thro the frontal lobes, in an attempt to link it to god or a larger creative force, bleaches the color from it for me. I’m typically swayed by elegance in argument.

It [NVC] is really a spiritual practice that I am trying to show as a way of life. Even though we don’t mention this, people get seduced by the practice. Even if they practice this as a mechanical technique, they start to experience things between themselves and other people they weren’t able to experience before. [...] This beauty, this power, connected me with an energy that I choose to call Beloved Divine Energy. [etc]

This tells me that Rosenberg does see himself as some kind of messiah. While you promote it as an optional communication technique, there is an obvious expectation of being “dragged” into the rest of it as well. I have long ago been liberated from the shackles of spirituality and believe it to be a self-inflicted illusion at best. It is pretty clear to me now that NVC is just another meme with the intent of controlling some aspect of my life. I’ve stated this many times before in the context of CS:

Beware of the man who tries to control your speech, for he thinks he is better than you.

Secondly, I strongly agree with Pickwick that you argue in circles. You never state what your “needs” (or values) you really promote and fall back every time to a reasoning of “you’re saying it wrong”. Your idea of needs (at the core of every reasoning) seems wobbly because you establish no origin for these needs, except vague and broad sociological theories. Where is your actual philosophy, the reasoning by which you judge your needs/values? It seems a mish-mash of Rosenberg’s own ideas (spirituality, his definition of protective force, etc), some Buddhism and basically anything anyone wants to bolt onto it, preferably new age style (eg. your thoughts on psychiatry). Most of this is very old stuff and not old in a good way. Why? Because, once you get down to it, the only thing you can come up with to justify your value system is by calling on “the divine”, more specifically things like “I had a spiritual revelation” (which is what Rosenberg does). The list of things that have – at some point – been justified in this way is simply ridiculous in both length and content.

Unfortunately, this also puts you in the snake oil business of “spirituality salesmen”. If we let you speak long enough, sooner or later you will start talking about “universal energy”, “energy flows”, “karma”, or whatever it is this week. NVC is on par with crystals, “touching techniques”, homeopathy and all the rest in that way. And, no thank you.

You did give me a good idea for a new blog topic.

I’m glad the discussion goes on so productively. I hope I can provide you with the information that might deepen the understanding of what I find valuable in NVC beyond what has been said so far.

First I’d like to say very briefly: NVC is a help for me, to see my importance in this world. And I believe, this is at the core of everything we do. Either we try to do everything to prove to ourselves that we’re important, that we matter. And that happens, when we see that we’re not seperate but connected (the idea of a sperate ego goes away). And once we know that and out of that we want to contribute to the awareness of others that they are too, so they can join us celebrating! My interest in being here is to contribute to your awareness, that you matter, that you are important as human beings, because you’re not seperate!
Also, when I talk about empathic understanding, I don’t mean intellectual understanding. Although I like to play with thoughts and ideas (as you probably noticed) the main thing for me is unconditional positive regard, acceptance, respectful understanding for what I and others are experiencing, because we’re actually not so different and thus I respect myself by respecting you. I hope you notice this through my words!
This is certainly not restricted to people who use NVC, it’s old wisdom which gets recycled once in a while and put into the context we live in! And my first experience of really being accepted in who I am is connected to this and to Marshall Rosenberg himself. Therefore I’m endlessly grateful for his efforts and his contribution to this world.
If you understand what I say in this paragraph, you don’t really need to understand anything else.

@Valeri
I’m grateful for your encouragement in sharing what I know and for the background you provided. It really helps to understand the distrust and caution.

You mentioned this in reference to what happened after NVC was introduced to the New Zealand Collective:
“And by that i mean explicitly, sarcastic, rejecting, attacking, and aggressive communication, often in response to simple requests for information.”
I remember quite well that when I was at a workshop in NVC and people saw the value of what Marshall Rosenberg is teaching, they would all start to say “That was not proper NVC!” in an intonation which sounds like “You don’t speak the right way!”. This is really tricky. And nobody who is not trained in receiving this message empathically as e.g. a “Please, I feel happy and excited, because my need for understanding and learning is met. Would you be willing to share my excitement?” would probably feel discouraged to say anything, because he would hear it as a put-down. So, as Marshall Rosenberg says himself, the greatest problem in learning what he wants to offer is that suddenly all people think, NVC is the “right” way of talking. And that is oppositional to what he wants to say, because he wants to get rid of this way of thinking alltogether.
So saying “This is not NVC!” is a diagnosis and diagnoses are not part of NVC-consciousness, because the feelings and needs that are behind the diagnoses are much more precious and much easier to hear, they are the connection between people in different positions! So it helps as a listener to be aware of that, because then you’re not caught up in either agreeing or disagreeing but you start guessing, what is this person feeling and needing at the moment? And rightaway the game of “Who’s right?” turns into the game of “What’s alive in you and me?” and “What could make life more wonderful now?”

So in the context you mentioned, I guess that you weren’t able to hear what feelings and needs were alive in these people and what their present request was. You only heard the diagnoses and diagnoses or analysis of the wrongness of the other person is exactly the kind of thinking that creates the trouble in the first place. The intention behind NVC is to get us to a place in which we’re conscious that every diagnosis or criticism is a tragic expression of an unmet need. It’s tragic, because the way the person says it makes much more unlikely that it will be heard. Once I discover what someone ACTUALLY wanted to say, I’m always a bit sad that the wall of words, that was there before, prevented me from seeing this human vulnerability and beauty.

Another point of possible “manipulation” is feelings and responsibility. No one is responsible for my feelings but myself! The behavior by others that I observe is not the cause of my emotions, but the stimulus. The cause lies in my needs that are met or not met. So a sentence like “I feel sad, because you…” would not be in harmony with the NVC-model. (Note that I say “not in harmony” – I don’t mean I find it wrong to talk that way, only that I see possible consequences that you might not want.) This is so, because whether I feel sad or happy in front of a situation is based on the context, the story in which I interpret it. And nobody has access to that but myself. So it’s my response-ability to react to that, nobody else’s.

In the culture in which manipulation is used to get other people to do what we want, people attribute the cause of their feelings to other people’s actions. Like in “It hurts me, when you don’t clean up your room.”, “You make me mad!”, “I feel so furious, because you don’t listen!”
I strongly suggest both to never believe that and never use this kind of attribution style! You can’t make anybody feel anything! You just don’t have that power! It’s the other person who connects what you say or do to a need and by that a feeling comes up. If for example somebody calls you an asshole and you see no connection between what he said and what you did, you might shrug you shoulders and go away. But maybe you see a connection and you get angry, because you would like to have some respect for the reasons you had for doing what you did. Or maybe that is not the problem at all, you’ve got the respect already from yourself and you understand what the person might be feeling and needing. And so you feel compassion. So how you feel depends on your context, not on what the other person says.

When feelings are used as a manipulation, you train people to think that they can make other people suffer, which is called guilt-induction. And then they try to avoid making them suffer by doing what you want. This is a perfect prescription for clinical depression. The person is so afraid of taking away space from others that he/she doesn’t dare to be in contact with his/her own needs. The need that they are serving by this, or trying to serve, is self-respect, self-love. For that, they need to see, that they can be a contribution to this world just by being who they are. If they believe their actions decide absolutely about the well-being of others, they don’t see how they could serve themselves without hurting anybody else. And that’s exactly what they are trained to think.
So to the degree that you are trained that way (and in a way everybody is more or less, I think), you get triggered when anybody uses this kind of language again. You believe it is possible to hurt anybody’s feelings, but you see it as a manipulation and you get angry or hopeless.
Is this what’s going on here for you, Valeri?

By the way, saying that all diagnoses are wrong, or using them is wrong, is again a diagnosis. This is kind of self-ironic. But once you see how it goes without it, I’m sure you see the advantage in avoiding this and talking about what’s really alive in you.

“Doesn’t NVC require that ‘the other’ actually WANTS to help meet your needs? If not, is it useful at all in these situations?”
I see several options. Of course one restriction is that there must be a kind of communication. If that is not there, you might use force in the protective sense by writing petitions, striking or something else, but with the goal of establishing communication! Nothing else!
Once communciation is established empathic listening is problably the most important skill. Listening empathically to “I don’t WANT to help meet your needs” would translate this message into “I have an important need that I want to protect and I don’t see how I could do that while helping to meet your needs.” You see? In NVC there is no “No!” as meaning “end of conversation.” It’s actually the beginning. Because then you would guess and try to find out, what’s behind that “No!”.
This can be challenging. Given all my own training, that “No!” means end of conversation, disconnection and seperation, I have a hard time with this myself. And when it’s too difficult to stay in listening-mode, I provide myself with some empathy for the fear I have and that I have a need for understanding of how important this is to me! How important it is for me, that my needs get heard and that they matter! This can take some time, and maybe I need a break. It’s also good to get that empathy beforehand. But when I reconnect to that, I might get my courage back and then I’m able to listen and guess empathically what’s going on for the other side. Once that has happened I’m optimistic that it’s not so difficult to see ways that work for everybody.
And in the end, even if you don’t see a way to do that, you might still find ways to meet your needs in a different way that doesn’t involve the other person. Like I said, the needs themselves have no reference to a specific person taking a specific action. They are free! And so are you!

Concerning Darwin: I read a passage quoted from “The Origin of Species” in the german book “Prinzip Menschlichkeit” by Joachim Bauer. This passage sounded painfully similar to what the Nazis thought about human reproduction and the competition for better genes (and the reception of Darwins ideas was best in Germany). I don’t want to make a red hering out of this by mentioning Nazis, so I just mean to say that I was surprised by how much of the “struggle”-idea was really already present in Darwins work.

Concerning Disorders: I agree, there are many different kinds of phenomena placed under this heading. And I see the biological or neurological description of these phenomena as an important contribution to the understanding of them. At the same time, the neurological description is to me just another level of representaion. There is to me no biological or cognitive origin of the phenomenon – these are just the interior and exterior perspectives on the same happening. And so my question is, where it is easier to contribute to the well-being of the person. And since I find the issue of balancing the chemicals in the body pretty delicate and complicated (like you already implied – and besides adjustments in nutrition maybe), I stick to the cognitive and emotional realm as being a better access to these problems. Also because chemicals usually induce states of consciousness, but they don’t help to develop to other stages in the development of consciousness. Cognitive work, meditation and empathic resonance can help with that, as I see it.

@matrixpoint
Understanding one’s own needs is important in my eyes. And I see that this needs some experience in honest self-observation. Personally I find the framework of NVC not sufficient to understand all the dynamics going on there. At least I use also other approaches to do that, like the Work of Byron Katie, NLP, Carl Rogers’ writings or various concepts from psychology. Also I’m a fan of Buddhism and meditation and I like what various philosophers have to say on these topics. Alan Watts and Ken Wilber are two names that I don’t want to leave unmentioned.
Lately I read a german book with the title “Love yourself and it doesn’t matter who you marry”. It was very helpful in understanding the needs and strategies within an intimate relationship. And for me it revealed, that I had made my need for unconditional acceptance dependent on the availability of my (now) ex-girlfriend. This is a problem, because it never works as being unconditional, while there is the condition that she must be available. It sounds kind of obvious, but it’s not easy to trust when there are so many other stories in the form of “yeah, but…” going on. I used NVC too, but this being added it was quicker.

If you are conscious of your needs, it’s easy to see them in others, because they are not different. You recognize the signals and you react to it more easily. And being conscious of your own needs is a voyage so enriching that I’d like to invite everybody to go for that endeavor.

Concerning false needs: False needs are actually strategies understood to be needs. Approval from others meets the need for acceptance. A better strategy for acceptance is to have an attitude about oneself (like the one as being connected already), that helps to accept oneself without approval from others. One becomes freer and more compassionate that way, because one’s acceptance isn’t in danger all the time.
Other false needs are the need for power, money or status. These are all strategies connected to acceptance, self-importance. And to me it’s very important not to mix them up as being real needs. Like I said, needs are never in conflict with each other, strategies can be.

“I learned that simply confronting them with the inconsistency between statements made at different times drives them deeper into denial and avoidance.”
What is it you want, when you confront them? What is the need you’re trying to serve by that? My guess is that you want understanding and you’re trying to get that by proving that you’re right. As long as that is the case the other side will probably try to defend itself and you never go anywhere. They are protecting their self-respect. How inclined are you to show understanding and to open up for the possibility that the other person has something valuable to say, if you sense the other person is judging you to have a disorder? And believe me, that comes across one way or the other.
Now, what are you to do? I suggest you do this: Start with the assumption that what the other person does is really the most wonderful thing he/she could be doing. I mean that in the sense, that out of the options the person sees, this is the best alternative to meet the needs the person has. Once you recognize that, you might feel less inclined to prove the wrongness of the other person, but you might see, that this is not to say that your needs don’t matter. And from there, new possibilities open up. What do you think?

@Pickwick
You’re pretty sceptical about anything that sounds spiritual, aren’t you? What is it in particular that you find problematic? By saying that “This is a cult” are you protecting yourself from doing or believing anything that you can’t find in yourself?
Marshall Rosenberg does use this expression “divine energy”. Note that this has nothing to do with a belief. It’s just a word for an experience. And to me this experience is the same as when I receive empathy for what I feel and need, for who I am. The anxiety of seperation ceases to be and I notice there is a connection. And out of this I get a lot of power and confidence.

NVC is not working when you try to use it for control. You see this already in your reaction. The power with which NVC works is trust that everybody’s needs matter, that we’re connected, that I can’t win on anybody’s expense. You lose power everytime this trust is hurt. And I mean power WITH people, not power OVER people. Any strategy used to control and use power over people is not part of the NVC-model. What we want to work with is the power of people, which they give willingly, because they see, that what we’re doing is serving life and therefore also their needs. Anything else is bound to bring problems and is not going to last for a long time without a lot of suffering.

I hope this clarifies more than it confuses.

“CS is just a service, so why should people have a voice.”

Then there is the statement attributed to Matthew:

“With NVC as part of our toolkit we can improve organizational communication and make our community a closer-knit family where everyone’s core needs can be met.””

You didn’t source either of these two lines, but the last statement was in the last newsletter that was written by Mandie, not Matthew. So that source doesn’t match up with what you “attribute”. I have no clue where you “sourced” the first one, but why shouldn’t we also think that you’re falsely “attributing” it to Casey? After the Matthew one I immediately can’t trust what you say.

Do you guys see why it’s difficult to believe anything that’s said here as wholly factual? It’s clear that very, very few of you are anything near unbiased in your “evaluations”. Even the wiki has the tagline “From OpenCouchSurfing.org, do not believe everything you read here as “the facts”!” Are you hoping that the readers here take you as anything more than a small handful disgruntled ex-volunteers (who appear to have been complaining about things far longer than they ever tried to help out with them) who didn’t get their way and now have to shit all over anything and everything that CouchSurfing does from here on out?