Interested in improving your relationships? Try Nonviolent Communication - <AUTHOR> https://www.clearerthinking.org/single-post/2019/03/06/Want-to-improve-your-relationships-Try-Nonviolent-Communication-1 <comment><USER3> I learned this at a company retreat at some point. We all kind of rolled our eyes and went along with the exercise. I now use it to great effect almost daily in both personal and professional relationships.

It takes a little care and thought to apply it well. I've found when done effectively, it can unlock difficult conversations and turn even the most hostile interactions into productive conversations. You are demonstrating, through a careful choice of words, a willingness to understand the other person.

Easily the most powerful communication tool I have learned while hungover with my coworkers.

<comment><USER4> > We all kind of rolled our eyes and went along with the exercise. I now use > it to great effect almost daily in both personal and professional > relationships.

Reactions like that tell me once again that a lot of people really underestimate simple stuff like this. I hope that in the future simple and useful psychology topics will find their way into our schools so that the acceptance and understanding for the usefulness will increase (hopefully).

<comment><USER5> When you actually read the book, you find it has a very awkward way of speaking which can induce eyerolls.

<comment><USER6> It drove me up the wall and I didn't finish it.

All this "if you answered c, e and f, we are not of the same opinion" feels passive-aggressive to me.

The whole thing feels manipulative to me. It makes me think that people try an insincere way of talking to me, in order to manipulate my feelings and reaction.

I've had huge discussions with friends who try to live the book, and neither of us could make the other see their point.

One of their examples was "My boyfriend likes to go DJing, but sometimes I'd love for him to stay home and cuddle with me. So I clearly tell him that him leaving makes me feel alone and that I would like some warmth. But I don't tell him what to do, to stay at home, for example. I only talk about my own perception and feelings."

– "Yes, that's great, but in communication there is the level of pragmatics above pure logical semantics. And you telling your boyfriend that him leaving makes you feel very alone is just another way of saying 'please don't go'".

<comment><USER7> > And you telling your boyfriend that him leaving makes you feel very alone is > just another way of saying 'please don't go'".

It's a more informative way of saying it. You include information about what the reasoning behind your request is, and how important it is to you. Then he can consider whether going out is more important to him than your request is to you, or if there is a way to compromise on your conflicting desires. (Consider the difference between 'you leaving means I will be stuck at home without any food or transport' and 'you leaving will make me feel lonely').

But, for some people who aren't used to the idea of negotiating behavior and emotions explicitly like this, then explicit references to emotion seem like some kind of guilt trip or 'trump card' \- it's some kind of understanding that emotions are meant to be kept private unless they are overwhelming, so mentioning them is implicitly saying that this is a Very Big Deal.

<comment><USER8> You're mentioning a request, but such a request is notably absent in op's example: "But I don't tell him what to do, to stay at home, for example. I only talk about my own perception and feelings."

It reads to me both like an expectation at reading minds and a mild form of emotional blackmail.

This might be non-violent, but it's also lacking clarity. In the end it's not clear if extra cuddling before leaving and after coming back would please the woman in the example. Or if calling her every day would. Or if she could just visit her sister to avoid her feeling of loneliness.

I did not notice an explicit negotiation or any negotiation at all in that example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're in software development, especially on a development team, these ideas about nonviolent communication (NVC) may be able to help you and your team.

The approach is: observe facts -> note feelings -> uncover desires -> make requests.

For software development, I recommend a NVC approach called "Crucial Conversations". I summarize it on my repo.

[https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/crucial_conversations](https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/crucial_conversations)

<comment><USER10> Please no. That reads like a cheat sheet for sociopaths.

Conversations between good actors don't need to be engineered. These techniques are probably great if you're a police officer, lawyer, executive, or salesperson, but let's not turn our workplaces into that internally.

I'm also in software development, and especially in this field, just talk directly to people. If you find that you can't connect with your team and you need various pre-planned tactics to work with others, you're probably doing something else wrong.

We're social creatures. Don't engineer away the last of our humanity from our workplaces in pursuit of optimal request fulfillment.

<comment><USER11> Disagree 100%. "just talk directly to people" reads to me like an ill-informed tactic that allows all our worst habits to run amok. Studying these techniques and making them habitual is the key to a kinder, more thoughtful, and even more effective and productive teamwork experience.

I had a coworker who addressed my team about some difficulty they were having collaborating with us. They spoke directly, telling us we needed to get our act together and stop making half-baked requests. They were visibly angry and contemptuous. We all became much more fearful about talking to that person.

The next couple of days I heard they went on an apology tour. But I got skipped because I was on vacation. My rational self was fine with that, knowing stuff happens. But my emotional self responded with a knee jerk fear response when I walked into a room with that person. It's an extra bit of stress I had to manage.

If this person practiced NVC I would not have had that experience.

<comment><USER10> What's wrong with saying "hey dude, no need to get angry, let's figure out how to get you better requirements. how about we try xyz and you come back to us in 2 weeks and tell us if we're doing better"?

If he apologized to everyone but you, maybe say "I heard you apologized to some people about last week's tension, I just wanted to let you know that we're all on the same team and there's no hard feelings, your concerns are valid and we'll work on them together".

Your reaction shouldn't be fear and extra stress. It should be about how you can help your fellow workers through the day and help everyone meet their goals. The whole idea that you'd have _fear_ as a response to a co-worker is crazy to me.

If you can't have that type of conversation with your co-workers and get good results, it's probably not because you employed the wrong conversation tactic. It's probably actually because they don't trust you, which would make sense if you've been forcing them through a conversation algorithm instead of treating them like humans.

<comment><USER12> A direct approach used carelessly can cause the other side to feel a lack of psychological safety, which is an important characteristic to effective teams. For example, in your comment, you effectively invalidated the previous commenter's feelings and implied they were crazy for feeling that way. If your goal was to create an environment for collaboration and a meaningful dialogue, you probably failed to do so, since you come across as someone who won't bother empathizing. Were you in the same team as this individual, they would also likely be hesitant to collaborate with you, which ultimately impacts your and your team's ability to achieve desired outcomes and goals.

So, theoretically, you read that previous paragraph and didn't feel anything negative (annoyance, anger, or whatever). And if you're able to do that, I commend you-- but you need to realize that not everyone can do that. Feelings exist in other people, regardless whether you think they're valid. And if you're truly interested in solving problems effectively with other people, then you're going to have an easier time adjusting your communication style rather than telling someone to feel emotions in a way they may have no control over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have my doubts about the honesty of these interpretations:

> I feel angry because you forgot about our coffee date -> I want people to > value the feelings of their friends

Are you not angry because you want the person to value YOU and your time? What are these generic "people" and "the feeling of their friends" to you?

> You make me feel guilty when you text me all the time -> I want there to be > less pressure on my to respond to your texts

What's the point of this pressure? If you feel guilty for not texting back, isn't there a chance that the other person wants to receive more than they are giving?

> You make me upset when you call other children names -> I want my child to > be kind to others

Might the desire sometimes be: As a parent, I don't want to get embarrassed for (as I perceive it) not raising a kind child?

\--

Being a bit cynical, because the underlying motives might be more useful to solve than the more generic desires.

<comment><USER14> These feel ill formed NVC. If you lead with feeling the entire exchange becomes confrontational. First state unambiguous facts.

<comment><USER15> Yeah for sure. One fundamental rule of NVC is to never state a feeling as being caused by anyone. Instead you state that something happened and what you felt when that happened. So the template is "this and this happened and I felt this and this emotion". Not "you did this and this and you made me feel this and this". This way you take responsibility for your own emotions, and don't make anyone else defensive or confrontational by accusing them of making you feel something.

<comment><USER14> "When you didn't show up for our coffee date, I felt hurt. I need my time to be respected. Would you please show up on time or send me text letting me know you can't come?"

More verbose for sure but clearer and more likely to de-escalate.

<comment><USER16> If someone spoke like that to me it would feel very forced and unnatural, I would assume it is fake

<comment><USER10> That tone tells me that the conversation is now in lawyer-mode. If I'm using it, it's because I'm no longer willing or able to communicate normally. If I cared about you, you'd see me angry. If I don't care about you, you'll see me having this style of conversation, which IMO is far more aggressive and dangerous than actual anger.

If I'm on the receiving side of that kind of tone, it's time to either re- engage with normal conversation and try to salvage the relationship, or now I'm also mirroring that tone and we can never have an honest conversation again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The older I grow, the more I realize that, in its barest essence, we are all 'good' human beings. But, thanks to self-help advice of the kind that aspires to teach you to be 'powerful', 'assertive', 'effective', 'take no for an answer', we are fed ideas that we need to behave/talk differently to be successful.

But, it is not what we should be striving for. It is meaningful connections. By treating others the way you would want to be treated yourself. That is all. Everything else follows this, including success at work. In most cases, anecdotally, this has worked for me except when I encounter people, so bought into this corporate powerplay myths that they have instead become people who have changed their basic identity to behave in a certain manner.

<comment><USER18> I would say, other than a tiny minority of sociopaths, we're all good human beings _to people we perceive as also being humans._

There are plenty of people who are perfectly nice and decent who would think nothing of ripping off a giant corporation for a few bucks because it's a giant corporation and they'll never notice.

<comment><USER19> You're opening a massive philosophical can of worms with that one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think non-violent communication is great when you actually _have_ to ask someone to change something about the way they operate in the world.

If you want to improve your relationships though, make rule zero "minimize the extent to which you require other people in the world to change."

<comment><USER21> >If you want to improve your relationships though, make rule zero "minimize the extent to which you require other people in the world to change."

I actually think this is profoundly awful advice, that gets progressively worse the more intimate the relationship, as a fundamental function of human relationships is accountability.

<comment><USER22> I'd rather not have an intense sit-down over socks. I am not a boor for thinking conversational tricks to manipulate me into tidying up are the opposite of functional intimacy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > There is no hard data we know of that proves whether NVC actually improves > relationships and resolves conflict

Just like in "Crucial Conversations" this just tries to make empathy formulaic. Formulaic communication techniques come across as dishonest.

A better advice is to be hyper aware of what the other party is trying to convey, whether they are using "violent" or nonviolent way of conveying it, and respond according to whatever each unique situation calls for.

<comment><USER24> The formulas are to help us internalize the behavior. Having a crucial conversation is behavior change. We need to change ourselves. The formula helps us see the paths to change. Overtime, as you apply the formula, the underlying behavior sticks, and you forget the formula. So yes, while formulaic empathy feels dishonest, it will eventually lead to you being genuinely more empathetic.

<comment><USER25> Sometimes it is just cargo-culting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> >Felix, you always leave your dirty socks on the floor! It's disgusting! Clean this up before you do anything else.

>Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table, I feel irritated because I want more order in the rooms that we share in common - would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?

These two sentences convey the same information. The speaker finds the sock to be out of order, which is a disgust reaction in some, irritation in others. It also communicates that this event has happened more than once, though it is only implied in the second text. The only explicit difference is the demand to do it immediately.

I can understand why people perceive it to be manipulative, it implies a feelings cost to the speaker if the socks are not picked up that is described to be Felix's responsibility. The first speaker makes no comment about Felix's responsibility over his feelings, but instead simply states that the fact that socks are out makes him feel disgusted with no further feelings based implications.

The first speaker makes a clear and overbearing command (assuming this is some social interaction and not a job) to drop everything that Felix is doing and clean up. That is easy to identify and rebel against, it implies no feelings cost, no cost to the speaker, just a disagreement over actionable orders. The second speaker implies a feelings cost that she is has handed responsibility over to Felix. That can feel manipulative if you're not used to negotiating over the impact actions have on feelings. Negotiating over feelings ends up being the same as negotiating over spoken orders. A competent person must be able to deal with both speakers.

Describing words as violence fundamentally undermines the "old" (aka what I grew up with) liberal western order that was do whatever you want as long as it brings no harm. If you escalate "direct orders" to the level of "harm" you're requiring authority to govern speech to protect from harm rather than a liberal 'stick-and-stones' attitude we used to enjoy. An endless disappointment, to say the least.

<comment><USER27> >The only explicit difference is the demand to do it immediately.

No. The first speaker exaggerates the issue to make a point ("you always"), makes a roundabout reference to societal norms ("it's disgusting") instead of describing what actually annoys them (socks lying on the floor right now) and why (I don't want to see them because I personally find them disgusting, not because Felix failed to meet some outside standard).

>A competent person must be able to deal with both speakers.

Sure, but you can't change how others deal with your words. You can only choose how you yourself communicate.

>Describing words as violence fundamentally undermines the "old" (aka what I grew up with) liberal western order that was do whatever you want as long as it brings no harm.

I think you describe two problems here:

* The name is indeed unfortunate. * It is percieved as an objective standard against which to judge all communication, rather than a guide for one's own actions.

As I see it, it's generally pointless to expect others to behave in a certain "right" way that you can reasonably suspect they might not, and then get annoyed when they indeed don't. Speaking in a pointlessly confrontational manner (such as making arguments from omniscience, like "you always", or "you are a ___ person" etc) is more likely to provoke an aggressive reaction than sticking to the facts (observations about your own feelings are also facts). Why not choose the latter?

<comment><USER26> >No. The first speaker exaggerates the issue to make a point ("you always"), makes a roundabout reference to societal norms ("it's disgusting") instead of describing what actually annoys them (socks lying on the floor right now) and why (I don't want to see them because I personally find them disgusting, not because Felix failed to meet some outside standard).

The only reason the second speaker would say "When I see xyz on the floor" is because she has seen it before and that feeling happens every time. It's not as explicit as "you always", but it still implies a recurring and reliable event. Disgust is a societal trend at the moment that has started at 2015-2016 and will end in 2028. There is a deeper trend in the culture that will pass. But more importantly than that some people are genuinely more likely to have higher disgust sensitivity. It's a measurable trait. I am curious that the social trend comes to you as a priority in "it's disgusting", that's not a perspective I would see.

>making arguments from omniscience, like "you always", or "you are a ___ person" etc) is more likely to provoke an aggressive reaction

I agree "you always" is bad. You are burying the point by saying observations about feelings are facts. It could very well be true from the first speaker's observations Felix always does leave his socks out. I don't think 'always' and 'never' are useful categories because it gives the listener no place to go. They are totalitarian and nihilistic categories.

> it's generally pointless to expect others to behave in a certain "right" way > that you can reasonably suspect they might not, and then get annoyed when > they indeed don't.

I mean that's all well in good in a normal social atmosphere, but you certainly demand people to behave well when you are in a rough neighbourhood and get upset when they do not. You lock your door every night and get pissed off when thugs and criminals to break in, despite the fact it's reasonable to expect that was going to happen in a rough neighborhood.

>* It is percieved as an objective standard against which to judge all communication, rather than a guide for one's own actions.

I think the name is riffing off a political idea (unfortunately) that sought to make small infractions in social exchange and language a political tool for change. For better or worse one could draw the parallel between that political idea and this book.

<comment><USER27> >The only reason the second speaker would say "When I see xyz on the floor" is because she has seen it before and that feeling happens every time. It's not as explicit as "you always", but it still implies a recurring and reliable event.

Hmm yeah, I agree that including that information (but more precisely than "you always") is useful here.

>I am curious that the social trend comes to you as a priority in "it's disgusting", that's not a perspective I would see.

Okay, disgusting socks may not be the best example, because it's pretty clear cut that leaving them in the open is not an acceptable roommate behavior. Can't think of something better right now. Maybe something like stereotypical "leaving the toilet seat up" or "hanging the toilet paper towards the wall or not"? thing is, that framing the discussion in terms of what is acceptable or not is a roundabout and, frankly, manipulative, by elevating personal view to an objective fact.

>You are burying the point by saying observations about feelings are facts.

At the end of the day, feelings are physiological reactions that have already happened. One can discuss whether one side should change, or the other should suck it up next time.

>It could very well be true from the first speaker's observations Felix always does leave his socks out.

That's not a feeling, that's an extrapolation from a mental model, that can't possibly hold in the real world. This leaves Felix no real recourse outside of some pointless back-and-forth.

>I mean that's all well in good in a normal social atmosphere

I think it's the entire point of NVC. No one in their sane mind suggests talking like that to a mugger or thief (though any other kind of talking would be equally ineffective).

>For better or worse one could draw the parallel between that political idea and this book.

Well I didn't notice that parallel before. I don't think the whole idea should be thrown under the bus because of it in any case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I discovered NVC decades ago and have been using it ever since.

Many people complain that NVC sounds unnatural. This is because it is like learning a new language. It sounds unnatural when any native speaker teaches someone their language, because they speak slowly, in simple phrases, and repeat everything at least twice. That is exactly what Marshal did when teaching NVC.

Once you are fluent, it sounds very different and works beautifully. I've occasionally offer help to couples on the verge of breaking up, reworking what they are saying into NVC, and the effects are profound.

Couples on opposite sides of the room, who can't look at each other, end up tightly holding each other, crying together. They feel understood for the first time and understand the pain in each other that motivates each other's hurtful feeling actions.

Then I start teaching them to do it themselves. When they do, the relationship improves. When they don't, they keep needing to come back again and again, and the relationship slowly dies.

I still tend to listen to the full lecture on YouTube about once a year or two as a refresher. As far as I'm concerned, this is one of the most important life skills anyone can learn, and NVC should be taught in all schools.

<comment><USER29> At a Marshall Rosenberg event I attended, he was asked about the unnatural speaking style. His reponse was that it was like "training wheels" for learning the process and, like you say, it doesn't sound like that once you learn to practice NVC natually.

And that may be, but my experience with various NVC teachers and practitioners is that they don't know the training wheel analogy and they do speak in an unnatural way for the most part.

Got a link for that YouTube lecture? (There are many.)

<comment><USER28> I think this is it: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlRkRHAyI2xHN6UUD53X7...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlRkRHAyI2xHN6UUD53X76NQWVV4d0opf)

I think it's really hard to get natural with it. Just like any new language, it takes years of immersion to speak like a native, and there's nowhere in our society to get that kind of immersion in NLP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Huh, my fiancée and I developed a system years ago that approximates this approach by replacing statements with what we call "food codes".

For example: "Applesauce" is equivalent to "I can't hear you", or "speak up" or "stop mumbling".

"Applesauce Factory" means "I can't hear you because you are too far away or something noisy is making it hard to hear you" - very convenient verbal shorthand for when it's too noisy to say all of that at once.

"Soufflé" - "I need to introvert for a while" (similar to how a soufflé needs delicacy and time to settle)

"Crockpot" - "I need to focus on work and I cannot be interrupted for anything less than an emergency" (similar to how a crockpot won't work if you keep opening the lid over and over)

We settled on using foods because they are inherently neutral (we don't pick foods we dislike to code for obvious reasons), and sometimes correspond to their meaning (like crockpot).

Another way to look at it is that we define functions with food codes that handle the messy, "violent" (to use TFA's language) communication so that we understand what we are trying to convey, but at execution time we only call the function itself, not the code inside, so the language that could otherwise inadvertently hurt feelings is unspoken, even though it is still clearly expressed, but in a manner that doesn't invoke negative reactions.

The biggest advantage of this system is that we can say things directly without accidentally hurting feelings or dancing around the topic to avoid accidentally hurting feelings. Feel free to utilize this in your own relationships. I'd never heard of anything like this before starting it and it has worked wonders for us.

<comment><USER30> Can you give some examples of how you use this? Do you use the words by themselves? If your partner is being overbearing and annoying do you just say "soufflé" and they stop talking?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash So if the washer/dryer is on (which is in the kitchen) and one of us is in the kitchen and the other is not, and someone starts talking, nobody can hear so its a reflexive "applesauce factory", which means at least one person has to move closer to the other so they can hear clearly.

Soufflé is typically said like "I've had a rough day and I'm peopled-out. I need to soufflé".

"Sure! I'll let our friends know that it's just me coming to hang out tonight. Let me know if you want me to pick up something for you on the way back."

Sometimes they're more immediate. "Oatmeal" means "stop biting your nails, the sound really bothers me." I'll just say that when she is doing that and she stops. Sometimes it's actually quite funny because it starts involuntarily and as soon as I say it she realizes what she's doing and slams her hand back down to the steering wheel (it seems to happen a lot when driving, although not as often anymore in general).

Another, like oatmeal, that was so useful it was effectively discontinued, is "salsa." For whatever reason, there was a period of time that I interspaced the word "like" a lot as I spoke, so she would say "salsa" when I did it and I became conscious of it and stopped. Eventually I stopped saying it altogether.

<comment><USER30> This sounds like an awesome method of communication! Thanks for explaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've read "Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life" and found it helpful in personal & work communication.

I _hate_ the name, though. I don't want to suggest to someone that they read about non-violent communication because that suggests they're being violent when they're not. I'd prefer almost any other name. Some better names: "observational communication", "non-judgmental communication", "empathetic communication", "structured communication". I could keep going...

<comment><USER32> If only she had consulted some marketing people before publishing the book! It might've been accepted by a larger audience.

<comment><USER33> She?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg)

[https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-B- Rosenberg/e/B000APJPFG/](https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-B- Rosenberg/e/B000APJPFG/)

<comment><USER32> ah i thought i read marsha lol

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Nonviolent communication comes up on HN every few months and it's always the same praises and criticisms. I've been on the receiving end of NVC quite a few times in my career, and every single time it comes off as patronizing bullshit. I'd rather people yell at me than couch everything in, "I feel X" or "Would you be willing to Y". When important things must be done well, do you think this sort of language is used? Of course not. In those situations, everyone is assumed to be an adult who is strong enough to take direct criticism.

Brilliant marketing move though, calling it "nonviolent communication", implying that any other form of communication is violent. The only better example of this tactic I've seen is "pro-life" (implying that those who don't want to ban abortion are anti-life).

If you use this conversation style, you will get a bimodal response. Conversations with some people will be a little smoother, but conversations with others will be much worse. To those people, you will come off as assuming that they are weak and can't take criticism. Or worse, you'll come off as a mealy-mouthed phoney.

I cannot emphasize enough just how condescending I find this style of speaking. I think the only way a conversationalist could annoy me more would be to clap between every word.

<comment><USER35> As a math student considering a teaching career, I recently took a course on math education taught by a retired high school math teacher. One of the things she placed a heavy emphasis on was our questioning techniques and classroom management strategies.

Every single one of the non-violent communication strategies you listed from the article were specifically singled out as things we should never say when asking questions to students. It was actually difficult to get out of the habit, since most of us in the class were used to couching our phrases that way.

By the end of the term, we had all gotten much better at speaking in a direct and pointed fashion, and our teaching abilities showed considerable improvement.

<comment><USER36> NVC shouldn't be practiced in uneven relationships (teacher - student, parent - child, employer - employee, customer - server) for the exact reason mentioned by GP. It's simultaneously condescending and confusing to the party with less power, inviting them to test what leverage they can gain - <USER2> none.

<comment><USER37> The article acknowledges this point, albeit somewhat indirectly:

>We think it's important to note that NVC should only be used in situations where people have each other's best interests at heart

<comment><USER38> That caveat makes it vey hard to find situations where NVC is valid, as it relies on the motivation of both parties. It's not enough for the speaker to have the listener's best interest at heart (as is presumably the case with a teacher speaking to a student); the attitude must be reciprocated as well.

This is the sort of escape clause that enables No True Scotsman-like defenses of the methodology: "You did everything by the book and didn't get your desired result. It must be because he doesn't actually care about you."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This seems like a guide to passive aggressively manipulating others for your own gain. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER40> The number one mistake in NVC is leaving an implied threat of "and if you don't, I'll lose control and stop asking nicely" around in the social atmosphere. There's a lot of groundwork you need to lay in order to have the conversation actually be about observations, needs, and emotions. If you don't have it, NVC can often be a tool of aggression.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The audio version of the book is read by Rosenberg himself. He managed to avoid the annoying persistent mildly-psychotic caffeinated bravado that's ubiquitous in 'self-help' audiobooks. It's rather a pleasure to listen to, just for his mild tone—even if he doesn't quite steer clear of other tropes.

Can't remember any other book in the genre that sounded sincere instead of hopped-up, aside of David Lynch's reading of his "Big Fish"—but he's a different kind of writer anyway. Though, "Why We Sleep" and Guy Meadows' "The Sleep Book" might count, probably because they're more of informing instead of peddling.

</comment><comment><USER42> > Felix, you always leave your dirty socks on the floor! It's disgusting! > Clean this up before you do anything else.

Obviously Felix is going to respond bad to the first example because it's a demand. Someone forcing you to do something is never welcomed.

> 1\. Observe Facts] Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the > coffee table, [2. Note Feelings] I feel irritated because [3. Uncover > Desires] I want more order in the rooms that we share in common - [4. Make > Requests] would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?

Assuming this is told with a calm voice, it won't transmit the same urgency as the first one. You are expressing that you are irritated with your words but your voice is not saying the same so Felix could assume is not as terrible as your words tell. In my opinion, the real difference is just in the request; you are requesting something not demanding it and it makes it less aggressive.

<comment><USER43> This may just be something that I'm sensitive to, but the "you always" part of the first statement immediately puts me in a hostile posture. I start thinking of counterarguments to the fact that was asserted ("I picked up my socks just yesterday!"), and the generality of "always" makes it difficult to come to a tangible resolution—if the collection of past transgressions is the real problem, there isn't a way to fix them.

I think a lot of the power of the second statement comes from the fact that it primarily addresses _this_ instance of the problem, which takes away any incentive to argue with the fact asserted (the socks plainly are on the floor) and makes the path to a resolution much more straightforward: I'm sorry for leaving these socks on the floor; I'll pick them up, and yes, I'd be happy to put them in the machine in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Rosenberg's book resonated with me. I was raised in a family that has about zero capacity for understanding or communicating their own needs, but quick to point out what others need or should do. I used to think I had high empathy, but post-therapy I realized that I was really letting other people project their feelings into me, and had an underdeveloped sense of self. And it was hard for me to ask things of others, assuming I would be burdening them. It's a product of how I was raised, how my parents were raised, going back probably many generations. Hopefully it ends with my generation.

NVC really is amazing. It immediately cuts down tension when flight or fight responses are triggered.

</comment><comment><USER45> I reject the premise that any communication can be "violent". If someone's conversation manual begins with the expansion of violence to cover speech, the philosophy behind this manual is likely so alien to me that I won't get anything out of it. I favor direct and specific communication that doesn't obfuscate or insult anyone's intelligence.

<comment><USER46> Thank you. This kind of thing contributes to the continuing embrittlement of the workplace and of society itself. And we know what happens to brittle things when they encounter a bit of stress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I have been using the playbook here for the past half-year or so. It's made a big difference not in how I communicate, but in how I understand communication problems. There isn't much to the book. You don't need to read the whole thing, you can basically find summaries online and use those. The book is padded out because people won't pay much for short booklets.

Something that I took from this book is to try and do the communication from the listener's side—extract the four steps from people who are assaulting you with demands.

This meshes surprisingly well with other books on the subject, like _Getting to Yes,_ which is about negotiation.

<comment><USER48> Yep it reminds me a lot of the fundamental message of Spin Selling - the best salespeople are the ones who figure out the real needs of their customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I've been in a workplace where we supposedly followed this. It was often used as a veil for passive aggressive toxicity. There was a lot wrong with that place, and this certainly isn't the cause of it, but I've seen this used as a weapon to do some really shady stuff in the workplace.

</comment><comment><USER50> Being nice to others is not problem if you do not need anything from them. But if you want to force someone to do what he doesn't want to do, that is a problem. And being empathic doesn't always help.

<comment><USER47> If you are empathetic it is easier to force people to do something they don't want. It costs less political capital and you won't suffer as much of a backlash.

<comment><USER51> > _' force people to do something they don't want.'_

This is why it unnerves so many people who aren't acclimatized to corporate artificiality.

<comment><USER47> It's a tool like a hammer. You can use it to do good or bad things. Like any form of communication. At least NVC is better at empowering people to get their needs met, compared to the alternatives.

<comment><USER51> At least you admit NVC is about empowering the NVC user, not something done for the benefit of the NVC receiver.

<comment><USER47> Don't misinterpret my words.

But, OF COURSE nonviolent communication empowers the speaker. It's about articulating the SPEAKER'S observations, feelings, needs, and recommendations and putting them in an order where you can understand the context.

If you don't communicate your feelings to other people, they will find it difficult to empathize with you.

<comment><USER51> The receiver empathizing with the user is not considered by users of NVC as an end in and of itself, but rather a means towards an end. The real objective is getting something from them _other_ than their empathy.

<comment><USER52> Yes, but that's true of any conflict resolution framework.

The goal of using NVC isn't to get your way, it's to achieve a mutual understanding. What you do with that understanding is left to the reader.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I don't know why, but somehow I got to realize that thing, and follow it for years. And here it works so much, Be as much friendly as you can, if anyone give you fight, don't fight it back directly,just give a smile, may be this smile will be your fight back. This really works,when people around you are nonviolent, they start to belief you and like you.

</comment><comment><USER54> People using NVC makes me bristle.

When I think about the people who use NVC on me, I feel negative and distrustful. They are acquaintances, not friends.

Presenting demands as politely couched questions doesn't change the fact that they are still demands.

Where is the effort to make compromise and work together?

</comment><comment><USER55> What if you don't want nonviolent communication? I can think of many examples; an oppressive government, a physically oppressive/abusive relationship or rape, a religously delusional cult, etc.

Maybe the assumption is that you are excluding such situations? Sometimes you have to fight for justice. What is your priority, peace or truth? I understand that point 1. should address this, but the opposite can happen as well: downplaying facts.

Maybe that's not the point of this, but I don't by default think you have to be nice to people with whom you disagree. If you try to understand someone you may become like them.

<comment><USER56> "when you beat me I feel pain...I don't like to feel pain, perhaps you could stop beating me"

"I enjoy inflicting pain...your pain makes me happy...perhaps you could continue feeling the pain I inflict on you"

<comment><USER55> What I mean is if the other person is oppressive, then you shouldn't give them control over you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I only had bad experiences with it.

Many people just use it to deflect criticism.

</comment><comment><USER58> I learned about NVC about 15 years ago. Selves in and listened to Rosenburg's audio course. It becomes natural over time, but be prepared to sound awkward at first.

</comment><comment><USER59> Another approach that leads to similar results: try to apply the Golden Rule to your life...

"do unto others what you would have them done to you"

Then in every situation try to think how you would want to be treated or how you would want to be spoken to and behave like that to the other person. It isn't as hard as one might think and there's not much theory to learn, only one has to meditate on this, what it means exactly applied to all areas of life.

<comment><USER60> " _Golden rule_? But you were trying to kill me?

Well yes, if I ever were to become an evil monster like you, then in my heart of hearts I would actually want you to slay me immediately in order to save the world from a nightmarish reign of terror and destruction!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> "nonviolent communication" \- well, using those communication patterns/frameworks, basically communication weapons, to goad/manipulate your target (can we say mark?) in my view is among the most hostile communication acts, and when i recognize them being used against me i immediately put my defenses up.

</comment><comment><USER62> the requests all sound very passive aggressive to me. eg, " would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?"

<comment><USER63> What would you recommend a person in that situation say instead?

<comment><USER64> _Would you be willing to tell me what you recommend a person say in that situation instead?_

To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around that a person may have _reasons_ beyond simple obstinate refusal to grant the request.

FWIW, in my limited Spanish language experience, requests at least with friends are often far more direct e.g. "dame el agua" (give me the water) vs. "could you give me the water?" in English. Took me a while to get used to, but made me consider the way we phrase requests in English, and the importance how one intonates speech.

<comment><USER52> You're doing the same thing that a lot of people in this thread are: assuming that there is a wrong and a right person in the interaction.

> To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly > ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple > unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around > that a person may have reasons beyond simple obstinate refusal to grant the > request.

Not necessarily. It gives them the opportunity to explain. Compare with "Please stop eating my food." "would you only eat the food that you buy?" as someone else mentioned. The first invites no response. The second requires the other person be somewhat confrontational to provide clarification. There second requires that they escalate to negotiate. If you don't want to invite negotiation, that's fine, but then you weren't earnestly engaging in NVC.

If someone says "would you be willing to only eat food that you bring", it naturally invites a followup "then why aren't you"? There may be varying levels of legitimacy to answer this. Consider a few: "I can't afford to bring my own food" (I realize this is unlikely as coworkers, but it's possible in similar situations), "I'm an asshole and I don't like you", "I always forget to pack a lunch", "I find that the food you bring is delicious and I enjoy it more than my own".

All of these invite may invite different responses. Some may require escalation to HR or whatever, but some may be solvable without escalation. You may be willing to chip in for lunch for a coworker who can't afford it, or complain to the boss about wages, or if a coworker really enjoys the food you bring, a solution may be to bring extra and share sometimes, and perhaps get paid for it.

Or maybe you don't want to do those things, and that's alright too. But the idea is that those options wouldn't be available if you hadn't allowed the clarification.

(Note in a situation that's much more like a negotiation without an obviously correct party, NVC sounds more normal: "We feel that feature X is very important, would you be able to prioritize it and complete it this month?")

<comment><USER65> "Would you only eat the food you buy?" sounds manipulative to me. I much prefer asking "why did you eat my food?" Eating someone else's food is not acceptable. There is a wrong person in this scenario.

<comment><USER52> > sounds manipulative to me

Amusingly, "would you only eat the food that you buy" was a suggestion by another person for a less manipulative suggestion. What most people took issue with wasn't the "only eat what you buy" part, but the "would you be willing to <actual request>?" part, which many people took as forcing the other party to answer "yes".

Again, if you're coming from the preconception that someone (normally the other person) is "wrong", you shouldn't use NVC. Earnest NVC requires that you not assign blame or fault. That's the entire reason that you speak only about your feelings and needs and perceived actions of the other party. Granted, "It upsets me when I get to lunch and don't have anything to eat, would you stop eating my food" is also fine in the NVC framework, as I understand it.

> "why did you eat my food?"

This doesn't begin to solve the problem, you're not yet addressing the conflict. In fact, you haven't necessarily signaled that there even is a conflict that needs to be addressed. And note that you're putting the other person on the defensive by not being open about what your goals are. You're acting from a position of uneven information instead of earnesty.

<comment><USER65> Thinking about it a bit more, I prefer "did you eat my food"? That way you are not accusing someone, after all maybe they didn't.

To me the issue of asking "would you" sounds like the request is optional and they can say, "no I won't". In this case there is no negotiating.

<comment><USER52> > To me the issue of asking "would you" sounds like the request is optional > and they can say, "no I won't". In this case there is no negotiating.

If the answer is no, then like I said, negotiation probably won't work, so you escalate. The point of something like NVC is to avoid escalation when possible. Sometimes it isn't possible.

Another way of putting this is: NVC assumes good intent. When that assumption is invalidated, other strategies are superior, but you lose very little by assuming good intent for a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> NVC, or "How to navigate bureaucracy in a passive-aggressive workplace".

</comment><comment><USER67> I taught this in a prison, as a volunteer, for a little while. It's useful.

</comment><comment><USER68> I like the core idea of the technique, but every time I read about it, the phrasing feels very contrived. Maybe sounds better when people are used to it and don't just follow the template.

</comment><comment><USER69> Imagine if everyone talked in this manner. What an awful existence

</comment><comment><USER70> I've seen this and it's fascinating but nobody I mention it to seems interested. So I say to them if anyone is a real-life Spock it's Marshall Rosenberg.

<comment><USER51> Do many people earnestly want to work with Vulcans? Comparing users of NVC to vulcans seems more derogatory than complimentary.

<comment><USER71> Vulcans as exposited by the script, Vulcans as demonstrated by their on-screen behaviour, or Straw Vulcans that Joe Average thinks Logical types are supposed to be?

Because for all that the script claimed, TV Vulcans repeatedly demonstrated emotions. Nobody likes Straw Vulcans though, not even the actual Vulcan characters in Star Trek.

<comment><USER51> Vulcans are portrayed as suppressing their emotion, not being emotionless. In humans, suppression of emotion is generally viewed dimly. It's associated with behaviors like _" bottling up your anger until you finally snap"_, which seems to be a theme some star trek portrayals of Vulcans have explored as well. In our society people are generally encouraged to talk about how they feel and to express their emotions openly.

I think there is a certain mindset (seemingly more prevalent among engineers...) that admires Vulcans for their suppression of emotion. But I think that's a minority mindset that most people consider aberrant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Although I have heard the name before, I am not familiar with Nonviolent Communication. However, reading through the article, I could not help but notice the strong similarity between the 4 steps of NVC and the OODA loop ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop)).

</comment><comment><USER73> I took a Peace Studies class in college which focused heavily on non-violent communication techniques. Despite being something I took my senior year because I thought it would be easy, I have used the communication methods I learned in that class constantly.

My most important takeaway was approaching problems in relationships as a me AND you problem instead of a me VS you problem.

</comment><comment><USER74> We have been trained to use this sort of thing (named differently but essentially the same thing) for when giving performance feedback (especially for very-junior and interns etc).

In the meeting today you <something> This made me feel annoyed because <something> I would have preferred you to <do something else>

Facts and specific examples are super useful in these sort of things.

</comment><comment><USER75> There is perhaps a connection between nonviolent communication and functional programming with immutable data structures. In both cases, change is effected through the construction of new information structures, rather than through forcing objects that already exist to be different from their present state.

</comment><comment><USER76> I have the best relations with people that I can insult freely and they know not to take me too seriously.

<comment><USER77> I guess this is more about not being toxic with the family. I am such a person who can unintentionally create lots of tension with my son or wife, without suspecting anything. It just comes out of me. Friends - no problem, of course, people have more room for maneuvers there.

</comment></comment><comment> V-2 Judgment: your way of communication is harmful and leads to conflicts.

Observation: you tend to state facts along with an opinion about them.

Exaggeration: your way of communication is violent.

Observation: you're sometimes too eager to generalize and jump to conclusions, which can make people feel uncomfortable and defensive.

</comment><comment><USER56> The one that gets me is

"feel free to <do this thing I am actually commanding you to do>"

<comment><USER78> When my coach taught me nonviolent communication she stressed it should be a pleasant request and you need to say please and thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Fun Fact: Every time I try to use non-violent communication my partner gets really angry at me :D On a more serious note: I think trying to be non-violent is good, but it will also cost you a bit of your human soul.

</comment><comment><USER80> Thanks to the article for pointing out what to avoid as I hone my skill of Violent Communication. And by all means embrace it people! So I can stand out more from the crowd.

</comment><comment><USER81> How can I improve relationships with people, who only care about the problem at hand rather than their own feelings? Where can I find more of these people?

</comment><comment><USER82> Steps 2 and 3 are about observing your own emotions and thought-space. This is very reminiscent of "mindfulness" in vipassana meditation.

</comment><comment><USER83> Kevin Hale, at startupschool 2019, spoke in length on _How to Work Together_ [0].

Key points aside from non-violent communication were, everyone fights, but when you fight, stay away from these _four horsemen_ [1]:

1\. _Criticism_ : Involves bringing in variety or unrelated issues to the discussion / argument. Focus on the one thing that needs resolution.

2\. _Contempt_ : Argumentum ad hominem. Intention to insult, making things personal rather than engage in productive problem solving.

3\. _Defensiveness_ : Not owning responsibility. Can't reach a resolution as one doesn't admit to a problem.

4\. _Stonewalling_ : Silent treatment. Zero engagement. Complete communication breakdown from one or all sides.

Kevin then proceeds to offer remedies to overcome these [2]:

1\. _Divide and conquer responsibilities_ , define success and failure metrics to prevent _defensiveness_.

2\. Know the _attachment style_ of the person to prevent _stonewalling_ , which are:

\- _Secure_ : Don't mind going up to people, relying on them or have them rely on self. Don't mind being vulnerable.

\- _Anxious_ : Tend to hold on to people. Look for confirmation and acceptance, more often than normal.

\- _Avoidant_ : Feel inadequate, tendency to not approach and prefer distancing themselves from relationships, or simply prefer being alone.

 _Anxious_ and _Avoidant_ styles don't go well along with each other, by definition [3].

3\. Create processes when things are normal to deal with when issues do arise, kind of like a _disagreement decision framework_ [4] to prevent _criticism_.

4\. Use _non-violent communication_ , to ward off _contempt_ [5]. Avoid making a mole out of a mountain. Pay-off emotional debt respectfully, no matter how small.

5\. Have a honest one on one ( _level 3 conversations_ ) about hard things, if required [6].

Highly recommend the talk [0].

\----

[0] [https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/30a5yFBd7Fo](https://www.youtube- nocookie.com/embed/30a5yFBd7Fo)

[1] [https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen- recognizing-c...](https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-recognizing- criticism-contempt-defensiveness-and-stonewalling/)

[2] [https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-the- antidotes...](https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-the-antidotes/)

[3] [https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/2s9ACDMcpjA](https://www.youtube- nocookie.com/embed/2s9ACDMcpjA)

[4] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20156285](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20156285)

[5] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19490573](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19490573)

[6] [https://medium.com/@darynakulya/4-unexpected-lessons- after-y...](https://medium.com/@darynakulya/4-unexpected-lessons-after-y- combinator-bd5f036a1c55)

<comment><USER84> This kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic approach to dialectic is always left wanting when contrasted with cold hard logic and evidence. Criticism is not bad, but is inherent to any sort of give-and-take discussion framework, and especially to the unequal manager-employee relationships that HN has projected onto this thread; we should be wary of advice given by people who cannot take it. Ultimately, we cannot take full responsibility for how an argument will be received; we might try our best to tailor the argument to the listener, but we can never guarantee that we'll bridge the communication gap. Frankly, these situations make me doubt whether there's any point to looking for insights about language in these sorts of ventures, as all I can see are ways to divest responsibility while holding onto power.

For example, I think that we should always have "Level 3 conversations". Anything less sounds horribly thoughtless and automatic. And having them one- on-one is the worst possible way to have them, since one-on-one conversations are when individual charisma is at its strongest and most reality-bending.

<comment><USER83> > This kind of pseudo-psychoanalytic approach to dialectic is always left > wanting when contrasted with cold hard logic and evidence

I can see why you'd say that. It certainly feels that way too. Some of the points though are worth a consideration, if nothing more... as communication is hard but key to co-founders and a promising startup's success.

> For example, I think that we should always have "Level 3 conversations". > Anything less sounds horribly thoughtless and automatic.

For the same reason you can't communicate with kids the way you would with adults, I believe there might be even more nuances with the way communication among adults need to take place to be more effective.

> Frankly, these situations make me doubt whether there's any point to looking > for insights about language in these sorts of ventures, as all I can see are > ways to divest responsibility while holding onto power.

Agree. Though, rhetoric is key and I believe at some level theorising abt communication is not without end-goals. I've personally known folks whose communication skills have worked wonders for their personal and professional life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Reading the link and examples, it's basically an interpersonal application of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) concepts.

</comment><comment><USER86> "How to be passive aggressive"

<comment><USER87> Its nearly the exact opposite in fact

<comment><USER88> How to be actively agressive

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Communication boils down to one simply rule:

It's not what you say, it what they hear.

Package it any way you want, but unless you're 100 clear about that packaging then you'll leave me to assume. We all know what that means.

From skimming the article and reading some of the HN comments NVC sounds like some cheap knock off of passive aggressive. PA is bad. It's never good.

</comment><comment><USER90> NVC makes sense to me.

I reject the idea that we have libertarian free will. In my view, each of us is an ongoing process, we don't strictly end at our skin lines (the world is a unity, maybe quantum fields), and no one is responsible for their actions in the strictest sense.

In other words, "You didn't build that" because there is no separate, tangible "you" to have built it.

I don't usually talk about this, because it often makes people uncomfortable, and I don't typically don't care enough to try to answer all the questions that such a view raises.

What I have noticed is that this view has allowed me to be a lot more charitable with others and with myself. If someone cuts me off in traffic, I feel a flash of anger which then fades pretty quickly, as I remind myself that the driver is as much a victim or a winner of life unfolding as I am. I think it's important to develop in myself as much of a sense of compassion for myself and others as I can.

</comment><comment><USER91> The book is great, highly recommend.

Anyone know where to get the NVC cards in Europe?

</comment><comment><USER92> I read the book, and found it useful

I'd also recommend Feeling Good, by David Burns. It's about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which is similar to Stoicism. It has a couple chapters on dealing with difficult people. There's an audio book

<comment><USER93> thank you for the recommendation! from the title i would have avoided it

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> How does this apply to tone of voice?

</comment><comment><USER95> The term "nonviolent communication" is itself violent, because it implies everyone not following their method is a bad person.

<comment><USER96> No it doesn't.

There has to be terms for different commination styles. Some terms relate to an increase socialization and others a decrease. People can learn more effective communication styles, improve their relationships, and live happier lives.

None of this is a value statement about any individual's character.

<comment><USER95> The way the name reads to me is that if you aren't following their styles, then your communication is violent.

<comment><USER96> Maybe it's just your internal emotions making you think the title is suggesting something it isn't. Maybe you should read the article.

<comment><USER97> Words do actually have meaning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Just looking at the examples, these are "Sleazy salesman tips about how to get a person to say 'yes'".

Anybody who uses this kind of language needs to be shut down, and bluntly.

<comment><USER60> They certainly struck me as strategies to coerce compliance, as might be used by annoying sales people, con artists, cult evangelists, political/charity representatives, pick-up artists, etc..

Worse, when there's any power differential (e.g your boss saying any of this stuff to you) then it sounds very unpleasant and dishonest.

<comment><USER99> Although aimed at parent-child communication (and maybe because of it!) P.E.T. (parent effectiveness training, also a long established book/communication system) is quite good in this regard, when there's a great difference in power between parties.

For example an additional thing that it stresses is a bigger need for the person with more power, to identify "who owns the problem", before choosing how to communicate about it and also how to help people make their own decisions/find their own solutions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> When you're aware someone is applying this shit to conversations you're involved in, I honestly can't think of something more frustrating right now.

Also, it's a cult. Like, actual cult. Marshall Rosenberg was a crazy person.</comment>


Show HN: Overcast - Minimalist Personal Calendar with Tasks - <AUTHOR> https://overcast.life/ <comment><USER2> There aren't any screenshots or a description of what makes it different, only a few character illustrations and vague mentions of common features. It's a tall order to ask users to sign up just to look at the service, particularly when the only option available is through Google OAuth.

The mention of "free forever" also raises the questions of "why" and "how is that sustainable". The first assumption is that you might want to sell user data or run ads.

In sum, as of now the website doesn't answer the question of why someone should or would want to use what you've built, and that's the first thing we should see.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback!

I see that the website are missing a lot of information that should be there. I will improve it based on your feedback. Thank you so much :D

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi! I love Google calendar and organising my tasks in a calendar. but, there are some features I wished it had. So I set out to build my own calendar + task management, Overcast. It is currently in Alpha with very minimal set of features. Any feedback and critics are very welcome and appreciated! Thank you in advance :D

<comment><USER3> Nice work to get something written and "out there" ... kudos. Please accept what follows as an attempt to be helpful.

Based on the website I can't tell what it does, how it works, where the data will be stored, whether it will sync across devices, whether the data will be encrypted, how to import data, how to export data, what features are actually there, what it will run on, or what is needed to run/use it.

I have a workflow, and you're asking me to change it. Creating a workflow is a significant investment, and you're asking me to change it with no indication of why the workflow you offer might be better, how I can convert to it, or what happens if I change my mind.

My immediate reaction was just to close the site and move on, but I thought I'd offer some details on just why I'm not going to sign up. In short, it's not clear what problem you're solving for me, especially given the investment of time and effort you're asking from me.

I've been in your situation, and I hope you can see a way through it.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, Thank you so much for taking the time to write this down, it really means a lot to me! I see that the website does not communicate the product well. I will try to improve this following you feedback :D. Thank you!

<comment><USER3> Good response ...

Let me just emphasise that much of what I was talking about isn't just a case of me not immediately seeing what it does, but impacts what your product should, even must, do. These are real concerns that I've mentioned, so if your product doesn't do these things, then I'd need to know why they don't matter.

Things like imports, exports, encryption, _etc._ ... if you don't already have these capabilities, you'll need to make it clear why they don't matter, or aren't an issue.

And so on.

So good luck, make sure you write a clean, clear, brief explanation, and submit that so we can see if. Remember, every sentence you write should give me a reason to read the next one.

Cheers!

<comment><AUTHOR> Your comments have given me very helpful insights and advices!

I will definitely update the website and product and post it again in the future. Hopefully much improved from the current state. I just want to say I am very thankful for you to take your time to write these responses! <(_ _)>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> At first I thought this was some weird new feature from overcast.fm, a popular iOS podcasting app (based on the title), but at a glance noticed it was overcast.life instead. Just wanted to note that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the information! I will improve the website to make it more distinguishable.</comment></comment>