NVC Question #9

Not quite a question, more of a prompt for discussion: 

I find it very interesting to say “We don’t talk except to meet our needs.” At one level it’s trivially true because you don’t do anything without a reason. At another, it’s not as true. Often the need in question is ‘fill dead air’ or ‘satisfy appropriate social convention’ or other things that suggest there might not be a ‘point’ to saying what we are saying, so it’s kind of half right. Or of course, as he points out, we might be mad and want to express that without actually needing a remedy as such. As a response one might say that this isn’t a productive thing to do and one would benefit if they only had this conversation with a concrete end in mind, which opens up the question of enforcing incentive patterns or other such less tangible goals. It also raises a point that I missed while reading, which is that the word need here seems to be overloaded in the sense that he’s using it to mean something distinct from its ordinary English meaning, although it includes ordinary needs. He doesn’t say so outright, but he implies that what he calls needs includes what I would usually call wants. It’s a vague distinction in English along a gradient, but certainly when he refers to needs he’s talking about something far less strong than most people do when they say they need something. I’ve been told that “need is a strong word” could be considered one of my catch phrases. (Reminds me of George Carlin: ” ‘My needs aren’t being met.’ Drop some of your needs!) 

Response:

I am in general interested in better understanding what is meant by NVC needs. I think what distinguishes needs from strategies (which are more like wants) is that with strategies you can ask “why do you want that” and get something more fundamental as an answer, but with needs you can’t. Well, maybe not exactly, since you can certainly answer “why do you need food?” with “so I don’t die”. But I think it’s a decent heuristic. And something is a need instead of a strategy if you are going to keep experiencing a negative emotion until you get it met one way or the other. I agree with you completely that “need is a strong word”, and I’m still okay with using it for NVC-type needs since they’re so general, and they never depend on a specific other person doing anything. So if I need to “be heard” and you don’t feel like listening I can always listen to myself for find someone else to listen to me, filling the need that way. And I think it’s fair to say that if I’m never “heard” about anything I’ll probably keep being unhappy about it.

When I think about what needs people are (subconsciously) trying to meet with dead-air conversations, I’d guess connection, community, acceptance, appreciation, emotional safety, empathy, reassurance, respect, understanding, fun, inspiration etc. probably do play into motivation, but that this type of conversation typically doesn’t end up meeting anyone’s needs. NVC says that we’re much more likely to actually get these needs met if we’re aware of them in the moment. So part of what I got from NVC is that regardless of what other people typically do, it’s in my interest to be aware of what needs I’m trying to meet whenever I do anything, certainly including communicating with other people. So the “we only talk to get our needs met” point I was making is trivially true for people in general, but is perhaps better read as a recommendation—make it more than trivially true for yourself and some of the questions about “how do I say X with NVC” will resolve themselves, since the answer is that saying X won’t actually meet your needs. I get the impression that you understand this point.


Comments

3 responses to “NVC Question #9”

  1. David Montgomery Avatar
    David Montgomery

    In NVC classes one hears an even more general version of what Divia said, “All human actions are attempts to meet needs.”As I’ve thought about this in different contexts, I’ve decided that for me “All intentional human actions can be understood as attempts to meet needs.” is more precise, if less pithy.Although the strategy-need distinction is key to NVC, like pretty much everything, it’s ultimately gray-scale. Some things are clearly strategies, some things are clearly needs, and many are in-between.Even within the “need” realm, there definitely can be a hierarchy or lattice of replationships. A valuable NVC exercise is based on that, and helps to get to deeper levels of self-connection. The basic practice is to start with some need that is alive for you in the moment, and then to ask “If I had that need met, what other, even more important need would that meet?” or questions akin to that. Example: I’m noticing I’m nervous speaking before a group. What am I wanting? … Competence. And if I had competence, what need would that meet? … Acceptance. And if I had acceptance, what need would that meet? … Self-acceptance. And if I had self-acceptance, what need would that meet? …. Peace.This chain of needs will be different for different people at different times. I don’t believe there is a single linearization that would work.So a need can be a strategy for some other need.One way that I’m holding the distinction is that conflicts are at the level of strategy, not needs. That is, when people are able to connect to each other’s humanity, they won’t be in conflict about needs. They won’t say: “I don’t want you to be safe. I don’t want you to have a sense of belonging. I don’t want you to have beauty in your life.” They might well not be in harmony with the strategies for meeting those needs, and so say: “Building this wall doesn’t meet my need for beauty, and mobility, and ease.” and “The remark you just said about <group> doesn’t meet my needs for inclusion, and consideration, and truth.” and “I don’t feel like going to the art museum today … how would you feel about a hike in the hills?”

  2. David Montgomery Avatar
    David Montgomery

    Oh, regarding that exercise … in NVC it’s usually called “deepening needs” or something like that. But I’ve seen the same thing in several other contexts. I first learned of it on an Extreme Programming mailing list, where Dale Emery called it the value question http://cwd.dhemery.com/2003/06/the_value_question/. He attributed it to the book Core Transformation, which I believe has its roots in NLP. Just recently I saw it on a Buddhist mailing list … that’s toward the end of this facebook note https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150261268981802. And it stikes me as akin to something I’ve seen in the business process world, something like “Ask ‘why?’ six times.

  3. Divia Melwani Avatar
    Divia Melwani

    Thanks for the additional insight! In particular I like what you said about “conflicts are at the level of strategy, not needs”. That seems like a particularly useful place to draw the distinction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *